Confucius left me severely underwhelmed. I didn't have any concrete expectations when I picked this book up, but I can say that I did expect more.

My first problem is with Confucius' method. He has a few things to say on learning, at least, although his epistemics are frustratingly vague and with few practical precepts, but he doesn't seem to apply any logical method to his reasoning. Nor does he apply a dialectical method like [a:Mencius|406382|Mencius|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1331151391p2/406382.jpg] did. Another method he could've used was that of [a:Lao Tzu|2622245|Lao Tzu|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1435903703p2/2622245.jpg], who, while hardly arguing in the logically stringent manner of the hellenic tradition, presented cosmology, metaphysics and ethics in such a way that you could see how he drew his conclusions from the one field to the other. Indeed, Confucius did something similar when he grounded his politics in his ethics. In his view, social relations in the state should mirror those within the family, with the emperor loving his subjects like children and the subjects obeying the father like good sons. Confucius made a lot of filial piety, too much, I think. That brings me to how his argument from ethics isn't conclusive when he has no rational basis for his ethics.

Confucius offers moral edification, but without talking about the transcendental nature of morality. He tells you the rules and how to follow them, but I don't think he ever talks about the "why". Why are these precepts the way they are? Why should I strive for a moral life? Why according to his way, and not to those of Lao Tzu or Mozi, for example? I don't blame Confucius for not defending his philosophy against these later teachers, but I will say his lack of argumentation left the door wide open for disagreement. What I find worse, however, is that Confucius gives the impression that his morality is indeed unthinking, suited for mechanistic imitation, and ultimately headed for heartless and soulless Phariseeism.

On metaphysics or spirituality, Confucius is entirely silent. Nothing in these books relates to cosomology, and on the spiritual realm and the afterlife, we have one instance of Confucius evading the question of whether the ancestors are indeed alive, and we have one sentence to the effect that Confucius never talked about these things. Given how much Confucius makes of honoring and worshipping your ancestors, this silence confirms what I said above.

As this book will no doubt be judged as an anthology of sayings rather than as a comprehensive treatise (and for good reason, as it is an anthology) I've selected a few, good and bad:

The Master said, “What the superior man seeks, is in himself. What the mean man seeks, is in others.”

This accords very well with an insight I gained thanks to [a:Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn|394144|Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1297611194p2/394144.jpg]: To inferior men, being part of a mob is fulfilling. To a superior man, it is oppressing. The dynamics of the mass make up for a weakly developed conscience, but they have nothing to add to a strongly developed one.

1. The Master said, “Ts‘ze, you think, I suppose, that I am one who learns many things and keeps them in memory?”
2. Tsze-kung replied, “Yes,—but perhaps it is not so?”
3. “No,” was the answer; “I seek a unity all-pervading.”

Learning should not be about memorizing factlets, it's about anchoring what you learn to what you already know, in such a way that everything relates to everything else. Doing so means resolving contradictions, by correcting what you are learning, or what you have already learned. I don't know if this is what Confucius meant, but that is how I read these sentences and I fully agree.

When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are things to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honour are things to be ashamed of.

It is popular these days (and not just these days) to complain about the rich. Confucius neatly describes when this may be appropriate and not just motivated by envy. I find John Rockefeller very respectable, but not some of today's crony capitalists.

And here are two disagreeable ones:

The Master said, “It is only the truly virtuous man who can love, or who can hate, others.”

I believe the contradiction here to the teaching of our Lord is plain for everyone to see. You shouldn't hate others. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I hope the real meaning got lost in translation.

The subjects on which the Master did not talk, were,—prodigious things, feats of strength, disorder, and spiritual beings.

This is what I meant when I said that Confucius is silent on the transcendental. Also, I personally love hearing about "feats of strength".

Overall, this book left me cold. It is entirely worldly, without deeper truths to offer. While Confucius easily rivals and often surpasses the best philosophers, lawmakers and religious figures west of China in influence, I wouldn't rank him as playing in the same league as them as far as quality goes. He is no Plato, nor, I suppose, a Mohammad or Buddha, figures with whom he is often mentioned in the same breath. With Moses, who was divinely inspired, or Christ Himself, no comparison is adequate.