![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes, I believe that the Four Books articleshould be merged with the Five Classics article. After all, they are a set of related Chinese classics. Sungrad ( talk) 23:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sungrad. Such a merger would simplify things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.49.119 ( talk) 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose that this article be merged with Thirteen Classics to form an article called "Confucian classics", giving a narrative with sections "Five Classics", "Thirteen Classics" and "Four Books". This would be different from Chinese classics, which also includes non-Confucian works. Kanguole 18:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The line reading "These books, or parts of them, were either commented, compiled, or edited by Confucius himself" should be dropped. This tradition is not accepted by modern scholars. See, for example, Michael Nylan, The Five "Confucian" Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). ~entenman
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BCnf_Klassiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.172.89 ( talk) 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
As written "Government, self-cultivation and investigation of things are linked" is ambiguous. Is this what is taught in this book? Is this what follows from employing those teachings? Is it the starting assumption? Is it a problem to overcome? Arbalest Mike ( talk) 23:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't write this article, but I am reading more on the subject. If anyone else reads the subject, I thought we might make notes.
I'd like to note to start that Hansen and others consider the evidence that Confucius read the Book of Changes to be slim. FourLights ( talk) 04:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes, I believe that the Four Books articleshould be merged with the Five Classics article. After all, they are a set of related Chinese classics. Sungrad ( talk) 23:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sungrad. Such a merger would simplify things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.49.119 ( talk) 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose that this article be merged with Thirteen Classics to form an article called "Confucian classics", giving a narrative with sections "Five Classics", "Thirteen Classics" and "Four Books". This would be different from Chinese classics, which also includes non-Confucian works. Kanguole 18:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The line reading "These books, or parts of them, were either commented, compiled, or edited by Confucius himself" should be dropped. This tradition is not accepted by modern scholars. See, for example, Michael Nylan, The Five "Confucian" Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). ~entenman
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BCnf_Klassiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.172.89 ( talk) 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
As written "Government, self-cultivation and investigation of things are linked" is ambiguous. Is this what is taught in this book? Is this what follows from employing those teachings? Is it the starting assumption? Is it a problem to overcome? Arbalest Mike ( talk) 23:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't write this article, but I am reading more on the subject. If anyone else reads the subject, I thought we might make notes.
I'd like to note to start that Hansen and others consider the evidence that Confucius read the Book of Changes to be slim. FourLights ( talk) 04:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)