![]() | Legalism (Chinese philosophy) ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 8 January 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Legalism (Chinese philosophy) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 2 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Fajia. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I have a lot of sources I can go through, and might find something myself or in the Cambridge history. But as it stands, I could probably still use more sources on Shang Yang as an individual, which would also benefit the Shang Yang page. It may still be difficult to find something on Google books. FourLights ( talk) 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have multiples of the Cambridge History but I imagine Shang Yang is in one of the earlier ones (1988?), probably the first one, since that is where other work on the Qin is located. I will verify this for you, and hopefully it could be used for the Shang Yang page.
Although there are more sources I have two sources I will be reviewing for the section on reward and punishment that you suggested. I also have a book I need to review for the Qin dynasty, if I can locate it. I otherwise need to look at doing taxes in the next couple days etc. FourLights ( talk) 04:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 13:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Legalism (Chinese philosophy) → Fajia – this attempt to construct the page has not got off the ground yet although I think next I would make brief descriptions of the figures.
I do not care about changing the page name on a personal level it's not my main inquiry. Name change critique is actually based on critique by user airship, that the term Legalism cannot be defined. Same discussion occured in scholarship. Both Fajia and Legalism are anachronisms and should not be used in the page in reference to the figures. They're not used in critical scholarship, and it begs the question who much uses them anyway. I don't actually much know who this conventional scholarship is who supposedly uses the term Legalism.
However, the historical term Fajia can and ought to be defined and discussed at some point even if not used as a general moniker, which I don't think generalizing monikers should be used for then. The term Legalism cannot be defined. Where it's actually been used in the past it is used differently. One person defined it as Shang Yang and Han Fei having punishments but he is just one guy from 2005.
The Stanford Encyclopedia calls them the fa tradition but I don't think that's all that relevant. Fajia is one of Sima Qian's six schools of thought in Chinese philosophy, that's what the page is supposed to be about. The Book of Han defines it as a Masters Texts tradition.
Shang Yang and Shen Buhai are the opposite components of Han Fei's doctrine (edit: Shen Buhai has administrative method but not organized law and disadvises punishment, Han Fei has Shen Buhai's method but advocates law, Shen Dao has an administrative technique: They are not Legalists.). They have some several categories I can talk about, but they aren't The Legalist School. Along with a little Shen Dao and a little comparison with other schools, they're some several influential thinkers with different philosophies that connect along some several lines, but not mutually between all of them..
At any rate, I don't care a great deal about a name change, but discussion of the term Fajia, if it is fit in relevantly, ought to be allowed, even if I actually advocate against using it as a general moniker. The figures in general don't really fit under much under a generalizing label except maybe realists but I advocate being historical.
The goal here is an introduction with some kind of historical context. Fajia is a Han dynasty term it only makes sense in that context. It should only be discussed technically in brief for that context, even it requires multiples of critique to get it right. FourLights ( talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I have located Shang Yang's content in the Cambridge History, I will use it to provide reference for the Shang Yang page (which I did not originally write), but the content would be done there before it makes it's way over here, also that not all the content there is supposed to be here. I don't know, I have to do it and then think about it. FourLights ( talk) 12:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
At the moment, I need to complete reading of Kidder Smith's work, but I will also simply reading and look more into "style" documents. FourLights ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Friends, something has gone drastically awry here. This is a long, detailed article titled Legalism, and it isn't about Legalism. It's about the history of Chinese philosophy. Nearly every single word of this article belongs elsewhere. The lede needs to be about Legalism, not about its diverse origins. The first section needs to be about key concepts in Legalism. The next few sections can be about the history of those concepts or the major thinkers who contributed to them, but it needs to be about those concepts, and not the Han Dynasty, Shang Yang, the Warring States period, or any of the minor texts with references to Legalism. It doesn't matter how well sourced any of this is or isn't if you aren't even writing about the topic at hand. If your intention is to write about concepts on the periphery of Legalism, by all means, write those articles! 184.97.137.39 ( talk) 00:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I can certainly look at retooling, and will look at your articles, but there is no Legalism, there are only points of commonalities between some of the figures. Fajia is a list of figures/texts in the Book of Han. It isn't an ideology or a philosophy except insomuch as we draw categories out of it, which ideally existed in history. There are categories that can be made Shang Yang - Han Fei or Shen Buhai - Han Fei, things to that effect, doctrines that existed in history.
I have no objection to trying to put together some summaries. But there is no broader Legalism category whatsoever. Han Fei is the only thing that Shang Yang and Shen Buhai have to do with eachother, they have no relation to each other in their own time, and they are opposites ideologically. Their commonalities exist at the broadest level. I will look at the articles and retooling, and you could always have a look at SEP and ask that I work on drawing together a section based on some idea. There are some several doctrines like wealth and strength, but I am concerned that it is not clear there is no Legalism ideology. I have no evidence of one, and I have no knowledge of one. Have I been unclear? FourLights ( talk) 04:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll do some thinking though. I can Probably synthesize the requested introductory summary, but I would still distinguish between the figures. Should not be impossible to accomplish. FourLights ( talk) 07:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Pre-Socratic philosophers obviously never considered themselves to be pre-Socratic because they never knew Socrates. That doesn't diminish our ability to talk about them as a category, even though we didn't name that category until 2000 years after everyone relevant died. There's so much hung up on the people and the history that it has crowded out the actual topic at hand. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but if you don't believe that a category can be discussed, but seven billion other people do, perhaps you are the wrong person to write on the topic. 184.97.137.39 ( talk) 00:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing Stringerland's work to implement more Daoist information for the Wu Wei page, but it should have some use here. FourLights ( talk) 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The "Evolutionary view of history" will have some rewriting to utilize such sources as Pine's content in the Dao Companion, as to smooth it out. I should be able to resume writing the Shang Yangian doctrine of wealth and power. FourLights ( talk) 05:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Ideally, a quality Guodian secondary commentary can be found, rather than the more primaries and theoretical secondary I have now. FourLights ( talk) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I will have to more reading Shen Dao's fragments in search of commentary to better divide him into his various introductory contexts. FourLights ( talk) 18:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @ FourLights. I have noticed the inconsistency in the bibliography/sources section of the article. Most times with articles with a long sources/bibliography section will have an order to them either by alphabetizing the list or putting the list in chronological order to help finding specific sources more easier. There are three ways that you can do it:
If you want me to do it, I will gladly do it if you ask me. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Airship jungleman apparently wishes me to discuss the daodejing more. Although I don't consider it a priority, it will be added to this wish list here. It may receive additional relevant passing commentary. FourLights ( talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The Censure section does not need external attention. I am already aware that it needs consolidation. It would be a waste of effort at this time. After I finish tidying it up and reduce more extraneous content, I may split it into two sections. I have an extra unincorporated Pines reference for it's content. FourLights ( talk) 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The introduction isn't done either, it will be reorganized again when I put together a wu wei section. FourLights ( talk) 05:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I will seperately attempt to draft Shang Yang for his page. Then he can go first, for people looking for him somewhere other than his page. FourLights ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
there will be more inclusion of law for the page called legalism. It won't make things any better in the long run though. FourLights ( talk) 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I am still busy doing basic organization work that will probably be done this month. Do not worry about anything yet. FourLights ( talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
For instance, some school of names related material will be exported to the school of names page. Since the school of names is more fragmentary, I could ultimately write the school of names page, and would probably be less work. FourLights ( talk) 01:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Legalism (Chinese philosophy) ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 8 January 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Legalism (Chinese philosophy) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 2 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Fajia. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I have a lot of sources I can go through, and might find something myself or in the Cambridge history. But as it stands, I could probably still use more sources on Shang Yang as an individual, which would also benefit the Shang Yang page. It may still be difficult to find something on Google books. FourLights ( talk) 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have multiples of the Cambridge History but I imagine Shang Yang is in one of the earlier ones (1988?), probably the first one, since that is where other work on the Qin is located. I will verify this for you, and hopefully it could be used for the Shang Yang page.
Although there are more sources I have two sources I will be reviewing for the section on reward and punishment that you suggested. I also have a book I need to review for the Qin dynasty, if I can locate it. I otherwise need to look at doing taxes in the next couple days etc. FourLights ( talk) 04:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 13:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Legalism (Chinese philosophy) → Fajia – this attempt to construct the page has not got off the ground yet although I think next I would make brief descriptions of the figures.
I do not care about changing the page name on a personal level it's not my main inquiry. Name change critique is actually based on critique by user airship, that the term Legalism cannot be defined. Same discussion occured in scholarship. Both Fajia and Legalism are anachronisms and should not be used in the page in reference to the figures. They're not used in critical scholarship, and it begs the question who much uses them anyway. I don't actually much know who this conventional scholarship is who supposedly uses the term Legalism.
However, the historical term Fajia can and ought to be defined and discussed at some point even if not used as a general moniker, which I don't think generalizing monikers should be used for then. The term Legalism cannot be defined. Where it's actually been used in the past it is used differently. One person defined it as Shang Yang and Han Fei having punishments but he is just one guy from 2005.
The Stanford Encyclopedia calls them the fa tradition but I don't think that's all that relevant. Fajia is one of Sima Qian's six schools of thought in Chinese philosophy, that's what the page is supposed to be about. The Book of Han defines it as a Masters Texts tradition.
Shang Yang and Shen Buhai are the opposite components of Han Fei's doctrine (edit: Shen Buhai has administrative method but not organized law and disadvises punishment, Han Fei has Shen Buhai's method but advocates law, Shen Dao has an administrative technique: They are not Legalists.). They have some several categories I can talk about, but they aren't The Legalist School. Along with a little Shen Dao and a little comparison with other schools, they're some several influential thinkers with different philosophies that connect along some several lines, but not mutually between all of them..
At any rate, I don't care a great deal about a name change, but discussion of the term Fajia, if it is fit in relevantly, ought to be allowed, even if I actually advocate against using it as a general moniker. The figures in general don't really fit under much under a generalizing label except maybe realists but I advocate being historical.
The goal here is an introduction with some kind of historical context. Fajia is a Han dynasty term it only makes sense in that context. It should only be discussed technically in brief for that context, even it requires multiples of critique to get it right. FourLights ( talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I have located Shang Yang's content in the Cambridge History, I will use it to provide reference for the Shang Yang page (which I did not originally write), but the content would be done there before it makes it's way over here, also that not all the content there is supposed to be here. I don't know, I have to do it and then think about it. FourLights ( talk) 12:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
At the moment, I need to complete reading of Kidder Smith's work, but I will also simply reading and look more into "style" documents. FourLights ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Friends, something has gone drastically awry here. This is a long, detailed article titled Legalism, and it isn't about Legalism. It's about the history of Chinese philosophy. Nearly every single word of this article belongs elsewhere. The lede needs to be about Legalism, not about its diverse origins. The first section needs to be about key concepts in Legalism. The next few sections can be about the history of those concepts or the major thinkers who contributed to them, but it needs to be about those concepts, and not the Han Dynasty, Shang Yang, the Warring States period, or any of the minor texts with references to Legalism. It doesn't matter how well sourced any of this is or isn't if you aren't even writing about the topic at hand. If your intention is to write about concepts on the periphery of Legalism, by all means, write those articles! 184.97.137.39 ( talk) 00:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I can certainly look at retooling, and will look at your articles, but there is no Legalism, there are only points of commonalities between some of the figures. Fajia is a list of figures/texts in the Book of Han. It isn't an ideology or a philosophy except insomuch as we draw categories out of it, which ideally existed in history. There are categories that can be made Shang Yang - Han Fei or Shen Buhai - Han Fei, things to that effect, doctrines that existed in history.
I have no objection to trying to put together some summaries. But there is no broader Legalism category whatsoever. Han Fei is the only thing that Shang Yang and Shen Buhai have to do with eachother, they have no relation to each other in their own time, and they are opposites ideologically. Their commonalities exist at the broadest level. I will look at the articles and retooling, and you could always have a look at SEP and ask that I work on drawing together a section based on some idea. There are some several doctrines like wealth and strength, but I am concerned that it is not clear there is no Legalism ideology. I have no evidence of one, and I have no knowledge of one. Have I been unclear? FourLights ( talk) 04:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll do some thinking though. I can Probably synthesize the requested introductory summary, but I would still distinguish between the figures. Should not be impossible to accomplish. FourLights ( talk) 07:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Pre-Socratic philosophers obviously never considered themselves to be pre-Socratic because they never knew Socrates. That doesn't diminish our ability to talk about them as a category, even though we didn't name that category until 2000 years after everyone relevant died. There's so much hung up on the people and the history that it has crowded out the actual topic at hand. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but if you don't believe that a category can be discussed, but seven billion other people do, perhaps you are the wrong person to write on the topic. 184.97.137.39 ( talk) 00:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing Stringerland's work to implement more Daoist information for the Wu Wei page, but it should have some use here. FourLights ( talk) 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The "Evolutionary view of history" will have some rewriting to utilize such sources as Pine's content in the Dao Companion, as to smooth it out. I should be able to resume writing the Shang Yangian doctrine of wealth and power. FourLights ( talk) 05:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Ideally, a quality Guodian secondary commentary can be found, rather than the more primaries and theoretical secondary I have now. FourLights ( talk) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I will have to more reading Shen Dao's fragments in search of commentary to better divide him into his various introductory contexts. FourLights ( talk) 18:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @ FourLights. I have noticed the inconsistency in the bibliography/sources section of the article. Most times with articles with a long sources/bibliography section will have an order to them either by alphabetizing the list or putting the list in chronological order to help finding specific sources more easier. There are three ways that you can do it:
If you want me to do it, I will gladly do it if you ask me. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Airship jungleman apparently wishes me to discuss the daodejing more. Although I don't consider it a priority, it will be added to this wish list here. It may receive additional relevant passing commentary. FourLights ( talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The Censure section does not need external attention. I am already aware that it needs consolidation. It would be a waste of effort at this time. After I finish tidying it up and reduce more extraneous content, I may split it into two sections. I have an extra unincorporated Pines reference for it's content. FourLights ( talk) 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The introduction isn't done either, it will be reorganized again when I put together a wu wei section. FourLights ( talk) 05:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I will seperately attempt to draft Shang Yang for his page. Then he can go first, for people looking for him somewhere other than his page. FourLights ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
there will be more inclusion of law for the page called legalism. It won't make things any better in the long run though. FourLights ( talk) 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I am still busy doing basic organization work that will probably be done this month. Do not worry about anything yet. FourLights ( talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
For instance, some school of names related material will be exported to the school of names page. Since the school of names is more fragmentary, I could ultimately write the school of names page, and would probably be less work. FourLights ( talk) 01:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)