OBS Chapter 2224 Please vote for me!!! Please subscribe!!!
Chapter 2224 Please vote for me!!! Please subscribe!!!
Chapter 2224 Please vote for me!!! Please subscribe!!!
Li Shimin's personal morality was certainly a mess. You know, he was almost able to achieve the grand slam of tyrant!
He killed his brother, imprisoned his father, and married his sister-in-law and brother-in-law. The only thing left was to kill his son! Even if it was to kill his son, he was just a little bit away from it. His son Li Chengqian also rebelled, reproducing the classic Xuanwu Gate Incident. But unfortunately, his father was an old rebel, so it was impossible for him to turn over.
Li Chengqian was highly expected by Li Shimin, and Li Shimin had been cultivating him long ago. During the mourning period, Li Shimin asked Li Chengqian to handle government affairs. When Li Shimin was on tour, Li Chengqian also handled state affairs. Once, Li Chengqian was ill, and Li Shimin, who never believed in Buddhism and Taoism, invited famous Taoist priests to pray for his son. When Li Chengqian recovered, Li Shimin also invited thousands of monks to build temples such as Puguang Temple. In the seventh year of Zhenguan, Li Chengqian fell ill, and Li Shimin invited a monk from Tianzhu and granted him the right to temporarily stop studying. In order to educate Li Chengqian, Li Shimin also specifically told Yu Zhining and others to let the prince know more about the sufferings of the people, and to give more advice if the prince did something wrong. In short, Li Shimin spent a lot of effort and poured his heart into Li Chengqian, but instead got the result that the prince rebelled, which Li Shimin could not accept.
(In fact, Li Shimin also achieved the achievement of killing his son. It was Li You, the Prince of Qi during the reign of Emperor Taizong. This person was simply clueless. A large part of the reason why Li Chengqian rebelled was because of Li Shimin's coercion. It was a tragedy. This person was different. He was just here to be funny. He rebelled after being instigated by his uncle... In addition, this person was not the son of Empress Zhangsun, not the legitimate son, so Li Shimin had no hesitation in killing him, and the impact was not great. Few people knew about him.)
No matter what Li Shimin's personal morality was, it does not affect his historical evaluation!
A wise ruler, an emperor of all ages.
Li Shimin became an emperor not only because he accepted advice and was a benevolent monarch, but also because of his brilliant achievements in civil and military affairs. Morality is of course important to an emperor, first of all political morality, and secondly personal morality. How to understand their influence on the evaluation of the emperor.
The idea of moral governance in my country appeared as early as the Western Zhou Dynasty. The Book of Zhou states: "King Wen was able to show his virtue and be cautious in punishment. He did not dare to insult the widows and the elderly. He was respectful and respectful to the people, and he established our region and Xia." (King Wen had good morals, was cautious in punishment, and was respectful to the widows and the elderly. This made the people willing to be under his rule. Because of this, the Zhou people replaced the rule of the Yin people.)
"Only if a king continues to respect virtue and acts with virtue can he seek the blessing of heaven and maintain his throne for a long time." (Only if a king continues to respect virtue and acts with virtue can he seek the blessing of heaven and maintain his throne for a long time.)
"Only by advocating virtuous governance can rebellion be avoided."
Later, loyalty, trustworthiness, humility, yielding, Yuan, Heng, Li, Zhen, etc. were all included in the scope of "virtue". For example: "Loyalty is the correctness of virtue; trustworthiness is the solidity of virtue; humility and yielding are the foundation of virtue." ("Zuo Zhuan. Wen Yuan Nian Zhuan"); "Now I am a woman and I am involved in the chaos. I am in a lower position, but I am unkind. I cannot be called Yuan; I cannot be called Heng if I do not keep the country in order; I cannot be called Li if I harm myself; I cannot be called Zhen if I abandon my position and am cunning. Those who have these four virtues will follow without fault. I have none of them. How can I follow?" The fundamental connotation of "virtue" lies in "cultivating virtue and always being worthy of fate" ("Da Ya. Wen Wang")
The concept of "virtue" is "king virtue", which is a requirement for rulers. The mandate of heaven only comes to people with virtue. The legitimacy of rule replaces the sacredness of the gods in heaven with virtue. This is a leap and adventure, which reflects the grand spirit of the Zhou Dynasty. From then on, the Chinese nation opened up the concept of human rule that is separated from ghosts and religions, and continued to develop. In the "Book of Zhou", there is "Heaven is not trustworthy"; in "Da Ya. Daming", there is "Heaven is difficult to be sincere, and it is not easy to maintain the king." (Is it really only my royal family's rule that can last for a long time? This will of heaven is difficult to be reliable.); in the "Book of Songs", there are "Haotian is not benevolent, and this great evil is sent down." (Haotian has no grace and sends down such a great sin.), "The vast Haotian, does not keep its virtue." (The vast Haotian, does not always keep its grace.) and so on.
Further advocating "benevolent governance" and inventing the concept of "heavenly way" to measure the virtue of the monarch. "If the people abandon their superiors, what else can they do but perish?" ("Zuo Zhuan"), "If the superiors lose their people, they will not be able to work, and they will not be able to obtain what they seek. How can they be happy?" ("Guoyu. Zhouyuxia"). Furthermore, "The ruler of a country is to live with the people. If the people are poor, how can the ruler be prosperous? Moreover, if private desires are rampant, virtue and righteousness will be rare; if virtue and righteousness are not practiced, those who are close will be disturbed and those who are far away will be alienated." ("Guoyu. Chuyu Shang"), satisfying the people and reducing the monarch's private desires are included in the category of "monarch's virtue". These discussions have established a negative relationship between the people and the country and the monarch. That is to say, the lack of rationality in governing can constitute a legitimate basis for questioning the legitimacy of governing. This has become the basic paradigm of dynasty change in Chinese history. Using the rationality of governing to maintain and consolidate the legitimacy of governing, to put it bluntly, moral governance is also a utilitarian philosophy or a theory of ruling tools, and its mission goal is to facilitate governance.
The previous Xia Dynasty's "Mandate of Heaven" theory, no matter how terribly the slaves were oppressed, they could not rebel against the Xia Dynasty, otherwise they would be rebelling against Heaven! The Shang Dynasty's "God and Ghost Theory" believed that everything was the will of ghosts and gods, and slave owners obeyed the will of ghosts and gods. Ghosts and gods not only endorsed legitimacy, but also granted the power to enforce the law, but also deprived the right to resist, because you cannot resist ghosts and gods. Shang Yang's reform of the Legalists abandoned the theory of good governance and moral governance, believing that good governance would lead to treacherous people, so he abandoned all good governance, burned Confucian poetry and books, ruled the country with harsh laws, and managed the country and society with meritorious service and laws.
Therefore, morality is not a necessity but an auxiliary to governance.
The theory of rule by virtue is certainly an improvement and a good way for rulers to succeed, but we must distinguish between the primary and the secondary, and what is the achievement and what is the means. The standard of measurement should be the achievement, not the means. No matter how many measures Zhao Gou took to rule by virtue, no matter how violent Genghis Khan was, Zhao Gou could not be evaluated higher than Genghis Khan. Therefore, for emperors, the standard of measurement should not be morality, but achievements.
This was ancient politics, and it is even more true of modern politics.
Even more unscrupulous and even more naked!
There is no way. In Western political concepts, morality itself is not an important thing.
As for the moral level of Western civilization, let’s first look at the views of two celebrities: First, the British historian Toynbee pointed out with some concern in "A Study of History": "Although we have entered the atomic age technologically, we are still in the Paleolithic Age morally." That is, Toynbee believed that Western morality was still as it was ten thousand years ago.
Second, when British scholar Montgomery visited China in 1960, his teacher once pointed out: "The moral standards of Westerners are too casual. Wherever they go, the moral standards are lowered."
On the Internet, some people claim that "I smoke, I drink, I have promiscuous sex, I like to go to nightclubs", but the conclusion is "I am a good girl". Even more ridiculous is Western civilization, which has "killed, set fires, colonized, robbed, and cheated" in the past 500 years, but the conclusion is "I am the most moral". Although countries that have not done these things may not be "moral", it is obviously the greatest immorality to do these things and still claim that "I am the most moral".
As the saying goes, "listen to what they say" and "watch what they do". Judging from their behavior, it is not unfair to say that Western civilization lacks "morality". The question is: Why does Western civilization lack "morality" and what is the reason behind it?
In fact, it is the Axis Age in which the West was absent.
The so-called "axial age" was proposed by German philosopher Karl Jaspers in 1949, referring to the historical period from 800 BC to 200 BC, especially from 600 BC to 300 BC, during which human civilization made major breakthroughs. The axial civilizations of the axial age were mainly China, ancient Greece, India and a few others. An important breakthrough in the axial age was the focus on "people", such as Confucius' "benevolence and love for people" and Mozi's "non-aggression and universal love". The framework system of Chinese humanities and morality in later generations was established during the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. There are not only relevant theories, but also standards for implementation. Dong Zhongshu of the Western Han Dynasty summarized the gentleman standards of Confucius and Mencius as "benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and trustworthiness". Although the humanities and morality system of ancient Greece was not as perfect as that of China, it also began to pay attention to "people" and had some moral construction.
The problem is: even if ancient Greece really existed, even if Europe claims that "ancient Greek civilization is the pure childhood of Europe", on the one hand, today's Europeans are not descendants of the ancient Greeks, nor are they descendants of the Romans (in the Roman era, the Europeans were still barbarians). On the other hand, Europe "discovered" the ancient Greek classics preserved and translated by the Arabs during the Renaissance, and then only absorbed some of the ancient Greek thoughts, not and could not completely inherit the ancient Greek civilization. Therefore, the West did not experience the outbreak of the Axial Age, and naturally could not start the era of valuing "humanities" early. Of course, not experiencing the Axial Age is not the point, because it can still start the humanistic era and establish a corresponding moral system.
According to Western historical records, Christianity became the "state religion" in the Roman era. From then on until the Enlightenment, religion has always dominated Europe. The royal power needs the approval of the "God's will" represented by the church, otherwise it will not be legitimate. Therefore, this stage is generally the "era of religious rule". So did the West establish a moral system at this time? First of all, the greatest morality in the Bible is to believe in Jehovah. The first of the Ten Commandments is "You shall have no other gods before me." On the contrary, the greatest immorality is not to believe in Jehovah. Pagans are immoral and barbaric. Just as the literary giant Dostoyevsky said in "Crime and Punishment": "If there is no God, how can morality be possible?" Therefore, the first prerequisite for morality is to believe in Jehovah. Secondly, there are also some moral requirements in the Bible, such as "Do not kill", "Do not commit adultery", "Do not steal", "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor", "Do not covet your neighbor's house, etc.", but overall it is relatively fragmented, far from forming a system, let alone rising to a theoretical level. At the same time, China has a complete moral system, which is naturally not available in the Bible and is not allowed to exist.
In short, during the era of religious rule in the West, there was no moral standard system established, but only some moral norms were formed within the scope of "believers", which was a slight breakthrough in "humanity". What is particularly important is that this moral norm does not apply to pagans, as evidenced by the many atrocities of the Crusades led by the church and with the state as the backbone.
After the Western Enlightenment, people began to attach importance to "people". During the Enlightenment, "human rights" and "equality for all" were proposed. It looks beautiful, but there are two problems: First, whether it is the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, the core is closely related to opposing religious constraints (China has no religious constraints. Some people regret that there was no Enlightenment in Chinese history, but in fact, they did not take into account China's national conditions). Various humanistic thoughts based on this will obviously tend to highlight the legitimacy of individual rights (isn't it selfish in another sense?), but what about the construction of moral relationships between people and others, and between people and society? No!
Secondly, the "natural human rights" in the West are only limited to the West. The attitudes towards Africans, American Indians, Australian Aborigines, and Asians including the Chinese during the Western colonial movement have already demonstrated this point. In fact, during the Western colonial period, "whether or not one believes in Jehovah" was used as the standard of "civilization". Non-believers were barbaric and could be killed at will. Of course, if non-Western peoples have a mountain of treasures, then it is useless to believe in religion. For example, Indians who believe in religion will still be killed.
In short, the Enlightenment seems "great", but in reality it is not as "great" as imagined. What is particularly bad is that after the collapse of religious constraints, the "human nature" of the West was released, but there was still no set of moral norms to constrain human nature. It happened that the West began to become stronger at this time, so this became a disaster for non-Western countries around the world, and extremely cruel colonial movements appeared. First of all, I believe that some people disdain the humanistic moral system because it is not as visible and tangible as technology, but in fact the moral system is very important, because technology can catch up in a short time (for example, China caught up with the UK and the US in 70 years), but the moral system cannot be successful in a short time (from Chinese history, we can see the difficulty of its establishment and popularization). Without this link, there will be many problems in national governance. Today, Europe and the United States are in chaos and their countries are gradually weakening. Perhaps this is one of the reasons. Secondly, until today, has the West established a reasonable moral system? People who have read a lot of Western books may talk about a lot of theories that are dazzling, but what is important is not to "listen to what they say" but to "watch what they do". Facts speak louder than words. The internal chaos in the West today and its arrogant attitude towards the outside world have already given a clear answer.
It’s not that they have no morals, but that they think morality is useless!
So they simply don’t understand where Thor’s naivety comes from!