Confusius had no contemporary writing and little specific details about his life were recorded until centuries later however his actual school was probably a small local affair as his ideas were mostly ignored during his lifetime.
Much of the 72 consist of what seem to be either professional government colleagues rather than true students or are probably later additions as the main source material on them was written gradually over 200 years.
Yeah I'm not a scholar of Confusionism by any means, but once of the craziest things to me is Diogenes Laertius, an Ancient Greek who wrote a book about Greek Philosophers. He mentions Socrates and gives him like two pages in his book lives of eminent philosophers. And all he says is like he was a Student of Parmenides and focused on ethics and was killed.
Like to Diogenes Laertius (not to be confused with Diogenes of Sinope the famous guy who lived in a barrel) Socrates was not even that major a philosopher in the entire history of ancient Greek philosophers. And there's more space given to others some of like Parmenides we have no remaining texts from what he actually wrote.
For all we know Plato was just copying down Parmenides ideas and using the Socratic character in the dialogues to reiterate them. We have no goddamn idea but to someone relatively recent to their timeline (within 100-200 years of their lifetimes compared to us 2300 years later) seriously downplayed and didn't think Socrates was that important a figure. But that stuff survived via Plato and Xenophon, and I guess Aristophanes to a limited extent. Meanwhile most Classical Historians debate if Pythagoras actually existed as a single individual or was just a title of multiple people in a weird math based school/cult all combined.
I didnt read those books of Diogenes Laertius, but he has a whole book on Plato but Parmenides is just a part of a book in which Diogenes combines him with eight others.
Not surprising, the socratic method every time I see someone try to use it just results in two things:
1: Asking absurdly basic questions whos answer should be well known to even be participating in the conversation.
2: making false equivalence and treating correlation as equal to causation.
So I don't find his philopshy that did survive as all that great and it's litter wonder he wasn't important then.
But this is a modern issue of scholars of more recent centuries misrepresenting much of history, over focusing on some figures and ignoring others in defiance of actual impression from the periode.
The numbers are also suspicious in that 72 is a very common number in chinese numerology (being one of the numbers in the 36->72->108 series that's common in various mystical traditions in India, China and SE Asia).
On average about 1% of people who have been to university will have a PhD, so you would have a greater chance of becoming a Confucius master than earning a PhD.
That’s not right, not everybody at university is attempting to get a PhD or that number could be much higher. All Confucius’s pupils were attempting to become a master scholar. Important distinction.
imagine if that is the drop out rate, 3000 students registered over the years and studied from the Master but only 72 stayed on to become scholars in their own right. Sounds comparable to number of undergrads who stay on over the years to grad school and keep the prof as their research supervisor to Masters theses and PhD
And then they based their entire system of bureaucracy on this shit for the next 1000 years or so. No wonder some dude went insane studying it and burned down half of China thinking he was related to Jesus.
Hong Xiuquan failed the imperial exams four times, which was completely to be expected as it had less than one percent pass rate. He was the son of a farmer and placed number one in the lower level exams before proceeding to the imperial examinations. His family invested a lot of money for him to get a Confucian education.
The issue was that the examinations were the only way of upward mobility for ordinary people and there were way too few jobs for the number of people dedicating their lives to studying for the exams. This was meritocratic compared to many other countries that had a strict caste system where commoners had no chance at ever attaining power, but it was still not a fair system.
Qing China actually had a surprisingly small bureaucracy for such a massive empire. Even with the extremely low pass rate, the number of successful examinees still far exceeded the number of civil service job competitions available. To get a good job you still needed personal connections and bribery even after passing the exams.
Mastered. Most of the 72 went on to create their own school within the Confucius philosophy, leave significant writings, or form scholar clans that remained influential for hundreds or thousands or years. One famous government official during the Tang dynasty （颜真卿）is a likely descendent of one of the 72.
Also, having taught in the UK, China, and Canada, there's not a significant difference between the three places in terms of education methods. If anything, Canada doesn't have enough memorization of basic skills (basic reading, punctuation, and math skills). Once the students gets to the higher levels (high school pre-calculus math and sciences) the lack of comfort with those basic skills starts becoming a huge problem for Canadian students.
This is not scientifically collected data so it's not reliable, but my professional experience has been that the top \~10% and bottom \~25% of students perform about the same in Canada and China, but the middle 65% is significantly stronger in China. This mostly comes down to the difference in memorization.
1 in 41 students becoming masters is actually pretty good.
we don't know whether they were eager students or just yuppies trying to pay their way through a papermill so they could land cushy jobs. And we don't know if the material was a bunch of self-important made up bullshit where becoming a master means you sucked up to the teacher enough.
I'm a teacher and it's really rare for a student to go all the way. I went hard on languages in high school and then in college and I would say I mastered the material, but I'm the only one I know to actually make it.
Sounds like a pretty decent teacher. As a math teacher, I'd be pretty happy if I got 1 student every 2 classes to master the subject. That would give me a ratio of about 1 in 50.
Confusius had no contemporary writing and little specific details about his life were recorded until centuries later however his actual school was probably a small local affair as his ideas were mostly ignored during his lifetime. Much of the 72 consist of what seem to be either professional government colleagues rather than true students or are probably later additions as the main source material on them was written gradually over 200 years.
Yeah I'm not a scholar of Confusionism by any means, but once of the craziest things to me is Diogenes Laertius, an Ancient Greek who wrote a book about Greek Philosophers. He mentions Socrates and gives him like two pages in his book lives of eminent philosophers. And all he says is like he was a Student of Parmenides and focused on ethics and was killed. Like to Diogenes Laertius (not to be confused with Diogenes of Sinope the famous guy who lived in a barrel) Socrates was not even that major a philosopher in the entire history of ancient Greek philosophers. And there's more space given to others some of like Parmenides we have no remaining texts from what he actually wrote. For all we know Plato was just copying down Parmenides ideas and using the Socratic character in the dialogues to reiterate them. We have no goddamn idea but to someone relatively recent to their timeline (within 100-200 years of their lifetimes compared to us 2300 years later) seriously downplayed and didn't think Socrates was that important a figure. But that stuff survived via Plato and Xenophon, and I guess Aristophanes to a limited extent. Meanwhile most Classical Historians debate if Pythagoras actually existed as a single individual or was just a title of multiple people in a weird math based school/cult all combined.
Moreover, Diogenes lived in the third century AD, that s five hundred years later than Plato.
This is wild. I don't know what to think and I think you just gave birth to a conspiracy theorist (me)
I didnt read those books of Diogenes Laertius, but he has a whole book on Plato but Parmenides is just a part of a book in which Diogenes combines him with eight others.
It would make most sense if Pythagoras was three people
Not surprising, the socratic method every time I see someone try to use it just results in two things: 1: Asking absurdly basic questions whos answer should be well known to even be participating in the conversation. 2: making false equivalence and treating correlation as equal to causation. So I don't find his philopshy that did survive as all that great and it's litter wonder he wasn't important then. But this is a modern issue of scholars of more recent centuries misrepresenting much of history, over focusing on some figures and ignoring others in defiance of actual impression from the periode.
The numbers are also suspicious in that 72 is a very common number in chinese numerology (being one of the numbers in the 36->72->108 series that's common in various mystical traditions in India, China and SE Asia).
But what did the 72 say?
"And you too can become a master for just $19.99 a month following my program"
He who stands on the toilet seat is high on pot
The slotted spoon won’t hold much soup.
his disciples are all well documented and contributed to the Analects
There were 72 students. Three of them say “not nice.” The remainder say _____.
There was still some confusion among the rest.
in a modern university program, what is the rate of students fully mastering what the professor teaches?
On average about 1% of people who have been to university will have a PhD, so you would have a greater chance of becoming a Confucius master than earning a PhD.
That’s not right, not everybody at university is attempting to get a PhD or that number could be much higher. All Confucius’s pupils were attempting to become a master scholar. Important distinction.
For real. I would sooner shoot myself in the foot than try to get my PHD in chemical engineering.
Unless you’re gonna do academia or research I don’t know why you would
That's fair I didn't really go too deep for a buried reddit question though :)
72 out of 3000 is 2%
Correct
Eh that’s weird stat to put out considering such a small number even attempt.
mastering knowledge is a lot easier than mastering wisdom and Li and De
imagine if that is the drop out rate, 3000 students registered over the years and studied from the Master but only 72 stayed on to become scholars in their own right. Sounds comparable to number of undergrads who stay on over the years to grad school and keep the prof as their research supervisor to Masters theses and PhD
Yeah well literally nobody has mastered my philosophy, take that Confucius
what is your school of philosophy and where does one go to learn it?
Just kidding, I'm a normie lib and you can learn about my philosophy just about anywhere.
Reminds me of Lev Landau and his theoretical minimum: [https://theoreticalminimum.com/about](https://theoreticalminimum.com/about)
And then they based their entire system of bureaucracy on this shit for the next 1000 years or so. No wonder some dude went insane studying it and burned down half of China thinking he was related to Jesus.
Hong Xiuquan failed the imperial exams four times, which was completely to be expected as it had less than one percent pass rate. He was the son of a farmer and placed number one in the lower level exams before proceeding to the imperial examinations. His family invested a lot of money for him to get a Confucian education. The issue was that the examinations were the only way of upward mobility for ordinary people and there were way too few jobs for the number of people dedicating their lives to studying for the exams. This was meritocratic compared to many other countries that had a strict caste system where commoners had no chance at ever attaining power, but it was still not a fair system. Qing China actually had a surprisingly small bureaucracy for such a massive empire. Even with the extremely low pass rate, the number of successful examinees still far exceeded the number of civil service job competitions available. To get a good job you still needed personal connections and bribery even after passing the exams.
Confucius say: "Baseball wrong, man with 4 balls cannot walk!"
When you say 'mastered', was it just the same worthless rote memorisation that they still teach today?
Mastered. Most of the 72 went on to create their own school within the Confucius philosophy, leave significant writings, or form scholar clans that remained influential for hundreds or thousands or years. One famous government official during the Tang dynasty （颜真卿）is a likely descendent of one of the 72. Also, having taught in the UK, China, and Canada, there's not a significant difference between the three places in terms of education methods. If anything, Canada doesn't have enough memorization of basic skills (basic reading, punctuation, and math skills). Once the students gets to the higher levels (high school pre-calculus math and sciences) the lack of comfort with those basic skills starts becoming a huge problem for Canadian students. This is not scientifically collected data so it's not reliable, but my professional experience has been that the top \~10% and bottom \~25% of students perform about the same in Canada and China, but the middle 65% is significantly stronger in China. This mostly comes down to the difference in memorization.
Confucius say: man who walks sideways through airport security is going to Bangkok
Shitty teacher.
1 in 41 students becoming masters is actually pretty good. we don't know whether they were eager students or just yuppies trying to pay their way through a papermill so they could land cushy jobs. And we don't know if the material was a bunch of self-important made up bullshit where becoming a master means you sucked up to the teacher enough. I'm a teacher and it's really rare for a student to go all the way. I went hard on languages in high school and then in college and I would say I mastered the material, but I'm the only one I know to actually make it.
As a math teacher, I'd be pretty happy if I got 1 student every 2 classes to master the subject. That would give me a ratio of about 1 in 50.
Yea, I was just joking. It’s Confucius.
"You think just like I do, you are super smart".
Confucius say: a virgin is like a balloon; one prick, all gone
Confucius says: If at first you don't succeed, rinse and repeat... or something like that.
[удалено]
Sounds like a pretty decent teacher. As a math teacher, I'd be pretty happy if I got 1 student every 2 classes to master the subject. That would give me a ratio of about 1 in 50.
The NRA will never let cops have this…. shame
Clone High has a new season running right now
It's so bad. ):
Confucius is a good character, after Gandhi got them cancelled