Chinese literature

Even if you learn Mandarin you won't really be able to read him, though what you will be able to read will be much closer to the original. Like I said before in another thread, China has much more than just Lao Tzu, Confucius as a whole has been much more applicable in Chinese history and government than the whole laissez faire thing Lao Tzu has. 20th Century Chinese literature, having taken up much of the modernist tradition, you will be able to read, with lots of authors and poets about 3 people on lit have heard of like Qian Zhongshu and Yang Mu, along with the more famous Lu Xun

You won't be reading untranslated Chinese literature if you learn Chinese, you'll be struggling for years to achieve basic understanding of modern Mandarin. Learning Classical Chinese is an entirely different ballgame and the majority of Chinese today aren't even able to understand it both because of the Traditional Characters employed and because Classical Chinese is just a bunch of memes and in-jokes and poetry that makes absolutely no sense because it has no meaning unless you know before hand what it's supposed to mean.

By all means, devote your entire life to achieving less fluency than a Chinese teenager and being able to make a shoddy translation of a single text as the high point of your life if you so desire, but you can't just "pick up" Chinese.

http://pinyin.info/readings/texts/moser.html

>>9706290

That description's too real I'm actually Sisyphus.

>>9706290
>Classical Chinese is just a bunch of memes and in-jokes and poetry that makes absolutely no sense because it has no meaning unless you know before hand what it's supposed to mean.

That's assuming they were written by literate monks in the first place, remember what happened when they went around collecting all the unique Taoist texts and compiled them into a single huge canon? a vast majority of them were complete gibberish with incorrect hanzi everywhere.

>>9706154
>Is it worth learning Italian to read untranslated Virgil?

>>9706290
Chinese really ain't that hard nigga. It is hard but it's not "you will NEVER learn Chinese" hard.

>>9706290
>the majority of Chinese today aren't even able to understand it both because of the Traditional Characters employed
This suggests to me that you're not really qualified to opine, tbph. If you can read simplified characters fluently then the issue of traditional characters is a very minor inconvenience- it's quick and easy to guess and pick them up when needed. Plenty of mainland businesses use traditional characters for signs etc just as a way of looking fancier.

A much bigger issue is that the grammar and vocabulary of modern vernacular Chinese is pretty different from the literary language, although the latter of course strongly influenced the former and left lots of traces in it.

Having said that, your main point isn't entirely wrong, though it is seriously exaggerated.

>>9706502
>>9706448
did you even read the link he gave you? he's telling you what a man whose spent the past 50 or so years dealing with the Chinese language and has a masters degree in Chinese language has to say on the subject

>>9706548
Nope, anon's giving their own exaggerated opinion (complete with an obvious error which shows they don't know enough about the subject) and then linking to another opinion which has some commonalities but isn't nearly so exaggerated.

Also
>50 or so years
...you obviously didn't read the linked page. It says
>However, now having studied Chinese for over six years...

Is Chinese hard? Yes. Is that article right? Yes. Is anon right that you could study it for 'a lifetime' and not be as good as a native speaker teenager? No. In fact, anon is entirely contradictory on this point- making that claim, -and- claiming that most modern Chinese speakers can't understand the classical language. Given that plenty of non-natives have learnt to read Classical Chinese, they've obviously beaten anon's hypothetical teenager in less than a lifetime.

>>9706154
Learning a foreign language well enough to read classical literature is a huge undertaking, so you should only do it if you either are obsessed with Chinese lit or have other uses for it (e.g. if knowing Mandarin could help you get a job).

I recommend getting A Key to Chinese Speech and Writing 1&2 if you are serious about learning the language. Finishing those two books should be enough to start reading contemporary novels.

>>9706711
How do you rate the New Practical Chinese Reader?

>>9706548
Thank you for shilling the same article from that other thread again anon. Sure, I get where the guy is coming from, but do keep in mind that the article was written in 1991. It is a billion times easier to learn Chinese now as a non-native then it was back then - textbooks aren't the only source of information anymore.

I'm wondering if I should learn some Chinese just because my school offers courses on Chinese medicinal herbs which sounds like something I'd take.

>>9707724
Go for it. It's comically easy grammar wise. As for written, well, once you get your bearings it isn't that bad

>>9707700
>tfw he complains about "all the different Romanisation methods"

Any good Chinese readers?

>>9706711
What do you think of Zhang Pengpeng's other 3 books?

>tfw too lazy to learn languages

I'm stuck with secondhand sources and translations I guess. This one's next on my list. The blurbs are delicious af.

>A good place to begin the exposition is with Hall’s discussion of the role which the idea of "chaos" has played in Western thought. He notes that Western creation myths are accounts of the overcoming or "disciplining" of primordial chaos (UP 52-59, cf. EI 11f.). Chaos is seen negatively, as "disorder, confusion," as "non-rational . . . an-archic" (UP 53). Hall contrasts this view with the more positive image of chaos which he finds in Eastern thought, as "undifferentiated homogeneity . . . the sum of all orders" (UP 255). For the Western mind, however, chaos is that which must be rationalized by means of "determining sources of order," principles or archai (UP 53).

>“It is also important that the Confucian sense of “creativity” be noted. In the Western philosophic tradition, informed by the Judaeo-Christian notion of creatio ex nihilo, creativity is often understood as the imitation of a transcendent creative act. In Confucian terms, creative actions exist ab initio within the world of natural events and are to be assessed in terms of their contributions to the order of specific social circumstances. In no sense are creative actions modeled after the meaning-closing actions of an extra-mundane creative event. Creativity in a Confucian world is more closely associated with the creation of meaning than of being.” Hall and Ames

File: thinkingthroughconfucius.jpg (39KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 333x499px

>>9709344
Pangu ate my pic.

>>9708615
the series edited by John DeFrancis back in the day was very good and are still in print iirc.

>>9707724
there are plenty of resources now on learning TCM related vocabulary and the like in English.

>>9706290
this is a bit harsh since there are plenty of scholars of the old school whose Classical Chinese was god-tier but who couldn't speak a single sentence of modern Chinese - the anecdote about Arthur Waley locking himself in the toilets when a Chinese delegation came to to the British Library is but one example.

There are also now a handful of very good books for learning Classical Chinese and poetry, and it is well worth the effort provided one has both the time and a serious inclination towards Chinese.

Obviously being able to read modern Mandarin and converse in that language is not necessary, but it is no end of help in other related respects too. Again I say it is not absolutely essential, with perhaps the exception of hermetic religious texts (Taoism, Buddhism, I Ching etc).

>>9706154
It's not. Only because Chinese literature isn't worth reading. Chinese philosophy basically got killed because Mohism got memed by Confucianism. Confucianism is weaponized culture to enslave people. However, the Chinese Buddhism stuff are pretty good. The good parts of Zen Buddhism come from Mahayana Buddhism though, so you might as well learn Sanskrit. The stuff that comes purely from Zen Buddhism like koans are just memes.

>>9710576
Promoting social stability through social bonds and ritual allows more inner "freedom" than basing your society on universals (rights, religon, etc.) whose legitimacy is based upon a pretext of being rational (or God). The death of God (or flaws in reason) makes your social glue more fragile. Confucian rhetoric does emphasize hierarchy more, but it is paradoxically the lack of organic hierarchies like the family that allows the state to become more powerful.

>koans are just memes
Nothing wrong with memes tho. Memes make the world go round.

>>9710618
How so? Even if we assume your narrative is at all true, the Chinese' emphasis on social constructs and the resulting inner "freedom" has not allowed them to be a more creative force than the West. And what you said later about the state becoming more powerful is exactly my point. It's great and all when the state isn't corrupt but we all know how communism always turns out.

Sure, if you enjoy reading them, read them. I just think they aren't really of much value.

>>9710654
The West had different priorities than China. Political fragmentation in Europe and the threat of warfare was a selection mechanism for innovative military and state technology. If they were stuck with fragmented warring states the selection mechanisms would have been different (and no single authority to shut down the treasure fleets spurring potential colonization). But there probably wouldn't be a single China today. This is ignoring the emergent effects of genetics on an individual level. But genetics confound the issue. Could an "experimental" streak on the genetic level coupled with hierarchical non-universalist social technology result in the right balance of creativity, like yin and yang?

This is ignoring the political correctness that plagues scientific research (especially regarding genetics) in the West. Equality must be defended as a principle on the very level of belief (and not merely on speech) because of the needs required by social stability.

Looking into the treatment of LGBT populations in modern China is an example of this internal/external locus of control. You will find many articles decrying their lack of formal rights, but most Chinese do not care about LGBT people either way. In the West the public debate is highly polarized. The taking of a side becomes a morally dividing issue.

Also communism in its prime did not emphasize the family but rather promoted social atomization (hence "comrade" as a mode of address) with the state consolidating power as a result. Communism in the Soviet Union became more conservative later on (especially with regards to "deviant" sexualities) but it was in part a reaction to the West becoming more progressive and that influence spilling over into its borders (the 60s especially).

>>9710654
>It's great and all when the state isn't corrupt but we all know how communism always turns out.
Apparently you don't. Communism isn't some "well it'd work if the big state was full of good people" type deal.

>>9710760
> muh fags, muh buttsex
Why is that no matter what we discuss it always comes down to this with you people?

>>9710802
What do you mean by "you people"?

I'm asking how did "politics" come focus so much on the "gay issue" despite them being less than 5% of the population (and thus irrelevant as a voting bloc)? How did it become a deciding issue such that everyone needed to have an opinion to the exclusion of other (political, economic) issues that were bundled up with that agenda? It's already old history to talk about it anyway. The mass legalization of homosexual marriage (implying it even matters aside from virtue signaling points) means that card can't be played again and a new one must be found. I'm not taking a position either way because it's irrelevant. I'm all for that sweet Confucian social harmony.

>>9710760
But what is the purpose of a single China? The issue with your theory of social technology is that science is meant to be universal, despite how logical positivism is an incorrect approach. To base systems of knowledge on society, which is fundamentally less comprehensive than the world, is an incorrect approach. This is what poststructuralist have put forward when deriding the social sciences.

I don't understand how you've managed to tie LGBT issues into this. But do you not think equality should be defended as a principle? How does the Chinese not caring about LGBT issues tie into what you were saying before?

I used communism as an example of how the state fails the people, just like in the Confucian society that is China. I did not mean to draw any parallels between the two beyond that.

>>9710777
>implying the state can exist independent of the people running it
This is as bad as implying there's free will.

>>9710576
>has never met a Chan or Zen master

It's not worth it to learn any language to read any fucking book. Now fuck off.

>>9709349
>>9709349
If you got that recced here it was me. There's so much in that book and Anticipating China, Thinking from the Han that resonated with me.

>>9710822
> What do you mean by "you people"?
Fags, liberals, satanists, etc. But you knew what I meant, of course.

>>9710855
>But what is the purpose of a single China?
China being able to compete within its borders in realms unrelated to war because the state can enforce peace is something I appreciate. On the geopolitical level, the "purpose" of a single China is a matter of realpolitik.

>The issue with your theory of social technology is that science is meant to be universal, despite how logical positivism is an incorrect approach.
On the other hand, I think science is simply what works on a functional level. It's a tool. To claim it's a universal tool is unnecessary, because you use whatever tools for a specific job that works. It needn't tell you anything about its purpose, nor its meaning. Freeing science from the position of universality means we can stop making swiss army knives and maybe make a plow or a sword depending on the occasion. I'm not sure how this is a counterargument though since "modern" science is not incompatible with Confucianism.

>But do you not think equality should be defended as a principle?
"Equality" is a loaded term that is found in "equality of opportunity" and also "all men are created equal" that somehow came to mean neither. I interpret the latter to mean "equal moral worth". But people are not born literally equal and shouldn't be treated so. I prefer "merit".

>I used communism as an example of how the state fails the people, just like in the Confucian society that is China. I did not mean to draw any parallels between the two beyond that.
I see. But while you could claim that it is the communist system that caused most communist states to fail under their own weight without foreign intervention (though this is arguable since the various coups likely have CIA fingers in them), saying that China failed because of Confucianism is a stretch. This may sound like a "no true Confucianism" argument, but not quite. Confucianism is not a "state program". It doesn't tell you what your form of politics or economy is supposed to be, but rather tells you what sort of person should be running them. No one says that the Greeks failed because of virtue ethics, but because of other factors that led to the Romans conquering them.

>>9711398
I actually stumbled upon it on my own when searching for comparative philosophy vis a vis East and West. It was exactly what I was looking for because treating Chinese philosophy as if it lacks "rigor" rather than it having internally resolved a conflict that would otherwise be out in the open in the form of philosophically rigorous dialectic (like how good diplomacy anticipates a conflict before it happens such that one never realizes the conflict) seems like a better approach.

>be Hall
>publish all your works before the internet really took off and die
>sinologists and historians and nonphilosophers take potshots at your methodology because your works got more attention and you can't respond
>tfw no f

>>9710857
No, anon, I'm saying the fact that you're even thinking of the state means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what communism is.

File: 1498589659310.jpg (13KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 320x320px

>>9710822
>Less than 5% of a population is not an important voting block.
Disregarding the fact that just because you do not have to be gay to consider gay rights a wedge issue. The death penalty, abortion, marijuana legalization, ECT are all things that don't effect lots of people who have very strong beliefs about them. It's not about cold logic, but morals belifes and other squishy reasons that people vote for stuff. It's a bummer but true.

Second, 5% is plenty big enough to be a voting block. Districts are not a true slice of the precents and you can easily have a larger chunk. That is actually a big part of why some people (sjw/feminist/ect) who live in these very diverse districts believe there is a 'huge' under representation of all the colors of the rainbow, while Joe buck in Nebraska has zero problems with the lack of positive depictions of Hindus in the Marvel movies. While the same Joe buck is annoyed that there isn't one positive Christin character in the same movies.

What a silly world we live in huh? I for one don't really have a strong opinions about the Marvel movies.

>>9706276
>Confucius as a whole has been much more applicable in Chinese history and government than the whole laissez faire thing Lao Tzu has.
/lit/ would fap over the Analects if it weren't shit.

>>9711846
Yeah maybe 5% is enough for a "voting bloc". Imagine your fate being decided by 5% of the loudest most obnoxious part of the population who have a de facto veto on any issue because most issues that reach the level of "public debate" tend to be split 50/50 among "normal" people who decide based on what's good for the whole (i'm really being optimistic here) instead of their interests.

I don't have an opinion on the Marvel movies and don't feel like I need to state it. But if the Marvel movies somehow became a deciding political factor then I would feel compelled to state my nonchalance to it because on the political level nonaction becomes a kind of action.

>>9711914
>tfw it's all duke this and disciple that and master said this
>when you realize it's a several thousand year old tome of gossip

File: mel_gibson.png (368KB, 462x421px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 462x421px

>>9706290
imagine being this so spineless

File: hqdefault.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>>9706290
My hopes and dreams have been destroyed by a single post.

File: Chinese nope.png (946KB, 1400x5552px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 1400x5552px

>learning Mandarin