Before one can compare and contrast the one-world theory and the two-world theory, one needs to be fully acquainted with what each theory is, what it states, and to which respective social sphere each theory is a constituent. The “two-world theory” will be explained first, and an annotation of the “one-world theory” will follow. The two theories will then be compared, to discern each’s singularity. The western philosophy shares the “two-world theory”. The theory’s most fundamental founding is the fact that something divine has created the world we live in, relating itself closely to the Judas-Christianism.
It is literally a linear way of looking at the world. They utilize words such as comprehending, but if a given concept is too vast and seemingly beyond the comprehension, the idea is then referred to God. In other words, the linear hierarchy of the world gives the western world a pretext to explain the metaphysics, or the ultimate constituents of reality and grounds for our knowledge of them. Plato(427-347 BCE) arguably notes in the “Allegory of the Cave” the representation of ordinary human existence.
We, like the people brought up in a cave, are trapped in a world of impermanence and partiality, the realm of sensible objects that are actually shadows of ideas on heaven. The transformation of the mind array of human cognition occurs from being aware of the most primitive and unreliable opinions through imagination and conjecture to the ultimate understanding of the permanent objects of knowledge, or the more significant Forms – true equality, beauty, truth and the good itself, apprehended by intuition. There is an irrefutable distinction between the way things seem to be and the way they are.
The merely apparent is often supposed to be internal, subjective, or temporal, but available for direct awareness, whereas the real is supposed to be external, objective, or eternal, but known only inferentially. This differentiation is an important one throughout Western philosophers, namely Descartes and Kant. The term “idea”, that is stable and unchanging for eternity, leads to geometry and formal logic, and to a world of axioms, in which width and weight do not exist. These ideas form the western maxim, in which an axiom is inexistent, but is a concept realized by idea and reason.
For Aristotle whose account of causes to examine the relation of form to matter is divergent from that of his teacher, Plato, change is always the actualization of some potential. He undeniably empathized motion on earth. Based on the Western theories aforementioned, the dualistic way of thinking continues to maintain that many aspects of the natural world show a purposeful and orderly manner, which can be attributed to an absolute spirit, and the development of an aim, the existence of god, or, teleology.
The “one-world theory”, in comparison, does not incorporate divinity – immortal soul, god, human nature and any of the ilks. The theory did not develop any utopian thought, or did not find the need to, because of the simple fact that relationship between one another is relatively more crucial. Social participation is important in a world in which nothing can be fully independent and everything is inter-related, and mutually co-existent. Confucianism, in this sense, talks of the best, and most harmonious way to make the world, and employs the circular theory, in which a person is a component within a circle of society.
First, a man needs to find harmony within him-self, and as procedure acting towards a congenial society, the circle that surrounds him will be enlarged to encompass a bigger society. The correlative thinking also introduces the Yin and Yang, two of which are mutually entailing and interdependent; without one, the other can not exist. The attitude towards change is also heterogeneous to that of the dualistic perception of the world. Change is precious, real and vivid within the correlative way of thinking. The Eastern maxim of “fluxus”, that all things flow, stipulates that every experience is different from the previous one.
In Western thinking they form standards, and reduce thoughts into more abstract ones. Defining an opinion into knowledge is important, and is reason to understand the ideas on heaven. Eastern scholars, on the other hand, do not regard defining as important because it is simply a stagnant view of the flow. As they say, the “only thing not changing is the fact that all things change”. Christian Wolff (1679-1754) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) initially evaluated Confucianism as a culture that is administered by an autonomous natural reason and communal morality.
To Montesquieu(1689-1755), the Chinese emphasis on natural law and order seemingly hampered the spirit of progress and threatened the fulfillment of a truly egalitarian society which was the socio-political ideal of French Revolution. As we can see from above, the analysis between the two cultures shows that they are inherently different cultures; of which varied evaluation can follow. However, despite the discrepancies, the global world will, without doubt, increasingly attempt to understand the “one-world theory”, and incorporate it to their daily lives. Confucian code of ethics First son Priority
Most people in the Confucian ethics class have pointed out that they have not yet experienced the first son priority within their families. It is possible that the Korean society is evolving to some extent, and parents who only decades ago would have held dear their first sons have changed their attitudes. It is also possible that the poll was somewhat disillusioned from the fact that many students in the class are either foreigners or exchange students, whose parents are more likely to have more liberal, open-minded parents who have not expressed them bias in their treatment of their elder siblings.
However, from my perspective as a first son in a traditional Korean family, and from what I have observed from my classmates who are first sons, Korean parents still emphasize more of added responsibilities to the eldest son of the family. I have one younger brother, and I acknowledge the fact that this would permit only the black-and-white contrast. However, my experiences show that I have been assumed with many more culpabilities than my younger brother, and rather righteously at that, since I am irrefutably the first son. I was to set an example for my brother to follow, and would need to sit up straighter in formal dinners.
Sure many advantages and profits would follow from bearing such responsibilities and there lies circumstantial evidence that the first son priority has impelled the notion of preferring son to a daughter, but my parents have expressed their priority towards their first son so much so that once, my younger brother came up to me to articulate his discomfiture. In the modern Korean society, such partiality of affection towards the elder son, or even the daughter, has, to some extent decreased mainly due to the fact that there simply aren’t enough children in a family to practice favoritism.
However, in families where this tradition continues to dwell, the first son continues to be burdened with obligations in place of some financial benefits. The younger son, on the other hand, gets handed to the society without the fiscal security, and thus matures experiencing trial and error. There are many times when the younger son is able to use such hindrance to his benefit, through advantageous and valorous behaviour. The first son priority is voiced, but not exerted so forcefully. Accordingly, the opportunity lies equally for the elder son, younger son, and the daughters in a modern Korean family.
People as grass-roots. The role of people within a society varies, depending on the nation, culture, or society concerned. Hegel explains the state as totalitarian, in which the state regards itself as sovereign, that subordinates everything in civil society to itself, and one that turns civil society into a means for its own ends. Hobbes puts across a description of the state as “a minimal state”, in which the individual is the basic structure of the society; where each decides for himself how to act, and is judge, jury and executioner in his own case whenever disputes arise.
The Confucian ideal of the “civil society” is linked to that of “rule by the people”, and is in between the two explanations mentioned above. Within the Confucian state, there is no system to reflect the people’s will; there isn’t the voting or the institution. Rather, Confucian relates itself more to interpersonal skills, where the concept of a communicating community are priceless. According to Confucius, the relationship of an individual is what essentially forms a person, not vice versa. The relationships between persons are an entailing one, in which the individual is constituted by others, resulting in a correlative relation.
According to the Chinese traditional outlook, a balance in the relation between state and society should be maintained. This is rather close to the Western views about democracy. However, contrary to Western absorption in individual rights, the Confucian view feels it necessary to keep under control the demoralizing factors related to excessive individualism that undermines the benefit of the society. The guideline for the boundaries of grass-root action, in this sense, is essentially that if the communitarian actions will render the society good on the whole, it can be permitted.
The method with which the people should handle social participation is through deliberation rather than coercive power. The emergence of people as the grass root of a state, signifies that the people now have the power to handle or mishandle the state, especially in the modern democratic society that we have today, in which a monarch who can balance the people’s influence does not exist. If the success and growing influence of civil societies persist, people should really start acting in a conscious way in which they look, in the longest perspective attainable.
The participatory and deliberative nature of the grass roots should be attributed to seeking a common ground for all of the people, even if it does not necessarily represent the majority. The decisions should be flexible, and accommodate contrasting views as well. The conditions currently in Korea do not seem to reflect such a pattern, but people are more acting as a herd, where the voice of the minority, or even the unspeaking mean, is unheard; despite the shrieks that can be overheard.