Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hero W/ Jet Li

Rate this topic


RadCap

Recommended Posts

Okay, although I got a hostile response, I will continue for now in hopes that this will change; I suppose it may still suit to continue this discussion in this thread, though it may begin to go beyond the original scope.

Here are some quotes I've gathered about the Qin Emperor, and about Legalism:

From your paper http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...type=post&id=73

Though Confucian and Taoist thought preceded the First emperor Qin, he was most influenced by Legalism, derived from these philosophies. The Legalist tradition derives from the principle that the best way to control human behavior is through written law rather than through ritual, custom or ethics.  Legalism borrowed the Confucian ideal of hierarchy, and the Taoist ideal of an ordered and passive populace, in advocating a totalitarian state. The Legalist theory suggested that a state under a strong central leader, whose people were kept meek and submissive, could conquer a mighty empire. Laws were designed to maintain the stability of the state from the people, who are innately selfish and ignorant.
From http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Ch...tte/politte.htm:

Shi Huangdi opposed all the teachings of Confucius [...]. Shi Huangdi practiced Legalism, which was the belief in strict laws and punishments. During the process of this unification Shi Huangdi standardized the characters of writing, but allowed the spoken language to be diverse.

[...]

Mao Zedong compared himself to Shi Huangdi as a leader who ruled with force, through Legalism. It is a known fact that because of Shi Huangdi’s brutality, Shi Huangdi was a hated individual. There were three assassination attempts targeted at Shi Huangdi. Shi Huagndi was extremely violent, Shi believed that all of his subjects should suffer in order for Shi to rule with relative peace. Shi Huangdi buried protestors alive and forced obedience. In order for Shi Huangdi to build the "Great Wall", and the canals Shi Huagndi had to force the peasants to do manual labor. All these actions earned Shi Huangdi the hatred of almost everyone, including future generations. Shi Huangdi did not want any rebellions so to keep the subjects uneducated Shi suppressed freedom of thought. Shi Huangdi suppressed schools of philosophy, burned books, and buried scholars alive. Books were the main threat and were burnt to stop any rebellion that could occur as a result of freedom of thought. In two hundred and thirteen BC Shi Huangdi burnt all Confucian books except one copy that was saved. When Shi Huangdi burnt the great books the scholars came to hate Shi. Shi Huangdi was cruel to the nobles who ruled the farther regions of China as well. Shi Huangdi moved all the nobles from their homes to Shensi. Shi Huangdi could watch the one hundred and twenty thousand nobles Shi had moved. Shi Huangdi also destroyed the kingdoms and with them, the nobles’ power. Peasants hated the emperor the most. Shi Huangdi taxed the peasants heavily and forced them into labor. The peasants were forced to built such titanic projects as the "Great Wall", and the canals in the northeast, they also had to built the system of roads.

From http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/springs/6339/Legalism.html:

The law. Previously, the law was pretty much at the discretion of the ruler. No one was really sure what the law was, since the ruler could make and change the rules as he saw fit. Supposedly, this was to give the ruler the opportunity to show benevolence in certain circumstances. But obviously, this system made for easy corruption.

In Legalism, the law code was written out and made public. All people under the ruler were equal in the eyes of the law. In addition, the system of law ran the state, not the ruler. The ruler and his ministers were simply parts of the state machine--a machine which would ideally run so well that no matter how unworthy the ruler was, the laws would still keep the state going. Laws were enforced by strict reward/punishment.

[...]

Legitimacy of Rule. Unlike other philosophies, which sought out the wise and virtuous to rule, Legalism puts the emphasis on the power of the position, not the person filling it. Legalism is a pessimistic philosophy--while conceding that it would be wonderful to have a sage for ruler, the reality was that there just weren't many sages around. The practical thing would be to have a system where even an average man could rule and the state would stay intact. Keeping order was the first priority.

In other words, whoever was ruler was powerful because the position held power, not because the person possessed any special qualities.

[...]

Legalism achieved what all the other philosophies strove for--unification of China. The Qin Dynasty, operating under the Legalist philosophy, finally unified China in 221 BC. In this light, Legalism was a success. However, the Qin Dynasty dissolved only 14 years after its founding. The Qin emperor was ruthless in his use of Legalism, punishing even small crimes with decapitation or the loss of a hand or foot. Books and scholars which held beliefs against Legalism (such as Confucianism) were destroyed. The people were heavily taxed and forced into labor on major government projects. He successfully put the fear and respect of the law and government into the people, but it was too much. After his death, a combination of plotting ministers and peasant rebellions caused the end of Legalism as the ruling philosophy of China.

The harshness of the Legalist Qin would be remembered afterwards, and in response the following dynasty, the Han, distanced itself from Legalism and made its main rival, Confucianism the official philosophy. So although many parts of Legalism seem to make good sense (such as equality under the law, and government according to merit), memories of the abuse of the law under the Qin has kept Legalism in a bad light throughout Chinese history.

---

Sounds like a standard ancient Eastern monarchy to me. The one benefit that Shi's rule brought to China, along with unification and cessation of tribal warfare, was introduction of Objective Law, a tremendous achievement despite the dynasty's nefarious aims and brutal forms of punishment. Ever heard of the phrase "Draconian laws"? The phrase originates from Draco, a 6th century Athenian leader who instituted the first objective code of laws (the punishment for violation of which, however, was all through death, even of theft and such).

I'm not going to pretend that from spending 30 minutes reading some essays about the First Emperor that I'm an expert in Chinese history. But it is as I suspected, that the case fits the pattern, i.e. that China is a stereotypical Eastern monarchy of ancient times, matching the pattern and structure of other Eastern monarchies during this time period; those I do know something about and can apply knowledge of which to China. To call The Qin Emperor brutal would be fair; to seek abolishment and amendment of some of his tenets, such as excessive punishment is proper (just as it was proper to abolish Draco's system of punishments, except for things like murder); to abolish his entire government is not proper (just as it was improper to abolish Draco's Objective Law principle); to call him a Nazi, and the system he instituted a Nazi state, would be inaccurate, and would violate the principle of historical context.

Do I think that he brought advancement to China by unifying the land, abolishing perrenial bloodshed, establishing objective law, not to mention his rejection of Conficius (apparently not a wholesome philosophy itself), while aiming to mollify/subdue the population and practicing brutal rule? I don't know. The case against the man is not as black and white as you make it out to be, and the Emperor, despite his many downfalls, has his benefits. Just as the Athenians who chose a tyrant in the late 6th century over lawlessness and anarchy, I might be inclined to prefer his brutal rule under law to mindless violence without any kind of justice. It's hard for us to understand the hard and blunt reality of the ancient world, as any student of Greek history would agree. But I do know that blank dismissals of Legalism, of the Emperor's legacy, and therefore of Hero's theme, are not valid here.

PS It doesn't really matter to me what Mao liked, and why. Just because Mussolini modeled his state upon the Roman Empire, called his theory by a Roman term (fasces), and organized his army into legions complete with centurions and Eagles, does not mean that I will suddenly begin to despise the Romans, though I will continue to despise the Fascists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't understand how you can call mass slavery and totalitarian control "Objective law" (with a capital O no less!) simply because it was allegedly applied equally to all, (an impossibility, I'd say) and because it happened a long time ago when people in other locations also did it. We are supposed to understand the use and misuse of the term Objective here, right?

I would have thought the quotes you yourself provided would have been adequate to diminish your taste for this insane Qin Emperor, but I guess the movie "Hero" has worked its magic pretty well. I'm amazed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get the straight. Objective law did not exist until 1776, right?

Here's what Ayn Rand said about Objective law:

"Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection."

see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag..._rights_and_law

So no anti-individual rights regime qualifies as "instituting Objective law," regardless of how many written copies of "prison rules" are distributed to the populace.

I just happened to find some interesting other reviews of "Hero" by googling "hero movie review tyranny".

http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2004/...f-collectivism/

Looks like others also sensed that Hero finds most heroic the sacrifice of individuals to collective unity.

This ties into Chinese culture and propaganda very deeply: that self-sacrifice to the collective and to national unity is true heroism, that the source of China's weakness has been lack of unity, rather than lack of individual rights., and that progress demands more individual sacrifice, more national unification, and the end of resistance. Truly sickening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/hero/large.html

I saw this trailer a few months back.  I notice they are now advertising it on TV, so I thought I would comment.  I am incredibly impressed by the apparent production values and the outstandingly vivid style of this film.  It looks amazingly gorgeous.  In fact, some of the shots simply send shivers down my spine they are so beautiful to look at.

If the film is anything like the trailer, it should be spectacular.

Has anyone else seen it yet?

The movie is gorgeous, but the message of the film is blatantly pro-statist. The entire concept behind it is self-sacrifice in the name of unifying a state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A West,

There's an important difference between Objective Law and Moral Law. In the context of AR's discussion, she is talking about the nature of Fully Moral government, where Fully Moral laws operate. This kind of government did not exist until American Revolution, true.

Objective law is a separate issue entirely, essentially being the same game rules for all pieces on the board. The ancient world was ruled by caprice of tyrants (Persia) or the mob (Athens), where law was whatever the party in charge said it was. In addition to this malleability and intentional fuzziness, some laws were strict and inflexible, but with subjective escape clauses, laws based on whims, etc. There was no standard set of rules for everyone, and no standard for punishment that did not depend on those outside of this law. In the most ancient of times, being outside of this Subjective law was the modus operandi for the ruling class.

Objective law was a tremendous advancement over previous incarnations of legislature. Now being outside the law was an impossibility, by definition and design. Moreover, the rules applied equally, to all citizens. In totalitarian societies Objective law took the form of a "rule book in a prison" (except that the prison officials and guards were just as subject to "the book" as the inmates). In free-er societies this form of law became a blueprint for a happy and stable civil society.

The instances of Objective law in ancient history are legendary and revered by political historians: Hammurabi's Code, Draco's Laws, Roman Twelve Tables, etc. Will you tell me these artifacts have no significance? If they are as legendary as they are made out to be, then the legacy of Legalism was truly profound and monumental in China, despite any and all drawbacks the Emperor brought along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A West,

...

In the context of an Objecivist online forum, there's no excuse for ignoring the fact that there is one true concept of Objective law. There are intellectuals working to make this known outside of the Objectivist community http://www.nationweb.com/tafol/index.htm

Being non-discriminatory simply does not mean Objective. Do you consider the following Objective?: every book in the library gets burned, no exceptions, or, all men over the age of 18 in this town will be enslaved to build the palace where I will rule for eternity, and then they will be killed, or all underwear must be changed three times per day, and must be worn on the outside so that they may be inspected. Because such laws are irrational and immoral, consistency of application is hardly a virtue.

Legalism's legacy is certainly profound and monumental - it set the stage for over 2000 years of rule hostile to proper human life, set the stage for untold misery, and has made Chinese culture quite docile and willing to be sacrificed on the altar of totalitarian power. That's a funny thing for a "free capitalist" to be celebrating, just in return for the hope that totalitarian rule would be applied without discrimination. I'd call that feature totally non-essential to the philosophy.

I don't understand why you're so desperate to justify this movie and a totalitarian dictator. Plenty of people with no philosophical training at all are able to grasp and be revulsed by the key points here. When you watch the movie "The Emperor and The Assassin" do you think you're seeing a happy ending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, well it becomes apparent that our disagreement lies in definitions.

Describing Sophocles' Antigone, one website says:

In Sophocles' play Antigone, the daughter of Oedipus Rex makes history's first principled stand (which led to her execution) on obeying eternally natural, objective laws over arbitrarily unnatural, political-agenda "law". ...Valid, objective laws consistent throughout the Universe negate force-backed, political-agenda "laws" arbitrarily conjured up on Earth through lawyer-like dishonesties.
Here is what Cicero said about Objective law in 51BC:

"There is in fact a true law -- namely, right reason -- which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands this law summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. Its commands and prohibitions always influence good men, but are without effect upon the bad. To invalidate this law by human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissible ever to restrict its operation, and to annul it wholly is impossible. Neither the senate nor the people can absolve us from our obligation to obey this law, and it requires no Sextus Aelius to expound and interpret it. It will not lay down one rule at Rome and another at Athens, nor will it be one rule today and another tomorrow."

Here's what AR said in regard to Objective law:

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights,

which means: to protect him from physical violence....

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals;

the army, to protect you from foreign invaders;

and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others,

and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

In a debate, Dr. Edwin Locke had this to say about the Anti-Trust Law:

Locke: I think that you have to remember that anti-trust law is not objective. It changes interpretation about every two years and there’s no thing in anti-trust laws that tell me what’s wrong. Something that was totally illegal in the 30’s, is legal today…

Winer: Well, the world changes.

Locke: No. It’s because the philosophical viewpoint changes. So, it’s not an objective law at all and actually, if you look at it closely…nobody knows exactly what’s legal and what isn’t. It’s very, very amorphous….

---

I can pull up more quotes like this. Although in the strictest (Oist) sense Objective means "derived from reality", in the looser sense it means "absolute", "unchanging", "non-subjective". This absolutism of law, non-malleability, rejection of subjective standards, is what we commonly describe as objective law, and how the people in the quotes above meant it (as opposed to being necessarily derived from reality, which was not AR's point, nor Dr. Locke's). At one point in the history of humanity, the introduction of this sort of inflexible and absolute law was revolutionary.

From simply discussing a movie we expanded with a long discussion about ancient Chinese and Eastern history, and now seems like we'll be going into political science and history of law. I think the discussion is becoming a rambler, and I'm getting prepared to agree to disagree, though I'll still read and consider responding to your answer.

Oh and also, I'm not "trying to justify" the movie, and I'm not rationalizing in order to make my preference appropriate, which is what you seem to be suggesting. In my understanding history of humanity, and due to my set of values, I respect law and justice, in a historical context, above almost all other things. "Hero" clearly touches base with my set of values, but so does Legalism, which I would similarly defend without ever seeing "Hero".

There are many threads in the movie, and I bet there was some intention to make it into a propaganda film. But I defend it as a film I like because its bad themes are not explicit, while the good ones are; its theme and final message is suggested but still open to interpretation. In a world where every movie would be an unadulterated and explicit statement of my highest values, I would not give "Hero" such a high rating. In our world, I must evaluate it otherwise, for my own sake most of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your top quote appears to be Neo-Tech related. That part about laws objective through the Universe negating Earth bound lawyer-like dishonesties strikes me as very, very, strange.

I've already long suspected we will never agree on this movie, or its underlying principles. And I am one of those people who always pick up on the underlying philosophical themes of movies.

Things would have been clearer had you written only "objective law" rather than "Objective law" in regards to Legalism. On this board, there's a big implied difference. However, leaving that aside, I believe that by the nature of what Legalism was attempting, it could never be "objective" either, despite its promises. Absolute political power without concern for individual rights must always soon become a tool facilitating the arbitrary exercise of power. I'd argue that the history of China is full of wars, stagnation, and the exercise of arbitrary statist power parlty because of, not despite, Legalism.

Indeed, because this movie addresses the widest posible ethical and political questions, the proper judgement of it demands the best possible understanding of ethics and politics.

I gather from your quote of Pericles that you're favorably disposed to people sacrificing their lives to the state, as such. I can see why this would predispose you to like the movie Hero, and the Legalist philosophy. What I can't see is why you're discussing it at an Objectivst forum. Based on my understanding, Objectivism is opposed to the sacrifice of individuals to the state, to self-sacrifice, and to totalitarianism (ancient or modern), whether it is applied systematically or arbitrarily.

I do think the movie "Hero" does provide a lot of insight into the history and the present state of China's culture. While not historically accurate, I think it does suggest the sort of cultural values that have helped retard its progress. To me, it is a movie that celebrates a philosophical disaster in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My quote suggests my appreciation for men dying for their country, as well as an example of the kind of society that great men feel deserves dying for. This is fundamentally different from your implied charge of collectivism. If those men which Pericles praises (and others like them) did not die for their country, then there would be no America in 1776 for American patriots to die for.

I hope this doesn't seem like psychologizing here, but you may be approaching the subject of man vs collective dogmatically, where everything that a man does which benefits a large group of other men (with him dying or somehow being unable to further derive benefits from his choice) must necessarily imply a collectivist and selfless action.

Aristotle was a giant of selfish ethics, an intellectual titan in Classical Greece which was itself a culture of rational selfishness if there ever was one, and yet it was he who said that man is a social animal who cannot/should not live without other men (without a society), nor cannot/should not separate his interests from that of the larger society around him. If that society is antithetical to his values, he should find another one that fits them better. But, he says, it is not a valid choice for this man to completely divorce himsel from society, and to cease interacting with it, if it is this person's intention to to live a happy and moral life.

Somewhere else, Pericles says to his Athenians:

“An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he takes care of his own household; and even those of us who are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics. We alone [, in contrast to the Spartans, our enemy,] regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs not as a harmless but as a useless character; and if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of policy.”

That's what George Washington (and the rest of the Founders) believed too, for the moral culture of Greece and Rome were what they were inspired by, and aspired for.

But anyway, I think we'll agree to disagree on Hero.

Oh, and thanks on Objective vs objective, good point there. I used capital 'O' to attach to the the phrase a rhetorical significance that I feel it deserves because of its importance in the history of mankind; however, that may have gotten it confused with the Objectivist theory of law, which was not my intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I continue to believe that "Hero" is Chinese Communist Party propaganda. I just stumbled across another reviewer who understood this, entitling his review "Fascinating Fascism" and providing further context for the film.

Given my previous discussion of the Legalist philosophy, I found this essay interesing: http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_04_3_caplan.pdf

It includes a discussion of the book "Autocratic Tradition and Chinese Politics" which looks quite interesting and relevant to the subject. I have read the other book discussed, "Hungry Ghosts," which was quite good at presenting facts on a little discussed era of Mao's rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...