Confucius worked according to the principle that the prime requisite of a good kingdom is a good king, as such his
philosophy
is both socially and personally applicable. He believed that the evils of a selfish or incompetent king would cause the land to become sick, men made poor by harsh conditions would be more likely to turn to banditry or rebellion, and nothing of value comes out of a society brought to a standstill by poverty. It is in a king’s best interests, as well as his duty, to make his subjects lives as happy as possible.
In a series of short passages The Analects shares Confucius’ insights and ideas about how a good life can be led, the value of wisdom and how it might be obtained, the proper way of overcoming problems and of dealing with other people and how a good society can be built. Several hundred years before the birth of Jesus there’s a passage that reads basically as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, and the way the book records his interactions with his students, his relationships with them and the lessons as he taught them reminded me a little of the way Jesus seemed to work with his disciples, but then again, maybe that was just how every teacher was back then.
Among other things, one way the book is particularly relevant now is Confucius’ ideal system of government, the benevolent tyrant. It’s worth occasionally considering why, and if, democracy is truly the best way of running a
country, what is it exactly that separates it from mob rule? A parent has more or less complete control over a child’s well being, but yet, incidents of abuse notwithstanding, it’s generally taken for granted that they will have a child’s best interests at heart. Why do we often begin with the assumption that a dictator will necessarily be someone evil? Would a country benefit most from being governed directly by Jesus or by a good old fashioned parliament?