Embracing Our Complexity

Catherine Hudak Klancer

Description

This book discusses what a religiously grounded authority might look like from the viewpoints of the European Catholic Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and the Chinese Neo-Confucian Zhu Xi (1130–1200). The consideration of these two figures, immensely influential in their respective traditions, reflects the conviction that any responsible discourse on authority must consider different cultural perspectives. Catherine Hudak Klancer notes that both Zhu Xi and Aquinas conceive wisdom as including, yet surpassing, human reason. Both express an explicit faith in the moral order of the cosmos and the ethical potential of human beings. The systematic, idealistic approach common to both provides the cosmic, anthropological, and ethical elements needed for a comprehensive exploration of how to exercise and limit authority. Ultimately, Klancer writes, authority requires a particular virtue, hitherto latent in both scholars' work and in their lives as well. A person with this virtue—humble authority—is properly grounded in the sacred order, and fully cognizant in theory and in practice of the parameters of human nature and the responsibilities attendant upon the human role.
Acknowledgments
Introduction

1. An Objectively Moral Universe

2. Intelligent Agents with Moral Potential

3. Roles, Rituals, and Habits: The Proper

4. Exercising Authority

5. Limiting Authority

Conclusion

Notes
Bibliography
Index

Sujets

• Philosophie
• Philosophie politique
• Éthique et morale
• Philosophie de la religion
• Ethique et morale
• Confucianism
• Philosophy of religion
• Comparative religion

Informations

• Publié par: State University of New York Press
• Date de parution: 31 août 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781438458427
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 11 Mo

Extrait

Embracing Our Complexity
SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture
—————
Roger T. Ames, editor
Embracing Our Complexity
Thomas Aquinas and Zhu Xi on Power and the Common Good
CATHERINE HUDAK KLANCER
Cover Image: Smokey background from Fotolia.
Published by State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2015 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Production, Diane Ganeles
Marketing, Michael Campochiaro
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Klancer, Catherine Hudak.
Embracing our complexity : Thomas Aquinas and Zhu Xi on power and the common good / Catherine Hudak Klancer.
pages cm. — (SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4384-5841-0 (hardcover : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-1-4384-5842-7 (e-book)
1. Authority. 2. Power (Philosophy) 3. Common good. 4. Thomas, Aquinas, Saint, 1225?–1274. 5. Zhu, Xi, 1130–1200. I. Title. BD209.K55 2015 303.3'6—dc23 2014045869
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
For my mother and father
Give ear, you that rule the people, and that please yourselves in multitudes of nations: For power is given you by the Lord, and strength by the most High, who will examine your works, and search out your thoughts: Because being ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged rightly, nor kept the law of justice, nor walked according to the will of God. Horribly and speedily will he appear to you: for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. For to him that is little, mercy is granted: but the mighty shall be mightily tormented.
—The Book of Wisdom, 6:3–7
King Xuan of Qi asked, “Is it true that Tang banished Jie and King Wu assaulted Zhou?” Mencius replied, “This is contained in the records.” “For a minister to slay his ruler—can this be countenanced?” Mencius said, “One who injures humaneness is called a thief; one who injures righteousness is called a brute. Someone who is a thief and a brute is called a mere fellow. I have heard of the execution of the mere fellow Zhou, but I have not heard of the killing of a ruler.”
—The Book of Mencius, 1B:8
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Tensions Timeless and Contemporary
Introduction to Zhu Xi and Thomas Aquinas
Methodology
Chapter Outline
The Wider Context
Conclusion
Chapter 1 An Objectively Moral Universe
What’s Your Proof? Limitations of the Scientific Model
A Different Way of Thinking: The Mind of Faith
An Ontological Morality
Conclusion
Chapter 2 Intelligent Agents with Moral Potential
Self-Interested Actors and Selfless Comrades
Intelligent Agents with Moral Potential
Conclusion
Chapter 3 Roles, Rituals, and Habits: The Proper Development of the Human Being
Roles
A Methodological Issue
Development of the Self
Fulfilling the Role
Conclusion
Chapter 4 Exercising Authority
The Government and the Common Good
Sacred Calling for Human Beings in General to Exercise Authority
The Exercise of Authority by Particular Individuals Within the Human Community
Qualifications for Leadership
Conclusion
Chapter 5 Limiting Authority
The Contemporary Distaste for Humility
Zhu Xi and Thomas Aquinas on Humility
Humility Grounded in Finite Nature and Knowledge
Humility in Community
Humility and Authority
Conclusion
Conclusion The Virtue of Humble Authority
Dealing with Reality
Engaging with Diversity, Engaging with Paradox: The Virtue of Humble Authority
Lessons for the Contemporary World
Humble Authority in Action
Do We Really Need Religious Belief?
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Acknowledgments
I must begin by thanking the teachers who have been so essential to the production of this book. I have always benefited from wonderful teaching: throughout my life, I have trusted, respected and loved the women and men who have guided my education, from kindergarten to college. Their collective influence may be seen in the fact that I have stayed in school as long as I have. Although neither of us knew it at the time, Professor T. James Kodera was doing me a wonderful favor, with lifelong consequences, by introducing me to the thought of Zhu Xi while I was a student at Wellesley College. In my postgraduate career, I was truly fortunate to study with Wm. Theodore de Bary at Columbia University; Professor de Bary’s year-long seminar on Neo-Confucianism was in many ways the beginning of the doctoral project that became this book.
At Boston University, I was privileged to work with many fine professors, and to find three readers whose comments and guidance have contributed so much to this book. I must thank John Berthrong for his care and enthusiasm in directing my study of Zhu Xi, his advice concerning the direction of this project, and his insights, shared both personally and in print, concerning the Confucian tradition. Without his assistance, this project simply would not have been possible. I also owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Adam Seligman, who has been one of the most challenging teachers I have ever had, pushing me to attain higher levels of clarity and depth in my thinking and writing. I must also thank James Keenan, who welcomed me into his theology seminars at Boston College, supervised my study of Aquinas, and provided generous and constructive feedback on every stage of this project, which began to take shape in a term paper I wrote for one of his classes. Finally, I am very grateful to Gina Cogan and Diana Lobel for graciously agreeing to serve on my defense committee, and for providing valuable advice concerning how to develop this project for publication.
Being in Boston has meant that I have been surrounded not only by wonderful professors, but also by brilliant fellow students. In particular, I would like to thank Derek Michaud and Nicholas Austin for giving me the benefit of their valuable insight on preliminary drafts of this project, and for their intellectual generosity and friendship throughout my time as a doctoral candidate. I would also like to thank Bede Bidlack, Karen Enriquez, and Erik Ranstrom for organizing and participating in the 2007 Engaging Particularities Conference at Boston College, at which the ideas in this book had their first public hearing. Special thanks are also due to my fellow members of the Friends of the Way, or Daoyoumen ( 道友們 ), whose comments helped me to reconsider and improve aspects of my argument at a very early stage: Michael Ing, Jason Clower, Misha Tadd, Matt Stefon, Lucas Bender, Brian Loh, and Fanfan Wang. I am also grateful to the three anonymous reviewers of the manuscript, who provided valuable feedback on the project as it neared completion. Of course, any errors or omissions that remain in the finished product are my own.
Finally, it is the case that projects like this are rarely, if ever, completed without sacrifices, oftentimes made not only by the writer, but also by the innocent bystanders in her immediate vicinity. I give heartfelt thanks to my husband, Richard Klancer, whose patience and encouragement are implicitly present in every page of this book. Similarly present is the influence of my entire family, especially that of my parents, Kathleen D. Hudak and Samuel A. Hudak III, who have unfailingly and lovingly supported me throughout all the ups and downs of my life. I am glad to fulfill a dream of long standing by dedicating this book to my mother and father.
An earlier version of Chapter 5 was published in the Heythrop Journal , vol. 53, no. 4 (July 2012): 662–677.
Introduction
Tensions Timeless and Contemporary
One of the more mesmerizing aspects of our technologically advanced society is the way in which it enables direct communication between people who intensely dislike each other. The World Wide Web, for example, makes it possible for people with diametrically opposed views on health care, energy policy, and gay marriage to come together for the express purpose of lambasting each other’s grammar, morals, and probable socioeconomic background. Ranging over a wide variety of topics, Internet debates can draw on everything from scriptural passages to personal anecdotes to statistical polls. In the midst of all this diversity it is often easy to come to the depressing conclusion that the discussions have nothing in common but their conspicuous lack of civility.
However, looking beneath the less-than-courteous surface reveals another commonality: many of these conversations focus on issues of power. People are asking—and bluntly answering—questions such as: Is the government justified in legislating and enforcing universal access to health care? How much autonomy does the White House have vis-à-vis oil companies, and how much should it have? Do the courts have the right to define what constitutes a legal marriage, or should the voters settle this question? In short, people are arguing about how to define authority, or power, understood as fairly exercised or justly wielded. 1 As countless pages across the Internet show, the twin projects of figuring out how to fairly exercise power, and mapping out the boundaries within which such exercise must be contained, are often quite contentious. Moreover, these projects are also ubiquitous: even online conversations about one celebrity’s apparent inability to keep the pounds off, or another’s failure to put pounds on, touch on highly complex and interwoven issues of personal autonomy, moral agency, and community responsibility—issues that are quite significant in our lives