Jump to content

Talk:Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shang Yang request

[edit]

I have a lot of sources I can go through, and might find something myself or in the Cambridge history. But as it stands, I could probably still use more sources on Shang Yang as an individual, which would also benefit the Shang Yang page. It may still be difficult to find something on Google books.FourLights (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I must request that you clarify what "the Cambridge history" refers to—there are rather a lot of them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also install the User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors script so that you can see and identify problems with your chaotic citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have multiples of the Cambridge History but I imagine Shang Yang is in one of the earlier ones (1988?), probably the first one, since that is where other work on the Qin is located. I will verify this for you, and hopefully it could be used for the Shang Yang page.

Although there are more sources I have two sources I will be reviewing for the section on reward and punishment that you suggested. I also have a book I need to review for the Qin dynasty, if I can locate it. I otherwise need to look at doing taxes in the next couple days etc.FourLights (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please answer the question. What does "the Cambridge History" refer to? Here are some ideas for you to choose from:
Or perhaps something else? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have on hand cambridge histories of China vol 1-13+PRC 1-2, and Ancient China, Origins - 221BC. Although I would some time anyway, I could attempt to look at the other ones some time depending on priorities. I'll attempt to do a cursory review of what I have on hand.FourLights (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your Trappist program appears to be functioning, at least given a glance at it's test page. It is getting late, but I will have some minor commentary I can add from the Cambridge History of Ancient China Origins - 221BC - but it's still Fajia commentary. It will have some other relevant commentary for forming other sections, but more relevant commentary may be located in the Cambridge History proper.FourLights (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the minor commentary in the Cambridge Ancient China can contribute to a section on "a rich state and a powerful army” (maybe some would also be split off). The category is discussed in Pine's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online. Although this section would include several references, it is a relatively prominent important concept and relatively easy section to produce. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-legalism/FourLights (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FourLights, I don't think there is much English-language scholarship on Shang Yang. The only book I'm aware of is this one, which should have plenty of information. I see you already have Pines cited; it looks like they wrote a Shang Yang-dedicated book in 2017 (see here), which I imagine is an authoritative source by now. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be English language if we could determine it to be authoritative, I can use chat gpt and a couple dictionaries. FourLights (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use ChatGPT. Retinalsummer (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including a dictionary I use multiple translation services when I read Chinese, it was just an example.FourLights (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should ideally leave the reading and citing of Chinese sources to editors who have the competence to do so. You do not need to do everything. Retinalsummer (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is appreciated. At any rate, it is hardly the time to be considering Chinese sources yet, and when it is, I can put in requests for collaborations. And besides, although I do think translation has significantly improved, we can always look at easier languages first.FourLights (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legalism (Chinese philosophy) → Fajia – this attempt to construct the page has not got off the ground yet although I think next I would make brief descriptions of the figures.


I do not care about changing the page name on a personal level it's not my main inquiry. Name change critique is actually based on critique by user airship, that the term Legalism cannot be defined. Same discussion occured in scholarship. Both Fajia and Legalism are anachronisms and should not be used in the page in reference to the figures. They're not used in critical scholarship, and it begs the question who much uses them anyway. I don't actually much know who this conventional scholarship is who supposedly uses the term Legalism.

However, the historical term Fajia can and ought to be defined and discussed at some point even if not used as a general moniker, which I don't think generalizing monikers should be used for then. The term Legalism cannot be defined. Where it's actually been used in the past it is used differently. One person defined it as Shang Yang and Han Fei having punishments but he is just one guy from 2005.

The Stanford Encyclopedia calls them the fa tradition but I don't think that's all that relevant. Fajia is one of Sima Qian's six schools of thought in Chinese philosophy, that's what the page is supposed to be about. The Book of Han defines it as a Masters Texts tradition.

Shang Yang and Shen Buhai are the opposite components of Han Fei's doctrine (edit: Shen Buhai has administrative method but not organized law and disadvises punishment, Han Fei has Shen Buhai's method but advocates law, Shen Dao has an administrative technique: They are not Legalists.). They have some several categories I can talk about, but they aren't The Legalist School. Along with a little Shen Dao and a little comparison with other schools, they're some several influential thinkers with different philosophies that connect along some several lines, but not mutually between all of them..

At any rate, I don't care a great deal about a name change, but discussion of the term Fajia, if it is fit in relevantly, ought to be allowed, even if I actually advocate against using it as a general moniker. The figures in general don't really fit under much under a generalizing label except maybe realists but I advocate being historical.

The goal here is an introduction with some kind of historical context. Fajia is a Han dynasty term it only makes sense in that context. It should only be discussed technically in brief for that context, even it requires multiples of critique to get it right.FourLights (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. Wikipedia is written for the general public, not for critical scholars. Walrasiad (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but Legalism in Chinese philosophy (per SEP) might be better than the current title. Like the recent Genghis Khan RM, this is a case where the title should stay put but it's fine if the article body mostly uses fa or fajia, so long as it is introduced properly in the intro (as the SEP does). Srnec (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible to make discussion of Legalist interpetations, and a section of the small degree to which they relate with law, but the term itself cannot be defined. Legalism in Chinese Philosophy isn't actually any better because it isn't the bulk of their philosophy.
    I appreciate Smec's position. Again, I do not actually much about the name of the page name itself. I do not believe the term Legalism should be used as a gloss for the figures, not simply because it is inaccurate, but because the figures themselves have differences between them beyond the fact that they largely are not Legalists in the sense of law. Even if they did, I do not believe Fajia should used as a gloss for them either because it is a Han dynasty term. I do not consider the glossing terms desirable in general. I only desire to introduce or discuss Fajia for it's historical and philosophical components. It's invention by Sima Qian itself predates the glossing of the figures under it, and is not entirely connected to them; it is only a category they were placed in.
    I would at some point question whether Legalism is still actually the common name - it likely is, but I do not know how this would be determined. I am capable of some survey myself. It probably likely is, but is otherwise only about half of works. At any rate, while it is to some extent true that Fajia came to mean something like Legalism in the Book of Han, I am not able to say it because the term Legalism is not defined - it's usage is opposed is modern scholarship. Historically, it would be the case through association with Shang Yang.FourLights (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a gloss and was never intended to be; it's a translation. —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposal per WP:UCN/WP:UE; oppose Legalism in Chinese philosophy because the topic is not "legalism as understood in Chinese philosophy", but a distinct school of thought. —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I have no concern for the term as a title, but the term Legalism if used more broadly in the article does inaccurately gloss Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, Han Fei and to an extent even Shang Yang. (Edit: You can have multiples of Standford derived articles on it as desired). On other matters, although I probably don't have the brainpower for it tonight, I would like to incorporate introductory commentary from the Stanford Encyclopedia defining the current. Michael Loewe has relevant older commentary and it otherwise ties in more broadly.
    I agree with AjacSmack's second statement, to the degree that it became a distinct school of thought. There are some commonalities between some figures, not to the same degree for all of them. Shang Yang is entirely missing Shen Buhai and Han Fei's concept of management. They are the opposite components of Han Fei's doctrine, and only one of them is focused on law, as even A.C. Graham 1989 reiterated p268. The 'school's Han dynasty Chinese name is Fajia. Legalism in Chinese Philosophy or about Chinese philosophy is something else entirely, even if it has possible intersection with the discussion.FourLights (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shang Yang cambridge history

[edit]

I have located Shang Yang's content in the Cambridge History, I will use it to provide reference for the Shang Yang page (which I did not originally write), but the content would be done there before it makes it's way over here, also that not all the content there is supposed to be here. I don't know, I have to do it and then think about it.FourLights (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I need to complete reading of Kidder Smith's work, but I will also simply reading and look more into "style" documents.FourLights (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In need of drastic retooling

[edit]

Friends, something has gone drastically awry here. This is a long, detailed article titled Legalism, and it isn't about Legalism. It's about the history of Chinese philosophy. Nearly every single word of this article belongs elsewhere. The lede needs to be about Legalism, not about its diverse origins. The first section needs to be about key concepts in Legalism. The next few sections can be about the history of those concepts or the major thinkers who contributed to them, but it needs to be about those concepts, and not the Han Dynasty, Shang Yang, the Warring States period, or any of the minor texts with references to Legalism. It doesn't matter how well sourced any of this is or isn't if you aren't even writing about the topic at hand. If your intention is to write about concepts on the periphery of Legalism, by all means, write those articles! 184.97.137.39 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. I do think the present state of the article has far too zoomed out a perspective in a vacuum, and perhaps too much even for an article of any viable length—I feel limited in what I can recommend to @FourLights about their process, rather than what I would recommend to any editor trying to write a whole article on a broad subject from scratch:
  • Compare points of form, structure, and emphasis in comparable Featured, Good, or merely good articles. Unfortunately, the closest I can get here are:
  • More broadly: FourLights, there is an exercise often recommended to new editors: you're not new by a long shot, but I think it could be worth trying regardless. The exercise is to start from blank, and pick only the three most important sources for the subject. Then, write the core of the article: brief context, history, themes, figures, influence, directly from those, without wandering. You are extremely diligent, and want to sculpt this article until it is exemplary, but I know the feeling of constantly trying to author a big project "backwards": you have to start exceedingly simple and elaborate as you go
    • Start by trying to explain Legalism to the average Anglophone wiki reader (so, someone who may only have a touch-and-go understanding of who Confucius is) in one or two sentences. Then, try to pull that high-level explanation out into a paragraph. Then write one paragraph for every big subtopic, looking at other articles for hints to what those subtopics should be. Context and greater connective tissue should come much later.
I hope this is helpful; I've been apprehensive to give this sort of advice because the last thing I want to do is condescend or give broad, generally unhelpful advice. Remsense诉 00:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the context of FourLights already having started from scratch once, so I suppose I want to chip in some advice substantially before the rewrite gets too far along. Remsense诉 00:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly look at retooling, and will look at your articles, but there is no Legalism, there are only points of commonalities between some of the figures. Fajia is a list of figures/texts in the Book of Han. It isn't an ideology or a philosophy except insomuch as we draw categories out of it, which ideally existed in history. There are categories that can be made Shang Yang - Han Fei or Shen Buhai - Han Fei, things to that effect, doctrines that existed in history.

I have no objection to trying to put together some summaries. But there is no broader Legalism category whatsoever. Han Fei is the only thing that Shang Yang and Shen Buhai have to do with eachother, they have no relation to each other in their own time, and they are opposites ideologically. Their commonalities exist at the broadest level. I will look at the articles and retooling, and you could always have a look at SEP and ask that I work on drawing together a section based on some idea. There are some several doctrines like wealth and strength, but I am concerned that it is not clear there is no Legalism ideology. I have no evidence of one, and I have no knowledge of one. Have I been unclear?FourLights (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you want, i can work in dialogue with you on the summary-first approach? i think i would be more useful in that position where my relative weaknesses don't matter as much.Remsense诉 05:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I should work on retooling (edit: performed an initial retooling). You can think of what kind of summaries you might like? Wealth and strength is a not simply an abstract doctrine, it is a doctrine which exists in history.FourLights (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the Zhuangzi for another page let me know if you have some other category for preferenced discussion off SEP, wealth and strength is one I can put together. I can otherwise be of assistance for study of any materials.FourLights (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content of school of names can be criticized, but it is now at place number 3#. It does not regardless have to be number 3; I can produce another section to go before it.FourLights (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a "Legalism introduction" first beyond the content in the Categorical history, faster than I can come up with it, simply look at the SEP, think about content, I put something together and fine tune. I don't think it's lede is particularly suitable by itself.

I'll do some thinking though. I can Probably synthesize the requested introductory summary, but I would still distinguish between the figures. Should not be impossible to accomplish.FourLights (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can start off by attempting to reduce the SEP down to an introductory summary. I can always add more reference and distinguishing content.FourLights (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the introductory paragraph to this. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-names/ FourLights (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Socratic philosophers obviously never considered themselves to be pre-Socratic because they never knew Socrates. That doesn't diminish our ability to talk about them as a category, even though we didn't name that category until 2000 years after everyone relevant died. There's so much hung up on the people and the history that it has crowded out the actual topic at hand. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but if you don't believe that a category can be discussed, but seven billion other people do, perhaps you are the wrong person to write on the topic. 184.97.137.39 (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there is more to put up about the subject, and I do have it in mind, if you would like to draft up some writing yourself, that is an option. The works are listed according to my current review hierarchy, down to Tao Jiang. Bringing together an article together takes time, I crittically treat the work according to my sources, I do plenty of reading, and I do plenty of writing and reworking. I have started with generalities before getting more specific. Your anonymous attacks on my person are irrelevant. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.FourLights (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insomuch as critical generalities can be made, they can be implemented. Where they cannot be made, they cannot be implemented. If you're asking me to engage in glosses of the thinkers as a Legalism, I cannot much help you with that regardless of what I think, because it is not an academic term or category whose usage sees glossed coverages. Glossed coverages can be provided where they exist in critical terms. They cannot be provided where they do not exist. I do what I can in time, regardless of the term used. What can be glossed can be implemented with time and work. A lack of glossed categorical coverage reflects source materials, not simply opinion. I do not care about these ideological arguments about what still amounts to a stub article. I gradually implement material from general to specific according to source hierarchy. It's not made out of thin air.FourLights (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summarized "categories in Legalism" as a largely unused term in academia can only be drawn up from work which has been performed. Work has to be performed before it can be summarized. If you believe that you have such an idea with corresponding source material, discuss it. Otherwise, work is done as it is performed. It does not matter "whether I believe it can be discussed as a category." The work is implemented as it is sourced, which will include more categories even if modern works do not discuss tend to discuss Legalism as a category without varlyingly qualifying what it is that they mean by the term, if one wishes to abstrusely include such individual author definitions. I did not used to believe they were Daoist influenced, but it is the opinion of such persons as Michael Loewe of the Cambridge History and Sinologist Goldin of the Stanford Encyclopedia. I can evolve the writing only out of the sources, it does not matter what I believe or what anyone believes.FourLights (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/184.97.137.39FourLights (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that FourLights' merry-go-round of "Legalism doesn't exist in any meaningful way, which means its article needs to be absolutely massive and filled with extraneous detail" is still happily turning. Completely illogical, of course, but I don't think FourLights has ever stopped to think about the logic of their own actions. There's an interesting thought experiment here: how many of the hundreds of thousands of people who have come to look at this article since FourLights began to edit it have been so completely bewildered that they lose any interest in Chinese philosophy? 1% - 10,000 perhaps?
Well, no matter. As FourLights says, "Bringing together an article together takes time"—in this case the time and edits taken have been far more than any other editor in Wikipedia history, and all to reach a C-class article.
I was originally going to propose a page-block for FourLights a while back, but I don't think we should, for two reasons: 1) I think it's better that he wants to focus his destructive tendencies on one article, rather than many, and 2) as long as he's editing this page, he's an excellent example for newer editors on how not to edit Wikipedia articles. Sorry IP, but it's probably for the best that this page will never be improved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AJM, while you know I share your concerns about this and very much understand how someone could be frustrated for these reasons, there was very little reason for you to be this venomous here. A short ANI post would've been sufficient. Remsense诉 11:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its present state was only started recently. keeping in mind that there are sections to add, this isn't actual feedback. At any rate, although busy, I'll try to do some minor work on it today, without feedback. Prior more writing, it would likely amount simply to truncation and reorganization.
At the moment I've have largely done minor editing, reorganization and expansion, more than filled in with new sections, requires its own dedicated effort. Work some in that regard can be useful regardless of how the page can be reorganized in the future, but there is no sourced page here prior me, so there is little to insult me about. I cannot object that some details may be extraneous or misplaced, but you could name one and I could work on it. Or I could add content with more central details. I am not working with anyone at the moment, and I don't claim all central has yet been added. Without someone to work with to read and provide feedback, it will just be me proceeding however I think is best. It would not be airshipjungleman, not at the moment anyway.FourLights (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, the term you are looking for is early Daoistic thinkers. I need to be more clear that we will be talking about things like wu wei, following the dao, and fa as acquiescence. In-order to be more clear about this, I have centralized Daoistic materials. reorganized end material on them not being primarily Legalists as would be understood modernly. I'll have to do some work later dividing up a reference stack. So the feedback was still useful.
And remember, while I do have work for Shang Yang on roster, implementing Cambridge material for it's page, and we can hopefully talk more about penal law, it was only part of Shang Yang's broader sociopolitical program and agriculture and war, wealth and power, as a fundamental thesis of SChwartz-Hansen--Loewe/Cambriedge-Pines/SEP. There is much more to talk aboUt than penal law, even for Shang Yang. His programs originates in the Warring States mobilization.FourLights (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And remember that Jia Yi was also a Legalist.FourLights (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current work

[edit]

I am currently reviewing Stringerland's work to implement more Daoist information for the Wu Wei page, but it should have some use here.FourLights (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Evolutionary view of history" will have some rewriting to utilize such sources as Pine's content in the Dao Companion, as to smooth it out. I should be able to resume writing the Shang Yangian doctrine of wealth and power.FourLights (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, a quality Guodian secondary commentary can be found, rather than the more primaries and theoretical secondary I have now.FourLights (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to more reading Shen Dao's fragments in search of commentary to better divide him into his various introductory contexts.FourLights (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ordering of the bibliography/sources section

[edit]

Hello, @FourLights. I have noticed the inconsistency in the bibliography/sources section of the article. Most times with articles with a long sources/bibliography section will have an order to them either by alphabetizing the list or putting the list in chronological order to help finding specific sources more easier. There are three ways that you can do it:

  • If you want to do alphabetizing, it is done by the last name of the author by the book.
  • If you want to do it in chronological order, it is done by the date of the oldest book to the date of the newest book and so forth.
  • I do not recommend using a sortable table for your article as it'll break the SFNs and HARV citations.

If you want me to do it, I will gladly do it if you ask me. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards chronological. I do not want it organized alphabetically. If you would enjoy doing it I appreciate that.lFourLights (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will reorganize the sources some myself. The rest would be done after the page is more developed and source reviewed again.FourLights (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship jungleman wishlist

[edit]

Airship jungleman apparently wishes me to discuss the daodejing more. Although I don't consider it a priority, it will be added to this wish list here. It may receive additional relevant passing commentary. FourLights (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Censure section does not need external attention. I am already aware that it needs consolidation. It would be a waste of effort at this time. After I finish tidying it up and reduce more extraneous content, I may split it into two sections. I have an extra unincorporated Pines reference for it's content.FourLights (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction isn't done either, it will be reorganized again when I put together a wu wei section.FourLights (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More law

[edit]

there will be more inclusion of law for the page called legalism. It won't make things any better in the long run though.FourLights (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tremendously Large Number of Edits

[edit]

I don't want to give you the impression I'm anyone of note. I just wanted to tell you that the number of edits you make on this particular article -- at least 500+ per week -- consistently land it in the top 10 of edited Wikipedia articles, every single week, as diaried on Weeklypedia. Just as a thought, you may want to keep a copy of the article in your sandbox and edit it there. Again, I have no official position with Wikipedia and this isn't meant as chiding. You obviously care about this topic a great deal. MollyRealized (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although eventually I would retrace everything, I haven't lost anything significant recently, just some Confucian related comment I can go try and dig up. Most of this month was minor reorganization and stupid brainstorming.FourLights (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I "cared a great deal" about it one point. It would be more accurate that I get out less than I used to, I eventually plan to relocate.FourLights (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later portions of the article have to be reworked. Although it wouldn't be done, at that point it would be more stable. I'll keep your... suggestion in mind though.FourLights (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Retinalsummer (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will be devoting more time to relocating, come back if you want me to increase or further decrease my editing rate.FourLights (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current goals

[edit]

I can fix up the content currently under "Military reform and realism", writing about Shang Yang's current will be an entire project. There is no document detailing this, it's constructed out of the Book of Lord Shang - hence, I will have to read and correlate the entirety of Pines notes in both editions of his Book of Lord Shang, along with that of third sources, of which the only that currently springs to mind is the Cambridge History and a 169$ work I don't plan on getting immediately. At least I am a capable researcher.FourLights (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can split the "changing with the times" section though.FourLights (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)&oldid=1246617348"