Hens, Ducks, & Human Rights In China

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Hens, Ducks, & Human Rights In China

Post by Philosophy Now »

Vittorio Bufacchi & Xiao Ouyang discuss some philosophical & linguistic difficulties.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118/He ... s_In_China
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Hens, Ducks, & Human Rights In China

Post by A_Seagull »

Nice article.

It is all very well in politics (and philosophy) to proclaim that one's own particular paradigm is the best and to demonstrate how other paradigms don't tally with one's own paradigm. But it is logically invalid to claim that another paradigm is invalid because it does not fit with one's own paradigm. In order to claim that a different paradigm is invalid it must be shown to be logically inconsistent using the criteria of the other paradigm.
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Hens, Ducks, & Human Rights In China

Post by marjoram_blues »

The article questions whether the Western language of 'human rights' is untranslatable or unintelligible to the Chinese; or ' as the Chinese proverb says, it's a case of a hen talking to a duck.

Underneath is a cartoon of a duck standing in protest against a line of 4 hens - by Frederico de Ciccio.
Clearly referring to 'Tank Man' who temporarily stopped progression of tanks in Tiananmen Square, June 1989. This was an armed suppression of pro-democratic movement.

So, the proverb in a way belittles the reality which is not so much about any concept being unrecognisable to the Chinese rather the overpowering will of politics.

Not a case of a hen talking to a duck but physical suppression. Uncaring and not even listening.

To suggest it is a mere matter of linguistic problems is quite ridiculous. The authors appeal to aspects of Chinese philosophy that recognises 'human rights' as a way of 'protecting people from unnecessary suffering and to advocate their well-being'. The cardinal virtue is 'to love and care for people'.
They suggest the way forward would be to give up the term 'human rights' and ...' as the Daoist would say: sometimes it's best to leave things unsaid.

According to the authors, to foster political co-operation between China and the West, we need a set of political and comparative philosophers who would play a key role to this paradigm shift.

Really ?
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Hens, Ducks, & Human Rights In China

Post by marjoram_blues »

if not 'human rights', then what about 'humanity'?

German chancellor, Angela Merkel, joins in international condemnation. She urges China's leaders to show some humanity and allow dying dissident Liu Xiabo to be taken overseas.

According to a Communist party-controlled tabloid, the international community is taking Liu 'hostage' and using his cause to attack China.

It continues: 'Today's China is stronger and more confident and will not yield to western pressure'.

So how would, or should, the comparative philosophers respond with their 'words' of wisdom...to resolve this issue, linguistically ?
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Hens, Ducks, & Human Rights In China

Post by marjoram_blues »

A_Seagull wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:41 pm Nice article.

It is all very well in politics (and philosophy) to proclaim that one's own particular paradigm is the best and to demonstrate how other paradigms don't tally with one's own paradigm. But it is logically invalid to claim that another paradigm is invalid because it does not fit with one's own paradigm. In order to claim that a different paradigm is invalid it must be shown to be logically inconsistent using the criteria of the other paradigm.
:)
Indeed. Yes. What ?

Do you think that this article has a compelling argument ?
Post Reply