7.1 & 7.2: I found these two chapters to be somewhat inconsistent with various other parts of the text. Throughout all ten books, Kongzi often condemns arrogance and the desire for acknowledgement, while praising humility (1.1: “To go unacknowledged by others without harboring frustration—is this not the mark of an exemplary person,” 1.16: “Don’t worry about not being acknowledged by others; worry about failing to acknowledge them,” 8.11: “If a person with talents more admirable than those of the Duke of Zhou is arrogant and niggardly, the rest is not worthy of notice,” etc). I thought it was interesting how, in these two chapters, Kongzi pats himself on the back by referencing ways in which he has followed his own teachings. He considers himself as venerable as the legendary Peng Zu and congratulates his own quiet perseverance. He even asks, “is this not me?”, directly asking his audience to acknowledge his feats. I found this inconsistent with his typical emphasis on humility and condemnation of arrogance.

2.7: This concept is consistent with Van Norden’s classification of Kongzi as a virtue ethicist. Here, he notes that, even with correct action, one cannot truly be performing filial conduct unless their character follows. Without respect, you essentially equate your parents to animals. A consequentialist might argue that simply providing for one’s parents is adequate because it creates more happiness than a failure to provide, and having respect for one’s parents doesn’t create much additional tangible happiness. Kant might argue that one cannot be faulted for not harboring feelings of respect for their parents because they cannot control their own emotions. But Kongzi truly values filial piety embedded in one’s character, which manifests as respect. I also found this line to be consistent with Konzi’s advice to and judgement of his student in 17.21. Despite his emphasis on ritual, particularly when it comes to ancestors and parents, Kongzi gives his student permission to cease the ritual period of mourning his parents simply because he no longer feels mournful. He later condemns the student for lacking the emotions consistent with filial conduct. Similarly, Kongzi believes that true inner feeling/belief has primary importance over outward appearance. He believes that, without the right character, action makes no difference and might as well not be taken.

1.15: The line, "poor but enjoying the way" made me think about Van Norden’s comments on the limitations of Confucianism, particularly that it lacks a pluralistic idea of living well or “enjoying the way.” If doing so is to “bathe in the Yi River and enjoy the breeze upon the Rain Dance Altar, and then return singing to the Master’s house,” a suggestion that Kongzi approves of in 11.26, then to enjoy the way seems much more accessible to certain subpopulations than to others. I wonder how Kongzi imagined someone who is “poor but enjoying the way,” and whether this deviated from his image of someone who is rich but enjoying the way. The former, maybe a farmer or merchant, might not be able to take a day to frolic and dance without losing income or even their job. Does this necessarily mean they are not living well, or remaining true to the way?