Talk:Four Books and Five Classics

I Agree

Yes, I believe that the Four Books articleshould be merged with the Five Classics article. After all, they are a set of related Chinese classics. Sungrad (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sungrad. Such a merger would simplify things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.49.119 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose that this article be merged with Thirteen Classics to form an article called "Confucian classics", giving a narrative with sections "Five Classics", "Thirteen Classics" and "Four Books". This would be different from Chinese classics, which also includes non-Confucian works. Kanguole 18:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "Four Books and Five Classics" is very recognizable within Chinese literature, and it is a well-known canon. Whereas I think the term "Confucian classics is too broad, and the article Chinese classics already pertains to this idea.--Sevilledade (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Four Books and Five Classics are indeed well-known canons, as is the Thirteen Classics, which were an expansion from the Five Classics and from which the Four Books were selected. I'm saying that they're aspects of the same topic, and that to cover that topic properly one would want to discuss the evolution of this canon from the Six Classics, then the Five Classics, gradually expanded through to the Kaicheng Stone Classics and the Thirteen Classics, followed by Zhu Xi's selection of the Four Books. As I said above, Chinese classics is broader, also including non-Confucian works. Kanguole 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Drop reference to editing by Confucius

The line reading "These books, or parts of them, were either commented, compiled, or edited by Confucius himself" should be dropped. This tradition is not accepted by modern scholars. See, for example, Michael Nylan, The Five "Confucian" Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). ~entenman

please add German link

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BCnf_Klassiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.172.89 (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Last sentence of Great Learning

As written "Government, self-cultivation and investigation of things are linked" is ambiguous. Is this what is taught in this book? Is this what follows from employing those teachings? Is it the starting assumption? Is it a problem to overcome? Arbalest Mike (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If someone doesn't edit this dangling sentence, and the last sentence of the next section (Doctrine of the Mean) soon, I will remove them. They are probably significant but, as written, are statements of fact rather than being related to the book being discussed. Arbalest Mike (talk)

Done -- removed dangling sentences. They could be added back in if expressed as claims of the book under discussion. As written, they look like statements of fact. Arbalest Mike (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes

I didn't write this article, but I am reading more on the subject. If anyone else reads the subject, I thought we might make notes.

I'd like to note to start that Hansen and others consider the evidence that Confucius read the Book of Changes to be slim. FourLights (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)