ABSTRACT It has recently been argued that in Analects 17.21, Confucius advises a disciple to do something that he, Confucius, believes to be morally wrong. According to Frederick Choo, despite believing that it is morally wrong to not properly observe the three-year mourning ritual for a deceased parent, Confucius tells Zai Wo that he should do so. Choo offers two justifications for Confucius’s doing this. In this essay, I argue that the justifications Choo offers for Confucius’s advising Zai Wo to (...) do what he believes to be morally wrong are untenable. Indeed, I argue that Confucius does not, in fact, advise Zai Wo to do what he believes to be morally wrong. Instead, I argue that Confucius’s advice to Zai Wo in Analects 17.21 is best understood as an expression of exasperation and sarcasm. (shrink)

Scholars have often recognized the “touch of irony” in Kongzi’s “collected conversations” (Lunyu 論語 or Analects of Confucius). Some interpreters have taken the ironic face as one of his faces. Others have celebrated the ironic Kongzi as the “true” depiction of the Master. This paper presents two seemingly contrasting images of Kongzi – the non-ironic sage and the ironic non-sage – and looks at their assumptions. I then explore the methodological implications of taking the Master’s irony seriously. I argue that, (...) touching upon irony, any interpretation is necessarily touched by it – it renders itself ironic. Finally, I discuss the post-comparative approach as an ironic approach. Post-comparative readings recognize that identity is the necessary condition for the transformation of identity. In this way, Kongzi’s irony is transformed by but also transforms more familiar, non-Chinese discourses on irony. (shrink)