Along with Taoism and Buddhism, Confucianism is called one of the "three great teachings" or "three great religions" of China, and has had an enormous influence not just on China but the entire Far East. This was on Good Reading's list of "100 Significant Books" and there's no question this is one of those books anyone who wishes to consider themselves educated should be familiar with. Reading it you can certainly see a lot of the hallmarks of traditional Chinese culture with its emphasis on family and education. Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC) is thus one of those thinkers it's truly important to know.
Yet three stars is actually being generous, and reflects more that I think this is a must read for historical reasons than any affinity with the material--I found reading this a slog. Admittedly as a Westerner I'm at a disadvantage. I may not count myself a believing Christian, but as an American I was steeped in a Christian-dominated culture, where even the cartoons on Saturday morning often had Biblical stories or motifs. So, of course, something like the Bible is going to be much more accessible, and I thought a lot of the time with The Analects, I was missing the context, never mind the issue of various translations. Even with the Bible though, which is more a library than a single book, some parts were more enjoyable, more moving or thought-provoking than others, as with actual stories or the poetry. The closest Biblical analogue to The Analects are Proverbs, a collection of wisdom sayings. The content of The Analects are aphorisms, not arguments. This isn't a philosophy in the way of Aristotle or Plato, with questions, dialogue, arguments. This a compilation by disciples of Confucius of his sayings that, without commentary or footnotes, run to no more than about 100 pages. Are there some gems here, some surprises? Sure. I was particularly taken with this formulation of the Golden Rule:
Zigong asked: "Is there any single word that could guide one's entire life?" The Master said: "Should it not be reciprocity? What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." (Simon Leys trans., p 77)
Nevertheless, I read this right after reading Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching, also on that list of significant books, and despite my Westerner perspective meaning I probably missed a lot, and it had a lot that was cryptic, I both enjoyed it more and found it more congenial. The Tao is made up of 81 brief verses, each of which is self-contained if related in outlook, while The Analects felt more scattered to me. I also preferred the philosophy in the Tao to that of The Analects. A lot of commentators connect the two, and there is even a tradition that Lao Tzu was a teacher of Confucius, but some scholars actually think Taoism was a reaction to and critique of Confucianism, and they seem opposites--at least from my casual read of the two texts back to back--I admit I'm not a scholar of Chinese philosophy. Both share a lack of recourse to the supernatural I find appealing. These are secular ethics recommended for a good life, not for a reward in an afterlife, which is why they're more philosophies than religions, even if these books don't really present logical, reasoned arguments. But while the Tao puts an emphasis on the natural, Confucius puts it on ritual. Where the Tao calls for non-interference by government, Confucius seems to call for submission to tradition and authority. Filial piety seems the highest value. In at least one introduction--to an edition of the Tao actually, it did point out that along with the Tao principle of non-force, the Confucian regard for the family over the state has been at least one form of resistance to it. But it's hard for me to admire as a sage a man who values "filial piety" so highly, and who defines it as "not being disobedient." Note this passage:
The Master said, "In serving his parents, a son may remonstrate with them, but gently; when he sees that they do not incline to follow his advice, he shows an increased degree of reverence, but does not abandon his purpose; and should they punish him, he does not allow himself to murmur."
So I admit I don't feel I got a lot out of reading this book, nor do I feel inspired at this point to dig further. On the other hand, I did find even getting the flavor, the gist, of such an influential way of thinking made it worth reading.
