I agree with the author on the centrality of ritual in 荀子. But I find the author's suggestion that we should invent new rituals hubristic and naive.

We Chinese have lost the ritualistic practices that undergirded society 2500 years ago. Let us therefore just come up with a new set?

Who have been the most successful at inventing new rituals for our age? The Axis Powers starting with the 1936 Olympics. Hmm.

The author needs to read the first few pages of Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue

It is hard to explain, but there is something soothing about rituals, whatever they may be. Like watching a movie that you love for the n-th time, feeling safe in knowing how things will play out.

About 20 years ago I bought an expensive bottle of cognac on a whim. But then I wasn't sure when to drink it, or under what circumstances. After some thought I decided to drink from it only on notable occasions. Note that I'm not talking about "special occasions" (birthdays, New Year's Eve, etc), although there is some overlap between notable and special occasions.

I have defined a notable occasion as being a life-altering event: the birth of a child, the purchase of a house, retiring, etc. But a notable occasion can also be sad: the death of a parent or a friend, a bad medical diagnosis, and so on. I don't drink from it every year, and the bottle is still about 2/3 full. Although I've mostly drank from it due to the notable occasions being happy, some were sad. It turns out that (for me) the mere sight of the bottle gives me a feeling of peace. It helps me accept the past, but it also helps me dream of the future.

I think the other top-level posters (at the moment) are missing the meaning "ritual" as defined in the article. (I'm not familiar with Xunzi, so can't comment on its overall accuracy to his philosophy.)

In the article, "ritual" is almost ridiculously capacious: it seems to be any social action or societal assumption that conditions our unreflective behavior in any way.

Cross the street against the light when no cars are coming (even though there aren't police around)? That's "ritual", by this definition - and, anyone who's traveled can tell you that behavior varies widely, even amongst superficially-similar regions and cultures.

I think it's a useful concept, and it's a pity that discussion seems to be being led astray by a confusion with the (mutch narrower) conventional definition of the word. Is there a similarly pithy term that might apply instead?

Over the years, I've seen many charlatans use eastern references to manipulate western audiences.

These kinds of texts, therefore, must be taken with caution. Which parts are "actual wisdom that I can apply to my life", and which parts are my own mind playing a trick of "it's old, and it's eastern, it's humble and it's philosophical, therefore is wisdom I can apply to my life".

So, I'm not questioning whether there is wisdom there or not. I'm questioning whether I can apply that wisdom to my life, through western eyes.

This part is particularly troubling:

> The first four points are essential to any 21st century ruling ideology that aims to be both moral and effective

Again, not saying that there isn't wisdom here. But should I apply this kind of wisdom using western eyes? I, personally, think I shouldn't.

> Human desires are many, and the resources to satisfy them are few. Left to their own devices, people will contend with each other, and the destruction and chaos leaves everyone worse off. The ruler replaces the chaos with order by establishing the state and elevating the worthy to positions of controlling authority.

This, I think, is the core assumption of authoritarianism, and, I think, is false.

Yes there are people who behave like this. But it's not the majority, and communities are capable of dealing with them internally without imposing an authority on them.

The one caveat is, obviously, that this only really works in a world without violence. If the bad folks are able to use violence to get what they want, then any community can be threatened by a large enough group of bad folks who are prepared to use violence. This leads, ultimately, to the authoritarian rule of the most competently violent. The state has a monopoly on the use of violence and enforces its rules on its citizens with the threat of violence. The "elevation of the worthy to positions of controlling authority" is a violent act.

But the underlying assumption that people cannot work together unless forced to by an authority, I think is false. I think that people will naturally work together and create harmonious communities if left to their own devices.

I could be an idealistic fool, though.

Ritual is an actual waste of resources that demonstrates commitment. Someone wastes time, effort, comfort and/or security in order to play out a ritual that is explicitly dedicated to a particular principle or goal, a ritual often involving symbolic rehearsal of the behaviors expected of initiated adherents.

The senseless destruction of one's own resources is a demonstration that one will be willing to make the sacrifices expected of the initiated. Destroying resources senselessly is a signal of dedication, especially during a ritual process usually consisting of articulating and rehearsing a set of values, values expressed as deserving of sacrifice.

Expensive rituals discourage multiple commitments.

Also, sunk cost fallacy is a real motivator. Initiation rituals involve spending big before you see any benefit from a thing. They make it more likely that you will last until you see benefits, which is important for groups that also have to invest in initiates. Checkpoint and daily rituals are maintenance of that sunk cost.

edit: these are extremely useful things, even if I'm being a little cold about them. If somebody spent three months preparing for their initiation into the Anaheim Roller Coaster Fanatics, I'm not going to think twice about having them hold the club's $400 treasury. If somebody chants a poem about being loyal to our religion every time they drink a glass of water, I'm not going to be overly paranoid leaving my kids with them. It's the basis of affinity frauds, the assuming of ritual adherence.

Something I learned over the years, claims of ancient grandeur about some esoteric ritual or mythology doesn’t make it automatically great.

As general idea of rituals go, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that (any) ritual gives cravings of certainty of that rigid states of mind and that delicious centrality to our passing being here on earth (as opposed to cold indifferent randomness of life),

It’s more fulfilling ritual wise and to fill your ancient wisdom shaped hole, if you make a habit to read Shakespeare or Montaigne or someone you know and understand (as you can retroactively read, question and speak to the author in your head)

I’m having a bit of bad trip for sometime now, having realized ancient Indian mythologies are just (different versions of) Ancient Greek Homeric myths. That made me question assumptions of grandeur we make about “ancient” texts without giving it much thought.

P.S : To my fellow western geeks, Marcus Aurelius and Greek and western canon is the way if you’re searching for ancient wisdom, largely speaking eastern philosophy is not that thought provoking as “content writers” or Steve Jobs make it to be (evidently), it’s just that esoteric or exotic to you!

Thanks op for a wonderful writeup. I was not familiar with the subject and was left better for it. Regards.

Assuming the translation is reasonably decent - the word "ritual" is doing some heavy lifting.

Why on earth is this here? Are we going to dive in on the Bible, Torah and Quran too?

No, of course not. This is wankery of the first order.