This paper was one of two longer writing pieces for my Main Streams of Chinese Philosophy course with Dr. Win-chiat Lee. Dr. Lee had some of the most relaxed expectations for writing assignments out of all professors in the philosophy department. He tolerated all kinds of writing and argumentation. This paper was written to a prompt question about the functions of li or ritual action in ancient Chinese society. It was to be about eight pages in length and written to a philosophically inclined audience. I did not use any sources outside of class readings as I stuck to the provided prompt rather tightly. Papers in this course excited me because of their unusually free nature. I remember having a bit of fun with these because I could express whatever writing style I wished. This piece is rampant with creative anecdotes; the introduction is not thesis driven but is rather mostly occupied by an extended story. I could get personal and that excited my ambition.

A considerable portion of this paper was spent detailing the representations of li found in the writings of Confucius and Xunzi. I had to make the case that li was both something that these philosophers cared a great deal about and that they prioritized over other obligations. Even though this section was rather straightforward, I still managed to find space to insert my own creative quips. I returned to an early analogy about vending machines and Diet Coke more times than might have been appropriate. However, this confidence did produce some useful argumentation. One entire paragraph is just an application of the ancient conception of ritual action to a modern context. I likened Xunzi’s perpetuation and protection of li to one of my professor’s insistence on having a greeting delivered in unison at the start of every class period. I can now see that this was actually a concise explanation of the terminology that did not go too far off track. These quips did sacrifice the time and effort that I should have used to flesh out more of my argument. Dr. Lee and I agreed in conference that I did not spend enough of my paper explaining what I meant by “residual effect”. This paper marks an interesting point in my writing development in that I think it captures a turning point in my establishment of a philosophy-specific writerly identity. Something was changing within me that adjusted my writing to become more confident and less pedantic.