What are the differences between Confucius and Aristotle in regards to virtue?
I think their definition of virtues is very similar in the sense that both emphasized the importance of not being excessive and also not being deficient. Both considered taking the middle ground is always the best.For example, shyness and shamelessness are both bad but modesty is good.“Virtue of middle ground”, so to speak.But it is possible that the emphasis of respecting and loving one’s own parents as the absolute law of the society could be considered kind of extreme in the case of Confucius.That means for Confucius, there are certain laws that can not be compromised.So they regulated the custom in such a way that they set up social classes depending on how loyally you follow the Confucian principle. If you are a scholar who learned and practiced well on major principles of Confucius, you are considered essentially a high class human being (elite) regardless of your wealth.On the other hand, in the capitalistic society people tend to consider you are a high class human being if you are rich, which is not entirely true in Confucian society, because they can consider you are simply a snob depending on your behavior (interactions) with other human beings.For example, Trump may be rich and powerful, but his use of verbiage is not of highly educated human being of high standard of morality that makes him a snob from the view point of the Confucian philosophy.
I want to read the works of great philosophers. In what order should I read them?
I strongly recommend against starting with the histories of philosophy written by Bertrand Russell and William Durant. They are popular and entertaining, but they are also grossly inaccurate. There are still good reasons to read Russell’s history, but don’t start with it. I cannot recommend Anthony Kenny’s four volume History of Western Philosophy highly enough. You can also get it in one huge volume. Amazon.com: A New History of Western Philosophy (9780199656493): Anthony Kenny: BooksIf you’re reading on your own and not taking a class then it might be best to start there, since even the most accessible primary texts will be better appreciated if you already have some context. That history might also give you a better idea of which of the great philosophers you want to dive into first. But for recommendations of great philosophical works that are easier to get into when you first take an interest in philosophy, here are a few:Plato - not only the most foundational figure in Western philosophy, but maybe also the most approachable. The Five Dialogues (containing Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo) and The Republic are good starting points. Theaetetus might be another good one.St. Augustine’s The Confessions is the intellectual autobiography of one of the most important philosophers.Rene Descartes’ Meditations on the First Philosophy is the seminal work of modern philosophy.
What parallels exist between Confucius and ancient Stoics?
I have often thought that Stoicism and Cynicism filled the same complementary (or perhaps rival) roles as Confucianism and Daoism. Daoism and Cynicism both have an element of primitivism, both traditions produced a lot of mendicants, and both eschew treatises and systematic thinking in favor of a more literary approach. Stoicism and Confucianism both take society as an organic unity, with Stoics using a body metaphor and Confucians a family metaphor.More importantly, though, Stoicism and Confucianism have a similar view of virtue. In Stoicism, you don’t pursue virtue because it leads to pleasure, or as a means to any other end. Virtue is a means to virtue, and that’s it. Virtue is a state or quality of a person to be pursued for its own sake, and everything is evaluated based on its potential to make you a better or worse person, more or less virtuous. Confucianism is similar; the Analects prescribes a number of acts as virtuous, but claims that it’s the inner disposition that really determines if an act is virtuous, rather than the act itself:Zi You asked about the meaning of filial piety. Confucius said, “Nowadays filial piety means being able to feed your parents. But everyone does this for even horses and dogs. Without respect, what's the difference?”Analects 2:7There are differences, of course. Confucian ren (“humaneness” is a common translation) seems to be based on ones inward emotional state, whereas Stoic virtue is more of a brute ontological thing: regardless of your emotional or cognitive state, you simply are or are not virtuous, and the actions of your judgment and reason will indicate that. And while both are philosophies of government to some extent, Confucianism tilts more toward society and Stoicism more toward the individual.I say all of that, however, with the caveat that exegesis on Confucius has been going on for two thousand years and this answer oversimplifies a lot of things. For example, there are parts of the Analects that seem to suggest that ren is basically an ineffable quality, with Confucius saying he doesn't know if so-and-so is ren. I'm hardly a scholar of Chinese philosophy, so take it all with a grain of salt.