I'm not sure what the intent of this lecture was supposed to be but what we got was a very generic history lesson with nearly zero content as to WHAT neo-Confucianism is, its core ideas and values, HOW it compares to other philosophical systems, and WHY E. Asia felt the need for a revival of Confucian ideas in lieu of established Buddhism. The subtext of the lecture also seemed to be that neo-Confucianism is a quaint and "stuffy" school of thought, but possessing benign intentions and doing some good along the way. I think the professor does not do justice to what made and makes Neo-Confucianism unique and practical. It's unfortunate that E. Asians themselves do not seem to comprehend the uniqueness of their own traditions. To appreciate Taoism, Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism, you do have to be somewhat a philosopher. And admittedly, the professor said he is not. Just to add something about Neo-Confucianism, although I am not an expert: it didn't simply look back to the past to rediscover itself, but absorbed the teachings of Taoism and Buddhism as well, and looked forward. Neo-Confucianism was a syncretic school of thought that attempted to combine the transcendence and spiritual depth of the competing schools with practical application to everyday life. Confucianism is centrally a humanist system of philosophy, the first of its kind in the world, devoid of gods and edicts from heaven, no dogmas and dogmatism, but specifically modeled to serve man for man and constructed by men, and infinitely flexible.
