Seminal thinkers such as Confucius, Laozi, Buddha, and Socrates articulated value systems that facilitated cultural integration in their respective civilizations.

Question

True or False Human Geography question over Directions, Diversities, and Decline by 500 CE.

Answer 1

I would say that this is generally true, though it's not as though cultural integration was immediate, nor was it the primary goal of each of the thinkers you mention. Here is a general overview of how this question relates to each individual thinker:

1. Confucius and Laozi
2. Living during the later part of the Chinese Warring States period (7th-5th centuries BCE), both Confucius and Laozi witnessed and responded to the instability and bloodshed prompted by the period's characteristic warfare. Confucius' response stressed the need for rigid social hierarchy in order to maintain and peaceful and harmonious society. By contrast, Laozi's response advocated for a life lived in accordance with the way (the Dao), and a complete ironic detachment from the brutality of the physical world. Despite their suppression under the legalistic Qin Dynasty (221-206 BCE), both of these thinkers saw themselves as merely transmitting wisdom from a more ancient and exalted Chinese past, and as such their thought contained elements that made them attractive to a wider Chinese audience as both systems came to play key roles in the ideology of the rapidly expanding Han Dynasty (202 BCE - 220 CE). In particular, Confucianism's emphasis on filial piety and ancestor worship was a major theme in earlier Chinese writings (namely oracle bone inscriptions, and the I Ching), and helped make Confucianism easy to adapt to already-present forms of folk and ancestor worship. Similarly, Daoism's emphasis on the the transcendent sage was also a common theme in wider Chinese folk religions. These more malleable aspects of Daoism and Confucianism allowed the systems to become integrated with Buddhism toward the end of the Han Dynasty, resulting in the wide range of amalgamated religious traditions that have flourished in China ever since.
3. Buddha
4. The teachings of the Buddha and other renouncers (Sramanas--e.g., Jainism's Mahavira, or Ajivikism's Makkhali Gosala) were largely a response to Vedic teachings and practices. Vedism (the religion that eventually became what we now call Hinduism) developed in Punjab in northwestern India, and stressed the importance of varna (loosely translated as "caste"), samsara (transmigration of soul, or the cycle of birth and rebirth), karma (intentional action), dharma (duty), and ritual sacrifice. These aspects of Vedism had significant cultural implications that the Buddha sought to address. To simplify a bit, Vedic society was rigidly ordered, with the top two varnas controlling nearly all political, economic, and religious power. It was thought that people born to these varnas were were being rewarded for their actions (karma) in previous lives being well in accordance with the duties imposed by the cosmic order (dharma). As such, any objection to these varnas and whatever they chose to do with their power, was seen as petty gripes of those trying to redirect blame for their own personal shortcomings. By contrast, the sramana traditions developed in northeastern India, in the Gangetic valley and in a region called Doab. While Vedic peoples had made it to these regions, they were far from the Vedic homeland of Punjab, so ties to traditional Vedic ways of life were more open to review. In their teachings, Sramanas like the Buddha sought either to reinterpret restrictive Vedic practices and doctrines in more palatable ways. Probably the clearest example is the Sramana movements' de-emphasis on varna. These traditions all taught that varna was at its best, inconsequential to living a good life, and at worst, a completely artificial concept. These innovations made the sramana movements and teachings significantly more inclusive than its Vedic predecessors and as such allowed for greater cultural integration in wider South Asia.
5. Socrates
6. My personal opinion is that Socrates is a bit of a black sheep among these thinkers. While certainly a figure of unparalleled fame in the history of "Western" (whatever that means) philosophy, I'd argue that Socrates didn't really articulate any particular value system, thanks in no small part to the fact that he famously never wrote anything. Pretty much all we know of Socrates we get from Plato. It's been argued that Plato's earliest dialogues (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Gorgias, etc.) are the ones that best capture the real life personality of Socrates. In these dialogues, Socrates applies the elenchus (what we now call the Socratic method of questioning) to his interlocutors' arguments until the interlocutors contradict themselves. If we take this hypothesis seriously, then it is only later on in Plato's career with dialogues like Republic, Phaedo, and Theaetetus that the character of Socrates gains recognizable opinions on virtue, knowledge, politics, and metaphysics. With that in mind, it's definitely fair to say that the character of Socrates was influential across time and cultures. Figures as disparate as Epictetus the Roman stoic, al-Kindi the early Arab philosopher, Judah Halevi the medieval Jewish philosopher, Dante Alighieri (of Inferno fame), and innumerable others have lavished praise upon Socrates for his apparent virtue.

I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have further questions about this.