Oct 28, 2009

Philosophical Phun - Comparitive Philosophy :o)

Comparative philosophy brings together philosophical traditions that have developed in relative isolation from one another and that are defined quite broadly along cultural and regional lines — Chinese versus Western, for example.

One benefit of comparative philosophy lies in the way that it forces reflection on the most deeply entrenched and otherwise unquestioned agendas and assumptions of one's own tradition. Another benefit at which its practioners often aim is that the traditions actually interact and enrich one another.

Chinese philosophy is “wisdom” literature, composed primarily of stories and sayings designed to move the audience to adopt a way of life or to confirm its adoption of that way of life. Western philosophy is systematic argumentation and theory. [Since the revolutionary war, our country has displayed the attributes of being contrarian, almost to a fault]

Is it right to say that Chinese philosophy is invitational while Western philosophy is argumentative? One answer is that there is a difference but that it is more a matter of degree than an absolute contrast. It was Aristotle, after all, who said that discussions about the good in human life cannot be properly assimilated by the young because they do not have enough experience of life (Nichomachean Ethics I.3). [I found this perspective quite interesting. I think there is a lot to be said for life experience before we can even begin to think of judging others]

It is true that much Western philosophy, especially of the late modern variety, and most especially emanating from the United Kingdom and North America, attempts to establish its claims through argumentation that is more rigorous than appeals to experience and explanatory power in the broad sense. [This has been true on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats both have shown their own ability to be bellicose in their beliefs and positions]

Confucianism is a perfectionist virtue ethic if such an ethic is distinguished by its central focus on three subjects: character traits identified as the virtues; the good and worthwhile life; and particularist modes of ethical reasoning. These three subjects are interrelated. The parallels to ancient Greek virtue ethics, medieval virtue ethics, and also to contemporary virtue ethics in the West are striking, and help to account for the renewal of Western interest in Confucianism.

A frequent criticism from the Western side is that Confucianism fails to provide adequate protection to those legitimate interests an individual has that may conflict with community interests. On the other side, some advocates of Confucian ethics criticize rights-focused moralities for ignoring the social nature of human beings and of portraying human life in an excessively “atomistic” or “individualist” conception of persons (e.g., Rosemont, 1986). Against those who argue that Confucianism does not protect the individual enough, it could be replied that the Confucian framework of responsibilities to others can afford significant protections to the individual and arguably addresses the human need for community and belonging better than rights frameworks (Rosemont, 1991, 2004). Another criticism from the Western side is that the dignity of the individual cannot be honored without recognition of individual rights. It has been replied, however, that dignity can lie in one's human capacity to participate in the distinctively human life of relationship and in living up to one's responsibilities to others (Ihara, 2004). [I think this difference if perspective provides exceptional insight into the difference in human rights perspective between the East and West]


In East Asian societies the importance placed on social hierarchy provides an outlet for the rich and powerful members of these societies to distinguish themselves, whereas in socially egalitarian societies such as the U.S., the primary outlet is through the accumulation of wealth, and hence the relative economic equality of East Asian societies as compared to Western societies such as the U.S. On the other side, a tradition that has tended to value the idea of social harmony at the cost of sufficiently protecting dissenters who desire to point out abuses of power or just plain bad thinking by authorities would do well to look at another tradition that does not value social harmony as highly but has endured and is vigorous. [At this point, I think we have something to learn from the East, we certainly could use more social harmony, even at the expense of individualism. No I am by no means a socialist, but I certainly do not agree with the degree of acrimony that our country is currently displaying]


So tell me, what are your thoughts regarding healing the rift we have in our country, between our Western culture and the Eastern culture. What will you do differently tomorrow to bring both sides together?

5 comments:

  1. I confess that I am amazed that one individual could post three adjacent posts on investment strategy, comparative philosophy and the relative strengths/weaknesses of moving Leno to a different time slot.....huh?

    Are you really the same guy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I haven't gotten to the other posts yet, but I am going to work my way to them.

    One of the first things that caught me in this post was the idea that experience is what allows for one to know what is good and what is not. I don't agree. I think what is 'good' is an innate thing and that the choice is between whether or not you will stay true to that nature. So it is the 'bad' traits that are learned or a 'false positive'.

    Both Western and Eastern philosophy have their positive and negative ideas to them. But again, the biggest problem is at the very top. That is where the difference in ALL philosophy becomes narrow and it is either the ego or the essence that makes them the same.

    Because to me, power acts in a universal way. The most socialist minded person will invite conflict in their life, bred out of envy and resentment. The most acculmative person will invite the same kind of emotions.

    I think that it is part of a greater relationship with life that determines and individuals philosophy. This can be achieved a number of ways, with the result ending at the same point. Once a person has decided for themselves how they will behave and go out into the world and maintaining a life according to their core belief, then they will have accomplished a great deal.

    Part of why I don't agree with Aristotle's statement is that experience teaches bad. I think that what is 'good' is innate because it lends itself to making decisions based on positive outcomes. Once you 'experience' something bad, it allows for contrast it with a negative experience.

    To me, that is where and how something bad enters in the equation. Ellen DeGeneres had a joke where she asks, "Why is it when someone discovers that something tastes bad, they want you to try it?"

    Rather than keeping negative experiences to ourselves, we choose to share them. So in my mind, I think that we can only 'learn' to be negative or 'bad'. If left to our own devices as indviduals, we'd choose what was beneficial to us and according to our indvidual talents, we would eventually find our fulfillment in exploring everything within our reach.

    Had to tell you what I thought, because you asked and you said, "pretty please"!


    Is it right to say that Chinese philosophy is invitational while Western philosophy is argumentative? One answer is that there is a difference but that it is more a matter of degree than an absolute contrast. It was Aristotle, after all, who said that discussions about the good in human life cannot be properly assimilated by the young because they do not have enough experience of life (Nichomachean Ethics I.3). [I found this perspective quite interesting. I think there is a lot to be said for life experience before we can even begin to think of judging others]

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ken, though our "East" and "West" are in extreme conflict with each other, the truth is that each of those factions represents a small slice of the larger American pie.

    Ultr-conservatives and uber-liberals(like myself), both will eventually loose the support of those in the middle of the American ideological pie. The fringe wind blowing and tire spinning days are numbered and moderates, all over the nation, will eventually fill the political landscape, more than likely out of necessity, so our country can actually move forward.

    I'm not looking forward to my liberal ideology being watered down, but if it means that this nation/world can grapple with the issues it needs to, without the vast amount of waste and bravado that is prevalent now, it is probably a change for the better and a change I can accept. I don't think humanity has the time to waste any longer and I think that is becoming apparent to many moderates, who are poised to lead us to the next level of political and social discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmm. How do you balance a social conscience with individual freedoms? For a while there, I thought we were going pretty well, but I'm disturbed lately by things like these yahoos toting guns to political rallies. To what purpose? It makes no sense to me, and there seems to be great danger in allowing such practices, and I think it's something we need to address in our country.

    ReplyDelete
  5. very interesting! thanks!
    My kid loves those Greeks..
    With how much commerce we do with China and how they have bailed us out it would seems appropriate to learn about their own philosophy!
    The Best to you and Beth,
    natalie

    ReplyDelete

Tell Me What You Think, Don't Make me go Rogue on you :o)