Thursday, June 01, 2006
Quote of the Week
This week I finished reading Chad Hansen's engaging A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. Hansen's main thesis is that there has been a radically skewed view of the classical period of Chinese philosophy for two main reasons.
1) Westerners invariably read Chinese philosophy through the lens of their own philosophical expectations and general prejudices. So, for example, the basic unit of thought/expression in Western philosophy is the sentence. This has implications of how Westerners think about logic. These are expectations Chinese philosophy will never live up to, not because it is a deficient language or way of thinking, but because the basic unit of thought/expression in Chinese is the individual word. (If time serves I might clarify Hansen's point in later postings.)
2) We read Chinese philosophy through the eyes of a neo-Confucian perspective that gained philosophical hegemony in the early Han dynasty. Hence, we are tied to a drastic misunderstanding of Mohism, Daoism, and Legalism. Daoism, for example, is not exactly the mystical superstition that the stereotype thinks of it. In Hansen's recuperative reading, in fact, the thought of Zhuangzi (not necessarily a "Daoist" in the mold of the Dao-de-jing) stands as the high water mark of the classical Chinese period.
It was a book that took me months to read, but it was worth it because of Hansen's fascinating argument and revealing insights. I liked it even though I find Hansen's analytic/pragmatic philosophy claustrophobic. I think a lot of the points Hansen makes about language use in Chinese philosophy would have really interesting interstices with much of continental philosophy, too.
The quote of the week that really stayed in my mind after reading it was from the last page of the book:
"Western objectivism is tightly bound up with the notion of reason. As I have argued, no Daoist should find that idea objectionable. They did not develop such an ideology. I suppose Daoists would welcome rationalism as another point of view. They would be most interested in the current Confucianization of reason in the United States. Some who have inherited the Platonic tradition share Xunzi's dread of relativism. Like Xunzi they advocate that we act as if our traditions were absolutely true. They treat objectivity as a political matter and recommend that we drill our students dogmatically in ancient ways. Avoid the weak, spineless surrender to students' demand to understand other cultures and ways of thinking. Let us, by all means, ban skepticism, irony, and self-doubt. The Daoist would be equally offended by the students' demand to enforce a new orthodoxy and require everyone to study their current conception of a diversified curriculum. What tragic flaw makes revolutionaries turn demands for freedom into demands for a new regime of conformity?
Yes! Hansen is trying to avoid the dangers of overly conservative views of education a la Alan Bloom and the equally problematic "new regime of conformity" of pc-driven reformers. As a literature student, I bristle at the emphasis placed on African-American Literature. Why separate these vital works off into another class? Shouldn't we integrate all great literature together? I agree that trying to throw off the yoke of dead, white males is crucial, but I don't think this can be accomplished so facilely as merely creating a new specialization within an unaltered discipline.
The next book demanding my attention is The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization by John Hobson. Hobson counters the Eurocentric myth of history of how European powers came to dominate the world through their own immanent dynamism, reason, and technological superiority. I'll try to post more on this in the future . . . .
1) Westerners invariably read Chinese philosophy through the lens of their own philosophical expectations and general prejudices. So, for example, the basic unit of thought/expression in Western philosophy is the sentence. This has implications of how Westerners think about logic. These are expectations Chinese philosophy will never live up to, not because it is a deficient language or way of thinking, but because the basic unit of thought/expression in Chinese is the individual word. (If time serves I might clarify Hansen's point in later postings.)
2) We read Chinese philosophy through the eyes of a neo-Confucian perspective that gained philosophical hegemony in the early Han dynasty. Hence, we are tied to a drastic misunderstanding of Mohism, Daoism, and Legalism. Daoism, for example, is not exactly the mystical superstition that the stereotype thinks of it. In Hansen's recuperative reading, in fact, the thought of Zhuangzi (not necessarily a "Daoist" in the mold of the Dao-de-jing) stands as the high water mark of the classical Chinese period.
It was a book that took me months to read, but it was worth it because of Hansen's fascinating argument and revealing insights. I liked it even though I find Hansen's analytic/pragmatic philosophy claustrophobic. I think a lot of the points Hansen makes about language use in Chinese philosophy would have really interesting interstices with much of continental philosophy, too.
The quote of the week that really stayed in my mind after reading it was from the last page of the book:
"Western objectivism is tightly bound up with the notion of reason. As I have argued, no Daoist should find that idea objectionable. They did not develop such an ideology. I suppose Daoists would welcome rationalism as another point of view. They would be most interested in the current Confucianization of reason in the United States. Some who have inherited the Platonic tradition share Xunzi's dread of relativism. Like Xunzi they advocate that we act as if our traditions were absolutely true. They treat objectivity as a political matter and recommend that we drill our students dogmatically in ancient ways. Avoid the weak, spineless surrender to students' demand to understand other cultures and ways of thinking. Let us, by all means, ban skepticism, irony, and self-doubt. The Daoist would be equally offended by the students' demand to enforce a new orthodoxy and require everyone to study their current conception of a diversified curriculum. What tragic flaw makes revolutionaries turn demands for freedom into demands for a new regime of conformity?
Yes! Hansen is trying to avoid the dangers of overly conservative views of education a la Alan Bloom and the equally problematic "new regime of conformity" of pc-driven reformers. As a literature student, I bristle at the emphasis placed on African-American Literature. Why separate these vital works off into another class? Shouldn't we integrate all great literature together? I agree that trying to throw off the yoke of dead, white males is crucial, but I don't think this can be accomplished so facilely as merely creating a new specialization within an unaltered discipline.
The next book demanding my attention is The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization by John Hobson. Hobson counters the Eurocentric myth of history of how European powers came to dominate the world through their own immanent dynamism, reason, and technological superiority. I'll try to post more on this in the future . . . .
