Globalisation of Philosophy

I DO NOT THINK there is any one Eastern civilisation or culture, or anyone Western civilization or culture. There are at the most Indian, Chinese, Japanese and other civilisations/cul­tures, even as there are French, Span­ish, German, Iranian, Arabic and other civilisations and cultures. Certainly there is no one Western or even Euro­pean philosophy: there are a number of philosophies which have been for­mulated down the ages in different countries of, say, Europe, Asia and Americas. Similarly it is difficult to say there is anyone monolithic single In­dian philosophy or Chinese philoso­phy. There always have been and are a number of philosophies which origi­nated and developed, and are develop­ing in China, India and other Eastern countries, as is the case with Western countries. All the civilizations/cultures of the world, as well as their philo­sophical and scientific ideas have always mutually interacted, influenced, mingled, got fused and sometimes, given rise to new syntheses. No coun­try, race or nation can claim to be the teacher or the leader of the world, by virtue of the superiority of its science, philosophy or religion, or on the ground of always and consistently having advocated and practised the highest morality. No country is wiser, holier or greater than others; no race or people is the chosen one. In every country and among all people the in­tellectually endowed, competent and hardworking have discovered truths of some sort or other, and these have got disseminated and have become the common property of humanity. No people at any time were deprived of the sense of what is right and wrong, how to be ethical and how to be spiritual. But in the extent, quality and depth of their insights into these matters there have been differences among peoples and individuals.

Notwithstanding what has been said so far, it is necessary to point out that it has been generally contended by Westerners that only in Greek civi­lization “a philosophic movement” and “a scientific tradition” went “hand in hand” and this “dual tradi­tion has shaped the civilization of the West”. (Bertrand Russell, Wisdom of the West. Epilogue, Premier Books, New York, 1964, p. 405.) One might question this statement: does history prove that-philosophy and science have in general always, or at least for most of the time, gone hand in hand in Western civilization? And, what does “going hand in hand” mean? Presumably this: They must constantly be aware of each other, and not only not contradict each other but be in harmony with each other; and, moreover, not attempt to do what the other has to do. Both philosophers and scientists should agree on what it is to be philosophic and what it is to be scien­tific, and not trespass into each other’s domain. The limits of science as well as of philosophy should be acknowledged by both scientists and philosophers; otherwise there might be an effort to make philosophy scien­tific and science philosophic, obliterat­ing one or the other. A similar confu­sion is possible when a claim is made that religion and philosophy, or spirituality and philosophy can and should go hand in hand. Some Indians have claimed that it is the particular char­acteristic and chief merit of Indian philosophy that it is practical and spiritual, while the Western is merely speculative and materialistic. The truth, of course, is not so. There has been a good ideal of soteriological and spiritual (or religious) philosophy in the West, and a more or less equal amount of scientific and materialistic philosophy in India.

II

Anyhow, what is a somewhat consensuously acceptable understanding of philosophy? To take two su­preme examples from the West and East, many may not dispute Socrates and Confucius being called philoso­phers. Socrates declared that his pre­-occupation was an unceasing quest for truth: “As long as I have breath and strength, I will never cease my occupa­tion with philosophy. I will continue the practice of accosting whosoever I meet and saying to him. ‘Are you not ashamed of setting your heart on wealth and honours while you have no care for wisdom and truth and making your soul better’?” (Bury, A History of freedom of Thought, cited by S. Radhakrishan, Religion and Society, p.60.)

According to Confucius’ disciple Tseng Tzu, “integrity and reciproc­ity” was the single thread that ran through all his teachings. Integrity or Chung is the desire and attempt to sustain and develop others in the same way in which one desires and tries to sustain and develop oneself. Reciprocity or shu is not to do to oth­ers what one does not want to be done to oneself. This presupposes that men can mutually respond to each other and that the example, of the Virtuous can powerfully influence others. Confucius considered Jen* as the distinguishing characteristic of man. It is something everyone has to develop more and more and thereby increas­ingly become human. Jen is love of fellow-men and authenticity. To be authentic is to be sincere and upright (chih): to be as one really is and to express oneself in speech and conduct as such according to Li. Li is the right way of doing things, as well as an order in which everything is in its proper place. It is customs and good taste, rituals and propriety. Li edu­cates one to become a member of a community, by making him accept restrictions which enable him to over­come his ego. It trains one’s emotions and feelings and inculcates the right ways of expressing them. [From my Far Eastern Philosophies. Chapter II.]

I may now give samples of one type of philosophising from India: “By whom directed does mind reach its object and the vital force, which pre­cedes all, does its duty? By whom willed is speech uttered and the eyes and ears directed? By that effulgent being who is the Mind of the mind, the Vitality of the vital force, the Speech of speech, the Eye of the eye and the Ear of the ear. The Intelligent freeing them­selves from identification with the senses and mind, and keeping “aloof from this empirical world become immortal”. (Kena Upanishad, 1-2.) “When the intelligent person concen­trates his mind on the subtle Self and thereby meditates on the eternal Deity, located in the mind, but accessible with difficulty, existing within this miserable body itself, he gives up both pleasure and sorrow. The Self is nei­ther born nor dies. It did not originate from anything and nothing originates from it. It is eternal, undecaying and imperishable, and ever unharmed, though it dwells in the body. It neither destroys, nor is destroyable. Subtler than the subtle, and greater than the great, the self is situated in everyone’s heart. A desireless man, becoming serene, sees the glory of the Self, and freed from sorrow”. (Katha Upanishad, 12, 18, 20.) “The knower of Brahman (Being.) attains the su­preme. Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite. The wise man who knows the Bliss of Brahman is not afraid of anything. (Taittiriya Upanishad, II. 1.1: II.IV.1.) “Whoever knows the su­preme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed.” (Mundaka Upanishad, III. 2. 9.)

Schroedinger considered that “the one great philosophical question which embraces all others, is the one that Plotinus expressed by the brief - Who are we? Not only the Upanishads, but also the I Ching with its Appendices and Chu Hsi answered this question in their own ways. Change (I) is what is found every­where: it is movement ever returning to its starting point. It is constant change with a principle of order at its centre. This simple, consistent and universal change, which includes everything, great and small, the hu­man and the natural, is constant, because it operates within two an­tithetical polar limits (Yin and Yang).It is cyclic, and its matrix is Tat - chi (the Supreme Ultimate). A Taoist monk said the mutual resonance. (Kan) of things is the fundamental idea of I Ching. Put in another way, all the myriad principles (patterns) are subsumed in the one universal Principle (the great Pattern). “Wan li, Kuet-yu i-li yeh”, (Ch’eng Hao). Heaven and Earth, and all that is therein is Spirit (“Ying t’ien-ti chih­chien chieh shen), the mysterious perfection of the ten thousand things (Chu Hsi). Chu Hsi conceived the universe as a real interrelated whole made up of Matter (Ch’i) and organ­ised by principle (Li).The principle of all things, according to Chu Hsi, is the Great Ultimate (Tai-Chi),which is in everything including man and prior to everything. Though it is one, it is found in its entirety in everything, just as the one moon is reflected in many rivers and lakes. It is unlimited and formless. It has the principle of activity and tranquility; so it generates the forces operating within the universe. It is not known how it does this. The Great Ultimate which is in men and all things is “simply the Principle of the highest good”. It is beyond everything and within all. It is what makes pos­sible universe that is orderly change. (my Far Eastern Philosophies. pp. 37, 45, 82-3.)

I wish I could give instances of philosophising at least from Al-Razi, Ibn Sina, al-Ghazali, and Ibn er­Rushd, and a couple of Japanese thinkers, but the scope of this paper will not allow it.

III

The idea that the universe is controlled by Mind or Intelligence is found in an Egyptian inscription known as Memphite Drama. It is the earliest known record of a philosophi­cal idea, dating to the end of the 4th millennium. Two thousand years later Ikhanaton revived it. Besides this, the Egyptians formulated the conception of an eternal universe, the notion of a constant recurrence of events, and the doctrine of natural cause and effect. The Maxims of Ptahhotep, the vizier of a Pharaoh of the V dyansty about 2500 B.C., con­tains moral philosophy of a high order. Graciousness, tolerance, kindness, cheerfulness, and above all righteous­ness and justice, even sacrificing self-­interest, are enjoined. Righteousness, it is said, endures as it is powerful. Greed, sensuality and pride are to be shunned, while moderation and re­straints ate to be cultivated. On moral­ity no earlier literature than this is available.

In about 2100 B.C. on a wall of the tomb-chapel of the Pharaoh of XI Dynasty is found engraved The Song of the Harp-Player, which is an exposition of scepticism regarding the other world and gods, and a denigration of fame, riches and power, which are just delusions, Death, the time of arrival of which is not known, is the only inevitable certainty for all men. So, one should fulfil one’s desires and seek pleasure, but at the same time gain good name through charity and be­nevolence. In a composition of a Priest of Heliopolis in the years following the collapse of the Old Kingdom, is to be found social criticism which appears relevant even today. In The Plea of the Eloquent Peasant composed in the time of the XI Dynasty (about 2100 B.C.) the functions of the rulers and the nature of administrative justice are expounded. Ancient Egyptian, or North African, thinking might be the earliest known sort of philosophising.

Martin Bemal has authored a book on the “Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization” (Rutgers University Press, 1987). India and Eu­rope, “An Essay in understanding” by Wilhel Halofass (SUNY Press 1988) is by one of the foremost living Indolo­gists with an excellent philosophical training. Then there is Roger-pol Droit’s L’oubli De L’Inde, “Une Amne­sie Philosophique”, Presses Universi­taires de France, 1989, and his lecture in English on the “French Philoso­phers Attitudes towards Indian Ideas and Systems of Thought” delivered in Indian universities in 1989.

Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle emphasized the Greek debt to Egypt. Solon, Thales, Lycurgus and others owed much to the Egyptians. According to Philostratus of the 2nd century AD., Pythagoras was a recipient and transmitter of Egyptian, and possibly ultimately, of Indian wisdom. The Egyptians, Plutarch wrote, liked Py­thagoras very much. Pythagoras was the inventor of the word “philosophy”, and to have considered the philosophic attitude as that of a “mere spectator” at the Olympic Games, who was not motivated by deriving any profit thereby. Isokrates considered Egypt the most blessed land and insisted that philosophy was and could only have been a product of Egypt. Plato did not try to hide Egyptian origins of numbers, arithmetic, geometry and letters, language and science (Phaedrus, Philebus). His Republic re­sembles Isokrates’ Bousiris, and is based on the Egyptian political model. The division of labour in Plato’s work was, according to Marx, “merely an Athenian idealization of the Egyptian system of castes”. (Capital, trans. By E. & C. Paul with G.D.H. Cole’s Intro, Vol. I, pt. 4, p. 299. ) Aristotle studied under Eudoxus of Knidos who studied mathematics and astronomy in Egypt. In the Metaphyics Aristotle attributed to the Egyptians the invention of all the mathematical arts as well as the caste system.

S. Radhakrishnan in his Eastern Religions and Western Thought dealt with a number of instances of possible Western borrowings from India, and Needham in his great multivolume work of similar or even greater debt of the West to China. The vast and very deep influence which the West has exercised in the modern times on all the oriental countries is well-known. Today in most of the universities in the East, departments of philosophy teach only Western Philosophy; whereas indigenous thought is taught, e.g. Confucianism, Buddhism and Hindu philosophy only in departments for them or in those of Oriental Studies and Languages.

IV

The scope of this paper does not permit discussion of why till Hegel those Europeans who knew Indian thought considered it philosophy, and why he claimed Greece to be the one and only homeland of philosophy. On the other hand, his contemporary Vic­tor Cousin, a philosopher and a pow­erful French University man through­out the 19th century, in his lectures, and book on General History of Phi­losophy pronounced Indian thought systems to be undoubtedly proper philosophy with vastness and depth. Both Hegel and Cousin read all that was available on Indian Philosophy in European languages. But in recent times both Husserl and Heidegger without ever having read a single scholarly work in Eastern philosophy dismissed it as non-philosophy. For them only in Greece philosophy originated and in Europe it developed, and according to the latter it produced modem science and technology, and it is going to end soon. Heidegger also asserted that only the German language, among the living languages, has the power to convey philosophical thoughts. All the German views, men­tioned in this paragraph are mistaken.

Similar parochial and erroneous­ views are held by a number of Indi­ans, and very probably by others. There are, for example, many Indians, who advocate that Vedanta is the only philosophy which is perfect and de­serves to be universally adopted, while others ought to be tolerated: and their relative validity is determinable insofar as their doctrines and spiritual practices, if any, are in accordance with the Vedantic. Adherents of other Indian and non-Indian ideologies are not behind them in championing their own different systems.

No man can be without a phi­losophy, but everyone may not be conscious that he has one: and not all philosophies may be clear, self-consis­tent and uncontradictable by com­mon empirical experience and science. Even if a philosophy fulfils all these desiderata, it may be opposed to the profoundest and principal ethi­cal insights of, say, Socrates Confu­cius, the Gita or the Bible. In such a case, I, for one, would hesitate to consider it good.

* Variously translated as virtue, goodness, humanity or love.