Miss Buddha

by Ulf Wolf

  The literal meaning of postmodernism is “after modernism,” and in many ways postmodernism is a thinly veiled, if not outright attack on the modernist claims about the existence of such philosophical goals as truth and value.

  In disputing past assumptions, postmodernists, in their rather apathetic approach, point to inadequacy of language as a mode of communication.

  Leading this band of obstructionists (in my view) are French philosophers Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.

  Derrida

  Derrida is credited with having originated a philosophical method called deconstruction, a system of analysis that (rather hopelessly) assumes that any given text (and here’s language again) has no single, fixed meaning, both due to inadequacy of language to express the author’s original intention and because a reader’s understanding of the text is culturally conditioned—that is, influenced by the culture in which the reader lives.

  In other words, Derrida holds that texts may therefore have many possible legitimate interpretations brought about by the “play” of language, and that no one can say for certain what any given author actually meant to say (a serious form of apathy, in my view).

  Derrida’s method of deconstruction involves close and careful readings of central texts of Western philosophy that bring to light some of the conflicting forces within the text and that highlight the devices the text uses to claim legitimacy and truth for itself, many of which may lie beyond the intention of its author.

  So, rather than observe the universe around him, the people around him, and the universe within in order to perceive and establish what may ultimately be real and true (which was the goal of ancient philosophy, and should be the goal of philosophy to this day), Derrida immersed himself in the paper and ink universe of the opinions of others—to lamentable results.

  Although, at a glance, some of Derrida’s ideas about language seem to resemble the views held by the analytics, such as Wittgenstein, many current analytics (rightly, in my view) dismiss Derrida’s work as destructive of philosophy.

  Foucault

  Foucault—another philosopher to immerse himself in the universe of paper and ink—spent his productive life creating a savage critique of the ideals of the Enlightenment, such as reason and truth.

  Like Derrida, Foucault used myopic readings of historical texts (rather than opening his eyes to the world to see for himself) to challenge existing assumptions by demonstrating how, in his view, ideas about human nature and society, which we have—based both on what we have read and on our personal experience—come to see as permanent truths, have in fact changed over time along with prevailing cultures.

  From a small library of historical texts Foucault created “philosophical anthropologies” to trace and reveal the evolution of concepts such as reason, madness, responsibility, punishment, and power. By examining the origins of these concepts, he proclaimed, we cannot help but see that attitudes and assumptions that today seem natural or even inevitable are nothing but historical phenomena dependent upon time and place.

  He further claimed that the historical development of these ideas demonstrates that what seemed humane and liberal at the time are in reality coercive and destructive, as they hold up as beacons what has already grown outmoded, and what never had any real meaning in the first place.

  My word for this outlook is apathy. Literally, throwing in the philosophical towel after too long a swim in nothing but the words of others.

  In fact, while this movement was called Deconstructivism, I think a more apt name would be Destructivism, for it seems that the unexpressed goal of hopelessness this school pursued was the tearing down of anything even vaguely resembling truth and decency.

  Lacan

  Lacan agreed with both Derrida and Foucault, that in order to get at what is, you first have to overturn all cultural and philosophical assumptions, as they do nothing but stand in your way.

  Once overturned, however, he, like Derrida and Foucault, put nothing in its place, but simply held that nothing means anything and that words cannot be trusted.

  Again, rather than looking for himself, he immersed himself in the research and writings of others, primarily by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud. Based on his own readings of these works, Lacan went on to claim that the unconscious portion of the mind (which he could not observe, since he assumed it to be unconscious) operates with structures and rules analogous to those of a language. Based on this rather unjustified assumption, he proceeded to criticize both psychoanalytic theory and philosophy.

  On the one hand, he believed that linguistic concepts could clarify and correct Freud’s picture of the mind and so provide psychoanalysis with greater philosophical depth; on the other hand, he maintained that applying psychoanalytic methods and theories to linguistics would radically revise traditional philosophical views of language and reason.

  However, he never clarified which lacking—and in need of revision by the other— discipline was to be corrected first by the other, also lacking—and in need of revision—discipline. In fact, his assumption is soon reduced to an irrational circle of impossibility.

  Destructivism, indeed.

  Feminist Philosophy

  The rise of feminist philosophy also challenges the basic principles of traditional Western philosophy, in an attempt to investigate how such philosophical inquiry would have been different had it been conducted by women instead of men; if traditional Western philosophy had incorporated women’s experiences as well as their viewpoints.

  In interpreting the history of Western philosophy, and in trying to shed its conclusions of perceived male bias, the feminists study texts by male philosophers specifically for their depiction of women, for masculine values, and male bias.

  Feminist philosophers—apparently convinced that truth might be gender-based—also stress women’s experiences of subjectivity, their relationship to their bodies, and feminist concepts of language, knowledge, and nature.

  They also explore connections between feminism in philosophy and other emerging feminist disciplines, such as feminist legal theory, feminist theology, and ecological feminism.

  Central to feminist philosophy is the actual or perceived oppression of women who lived or live in patriarchal (male-controlled) societies. In fact, much of the work of feminist philosophers has gone into not understanding a transcendent (and gender-neutral) truth but to survey and understand patriarchy and to developing alternatives to it.

  Whereas it is true that patriarchal societies have (perhaps not as a rule, but nonetheless often) suppressed the rights and views of women, I do not believe that this phenomenon, if that’s the right word, is the purview of philosophy (the love of truth) but belongs in the field of social and cultural science.

  Environmental Philosophy

  Another branch of philosophy that perhaps would be better served by a natural science approach, is what’s been termed environmental philosophy. This school concerns itself with issues that arise when human beings interact with the environment—as if they were different from the environment.

  Some of the questions asked by environmental philosophy are whether or not a fundamental transformation of society is necessary for the survival of living organisms and the environment? And how is the exploitation of nature related to the subjugation of women and other oppressed humans?

  Also, how can the philosophical study of the environment guide and inspire effective environmental activism?

  Thus, the environmental philosopher seeks to apply philosophical methods and ideas in collaboration with academics and activists working in the environmental sciences, theology, and feminism. Again, I ask myself if this branch of study rightly belongs in the field of philosophy, and if it would not be better served by the natural sciences.

  That said, the most prominent advocates of environmental philosophy are Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess and American naturalist, conservationist
, and philosopher Aldo Leopold.

  Naess founded the deep-ecology movement in the 1970s. This movement distinguishes between shallow ecology—which views nature in terms of its value to human beings—and deep ecology, which values nature as a whole, independently of its usefulness to humanity.

  Leopold—rightly, in my view—called for the extension of ethical concern to include all life on Earth, not just human life.

  My point, though, is that this school assumes a contentious relationship between humans and the rest of life. We are not different from, but part of nature. It is not a matter of us and them. We are all in the same boat, so to speak.

  The goal of philosophy is the attainment of ultimate truth—this has been its goal since the inception of the discipline, a goal shared by science and religion. As the number of humans proliferated through time, so, it seems, proliferated the branches of philosophy into a network of almost untraceable complexity.

  Of course we need to consider all aspects life, but the breaking down philosophy into micro-philosophies not for the sake of ultimate truth but rather to solve some societal or natural problem, this, to me, is taking the discipline in a wrong, and ever more complex, direction.

  All great truths are basically simple. We need to head back for this simplicity.

  Contemporary Political Philosophy

  Another branch of philosophy that I would probably deem micro, is its political branch. As a discipline this does date back to Plato and Aristotle who often contemplated and discussed the nature of the ideal government and the ideal society.

  Political philosophy (lost through the middle ages) resurrected with its theories on individual liberty and political institutions put forth by Hobbes, Mill, and Rousseau.

  Today, political philosophy features a dialogue between defenders of the liberal position and defenders of the communitarian position.

  The liberal position places the highest value on individual liberties; whereas the communitarians argue that extreme individual freedom undermines shared community values.

  According to liberalism the chief benefits of government and society are personal and political freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience (belief). Many liberal theorists view the freedom to make moral choices as the most important freedom we have and argue that political and social systems should be organized to allow individuals the freedom to pursue their own ideas about happiness.

  Communitarians respond that granting individuals too much freedom of choice ultimately limits human experience by undermining shared communal values, claiming that by ignoring the importance of community, liberalism disregards humanity’s social nature.

  Applied Ethics

  Although most contemporary philosophy is (far too) highly technical and therefore more or less inaccessible to non-specialists, some contemporary philosophers do concern themselves with practical questions and strive to give a helping hand to current culture.

  Whereas, as I’ve mentioned above, I believe philosophy may not be the best discipline for these efforts, many practitioners of feminist philosophy, environmental philosophy, and areas of contemporary political philosophy seek to use the tools of philosophy to resolve current issues directly related to peoples’ lives.

  And nowhere, it seems, have philosophers embraced practical relevance more than in the field we now call contemporary applied ethics. First gaining traction in the 1960s, this discipline addresses the general (and universal) theme of “How should we live and die?”—a question quite familiar to the ancient Greeks as well.

  However, this general and universal school soon—as seems to be a requirement these days—divided into separate areas of specialization, such as biomedical ethics and business ethics.

  Biomedical ethics deals with questions arising from the life sciences and human health care, and is in turn divided into two subspecialties: bioethics and medical ethics.

  Bioethicists study the ethical implications of advances in genetics and biotechnology, such as genetic testing, genetic privacy, cloning, and new reproductive technologies.

  Much of the work in medical ethics directly affects the everyday practice of medicine, and most nursing students and medical students now take courses in this field.

  Business ethicists apply ethical theories and techniques to moral issues arising in business. What responsibilities, if any, do corporations have to their employees, their customers, their shareholders, and the environment?

  These days, most students in business also take courses in business ethics, and many large corporations regularly consult with specialists in the field.

  Business ethics also addresses larger topics, such as the ethics of globalization and the moral justification of various economic systems, such as capitalism and socialism.

  Micro Philosophies

  As we travel philosophy’s path up the centuries perhaps the most striking observation is how diversified this once single and august subject has now become.

  Initially, philosophy embraced science as well, but this discipline soon took off on its own adventure. At the outset, philosophy, to a large extent, also involved religious questions, but these, especially in the West and with the advent of Christianity, were soon subordinated to the practice of religion (which, jealously, defended this domain for hundreds of years to follow—and, of course, in many cases still does).

  Entering upon the 21st century, what was once a single search for and pursuit of truth has become a near jungle of offshoots and sub branches, all too specialized for any normal main-in-the-street person to follow and understand.

  True, with the proliferation of not only the Earth’s population but also her technologies, specialization seems to be the bane of the age, still, fact remains that a single pursuit of ultimate truth has now been more or less buried under the weight of endless micro-philosophies.

  That said, let’s see how we fared over the years in the East.

  Chinese Philosophy

  In what follows, I’ll use “Chinese Philosophy” as an umbrella designation for the various schools of thought originated by Chinese philosophers.

  Surveying history, we find that Chinese philosophy passed through three distinct historical stages: the classical age, a creative period from the 6th to the early 2nd century BCE; the medieval age—lasting from the late 2nd century BCE trough the 17th century CE, a period of synthesis and absorption of foreign thought; and the modern age—from the late 17th century to the present saw maturation of earlier philosophical trends and the introduction of new philosophies from the West.

  Classical Age

  The classical age of Chinese philosophy did not gain traction until the later years of the Zhou (Chou) dynasty—which lasted from about 1045 BCE to 256 BCE. This was an era of political and social turmoil when feudal states, long subordinate to the house of Zhou, finally rose to newfound economic and military strength and moved toward independence.

  When the power of these combined feudal states began to eclipse that of Zhou, the bonds between them ruptured and widespread interstate warfare broke out. This was during the Spring and Autumn period (722-481 BCE), which then developed into outright political anarchy during the Warring States period (403-221 BCE).

  Meanwhile, new currents of trade and commerce were disrupting China’s simple agricultural society, bringing additional social and economic changes in their wake. In this climate of political anarchy and social upheaval emerged a new class of scholar-official: men who aspired through their learning and wisdom to reunify the empire and restore societal order.

  Confucius and Later Disciples

  The most important of these scholar-officials was Confucius (551-479 BCE)—known in Chinese as Kungzi or K’ung-tzu. He was a minor aristocrat and official of the state of Lu (in what is now Shandong Province) who spent most of his life as an itinerant scholar-teacher as well as an adviser to the rulers of various Chinese states.

  Confucius believed that the best, if not only, way t
o reform society was to look at its citizens and to cultivate ethical behavior in individuals. And not only in citizens but also, and perhaps especially, in rulers and their ministers because leaders serve as important role models for their people.

  Confucius did not speak directly (at least not officially) on such philosophical issues as the nature of human beings, or the influence of the supernatural in human affairs; however, two of his 4th and 3rd century BCE disciples, Mencius (in Chinese, Mengzi or Meng-Tzu) and Xunzi (Hsun-tzu), did address them.

  Mencius held that human nature is good and that it can be developed not only by study, as Confucius had taught, but also by cultivating (by practice and reflection) one’s innate tendencies, such as our compassion for the suffering of others and our disdain for doing what is wrong.

  Xunzi took a diametrically opposite view of human nature. He held that humans are not virtuous at heart, but that they could improve through education, the study of the classics, and the practice of ritual. Thus virtue could be acquired and order reestablished in society.

  Mencius thought virtue was something that must be developed, as a tree grows from a sprout, while Xunzi thought that human beings must be reshaped, as a piece of wood is carved into a useful object.

  Taoism and Other Important Schools

  If Confucianism was the first great philosophy of the classical age, then Taoism was the second.

  The traditional view is that Taoism was originated by Lao Tzu, who we assume was a contemporary of Confucius. Legend (which has blossomed into popular opinion) has it that he wrote the Tao Te Ching (“Classic of the Way and Its Virtue”) at the behest of the gates keeper who would not let him out of the city unless he did (Lao Tzu, apparently, had had enough of men and their ways and sought some peace and quiet at some far remove in nature).