GLOBALISATION OF PHILOSOPHY
K. Satchidananda Murty
〔提要〕：本文論述五個問題：
第一，無論東方文化還是西方文化，各自都不成單一體系。因此，將東西文化分開無助于了解歷史、文化和思想的產生、發展、擴散、消失或流行。其實，也不可能分清“西方哲學”和“東方哲學”，或“東方宗教”和“西方宗教”。東方孕育的思想體系和信仰方式也是多元化的，其中有些相輔相成，有些享有共性，有些則完全相反、對立甚至抵觸的。而所謂“重精神而又靜止的東方”和“重物質而又動態的西方”之說，也是毫無根據的，誠然，自盤古開天地以來，東、西方一直在相互作用，相互影響，和平共處。當然，在不同時期也有過對立。
第二，簡論西方哲學和科學，以及東方哲學和宗教的關係。
第三，例舉希臘、中國、印度哲學探討的實例，重點說明《奧義書》和《易經》新儒家玄學的概念。
第四，扼要介紹北非哲學的起源及其對希臘哲學的貢獻。
第五，指出包括黑格爾在內的通曉東方思想的歐洲學者都承認東方國家也有哲學。但在黑格爾之後，西方哲學家多不屑研究東方哲學。近年更有像胡塞爾、海德格這類學者，他們從未談過有關東方思想的著作，卻竟聲稱哲學“只源于希臘，發展在歐洲”，聲言根本沒有、也不可能有什麽“印度哲學”、“中國哲學”。居然在一些東方國家裡也有人接受這些錯誤的觀念。
Ⅰ
I do not think there is any one Eastern Civilization or Culture, or any Westem Civilization or Culture. There are at the most Indian, Chinese, Japanese and other civilizations/cultures, even as there are French, Spanish, German, Iranian, Arabic and other civilizations 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 one 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 th e teacher or the leader of the world, by virtue of the superiority of the 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 peoples the intellectually endowed, competent and hardworking have discovered truths of some sort or other, and these have got dissem-inated 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 individuais.
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, Epilogus, 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 civil ization? 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 sh ould 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, white the Western is merely speculative and materialistic. The truth, of course, is not so. There has been a good deal of soteriological and spiritual (or religious) philosophy in the West, anda 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 preoccupation 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. Radhakrishnan, Raligion 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. This means to put oneself and others in the same situation. Thus the principle for one’s conduct towards others must be found in one’s heart, i.e. in one’s desires and ideais concerning 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(1) 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, rituais 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 in culcates 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 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 bom, 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 de stroyable. 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 Upanished, 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. (Thittlriya Upanishad, Ⅱ1.1; Ⅱ. Ⅳ. 1.)“Whoever Knows the supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed”. (Mundaka Upanishad, Ⅲ.2.9.)
Schresdinger considered that “the one great philosophical question which embraces all others, is the one that Plotinus expressed by his 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 Tal-chi (the Supreme Ultimate). A Taoist monk and the mutuai resonance (Kan) of things is the fundamental ideas of Ⅰ Ching. Put in another way, all the myriad princi-pies (patterns) are subsumed in the one universal Principle (the great Pattern). “Wan-li Kuei-yu i-li yeh” (Ch’eng Hao). Heaven and Earth and all that is therein is Spirit (“Ying tien-ti chih-chien chieh shen), the mysterious perfection of the ten thousand things (chu bai). Chu Hai conceived the universe as a real Interrelated whole made up of Matter (Ch’i) and organized by Principle (Li). The Principle of ali things, according to Chu Hsi, is the Great Ultimate (T’al-Chi), which is in everything including man and prior to everything. Though it is one, it is found 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 the universe that is ord erly change.
(my Far Eastern Philosophies. pp. 37, 45, 82-3.)
I wish I could give instances of philosophising at least from Al-Rast. Ibn Sina, al-Chazall, and Ibn er-Rushd, anda couple of Japanese thinkers, but the scope of this lecture will not allow it.
Ⅲ
The Idea that the universe is controlled by Mind or Intellignce is found in ah Egyptian inscription known as Memphite Drama. It is the earliest known record of a philosophical idea, dating back 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 dynasty about 2500 B.C., contains moral philosophy of a high order. Graciousness, tolerance, kindness, cheerfulness, and above all righteousness, it is said, endures as it is powerful. Greed, sensuality and pride are to be shunned, which moderation and restraints are 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-Plaver, which is an exposition of scepticism regarding the other world and gods, anda 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 Hellopolis in the years following the collapse of the old Kingdom, is to be found social criticism which appears relevant even today. 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 gyptian, or North African,thinking might be the earliest known sort of philosophising.
Martin Bernal has authored a book on the “Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization” (RutgersUniversity Press, 1987). India and Europe, “An Essay in Understanding” by Willhelm Halbfass (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 Ammésie Philosophique’, Presses Universitaires de France, 1989, and bis lecture in English on the ‘French Philosophers’ Attitudes towards Indian Ideas & Systems of Thought’, delivered in Indian Universities in 1989.
Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle emphasized the Greek debt to Egypt. Soloa, Thales, Lycurgus and others owed much to the Egyptians. According to Philostratus of the 2nd century A. D., Pythagoras was a recipient and transmitter of Egyptian, and possibly ultimately, of Indian wisdom. The Egyptians, Plutarch wrote, liked Pythagoras very much. Pythageras 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 & science (Phaedrus, Philebus). His Republic tesembles Isokrates’ Bousiria, and is based on the Egyptian political model. The division of labour in Plato’s work was, according to Marx, “merely an Athenian ideal ization of the Egyptian syste m 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 Kmidos who studied mathematics and astronomy in Egypt. In the Metaphisics 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 similar or even greater debt of the West China. The vast and very deep influence which the West has exercised in the modern times on all the oriental countries is wellknown. 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 lecture does not permit discussion of why till Hagel, 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 anda 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 philosopphy 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 on European philosophy dismissed it as nonPhilosophy. For them only in Greece philosophy originated and in Europe it developed, and according to the latter it produced modern science and techonology, and it is going to and 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. They 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-lndian ideologies are not behind them in championing their own different systems.
No man can be without a philosophy, but everyone may not be conscious be has one; and not all philosophies may be clear self-consistent and uncontradictable by commonempirical 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.
(1) Variously translated as virtue, goodness, humanity, or love.
