Defining Philosophy

Budget: 45/270 minutes
Target Outcome: Operationally define philosophy out of its historical beginnings, its branches, and its importance.
Essential Question: What is philosophy?

Budget: 30/270 minutes
Target Outcomes:  Identify historical beginnings of philosophy in both East and West.
Essential Question: What historical events led to the development of philosophy in both East and West?
Texts: 

Aristotle (2016). Book A3, Metaphysics. Translated with introduction and notes by C.D.C. Reeve. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Pp. 7-8.

Of those who first philosophized, then, most thought that the starting-points of all things were of the material kind (eidos) only. For that from which all beings come, and from which as a first thing they come to be and into which they pass away in the end, the substance that persists throughout as an underlying subject while its attributes change--this, they say, is the element and this is the starting-point of beings. And because of this they think that nothing either comes to be or is destroyed, since a nature of this sort is always preserved. ... For there must be some nature, whether one or more than one, from which the other things come to be while it is preserved.

They do not all agree, however, on the number and kind (eidos) of such a starting-point. Thales, the one who started this sort of philosophy, says it is water (because of this, he also declared that the earth rests on water), perhaps reaching this supposition from seeing that the nourishment for all things is moist, that the hot itself comes to be from this, and what is alive lives by this (and what they come to be from is starting-point for all). Because of this, then, he reached this supposition, and because the seeds of all things have a moist nature, and water is the starting-point of the nature of moist things.

Some people think that even the ancients who lived long before the present generation and who first theologized held similar beliefs about nature, since they made the gods swear their oath by the water they called Styx. For what is oldest is what is most estimable, and what is most estimable is what we swear an oath by. It is perhaps unclear that this belief about nature is in any way ancient or even old, but Thales at any rate is said to have declared this about the primary cause.

Fung Yu-Lan (1947). The spirit of Chinese philosophy. A short history of Chinese philosophy. Routledge.

There are all kinds and conditions of men. With regard to any one of these kinds, there is the highest form of achievement of which any one kind of man is capable. For instance, there are the men engaged in practical politics. The highest form of achievement in that class of men is that of the great statesman. So also in the field of art, the highest form of achievement of which artists are capable is that of the great artist. Although there are these different classes of men, yet all of them are men. What is the highest form of achievement of which a man as a man is capable? According to the Chinese philoso­phers, it is nothing less than being a sage, and the highest achieve­ment of a sage is the identification of the individual with the uni­verse. The problem is, if men want to achieve this identification, do they necessarily have to abandon society or even to negate life?

According to some philosophers, this is necessary. The Buddha said that life itself is the root and fountainhead of the misery of life. Like­wise, Plato said that the body is the prison of the soul. And some of the Taoists said that life is an excrescence, a tumor, and death is to be taken as the breaking of the tumor. All these ideas represent a view which entails separation from what may be called the entangling net of the matter-corrupted world; and therefore, if the highest achievement of a sage is to be realized, the sage has to abandon society and even life itself. Only thus can the final liberation be attained. This kind of philosophy is what is generally known as “other­ worldly philosophy.”

There is another kind of philosophy which emphasizes what is in society, such as human relations and human affairs. This kind of philosophy speaks only about moral values, and is unable to or does not wish to speak of the super-moral ones. This kind of philosophy is generally described as “this-worldly.” From the point of view of a this-worldly philosophy, an other-world philosophy is too idealistic, is of no practical use and is negative. From the point of view of an other-worldly philosophy, a this-world philosophy is too realistic, too superficial. It may be positive, but it is like the quick walking of a man who has taken the wrong road: the more quickly he walks the further he goes astray.

There are many people who say that Chinese philosophy is a this-world philosophy. It is difficult to state that these people are entirely right or entirely wrong. Taking a merely superficial view, people who hold this opinion cannot be said to be wrong, because according to their view, Chinese philosophy, regardless of its different schools of thought, is directly or indirectly concerned with government and ethics. On the surface, therefore, it is concerned chiefly with society, and not with the universe; with the daily functions of human rela­tions, not hell and heaven; with man's present life, but not his life in a world to come. When he was once asked by a disciple about the meaning of death, Confucius replied: “Not yet understanding life, how can you understand death?” (Analects, XI, 11.)  And Mencius said: “The sage is the acme of human relations” (Mencius, IVa, 2), which, taken literally, means that the sage is the morally perfect man in society. From a surface point of view, with the ideal man being of this world, it seems that what Chinese philosophy calls a sage is a person of a very different order from the Buddha of Buddhism and the saints of the Christian religion. Superficially, this would seem to be especially true of the Confucian sage. That is why, in ancient times, Confucius and the Confucianists were so greatly ridiculed by the Taoists.

This, however, is only a surface view of the matter. Chinese phi­losophy cannot be understood by oversimplification of this kind.  So far as the main tenet of its tradition is concerned, if we understand it right, it cannot be said to be wholly this-worldly, just as, of course, it cannot be said to be wholly other-worldly. It is both of this world and of the other world. Speaking about the Neo-Confucianism of the Sung Dynasty, one philosopher described it this way: “It is not divorced from daily ordinary activities, yet it goes straight to what antedated Heaven.” This is what Chinese philosophy has striven for. Having this kind of spirit, it is at one and the same time both ex­tremely idealistic, and extremely realistic and very practical, though not in a superficial way.

This-worldliness and other-worldliness stand in contrast to each other as do realism and idealism. The task of Chinese philosophy is to accomplish a synthesis out of these antitheses. That does not mean that they are to be abolished. They are still there, but they have been made into a synthetic whole. How can this be done? This is the prob­lem which Chinese philosophy attempts to solve.

According to Chinese philosophy, the man who accomplishes this “ synthesis not only in theory but also in deed is the sage. He is both this-worldly and other-worldly. The spiritual achievement of the Chinese sage corresponds to the saints’ achievement in Buddhism, and in Western religion. But the Chinese sage is not one who does not concern himself with the business of the world. His character is described as one of “sageliness within and kingliness without.” That is to say, in his inner sageliness, he accomplishes spiritual cultivation; in his kingliness without, he functions in society. It is not necessary that the sage should be the actual head of the government in his so­ciety. From the standpoint of practical politics, for the most part, the sage certainly has no chance of being the head of the state. The say­ing “sageliness within and kingliness without” means only that he who has the noblest spirit should, theoretically, be king. As to whether he actually has or has not the chance of being king, that is immaterial.

Since the character of the sage is, according to Chinese tradition, one of sageliness within and kingliness without, the task of philoso­phy is to enable man to develop this kind of character. Therefore, what philosophy discusses is what the Chinese philosophers describe as the Tao (Way, or basic principles) of sageliness within and kingliness without.

This sounds like the Platonic theory of the philosopher-king. According to Plato, in an ideal state the philosopher should be the king or the king should be a philosopher; and in order to become a philosopher, a man must undergo a long period of philosophical train­ing before his mind can be “converted” from the world of changing things to the world of eternal ideas. Thus according to Plato, as according to the Chinese philosophers, the task of philosophy is to enable man to have the character of sageliness within and kingliness without. But according to Plato, when a philosopher becomes a king he does so against his will—in other words, it is something forced on him, and entails a great sacrifice on his part. This is what was also held by the ancient Taoists. There is the story of a sage who, being asked by the people of a certain state to become their king, escaped and hid himself in a mountain cave. But the people found the cave, smoked him out and compelled him to assume the difficult task. [Lu-shih Ch'un-ch'iu, I, 2.) This is one similarity between Plato and the ancient Taoists, and it also shows the character of other-worldliness in Taoist philosophy. Following the main tradition of Chinese phi­losophy, the Neo-Taoist, Kuo Hsiang of the third century A.D., re­vised this point.

According to Confucianism, the daily task of dealing with social affairs in human relations is not something alien to the sage. Carry­ing on this task is the very essence of the development of the perfec­tion of his personality. He performs it not only as a citizen of society, but also as a “citizen of the universe,” t’ien min, as Mencius called it. He must be conscious of his being a citizen of the universe, other­wise his deeds would not have super-moral value. If he had the chance to become a king he would gladly serve the people, thus per­forming his duty both as a citizen of society, and as a citizen of the universe.

Since what is discussed in philosophy is the Tao (Way) of sageli­ness within and kingliness without, it follows that philosophy must be inseparable from political thought. Regardless of the differences between the schools of Chinese philosophy, the philosophy of every school represents, at the same time, its political thought. This does not mean that in the various schools of philosophy there are no metaphysics, no ethics, no logic. It means only that all these factors are connected with political thought in one way or another, just as Plato's Republic represents his whole philosophy and at the same time is his political thought.

For instance, the School of Names was known to indulge in such arguments as “a white horse is not a horse,” which seems to have very little connection with politics. Yet the leader of this school, Kung-sun Lung, “wished to extend this kind of argument to rectify the relationship between names and facts in order to transform the world.” We have seen in our world today how every statesman says his country wants only peace, but in fact, when he is talking about peace, he is often preparing for war. Here, then, there is a wrong relationship between names and facts. According to Kung-sun Lung, this kind of wrong relationship should be rectified. This is really the first step towards the transformation of the world.

Since the subject matter of philosophy is the Tao of sageliness within and kingliness without, the study of philosophy is not simply an at­tempt to acquire this kind of knowledge, but is also an attempt to develop this kind of character. Philosophy is not simply something to be known, but is also something to be experienced. It is not simply a sort of intellectual game, but something far more serious. As my col­league, Professor Y. L. Chin, has pointed out in an unpublished manuscript: “Chinese philosophers were all of them different grades of Socrates. This was so because ethics, politics, reflective thinking, and knowledge were unified in the philosopher; in him, knowledge and virtue were one and inseparable. His philosophy required that he live it; he was himself its vehicle. To live in accordance with his philosophical convictions was part of his philosophy. It was his business to school himself continually and persistently to that pure experience in which selfishness and egocentricity were tran­scended, so that he would be one with the universe. Obviously this process of schooling could not be stopped, for stopping if would mean the emergence of his ego and the loss of his universe. Hence cognitively he was eternally groping, and conatively he was eternally behaving or trying to behave. Since these could not be separated, in him there was the synthesis of the philosopher in the original sense of that term. Like Socrates, he did not keep office hours with his philosophy. Neither was he a dusty, musty philosopher, closeted in his study, sitting in a chair on the periphery of life. With him, phi­losophy was hardly ever-merely a pattern of ideas exhibited for human understanding, but was a system of precepts internal to the conduct of the philosopher; and in extreme cases his philosophy might even be said to be his biography.”

Budget: 30/270 minutes
Target Outcome: Operationally define philosophy based on its historical beginnings.
Essential Question: What operational definition of philosophy can be derived from the historical events that led to the development of philosophy in both East and West?
Activity:  

Budget:  30/270 minutes
Target Outcomes:  Identify the main branches of philosophy.
Essential Question: What are the main branches of philosophy?

Budget: 30/270 minutes
Target Outcome: Operationally define philosophy based on its branches.
Essential Question: What operational definition of philosophy can be derived from the philosophical branches?

Budget: 30/270 minutes
Target Outcomes:  Identify the importance of philosophy.
Essential Question: What are the contributions of philosophy?

Budget: 30/270 minutes
Target Outcome: Operationally define philosophy based on its importance.
Essential Question: What operational definition of philosophy can be derived from its importance?

Budget:  45/270 minutes
Assessment Question: Based on the three operational definitions of philosophy, what is philosophy?