La inexistència de la filosofia oriental

Aquest és el títol del darrer treball que he fet per Birbeck. El tema del curs era la comparació entre les tradicions oriental i occidental:
I
”There is no such thing as eastern philosophy” is the statement with which Chavakravarthi Ram-Prasad opens his book about eastern Philosophy. This is a paradoxical way of starting. Obviously he is not trying to mean that there is no philosophy at all in the East, but that there is more than one philosophy. His argument to support this statement is based on the fact of the several differences which can be found among the different eastern traditions. Two books like the Annalects and The Upanishads seem to belong to very different universes. They had scarcely anything in common.[1] His book[2] deals widely with this question and possibly nothing more needs to be said, to establish this point. However, this way of starting is not only paradoxical but also dangerous, because it has been a reality the temptation of thinking that there is no philosophy in the East at all. Such conclusions can be deduced from ideas like those expressed by Husserl when he said that only amongst the Greeks there was a universal theoretical attitude[3] or by his student Martin Heidegger who told that speaking of western philosophy is a tautology[4] (which is not different from saying that it could not exist something like an eastern philosophy, since philosophy to be philosophy needs to come from the West). In my opinion this point of view has been inherited, although in a most post-modern and political correct way, by thinkers like Rorty, who denied that the notion of an eastern philosophy can carry any meaning whatsoever because Asian people has had another needs, different from the European ones.[5] We must not forget also the fact that Philosophy, understood as the core of western culture, has been used to legitimize colonialism, that is to say, to ascertain the white man’s superiority over the primitive overseas people[6].
Obviously the question of eastern philosophy depends on what we understand by East and what we understand by philosophy. Although the first question is by no means obvious (Where would it be the Islam?) it is the second what appears as the more interesting to us. Probably there are many ways of defining philosophy, beyond the etymological origin of loving wisdom, to which I shall return further. If we consider Philosophy as the meditation on several questions, which seems to be inherent to human condition and human experience, then it would be foolish to deny the reality of Chinese, Indian, Buddhist or Japanese Philosophy. The aforementioned book of Chakravarthi ram-prasad it is in this point a reliable witness. I dare say that all the capital questions have been treated in the eastern countries: epistemology, ethics, philosophy of language, ontology, the foundations of politics, etc. In fact, this is the same kind of argument that some western scholars used and are using to defend their idea that philosophers like Plato or Descartes are still relevant to us. Although, we live in different cultures, we still share some of the questions that they were considering. The main reason to read Plato would be, from this point of view, that we can have something to learn from Plato, but according to this reasoning the same could be said of Buda, Zuangzi or the Advaita Vedanta School. Since this point of view it entails the same contradiction the idea of an eastern philosophy than the idea of a western philosophy. There is and there should be only philosophy.
But Philosophy could be defined in a less idealistic way. In the West, clearly, Philosophy is an institution. The history of philosophy is the result of a tradition of men, who identified themselves with an intellectual practice and within the narrows of a common frame of knowledge. There is no doubt that such an institution does not exist in the whole of Asia. I do no know what the answer is, when we focus on China or India. Is not enough to know what the Asian thinkers said. It would be required to know who and where they are and what they do. At this moment I feel unable to cope with these questions, which would require a deeper study But considering the point of view derived from this western reality that is philosophy understood as institution, it is not unlikely that the concept eastern philosophy should be defined in a negative way: its main and most distinctive feature is to have been produced in a way different from the occidental although occasionally both could refer to very similar matters. To summarise, if we understand philosophy as the activity that tries to find out what is the place of humanity in the whole, I do not see any way to ignore the relevance of eastern contributions. But, on the other hand, the question seems to be very different if we consider Philosophy as a social institution. In western countries, Philosophy has lived mainly in two organisations: the church and the university, which evolved from the former. Both institutions seems to be unknown in the East, where there were, of course, educational and religious organisms but no completely coincident with those. There could be still a third option to define philosophy: in relation to the aim which is trying to attain. Perhaps, this is the most difficult point to be considered and we should distinguish, within the western philosophy, between ancient and moderns, whose points of view about this matter were absolutely opposed.

II
As a whole Western or Eastern thinking are, from whatsoever point of view an overwhelming subject, but we can perhaps find a way to think the opening statement through, with a little trick, to assume that A. N. Whitehead was right when postulated that all western philosophy is comprehended in the works of Plato, defining the other works as footnotes to the Plato’s dialogues. These dialogues are a perfect basis for our work not only by the fact highlighted by Whitehead but also because the dialogues are more or less contemporaries of the material which we have studied throughout this year. I would like comment four features of the platonic dialogues which I believe are relevant to deal with the distinction between western and eastern thinking. Of course these remarks are due to open not to close the questions.

1/The agonistic character of the dialogues. When I am explaining Plato to my students I am bound to make a great emphasis in the fight developed by the Athenian philosopher against the sophists. However, since some years ago the years I have been becoming more convinced of the fact that the main antagonist of Plato is Homer,[7] that is to say poetry, which is the way in which myth is expressed. Perhaps the main legacy of Plato is the definition of philosophy, which is based on establishing differences with other discourses that could be confused with the former but are finally deemed as opposed. The sophist way of communication is one of them, myth is another. Plato certainly never avoided recognizing the necessity of the mythical point of view. In fact he invented new ones, but even these new myths were to be used as a weapon in his fight against the tradition which had its beginning in the Homeric poems. This is a point which contrasts openly with the facts that were going on in India or China. The Rig Veda is no less mythic that the Homeric poems, but the Upanishads and after them the work of the schools seem to evolve from them and not against them, hence the later integration in a common tradition, whereas Plato and Homer not only they do not belong to the same tradition, but are the basis of a division which nowadays is still live in our universities. In China, the old notions are, for a writer like Confucius, an a priori which should not be questioned[8]. The consequences of this fact have been important. Maybe, the most important objection against the acknowledgement of the philosophical character of Asiatic thinking raised by some western scholars is based on the fact that very often eastern thinking could hardly be distinguished from religion[9]. This objection is obviously caused by the secular point of view that has been imposed as a consequence of the Enlightenment, but probably its origins should be sought in classical Greek thought. Furthermore, I believe that this agonistic character that defines Plato’s Philosophy could be related to the point that, according which Armstrong, is perhaps the most important dealt by the thinkers of the axial age: the establishment of an intellectual technology against violence, which was increasing as a consequence of technological inventions. Whereas Buddhism, Confucianism or Hinduism were able to set up different ways of supporting a non-violent vision of the human life, platonical philosophy was still involved in the old agonistic pathos and was therefore less able to build an alternative which, in fact, the platonic dialogues did not offer.
2/ The revolutionary character of philosophy. Through his dialogues Plato was able to define the notion of philosophy, but this question was not only theoretical. The definition of philosophy is a problem that should not be separated from questioning what has to be the place of philosophy in the city. In fact, this problem has its source in the fact of the death of Socrates, the primitive drama which has determined the fate of western thought. The Republic deals mainly with this question: how to build a city where a man like Socrates could live and do his duty[10]. The only way to achieve such a thing is Revolution, so The Republic could have been depicted recently as a phenomenology of a revolutionary situation[11]. Not only a revolution, but possibly genocide, would be required to establish the government of philosopher-kings[12]. The platonical turn is the foundation of political philosophy, not just as another philosophical discipline, but as the essence of the philosophical activity. Fight for power was not strange to philosophy understood as institution as a result. The platonic seed will flourish two thousand years later through the Enlightenment which will renew in another way the political aspiration of the philosophers, now playing the role of scientists, and the confrontation with the myth and the tradition, that is to say in this new context, Christianity[13].
I have not enough knowledge to ascertain whether the institutions akin to philosophy in the East have been so profoundly involved in political action. Surely they have tried to influence political power but properly we were talking about a substitution which is not exactly the same. I have said previously that the foundation of politics is a question which has not been ignored in China or India. But, by no means, I think that it could be considered than Chinese thought, for instance, is keen to open a revolutionary process. Without a breaking point with tradition, it seems that this way of thinking tends to be more conservative[14]. This could be said not only of the work of Confucius, but also of Laoze, whose aim is to set up a natural way of governing[15]. In Indian a phenomena like the arising of Buddhism has, without doubt, a political background, but the renunciation experienced by Buddha or some sages of the Uppanishads is more akin to the political disengagement of epicureans, rather odd within the occidental tradition, than to platonic activism[16].
3/ The mathematical hypothese. There have been in Europe two ways of regarding the relation between Philosophy (natural philosophy) and mathematics: the Aristotelian and the platonico-pythagorean. Although the first was predominant in the lower Middle Ages, the second has become the basis of the modern weltanschaung since Galileo and the scientific revolution of the sixteen century. Maybe it is in Galileo where this view is best defined when he compares the Nature with a book which can not be understood, unless we master the language in which is written, that is to say, mathematics[17]. When Galileo wrote these lines, he was by no means a revolutionary, far from it, he was thinking within the boundaries of a tradition which was reborn in the renaissance with increased strength. Plato was not the first but possibly he was the main link of this chain[18]. Obviously my knowledge of Asian thinking is too rudimentary to be assertive on this statement, but on the whole it seems that the different eastern schools are closer to Aristotle than to Plato in this point. I have scarcely any idea of the relation between Mathematics and ontology in Eastern thinking, but there is a relevant point to be considered from the history of mathematics. If we compare Chinese mathematics with Greek mathematics in the period precedent of Plato, it is well established the fact of the superiority in some aspects of the Chinese mathematics which possessed notion like the zero and negative numbers not only unknown by the Greeks but also probably unthinkable by them and possibly the reason is that since the beginning the Greeks were considering numbers in a metaphysical way, that is to say, as entities which owned a real being, like a kind of things, whereas Chinese mathematical developed itself in a more abstract and pragmatic way[19]. Anyway, this mathematical hypothesis caused the birth of modern science which is one of the main causes involved[20] in the peculiar relationship between western thinking and nature, the idea that nature is something to be mastered according to human desires, which is perhaps the most characteristic feature or modern civilization.
4/ soteriological views. In this point there is a wide gap between modern philosophy and ancient philosophy. After the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment, the questions related to the meaning of life have almost completely disappeared from the horizon of western thinkers. All what philosophers seem able to say is that there is nothing to be said. Obviously this running away is connected with the sharp western distinction between religion and philosophy. In fact after the victory of christianity it was imposed a peculiar and absolutely unknown in the East division of the work, defining as religious this kind of questions. This division is possibly the root of a certain irrelevance of western philosophy as a discourse, which was already announced by thinkers like Nietzsche or Husserl.
However, if we look at the ancient philosophy the situation is more akin to the Asiatic. We know that schools like stoicism used to make meditative and thinking practices which possibly were no far away in its aims from yoga[21]. In the case of thinkers like Plato or Aristotle, soteriological questions are by no means ignored. The destiny of the soul it is a question which appears often in the platonic dialogues. Furthermore Plato seems to share with some Asiatic schools the idea of reincarnation. Nonetheless, it is difficult to find out what is actually the doctrinal teaching of Plato about the destiny of the soul and about the soul itself. All the soteriological discourses have always a mythical form; perhaps in this point Plato is closer to the modern ways of philosophy and shares the thought that there is nothing to be said about this question, which could be said in a rational scientific way. .Anyway, although it appears in the Greeks the idea that philosophy could signify a certain redemption of human condition, what for instance is trying to do Buddhism, it can hardly be denied that the position of Plato and Aristotle has as a main feature an intellectualism which is not shared by Buddhism. Whereas for Buddha any kind of knowledge has only instrumental value[22], the main point for Aristotle and Plato is that knowledge it is a good in itself. From the Buddhist point of view, wisdom does not justify life, whereas for the greeks it seems that theoretical life is enough for salvation and nothing more is required.
III
I would like only to add just a few words in order to summarize not only this essay but our three courses as well. Hegel wrote famously that the truth lies in the whole, following this path, one century later, Ortega concluded that the only task of the Philosophy is the knowledge of the universe, that is to say, everything what it is[23]. In fact this is a sensible as well as a utopian way to define philosophy. Both, Ortega and Hegel, were aware that the whole only could be thought in this way, in case that Plato was killed and truth was established as historical[24]. Maybe the most important historical fact in the twenty century has been decolonisation and this entails that this whole, which was the supreme theoretical reference by those thinkers, in nowadays bigger, because the others are already here to stay and could not be reduced anymore to be our shadow. In a postcolonial world the voice of abroad can not be ignored and our house needs a rebuilding with wider fundaments if we would like that every human being could live within comfortably. Philosophy could only fulfil itself speaking actually in behalf of the subject whom it always wished to represent: the whole humanity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

THE FOUNDATIONS OF BUDDHISM
Rupert Gethin, Oxford U.P., 1998
LA PHILOSOPHIE COMME MANIÈRE DE VIVRE
Pierre Hadot, Paris, Albin Michel, 2001
INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. AN INTRODUCTION TO HINDU AND BUDDHIST THOUGTH
Richard King, Georgetown U.P. 1997
PLATONE E I FONDAMENTI DALLA METAFISICA
Konrad Krämer, Milano, Sacro Cuore, 182
IMAGINARIO COLECTIVO Y CREACIÓN MATEMÁTICA
E. Lizcano, Barcelona, Gedisa, 1993
EASTERN PHILOSOPHY
Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad, 2005, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London
PLATO’S REPUBLIC
Stanley Rosen, Yale, U.O., 2005
THE CITY AND THE MAN
Leo Strauss, Virginia, U.P., 1964
THE UPANISADS
Translated and edited by Valerie J.Roebuck (Penguin classics, 2003)
THE ANNALECTS
Confucius. Translated with an introductions and notes by Raymond Dawson (Oxford U.P., 1993)
THE REPUBLIC
Plato. Translated and edited by C. Eggers- Lan. Obras completas. Vol. IV. Madrid, Ed. Gredos, 1986
OBRAS COMPLETAS (Vol. VII)
José Ortege y Gasset, Madrid, Alianza, 1983



[1] In fact, as Chavarkarti said, is easier to discover a relationship between Indian and greek thought than between India and Chinese thought. Whereas it should have had certain transmission of ideas between India and Greece, although it is difficult to ascertain how, when and where, China and India were completely separated realities.
[2] Chakkravarthi Ram- Prasad: Eastern Philosophy (2005, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London)
[3] E. Husserl: The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology (1970, Evanston, Illinois): p.280
[4] M. Heidegger. What is Philosophy? (London, 1956): p. 29-31
[5] Richard Rorty: “review of Gerard J. Larson and Eliot Deutsch (1988), Interpreting across boundaries: New essays in comparative philosophy:” in Philosophy East and West (39); p. 333
[6] Serequeberhan, Tsenay: “African philosophy: the point in question” in African Philosophy. The essential readings. New York, 1991, p.7
[7] It will be long to justify this point of view that is by no means original. Maybe it should be remembered that in the city described in the Republic there is a place for sophists like trashymac where poets are definitively expelled. The idea of the antagonism between Plato and Homer was already set out by Nietzsche
[8] Chavrakarti illustrates this point when remarks the centrality of the notion of Tian (Heaven). (op. cit., p. 41) Some examples are easy to find in the Analects. For Instance, in the Book 7, chapter 20, Confucius said: I am not one who knew about things at birth; I am one who through my admiration of antiquity is keen to discover things. Confucius, Annalects, Oxford, U.P., 1993
[9] This seems to entail that Indian thinking for instance, is not philosophical because is theological. But as Peter King said, when we are making this judgement we are presupposing the validity a priori of western contemporaneous categories (op. cit. p. 31-32).
[10] This point of view has been developed brilliantly by Leo Srauss in books, for instance, like The city ande man (U.P. Virginia, 1964)
[11] This is the main idea of a recent book about Plato: Plato’s Republic Stanley Rosen (Yale U.P., 2005)
[12] Republic, 541a
[13] Peter king has remarked that this conflict never happened and possibly never could have happened among Indian thinkers (Op-cit., p. 15 and also p.34)
[14] Chakravarthi, op. Cit., p. 90. Certainly, Confucius was trying to inspire and inspired a deep transformation of moral views, but now I am talking of revolution in a strictly political view. In contrast, Plato seems more inclined to noble lies than to a truly transformation of human soul.
[15] Ib., p. 96-97. This has obviously to be confronted with the distinction between phisis and nomos that was established by the sophistic
[16] To clarify this question maybe we should distinguish among several meanings of the word politics. In its wider sense every human activity is political including philosophy, religion, agriculture, etc. In a narrow sense, I would say that politics is the intent of solving human problems from the power. This point of view seems to be more common in the West than in the East.
[17] Galileo, Il saggiatore, 1623
[18] In this way, we have to consider not only the dialogues like Thimeous but also the testimony of the oral tradition which reflects the activity of Plato in the Academy where was taught a doctrine based on the notion of the ideas-number. ( Konrad Kramer: Platone e I fondamenti dalla metafisica (Milano, Sacro Cuore, 1982))
[19] Lizcano, Imaginario colectivo y creación matemática (Gedisa, Barcelona, 1993)
[20] Christianity could be considered as the other main cause.
[21] Pierre Hadot has shown that most of the greek philosophy is misunderstood when we look at it as a purely intellectual device. He introduces the notion of “spiritual exercices” in order to highlight this fact. A good introduction to his work is La Philosophie comme manière de vivre (Paris, Albin Michel, 2001)
[22] Rupert Gethin: The foundations of Buddhism (Oxford U.P.,1998); p. 71-72
[23] José Ortega y Gasset: Obras completas, Vol. VII, p.308 (Madrid, Alianza, 1983)
[24] ib. p. 301