Random Muse

Philosophies which I do not comprehend often extend the description of the causal interrelationships between physical objects to imply that they are the consequence of the essential oneness of things. It requires a coagulating similarity to include everything, and this forms the essence of the category's identity. Our selection of objects that lie within the realm of the physical is such an example, where the senses are employed for the purposes of classification of the object. Of course, the first sentence begs the complex question of which came first and caused the other (for our understanding, and then in truth, each different and possibly inversed). Only with such knowledge will we be able to answer questions raised by the second sentence.

Rant 2

Seeing that I have no fresh topic to write about, I will continue with my tiring analysis of the Chinese issue. I came across a pertinent article about the difference between what we classify as the Western approach to discourse and the Eastern one. In the article, a French philosopher made the claim that intellectuals in the West engaging in discourse had the propensity to apply self-criticism in the evaluation of their ideas, both in terms of the philosophic validity of their ends, and the effectiveness of the solutions proposed. Certainly, it is the prevalence of the former that clearly sets apart a progressive climate of discourse in the West from a relatively traditional one in the East. In China, the social and cultural curbs, arising from the doctrines of Confucianism and Communism that remained unchallenged publicly in the arena of rational debate, mark out the limits- consciously for only some- of the scope for intellectual contribution and by extension, the range of what is defined as intellectual and respected at all. Hence thinking is confined to the best ways to achieve accepted larger ends.

Obviously, my knowledge of China is shaky at best, but I think the social and political developments of the past 50 years or so do demonstrate the confusion in China over the ideas it came to adopt from the West, and even modern China's confusion over its dynastic ones. That Mao could push through disastrous policies (the Cultural Revolution) without ever having to purge his party officials to the degree that Stalin had to; for Chinese youths to reject simply the moral ideals that China even more simply held on to for centuries; for large sections of the populace to subscribe radically to a monarchic cult that mocked the substance of communism; and finally, for the focus of the entire population to change, after that spell of anarchic euphoria posing as ideological warfare, to the means of the capitalistic production it so fervently erased every glimpse of just ten years earlier. (Think about Russia).

To return to my earliest paragraph, the debatibilty of the fundamental philosophic issues- morality, the definition and desirability of justice applied in the political setting, the means to achieving the ideal city- these are the hallmarks of the advanced society over the traditional one. For these require the objectification of argument, the recognition that standards of judgment which stand apart from the subjective exist and should be respected. One no longer necessarily supports one's own clan, and expects his opponent to support his own; the fidelity to the standards themselves (morality, reason) become the judge against the position put forth. Therefore there is a recourse to truth, one that is argued into agreement, and therefore, criticism and self-criticism becomes an objective activity. For instance, an opponent might argue that your point is flawed, but we recognize that the reason lies in the failure of the argument to live up to some standard, rather than that the argument arose from you. Therefore, it (ideally) distinguishes criticism in debate from personal critique, which allows the focus of the argument to turn away from the individual to the issue. And philosophic questions indicate recognition of the underlying assumptions and values, those which are potentially most difficult to change.

Obviously, it would be an advancement if one were to recognize that such standards were valid, if only so for their utility.