Chinese Philosophy
It is often problematic to try to understand Chinese philosophy through a Western point of view as meaning may be lost in translation due to ethnocentricism. Effort should be made to ensure that our Western ideologies do not interfere with our understanding of the differences between Western and Chinese philosophy, of which several exist. One such difference between Western and Chinese philosophy is the speculation of the being of the cosmos. In Western philosophy, there is a constant effort to seek out the origin of things, their being and the reality behind their being. Chinese philosophers’ interests on the other hand are rooted in the cultivation of harmony between these things. The main reason for this difference is that Chinese culture is not based on myths of origin such as is observed in such Western civilizations as Greek and Latin. According to Ames & David, this makes Chinese philosophy acosmotic as it is not based on the cosmos, defined as the completeness of a single-ordered world (11). Westerners’ approach towards understanding of Chinese tradition should therefore be suited to accommodate this fact.
Another difference between Chinese and Western philosophies is seen in both traditions’ views of rest and permanence. In the West, chaos is perceived negatively while rest and permanence are often seen as the beginning as well as the preferred state. This differs from Chinese culture where becoming and process is preferred, and a state of permanence is regarded unfavorably. This difference in philosophy is mainly due to the separation of mythos, logos and historia as methods of accounting in the Western tradition where logos is given prominence over mythos and historia. This means that rationality determines the level of respectability of both myth and history when indeed both history and logic were obtained from mythos. In pursuit of rational account for the way things are, Western philosophers also used physis, which is the objective nature of things (Ames & David 23). This differs from Chinese tradition where a rational or substantial understanding is not sought; rather a dynamic and progressive one is sought. In Chinese culture, mystery is stressed over fixed meaning, rendering an individual in a stage of becoming rather than that of permanent being.
An additional difference between Chinese and Western philosophy arises due to Zeno, a famous Greek thinker who popularized what he considered consequences of not following principles set out by his teacher, Parmenides. By advocating for Parmenides’ principle that ‘Only Being is’, Zeno separated sense experience from reason, and in so doing directed philosophy to abstract speculation, away from experience (Ames & David 25). Zeno’s appeal of these consequences as well as the reaction that came from others in the field over the years essentially changed the course of Western philosophy. This is unlike in Chinese philosophy where such effects of speculations are not present. Chinese philosophy advanced without the conflicting thoughts of philosophers reacting to Zeno and Parmenides’ conviction. Chinese philosophers did not therefore engage in discussion of the difference between motion and change (Ames and David 33).
Chinese philosophy also differs greatly from that of the West due to Heraclitus’ counter discourse of rest and permanence. Heraclitus proposed process thinking as opposed to substance thinking proposed by earlier philosophers. Heraclitus was aided by the fact that he developed his thinking before Parmenides and Zeno, therefore was not compelled to react to their views. He held his opinion that ‘all things flow’ as the primary truth. Heraclitus was of the belief that the world is engaged in a process and that what should be sought is not permanence but change. Philosophers who did not hold the same view were especially concerned about the intermediate state when a substance that is in the process of change is neither what it was before, nor what it is changing to become. Heraclitus’ counter discourse was that change is qualitative such that there is a degree of quality that change presents. This degree cannot be separated from the state in which a substance undergoing change is. For this reason, the intermediate stage of change is un-independent of other stages of being, but is rather a varying degree of a state of being. However, even Heraclitus advocated for a level of permanence as according to him, there has to be a measure against which all things change. This presents the difference between Western and Chinese philosophy where thinking is not subjected to rational or empirical objectivity but rather to the involvement of language – images and metaphors – as “a means of expressing the becoming of things” (Ames and David 40).
Lastly, Chinese philosophy also differs from Western philosophy because it lacks the tendency of universalizing human nature. Western philosophy is of the notion that social, political, psychological and cultural orders are in fact definitions of universality and commonality. Elements of the Trinity – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – are employed in this thinking, and by so doing account for explanation of humanity (Confucius, Roger and Henry 36). Further, the definition and meaning of the human being has been universalized by Western philosophy, which differs from the thinking of the Chinese. The Chinese consider themselves more provincial than universal an in their understanding of culture and history do not apply universalism. This is also true of their definition of the meaning of being human which they do not ascribe universality
Chinese philosophy does indeed differ from Western philosophy and has brought to the philosophical field invaluable unique features that were not present before. One of these is of course presented in the culture and tradition of the Chinese people themselves. Philosophy of human nature is obviously associated to human beings, what themselves they bring to the table is of utmost importance. These include culture, language, religion and tradition as well as all other aspects of humanity. By considering what Chinese culture contributes to philosophy, we realize that it affects not only our understanding of Chinese philosophy, but also the influences of this way of thinking to other philosophies. For instance, by considering Chinese language, we get to learn that it features both a primary and a secondary meaning, the latter of which is often metaphorical and abstract (Bodde 11). This is true of Chinese philosophy as well and through the study of language, we get to observance this.
The differences discussed above between Chinese and Western philosophies provide insight into what Chinese philosophy offers the field. For instance, the high regard of process and becoming provides insight into the Chinese logic, which is structured on present time as opposed to Western philosophy where an objective (in the future) is always sought. As proposed by Confucius, Roger and Henry, Chinese thinking is based on the present time and on a constant flow of moments (136). This brings to the table a different way of thinking, which differs from how Westerners view the concept of time. Using this Chinese thinking, one can be in more than one world at a time. Similarly, the different Chinese philosophy of being, which unlike Western thought, is not based on cosmic mythology. This unique feature is important in understanding of the determining factors of the origin of Western thought thereby showing a difference as to what philosophers’ influences are. This especially aids in comparative philosophy where all influencing factors, not just the thoughts themselves, are important in the development of the philosophical field.
Indeed, understanding of Chinese philosophy, which is in itself not easy from a Western viewpoint, is essential in the field of philosophy as it offers insight into other cultures and other processes of thought. Additionally, by observing the differences between Chinese and Western philosophies, we get to appreciate that Western thought is not superior to Chinese or any other culture’s philosophy.
Works Cited
Ames, Roger and David Hall. Dao De Jing: A philosophical translation. New York: Random House Publishing Group, 2003. Print.
Bodde, Derk. China’s cultural tradition: what and whither. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Print
Confucius, Roger Ames and Henry Rosemont. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Random House Publishing Group, 1999. Print.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]