Chinese Philosophy as Kung Fu (Gongfu)

A nice essay in the NYT today by Peimin Ni, on "Kung Fu for Philosophers." It is, essentially, a brief contrast of the philosophic sensibilities of ancient China versus those of the West.  He uses Kung Fu as a metaphor of sorts, to get at the practical, pragmatic, performative nature of much of Chinese thought (and he includes Buddhism in that category).  There are several apt comparison made in passing: Zhuangzi and Descartes on dreaming; Confucius and Austin on language; Richard Rorty, John Dewey and Charles Taylor make cameo appearances.  A fun read.

Having just finished a tutorial on ancient Chinese thought with ten bright students here, I especially liked this passage:

Mistaking the language of Chinese philosophy for, in Richard Rorty’s phrase, a “mirror of nature” is like mistaking the menu for the food. The essence of kung fu — various arts and instructions about how to cultivate the person and conduct one’s life — is often hard to digest for those who are used to the flavor and texture of mainstream Western philosophy. It is understandable that, even after sincere willingness to try, one is often still turned away by the lack of clear definitions of key terms and the absence of linear arguments in classic Chinese texts. This, however, is not a weakness, but rather a requirement of the kung fu orientation — not unlike the way that learning how to swim requires one to focus on practice and not on conceptual understanding. Only by going beyond conceptual descriptions of reality can one open up to the intelligence that is best exemplified through arts like dancing and performing.

By reading just the texts of the Daodejing, Lunyu, Mengzi, Zhuangzi, and Hanfeizi, without resort to interpretations from the secondary literature, I have, in effect, thrown them into the pool and made them swim on their own.  I can only hope that they continue to paddle along by bringing those texts into their own lives...

Ni goes on to explain that the "mirrors" image fails because it does not take into account the this-worldly, active, embodied quality of philosophy in the Chinese style, which concerns itself not so much with the articulation of abstract, all-ecompassing theories of Truth as with strategies for living good lives now:

...Even when philosophers take their ideas as pure theoretical discourse aimed at finding the Truth, their ideas have never stopped functioning as guides to human life. The power of modern enlightenment ideas have been demonstrated fully both in the form of great achievements we have witnessed since the modern era and in the form of profound problems we are facing today. Our modes of behavior are very much shaped by philosophical ideas that looked innocent enough to be taken for granted. It is both ironic and alarming that when Richard Rorty launched full-scale attacks on modern rationalistic philosophy, he took for granted that philosophy can only take the form of seeking for objective Truth. His rejection of philosophy falls into the same trap that he cautions people about — taking philosophical ideas merely as “mirrors” and not as “levers.”

Western philosophy may not always want to admit that philosophic ideas leverage ethical behavior now, but they do, however narrowly rationalist the assumptions of the thinker may be.

I'll leave the last word to Ni:

The kung fu approach does not entail that might is right. This is one reason why it is more appropriate to consider kung fu as a form of art. Art is not ultimately measured by its dominance of the market. In addition, the function of art is not [an] accurate reflection of the real world; its expression is not constrained to the form of universal principles and logical reasoning, and it requires cultivation of the artist, embodiment of virtues/virtuosities, and imagination and creativity. If philosophy is “a way of life,” as Pierre Hadot puts it, the kung fu approach suggests that we take philosophy as the pursuit of the art of living well, and not just as a narrowly defined rational way of life.

Read the whole thing...

Comments

[gmoke]

It is a practice, a daily effort whether in martial arts or philosophy. Practice is something we do not consider enough in the USA today.

[Carl]

I studied under Peimin Ni when he guest prof'd at the University of Hawaii. He's a great philosopher and a ren human being.