Meditations and Zhuang-zi(莊子)

Figuring out the differences of the ways of thinking between the people from the West(I would say people from the Western Europe, North America and Commonwealth more specifically) and the ones from the East (I would say Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese specifically) has been an ongoing issue for myself as well as my friends, and quite frequently it pops up as a hot issue for debating while drinking beer or coffee. So, looking for clues with which I can find the origins of the differences has become my life project(or a hobby).

There is a podcast channel which I listen to from time to time(of course, it's done in Korean). It deals with various kinds of topics which could be great sources for a bit more intellectual conversations such as Socrates and postmodernism. The title of the channel is 'wide and shallow knowledge for intellectual conversations(지적 대화를 위한 넓고 얕은 지식).'

The Panel of the podcast

 "Meditation" written by Descartes and "Zhuang-zi((莊子)" were introduced in a row and the discussion over the differences over how each book  was organized by the panel was interesting enough for me to borrow the books from the library and read them. I thought comparing the classics from the West and the East could give me a good clue with which I could understand the gap of the ways of thinking. 

Descartes's most popular "Cogito, ergo sum" is from "Mediations." The purpose for him to write the book is  that through doubting even the most undoubtful he could gain the ultimately undoubtful knowledge and build up the structures or schemes of the rest upon it.  His conclusion of "Cogito, ergo sum" is one of the results of his meditations of doubts. 

Two traits I could find tracking the flowing of 'Meditations' are 'giving conditions and making clear the abstract concepts' and 'organzing the abstract concepts through logics and making the conclusion upon.'

All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and certain I have learned either from the senses or through the senses; but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely to any thing by which we have once deceived. (The First Mediation)

Reading the paragraph above, I could read Descartes' way of developing his logics.

I get knowledge mostly from senses.

1. Trustable knowledge should be errorless wherever and whenever.

2. Knowledge from senses have errors from time to time.

3. Therefore, knowledge from senses is not trustable. 

Throughout the book, Descartes suggests and makes clear his ideas through syllogism, which is quite typical in the Western philosophy and I guess my Western friends are so great in using it especially while debating or arguing.  

I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which genius has avail himself in order to lay traps for my credulity. (The First Meditation)

The paragraph above suggests a few abstract concepts such as God(of course I can say  theologically He is not abstract, but philosophically He is abstract) and those concepts are made clear such as seen "God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth." 

'Moderations' was written in 17th century when so-called 'science' was about to be born growing from 'Natural Philosophy.' But reading the books by Plato, Aristotle, and etc, the two traits of 'giving conditions and making clear the abstract concepts' and 'organzing the abstract concepts through logics and making the conclusion upon.' are quite generally visible. 

For the readers who are familiar just with the Western Philosophies, reading Zhuang-zi(莊子) could be quite exotic and refreshing. Or sometimes it could feel like strange and sound like it doesn't make any sense. Zhuang-zi(莊子) is the name of one of the most representative persons in Taoism in China and the title of the book which is supposed to have been written or orated by him. 

In the northern ocean, there was a fish named Kun(鯤). Its width was so huge that it was impossible to guess how many thousands of yards it was. It could change into a bird named Peng(鵬). Its back is so huge that it was impossible to guess how many thousands of yards it was. When Peng(鵬) flied holding huge amount of air in its chest, its two wings looked like the cloud in the sky. The bird wanted to travel to the southern ocean when the ocean moved.  ······  A quail laughed at Peng(鵬) flying and said, " Where on the earth is it going? I can freely jump and flying in the bush and forest. I can fly tens of yards at most. Where on the earth is it going?" 

北冥有魚, 其名爲鯤, 鯤之大, 不知其幾千里也, 化而爲鳥, 其名爲鵬, 鵬之背, 不知其幾千里也, 怒而比, 其翼若垂天之雲, 是鳥也, 海運則將徙於南冥, ······ 斥鴳笑之曰, 彼且奚適也? 我騰躍而上, 不過數仞而下, 翶翔蓬蒿之間, 此亦飛之至也, 而彼且奚適也?

The story above is introduced at the first part of Zhuang-zi. Many classics in the East, especially ones from Taoism, are organized with an array of stories like the one above. Reading the story at first, I felt like "what on earth is the story about?" That kind of feeling of being confused is not confined to me.  A member of the panel of the podcast who majored in East Asian Philosophy said that due to the possibility of wide spectrum of interpretations for the classics, there developed an academic culture of writing commentary books over classics by scholars in East Asia. Through the long and ongoing process of debating and making commentary books, integral ideas are built up over the classics. 

Then, why did authors in East Asia use story making as a tool often? The panel of the podcast emphasized the culture of seeking insight for truths.  There has been belief in East Asia that wisdom can be gained not through analytical logic games of words but integral perspectives for the flows or the big pictures of the phenomenon (I know even the perspectives for the flows or the big pictures sound quite ambiguous.)

There are two things more I would like to mention; the first thing is that there has been distrust for languages in East Asia. Scholars and Wisdom seekers in East Asia recognized the limitations of words. In Korea, related to Taoism, the most popular words are below.

                               

If you say the truth is the truth, it is not the truth anymore. 

道可道非常道. 

It can interpreted in two ways. The first is that the truth can not be expressed with a few words. The second is about the relativity of truth; it can be the truth in 1990, but possibly it can't be true in 2017. 

The second thing to mention is that there is scholarly resistant attitude against making abstract concepts in a straightforward way(which is quite opposite to the Western way). This kind of attitudes is revealed in the conversation between Confucius and one of his disciples. 

Fanchi(樊遲) was one of the closest disciples of Confucius(孔子). One day, he asked Confucius.

" What is knowledge?"

Confucius answered.

" If you respect gods, but keep distance from them, it could be said that you know things."

敬鬼神而遠之   可謂知矣

As seen in Confucious' answer, he was quite reluctant to define what knowledge is. Of course, its basic assumption is that there is limitation in words in expressing truths.

Surely, just comparing the two books is not enough to get a clear picture over what the differences of way of thinking between Western people and the people in East Asia are from. Actually, there are so many exceptions. Reading the Gospels in the Bible, I see stories with which I don't understand what they mean and the classics from Neo-Confucianism are so abstract and analytical. But considering that the classics are the books that have influenced people's way of thinking so long, I can say that the classics are very useful clue to figure out the differences.


P.S.
If you are more into figuring out the differences, reading "The Geography of Thought" could be helpful.