Schopenhauer assumes your having knowledge of Kant's philosophical system (I had only read Kant's Critique of (Based on my very limited understanding)
Schopenhauer assumes your having knowledge of Kant's philosophical system (I had only read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason) and his own doctoral thesis 'On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason' which I might read next time I want to give this philosopher a try.
It seems to me that philosophers are mostly at their best when (1) When they are criticizing other philosophers (2.) when they are criticizing the ways through which we can 'know' anything.
His argument that very rules of logic were created more out of the convention by Greeks rather than some beautiful epiphany spoke directly to me.
As much as Socrates' dialogues can be amusing and give you food for thought, if you think his use of syllogism to win debates shows he was always right, then you put too much value on logic and reason. The world doesn't have to stand by our rules of logic. Even syllogisms. Hydrogen is combustible, oxygen too - combine them and you get water which is used to fight the fire. syllogism and other such rules of logic are only useful in worlds entirely dependent on such systems like mathematics. And even in mathematics, they don't seem to tell us a lot of new things except the interconnection between different patterns.
As much as I liked maths in school it bothered me to no end that we should have to 'prove' a geometrical theory like that angles of a triangle always adds to 180 degrees because it could be discerned by eyes and often you could use the theory to prove what you had earlier assumed as given. Schopenhauer has some best (and also ironically logically sound) arguments against such reasoning after Kant. Will and Representation
While I don't agree with the main theory itself which seemed to me like an exercise in creating an idea so minimal that you could use it to explain it everything; it is an interesting book.
You can understand the word 'will' in the same sense as it generally understood - desire, urge, etc. He says that the whole world has a single insatiable will - and it is basically what makes the world move. It is what makes birds create nests for offsprings they don't know yet they will have etc. Now if you know anything about Hindu philosophy, this assumption is important to them too. In fact, the Hindu word for God 'Paramatma' (figuratively 'prime soul') seems to mean as same thing as Schopenhauer's. Of course, you don't see the will in itself, only its representation - which in Hinduism is called 'Maya'. Yes, Schopenhauer was a big fan of Hinduism. Will is what operates behind the bird above and makes it act so (as far as I understand), representation is the bird you see. 'WIll' is me, 'representation' is my body. Book 1
The representation is held in our mind by the principle of sufficient reason which is basically arguing if something is there / occurs, it must have a cause or reason - another silly convention if you ask me.
What might be interesting to me is the idea of comparing Schopenhauer's theory of will as it manifests itself in living things to theories of Evolution. What Schopenhauer seems to try to explain in the behavior of animals through his idea of that single all-encompassing 'will'; is now probably explained by evolutionary incentives (such as how does an animal know that falling from a height might cause it an injury?). Schopenhauer's treatment of Will as something we are not conscious can be linked to the unconscious in the fields of psychoanalysts like Freud and Jung too. Book 2
Will is also what called the thing-in-itself (as against its representation in our mind). The whole world is one thing-in-itself and this unity (the one soul or Paramatma) is only seen as a number of entities because of time and space which are two forms of intuition and deceive us into seeing many differ Wills. Outside of time and space, we won't be able to differentiate among different things.
Add in here a lot of pessimism of religious philosophers. Since everything (including non-living things) have a will of itself, everything suffers too. And it must go on suffering till it wills which is why asceticism is awesome.
Not my favorite book. Book 3
My favorite part.
Kant talks about aesthetics. Art is an improved 'representation' of will's 'representation' in nature - the play within the play. You take a part of the representation of Will - the platonic idea (for example lakes, love, etc) and you contemplate it individually so as to stop willing (lose consciousness of your own desires) for a moment which in turn reduces suffering causing what is called aesthetic pleasure.
We have different capacities for this aesthetic pleasure and having a high capacity of the same makes you 'genius'. A genius then tries to communicate the aesthetic experience by creating copies of these 'ideas'. These copies of ideas are called works of art.
The above theory holds true for all arts (Schopenhauer has interesting things to say about a lot of art forms) with the sole exception of music. Music is not a copy of an idea. It is the same level as the original representation of the 'one' Will itself and yet offering us pleasure. For example when you paint a leave - there is a (level 1) WIll behind leave which can't be seen, (level 2) an original leave (the representation), (level 3) the idea of it in your mind and (level 4) the work of art or the copy of that idea in form of the painting. All arts are at level 4 but music is at level 2 and so closer to will. Despite being so close to the will, it offers just as much pleasure as the other art forms which do so by distancing us from the will.
If something pleases us by being 'beautiful' then it pleases us by tempting and feeding our desires (nudes, chocolates, and artworks depicting them). Like every preacher of asceticism, Schopenhauer too thinks that world is full of suffering and things that satisfy our desires (beautiful things) only tempt stronger desires in us. A 'sublime' pleasure, on the other hand, is derived when we struggle with our natural hostility to the object and this pleasure is thus driven by our getting closer to Will. Book 4
If you see things at the level of Representation (Maya), you develop egoism and egos clash and hence immoral actions, etc. To someone who sees beyond the representation of WIll, the whole world is One - his or her own suffering is not any different from that of any other; hence compassionate acts come naturally. Schopenhauer talks of suicide in detail which he thinks is basically running away from the problem manifestation of Will or its individual phenomena rather than fighting it which can only be done through asceticism. This book was boring too....more
I once used to read philosphical works a lot. Back then, I came across someone saying it is a young man's game and thought that it was a snobbish commI once used to read philosphical works a lot. Back then, I came across someone saying it is a young man's game and thought that it was a snobbish comment. However my own love for philosophy dried out very quickly, I still maintain that to call it a young man's game is snobbish.
Russell defends the supposed uselessness of philosophy on grounds that when a part of it becomes useful, it takes form of some other science. Aristotle has been called father of sciences. While Adam Smith and Sigmeund Freud who are considered fathers of their respective fields - economics and psychology; had as much as the element of Philospher in them as forerunners of their sciences. Studies of economics, mind, physics, law, governments, composition of earth, geometry etc were all philosphy before they grew as seperated and sometimes 'useful' sciences.
Even today and in worlds of exact sciences too, the most valued scientists such as Stephan Hawking, Richard Dawkins etc continue to have an element of philospher in them, clearly visible in thier works.
I think what differentiates them most when compared to other classic philosphers is that their studies, their ideas are more observational rather than their pure fancies. They are forever talking about things that actually are rather than as they 'should be'. No philosphers who make assumptions that have nothing to do with real world interest me much.
Adam Smith falls in this category. His wealth of nations doesn't need much praies and actually turned economics into a separate science. In here though he is talking about morality, a subject that continues to part of philosphy despite all the Kants and Nietzsches it has seen.
Smith's approach to it is not trying to define rights or wrongs - or how they should be defined. Instead he is focused on how morality is nothing but our sentiments. His theory of an inner being with a higher moral compass is interesting. I think I read somewhere Dawkins agree to someone else whom he quoted as saying morality is the feeling that you are being watched.
Equally is interesting is his ideas about how little we are affected by tragedies that happen at a physical distance. He also points out how out sentiments, reflected in our laws, are affected by both intentions of a person as well as consequences of his actions. He distinguishes vanity from pride.
Except for a few starking observations; I don't think there is a lot of uselessness in it except for those who have curious mind (like me). He is very clear and in the observations he make and often looking at same thing from different aspects without ever giving his own opinion....more
"Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedienc
"Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What never can grow out of it is power."
Arendt refuses to define power as mere ability to do violence as some of the old authors she quotes has defined it to be. The book is written in times of cold war and during fears of mutually assured destruction. Arendt refuses to see violence as something that goes along with political power. She seems to think that the very fact of the presence of nuclear weapons makes the world a more violent place. There is no weapon humanity ever created that it didn't use and all that. The best part is where she tries to define like sounding words - power, strength, authority etc.
Naturally, words themselves are mere symbols and you can use them to mean whatever you like but it enhances the ability to communicate better if each word described a unique abstract concept and every abstract concept has an exclusive word to signify it.
In the words of d'Entreves, "might, power, authority: these are all words to whose exact implications no great weight is attached in current speech; even the greatest thinkers sometimes use them at random. Yet it is fair to presume that they refer to different properties, and their meaning should, therefore, be carefully assessed and examined . . . . The correct use of these words is a question not only of logical grammar but of historical perspective. "
Power
"Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together. When we say of somebody that he is "in power" we actually refer to his being empowered by a certain number of people to act in their name."
Of course, power and violent means can be held by opposite parties:
"The extreme form of power is All against One, the extreme form of violence is One against All. And this latter is never possible without instruments. To claim, as is often done, that a tiny unarmed minority has successfully, by means of violence-shouting, kicking up a row, et cetera-disrupted large lecture classes whose overwhelming majority had voted for normal instruction procedures is therefore very misleading. (In a recent case at some German university there was even one lonely "dissenter" among several hundred students who could claim such a strange victory.) What actually happens in such cases is something much more serious: the majority clearly refuses to use its power and overpower the disrupters; the academic processes break down because no one is willing to raise more than a voting finger for the status quo. What the universities are up against is the "immense negative unity."
Strength
"Strength unequivocally designates something in the singular, an individual entity; it is the property inherent in an object or person and belongs to its character, which may prove itself in relation to other things or persons, but is essentially independent of them. The strength of even the strongest individual can al ways be overpowered by the many, who often will combine for no other purpose than to ruin strength precisely because of its peculiar independence. The almost instinctive hostility of the many toward the one has always, from Plato to Nietzsche, been ascribed to resentment, to the envy of t:1e weak for the strong, but this psychological interpretation misses the point. It is in the nature of a group and its power to turn against independence, the property of individual strength."
Authority
One of the best quotes from the book:
"Authority, relating to the most elusive of these phenomena and therefore, as a term, most frequently abused, can be vested in persons-there is such a thing as personal authority, as, for instance, in the relation between parent and child, between teacher and pupil-or it can be vested in offices, as, for instance, in the Roman senate (auctoritas in Senate) or in the hierarchical offices of the Church (a priest can grant valid absolution even though he is drunk). I ts hallmark is unquestioning recognition by those who are asked to obey; neither coercion nor persuasion is needed. (A father can lose his authority either by beating his child or by starting to argue with him, that is, either by behaving to him like a tyrant or by treating him as an equal.) To remain in authority requires respect for the person or the office. The greatest enemy of authority, therefore, is Contempt, and the surest way to undermine it is laughter."
You could see why those who claim to speak in name of crown or God are so easily enraged by cartoonists of satirists. All those institutions work on grounds of authority. Kundera's novel 'Joke' is based on fear the authority has of being laughed at. Violence
"Violence, finally, as I have said, is distinguished by its instrumental character. Phenomenologically, it is close to strength, since the implements of violence, like all other tools, are designed and used for the purpose of multiplying natural strength until, in the last stage of their development, they can substitute for it."
Legitimacy
This is one of the best distinctions between violence and power.
"Power needs no justification, being inherent in the very existence of political communities; what it does need is legitimacy. The common treatment of these two words as synonyms is no less misleading and confusing than the current equation of obedience and support. Power springs up whenever people get together and act in concert, but it derives its legitimacy from the initial getting together rather than from any action that then may follow. Legitimacy, when challenged, bases itself on an appeal to the past, while justification relates to an end that lies in the future."
Governments of republic arise out of the constitution and so have a legitimate hold over power but the presence of constitution doesn't justify the actions of these powerholders. A prime minister or president cannot justify his action on grounds that he was elected to the post. Thus right way to question those in political power is not by asking "by what right they have done it?" but rather to ask "how they justify it?".
When someone vested with power abuses it to cause violence, he/she loses power by committing an illegitimate action.
"Violence can be justifiable, but it never will be legitimate."
And you will always find some kind of justification - right or wrong for even the worst of violence. Even genocides are being justified on the most screwed grounds. So the correct way to challenge violence is by questioning their legitimacy. Because victims, mostly minorities or underdogs, never agreed to accept the violence.
"Its justification loses in plausibility the farther its intended end recedes into the future. No one questions the use of violence in self-defense, because the danger is not only clear but also present, and the end justifying the means is immediate."
Thus it is seen as justified if you murder someone in self-defense when other tries to rob you but it would be considered wrong if you kill someone just because he had started a factory that would destroy all life on Earth in 60 years.
*
Another good quote:
"in the words of Herzen, "Human development is a form of chronological unfairness since late-comers are able to profit by the labors of their predecessors without paying the same price," or, in the words of Kant, "It will always remain bewildering . . . that the earlier generations seem to carry on their burdensome business only for the sake of the later . . . and that only the last should have the good fortune to dwell in the [completed] building."
I had a liberal access to internet only when I was already in college. And I developed a very quick obsession for Wikipedia and Wikiquote surfing. WheI had a liberal access to internet only when I was already in college. And I developed a very quick obsession for Wikipedia and Wikiquote surfing. When I tumbled about Nietzsche's Wikiquote fan, I became a fan. But reading 'beyond good and evil' was a disappointment. All the good parts of it I had already read on his Wikiquote experience. It is as if his best always comes in aphorisms - you read Wikiquote, you can say you have read Nietzsche, well the good parts. (I felt same thing with Oscar Wilde's plays but Wilde had non-aphorism beauty in his in non-dramtic writing). There are lots of great quotes in it, but I had already read them. They might be more of a revelation to other readers. Much of his criticism of Christianity makes sense but he seems to want to correct it by forcing opposite values on society which is where he fails. It is a popular adage that philosophers are better at asking questions than answering them. Goes for Nietzsche too.
Moreover he can often be inconsistent. At one point he says Christianity has taken away virality of life, on other hand, he likes Buddhism for Nirvana - which talks about freeing a person from life itself for sake of freeing humanity from pain and suffering. Buddhism, like Christianity and other religions, is born of pessimism, of idea that life is a curse because of suffering that is attached to it. And moreover, Nietzsche himself is guilty of this view when he says the way to happiness is asceticism (which btw is again contradicting his earlier idea that we should be fighting wars because peace is so pathetic). Ascetiicism preached by Indian religions has same fault as Christian church's preaching - it goes against humanity's basic instincts (which only wants to fill it's time with sex, sleep and food.)
He hates Christian priests for fooling people. And praises Manu for suggesting a society where a few clever and strong folks would fool masses of lesser mortals. Manu and other Hindu priests were no different from Christian priests talked about 'sin' just as much as Christian priests. Of course, he accuses Christian priests for deceit and for holding power and than turns around and says power is a good thing.
And there is again that bad taste that ones gets from his antisemitism and misgony. Calling Christians and priests 'Jews' and 'women' is his go to insults....more
The first half is narrator talking about his dying wife, J. - who strangely looked more and more like a child closer she got to death and even came baThe first half is narrator talking about his dying wife, J. - who strangely looked more and more like a child closer she got to death and even came back to life after her first death once. J.'s reactions to her own approaching death
"Every minute stolen from solitude and fear was an inestimable boon for J. She fought with all her strength for one single minute: not with supplications, but inwardly, though she did not wish to admit it. Children are that way: silently, with the fervor of hopeless desire, they give orders to the world, and sometimes the world obeys them. The sickness had made a child of J.; but her energy was too great, and she could not dissipate it in small things, but only in great things, the greatest things."
.....or narrator's attitude towards her (or later as he tries to get over death) seem to justify the title.
"The only difference, and it was a large one, was that I was living in proud intimacy with terror; I was too shallow to see the misery and worthlessness of this intimacy, and I did not understand that it would demand something of me that a man cannot give. My only strong point was my silence. Such a great silence seems incredible to me when I think about it, not a virtue, because it in no way occurred to me to talk, but precisely that the silence never said to itself: be careful, there is something here which you owe me an explanation for, the fact that neither my memory, nor my daily life, nor my work, nor my actions, nor my spoken words, nor the words which come from my fingertips ever alluded directly or indirectly to the thing which my whole person was physically engrossed in. I cannot understand this reserve, and I who am now speaking turn bitterly towards those silent days, those silent years, as towards an inaccessible, unreal country, closed off from everyone, and most of all from myself, yet where I have lived during a large part of my life, without exertion, without desire, by a mystery which astonishes me now. I have lost silence, and the regret I feel over that is immeasurable. I cannot describe the pain that invades a man once he has begun to speak. It i a motionless pain that is itself pledged to muteness; because of it, the unbreathable is the element I breathe. I have shut myself up in a room, alone, there is no one in the house, almost no one outside, but this solitude has itself begun to speak, and I must in turn speak about this speaking solitude, not in derision, but because a greater solitude hovers above it, and above that solitude, another still greater, and each, taking the spoken word in order to smother it and silence it, instead echoes it to infinity, and infinity becomes its echo."
The narrator even agreed to her once that her death was long overdue. And it was all so powerful until J. died for second time, after that though prose sustained its beauty, the story seemed to fall apart as we see Narrator trying to get over the loss of his wife through different cognitive responses - running away (choosing to live in hotels instead of his own place); being violent towards a woman to carry out frustration, indulging in self-delusion (because reality was too much) etc in a number of apparently unrelated incidences and thus some of the negative reviews here.
"As for me, I have not been the unfortunate messenger of a thought stronger than I, nor its plaything, nor its victim, because that thought if it has conquered me, has only conquered through me, and in the end has always been equal to me. I have loved it and I have loved only it, and everything that happened I wanted to happen, and having had regard only for it, wherever it was or wherever I might have been, in absence, in unhap- piness, in the inevitability of dead things, in the necessity of living things, in the fatigue of work, in the faces born of my curiosity, in my false words, in my deceitful vows, in silence and in the night, I gave it all my strength and it gave me all its strength, so that this strength is too great, it is incapable of being ruined by anything, and condemns us, perhaps, to immeasurable unhappi- ness, but if that is so, I take this unhappiness on myself and I am immeasurably glad of it and to that thought I say eternally, “Come,” and eternally it is there."
*
"People who are silent do not seem admirable to me because of that, nor yet less friendly. The ones who speak, or at least who speak to me because I have asked them a question, often seem to me the most silent, either because they evoke silence in me, or because, knowingly or unknowingly, they shut themselves up with me in an enclosed place where the person who questions them allies them with answers that their mouths do not hear."
This time I am not gonna share quotes as there are hundreds of them and many are from authors' quoted by Montaigne. These essays are the kind of stuffThis time I am not gonna share quotes as there are hundreds of them and many are from authors' quoted by Montaigne. These essays are the kind of stuff I wish I had read when I was younger. It is probably the best kind of eloquence for a non-fiction author - not too heavy on verbosity, matter-of-factly and yet retaining a certain grace.
By 'Grace', I mean a way of holding oneself, I mean a quality which attracts natural respect. Montaigne writes with such grace that even if where his opinions are very opposite of yours, the difference of opinion becomes irrelevant. It is like listening to some old wise man - somewhat like the protagonist of 'Memoirs of Hadrin'. And you kind of know Montaigne won't mind you disagreeing to himself - he says he prefers those whose opinions are contrary to his. He speaks of his own opinions with quiet confidence but with no inclination of forcing his views on others.
He perceives the plight of women in his own times and seems to be capable of understanding them but is not moved to ask for equality for them. He also perceives that the cultures termed as 'barbarous' have as much reason to perceive other cultures as barbarous. While he sees also that laws of his time show great injustice to others, he shows great resistance to changes and revolutions.
The essays tend to grow larger as we move ahead and more personal. From general topics to talk about his opinions on different things including philosophical ones (Voltaire thinks him to be a philosopher of the best quality) to his own temperaments. This last gives you very deep insight into his nature - something better than a biography. We sort of know him (or quality of the material of which he is made) as much as we know Harold Bloom (from James Joyce's Ulysses) - in fact, we do learn quite a bit about Montaigne's toilet habits too.
Talking about oneself with honesty is probably one of the most difficult things to do. When we do see people talking about themselves at any length - we receive real or imagined complexes these people have. Perhaps this is why we are too self-conscious when talking about ourselves. Montaigne seems to be free of these complexes (perhaps because like Hadrian he was more or less waiting for death when he wrote) - he talks of weaknesses without trying anything to defend himself or showing low self-worth based on them and strengths as if they were gifts by someone else (God, nature, etc).
Not only Montaigne knows 'how' to talk about oneself, he also knows 'what' to talk about when talking about oneself. If only everyone talked about himself or herself like that!
He sometimes explains that essays were meant to show his temperaments and so this excuses his talking so much about himself. But it is really some of the essays where he is talking of his own temperaments that are my favorite parts.
When talking about philosophical subjects, he talks such as death, aging, etc; he sticks to an observational attitude he adopts while talking of customs, his favorite heroes, etc. This keeps him from getting too lost in his philosophical systems. Perhaps that is why he is not counted among philosophers despite influencing so many of them. Unlike most philosophers, Montaigne understands that he doesn't know it all. Probably ahead of his times in his ideas (church considered the book 'dangerous') - he is still open-minded enough often admitting there might be good reasons to have opinions different than his own.
The essays, especially bigger ones, are really like a stream-of-consciousness thing as they move freely between his thoughts sometimes spending several pages on a thought or idea which has nothing to do with the heading. Montaigne didn't edit his essays much which were mostly written each in a single sitting....more
I don't know how come I never reviewed this one but recently I was visiting this friend of mine in south India, Pramod (yes, the one from Goodreads),
I don't know how come I never reviewed this one but recently I was visiting this friend of mine in south India, Pramod (yes, the one from Goodreads), when he showed me this not-so-popular smaller piece, allegedly written by the author in his last days, 'Le Gente' and never published - for common people about how they can succeed in social life using diplomacy.
There were only twenty copies of same written in 19th century, of which Pramod's was one. Since he is a sort of book-worshipper, he won't let me touch it. Needless to say, I stole it before starting on my return journey.
If he finds about this review, he might unfriend me and sue me for theft - so this review won't be here too long. Anyway, in case of a legal action, I can always take shelter in points 14, 16 and 17 below.
...Ever since my return, I have been made to understand that critics believe these copies to be forgeries, none of these copies completely agree amongst themselves. Moreover, the writing style and some of the words used, suggest a later day authorship.
That being said, I think mine (or Pramod's) made some good points, although they weren't all so original. It will seem them that past and present owners of these copies have been quoting them without mentioning their source.
Since document is medieval and vague, I have been able to translate it only partially. Google translator helps only so much. Here are a few tips I found (I will add more, whenever I’m able to decipher the rest of it):
1. Honesty might win you friends, but not the powerful ones. (The later will be your enemies.)
2. If you delay it to the last moment and pretend to be anxious, one of your friends will come in and want to help you finish the project. Best way to half your workload.
3. Tell them an obvious lie to begin with. This will make them think that you are a bad lier and they will be inclined to believe in your more-cleverly told lies.
4. If you hate doing something - do it wrong the first time, they won't ask you to do it again.
5. Honesty is a terrible policy, that is, unless you put it on auction, or, Character doesn't buy food - not unless you get a good price for it.
6. Always pretend to be extremely religious. It creates a halo effect and makes people invest in you, virtues you don't have. Also, if you are lucky, call it ‘Karma’, If you are unlucky, call it ‘God’s mysterious ways’. Always say 'God willing' whenever you make a promise - the best way to shrug off responsibility if you don't want to honor your promise.
7. A clever person always appreciates polite friends. They will let you walk all over them and take credit for their hard work. Nothing like them.
8. Never be on time. Let them wait for you. Teaches them b\how to value you.
9. Lying shows lack of art. The cleverness lies in telling people the selective truth. Still, if you have to lie, do. Scientists say there are alternative worlds in which almost everything is the truth. So, technically you can’t tell a lie. And you can’t be accused if people just assume that you are speaking only of this world.
10. Any show of your real sentiments is a weakness. The ability to show the sentiments that people want to see, even if you don’t have them, on the other hand, is a strength.
11. Never ever let the underdogs fool you into kindness.
12. Always have someone handy to blame* your failure upon.
13. Be quiet, and they will think of you as very wise. Be too talkative, and they will think of you as fools. A clever disguise both ways.
14. If they can’t prove it, you can’t be wrong.
15. If you say it repeatedly and are loud enough, it will become a truth.
16. The only crime is being caught. Criminals have got away with almost everything when they weren’t caught. So, make sure you are never get caught at anything. A clever person reads a law saying ‘Theft is punishable by law’ as ‘Being caught and proved a thief is punishable by law.’
17. At the end of the day, most advocates belong to Devil. And if you happen to come across a righteous one, Devil also happens to have most of the judges. However looking for a legal loophole before you leap is still more beneficial economically.
18. If you owe a bank five thousand dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe a bank five million dollars, you own the bank.
19. Gangsters and soldiers are boys. Managers, Lawyers, priests and politicians are women.
20. Nothing helps in creating money like an unhealthy conscience.
21. There are four kinds of people (the order is such that ones lower in the order have a better chance at being successful); - those who are good, and are seen by others as good, - those who are good but are seen by others as wicked. - those who are and are seen by others as wicked, - those who are wicked but are seen by others as good (thank you!).
* erroneously written in original Italian as 'lo borgeso' instead of 'lo biasimo'....more
In the trembling grey of a spring dawn, when the birds were whispering in mysterious cadence among the trees, have you not felt that they were talk
In the trembling grey of a spring dawn, when the birds were whispering in mysterious cadence among the trees, have you not felt that they were talking to their mates about the flowers?"
Wow!
"True beauty could be discovered only by one who mentally complete the incomplete.”
Just wow!
"Rikiu loved to quote an old poem which says: "To those who long only for flowers, fain would I show the full-blown spring which abides in the toiling buds of snow-covered hills."
More wow!
"The tea-master, Kobori-Enshiu, himself a daimyo, has left to us these memorable words: "Approach a great painting as thou wouldst approach a great prince." In order to understand a masterpiece, you must lay yourself low before it and await with bated breath its least utterance."
Wow ad infinitum! Proper review:
"Meanwhile, let us have a sip of tea. The afternoon glow is brightening the bamboos, the fountains are bubbling with delight, the soughing of the pines is heard in our kettle. Let us dream of evanescence, and linger in the beautiful foolishness of things."
Beautiful writing all around. In terms of prose, it has to be the best Japanese book I have read. Okakura's purpose is to show west the depth of thought that is contained in simplicity of Eastern culture, Teaism in particular. Teaism is a culture/life style in Japan which values things like modesty, simplicity etc - in many ways very opposite of consumerism that plagues present day world. Besides general history of tea and Teaism, the author discusses a bunch of other subjects - such as need of a dialogue between West and East, religions (Taoism, Budhism, Jainism etc), flowers, poetry, translation, philosophy, art, aesthetics, architecture etc within a very short space and without ever discarding his beautiful prose. About Taoism:
"The ancient sages never put their teachings in systematic form. They spoke in paradoxes, for they were afraid of uttering half-truths. They began by talking like fools and ended by making their hearers wise. Laotse himself, with his quaint humour, says, "If people of inferior intelligence hear of the Tao, they laugh immensely. It would not be the Tao unless they laughed at it."
About Translations:
"Translation is always a treason, and as a Ming author observes, can at its best be only the reverse side of a brocade- all the threads are there, but not the subtlety of colour or design.”
Philosophy:
"One day Soshi was walking on the bank of a river with a friend. 'How delightfully the fishes are enjoying themselves in the water!' exclaimed Soshi. His friend spake to him thus: 'You are not a fish; how do you know that the fishes are enjoying themselves?' 'You are not myself', returned Soshi; 'how do you know that I do not know that the fishes are enjoying themselves?'"
Art criticism:
An eminent Sung critic once made a charming confession. Said he: "In my young days I praised the master whose pictures I liked, but as my judgement matured I praised myself for liking what the masters had chosen to have me like."
More quotes:
"The primeval man in offering the first garland to his maiden thereby transcended the brute. He became human in thus rising above the crude necessities of nature. He entered the realm of art when he perceived the subtle use of the useless."
"Man at ten is an animal, at twenty a lunatic, at thirty a failure, at forty a fraud, and at fifty a criminal."
"Tell me, gentle flowers, teardrops of the stars, standing in the garden, nodding your heads to the bees as they sing of the dews and sunbeams, are you aware of the fearful doom that awaits you? Dream on, sway and frolic while you may in the gentle breeze of summer. To-morrow a ruthless hand will close around your throats. You will be wrenched, torn asunder limb by limb, and borne away from your quiet homes. The wretch, she may be passing fair. She may say how lovely you are while her fingers are still moist with your blood...It may even be your lot to be confined in some narrow vessel with only stagnant water to quench the maddening thirst that warns of ebbing life."
In this world, there is no difference between reading experience and real life experience. And so those who can read live many lives – and they chose In this world, there is no difference between reading experience and real life experience. And so those who can read live many lives – and they chose all but one of their lives, the places of their birth, their parents everything. Since you are being given chance to live many customized lives, everyone is up and reading. In this world, people live to read and read to live. Everyone keeps a diary - an old player need only pick his diary to relive his moment of glory. Cherished moments are always relived, not remembered but relived, by slipping back a few pages. One’s past is but one of many, can’t be told from fictional ones and so hardly weighs on present whereas present and future are always full of opportunities.
And people are not scarred of feeling for others –feeling pain and suffering of slaves of another century and country or that of a medieval woman shouting uselessly to crowds that she is not a witch. In this world, people are prepared to suffer all this, even want to; knowing that they can retreat anytime they wish; just pick another book and go spend their times in Hogwarts, go in quest for the one ring that rules them all, or down the rabbit hole with Alice. Another change of books and now they are commending Sherlock for his genius with Watson or some imaginary author with Borges.
In a world that knows no difference between real and book lives, reality is irrelevant, at most a mere intellectual curiosity for university geeks; for others – both Adams and tie-wearing-dinosaurs are true. The old need not worry about their age or death since they can pick up wizard of Oz and become young again.
There is no oppression or prejudice here – for every man has sighed with Bovary at her social chains, every Christian has found himself wishing for death in Auschwitz, every white man has changed into darker skins and every child has wept in pain of the mother in Anderson’s story and has felt shock of a cheated father with Lear. Everyone knows along with Humsun what it feels to be hungry for days – and so, it is made sure that no one dies of hunger. And having suffered with Oliver Twist, newly wed couples are all seen fighting with each-other as to who gets to adopt the new orphan kid.
In this world, when two friends get together after years, they can hardly bother themselves with gossiping about others – since they want to discover the books they both might have lived and talk about their experience thereof or recommend each other on others.
In this world; study table is preferred over crown and, people look forward to the evening adventurers, yearning for colorful dreams that are hidden in that black ink spread on white paper and they hate parting from these dreamswhen they finally fell dozing off on their books. ...more
Contended to have lived 600 years before Christ and of being a contemporary of Confucius (that’s a century before Socrates) and supposed to be, accordContended to have lived 600 years before Christ and of being a contemporary of Confucius (that’s a century before Socrates) and supposed to be, according to some Chinese traditions, teacher of Gautama Budha or, according to some other traditions, Budha himself; Laozi is one of the three most read poets of the world (other two are Shakespeare and Kahlil Gibran). He is considered as founder of philosophical Taoism. Taoism is one of five official religions in China (other four- Budhism, Islam, Protestant Church, Catholic church – the last two are enforced by government to stay different).
Taoism is a philosophical, ethical or religious tradition which emphasizes living in harmony with Tao (literally - way, path or principle). Although the philosophical thought has nothing theist about it - it is more pantheistic; many deities are often worshipped – including Laozi himself, this despite his teaching that saints should stay modest:
“When the work is done, and one’s name is becoming distinguished, To withdraw into obscurity is the way of heaven
What is adorable is its emphasis on soft virtues like modesty,simplicity and naturalness (something missing in so many religions):
"The violent and strong do not die their natural death. I will make this the basis of my teaching.
My first impression while reading these poems was that of disappointment at the repeated emphasis on mysteriousness of Tao (it looked like 'Lord work in mysterious ways' kind of thing):
"The Tao, considered as unchanging, has no name."
I mean how can a thing be unnamable? You can easily name anything and didn’t you just call it ‘Tao’? Now that is not bad name!
It took me some time to understand that Laozi is like those Bhakti and Sufi poets who do not want to hear anything argumentive which has to do with what they love and preach others to love - even if it is a good argument. And so knowledge and learning is disclaimed:
"It is better to leave a vessel unfilled, than to attempt to carry it when it is full."
"Those who know(the Tao) are not extensively learned; the extensively learned do not know."
Also as Laozi himself says:
“Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical”
.. there are a lot of paradoxes, but amost of those paradoxes are simply beyond my understanding. Take for example:
“The Tao in its regular course does nothing (for sake of doing it); and so there is nothing which he does not do”
“He who dies and yet does not perish, has longevity”
“The very essence of Tao lies in its refusal to be defined, Thus, he who doesn’t understand it, understands it best.”
Okay, I totally made up that last one but I think you get the general idea. Yet, there are other paradoxes that I understood and loved:
“Who loves the large stores Gives up the richer state”
“The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth."
And there are some simply beautiful sayings:
"The tree which fills the arms grew from tiniest sprout; The tower of nine storeys rose from a (small) heap of earth; The journey of a thousand li* commenced with a single step."
"It is simply by being pained at (the thought of) having this disease that we are preserved from it."
"The flame that burns Twice as bright burns half as long.”
“A man with outward courage dares to die; a man with inner courage dares to live."
"If you keep feeling a point that has been sharpened, the point can not long preserve its sharpness."
There are some wise observations about statesmanship and leadership– even present day governments can learn from them:
"“A leader is best When people barely know he exists Of a good leader, who talks little, When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, They will say, “We did this ourselves.”
I’m definately going to read more about Taoist philosophy.
"The highest excellence is like (that of) water. The excellence of water water appears in its benefitting all things, and in its occupying, without striving (to the contrary) the low place which all men dislike. Hence (its way) is near to (that of) the Tao."
My mom was a great fan of Bhagat Singh – and ‘fan’ is the word, she had two paintings with revolutionary guys like Bhagat Singh, Chandershekhar Azad aMy mom was a great fan of Bhagat Singh – and ‘fan’ is the word, she had two paintings with revolutionary guys like Bhagat Singh, Chandershekhar Azad and S. C. Bose in room, the only good reason for her to go to cinema was to watch Bhagat Singh movie and believe me she could have whistled if she knew how (I’m not exaggerating).
What is more, she would weep every time she saw the ending, whichever version - and sometimes she saw them three times a day. Now this could be embaressing to someone like me; why would you see a movie which is sure to make you weep? I, I always prefer Disney -Pixar or Marvel-Diamond productions kind of movies.
And so this rating might be a little biased.
In 1919, a kid of twelve visits Jallianwallah Bagh hours after the massacre – such a incident, seeing dead bodies all around you should be enough to challenge anyone’s faith but BS didn’t turn atheist for next few years. He joins the Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement. He was disappointed when Gandhi called back the movement in 1922 deciding that ‘people of India were not yet prepared for independence’ - something similar to attitude of British Empire at that time. It was these theories which prompted SC Bose's famous statement claiming freedom is a birth right. The trouble is Indians (including 14 year old BS before 1921) think of Gandhi as a god and, to quote Nietzsche , we are too cruel with our gods, we do not allow them right to make mistakes.
Anyway, losing his faith in Gandhi, Bhagat Singh joined socialist movement and become anarchist:
“Any man who stands for progress has to criticize, disbelieve and challenge every item of the old faith."
The faith here is not limited to religious beliefs but extend to ideas in general, including country’s then blind belief in Gandhi. In fact, if you look at top leadership of two leading political parties of country, they have both got their authority from these blind faiths – one from blind faith in Nehru-Gandhian ancestry; other from blind faith in assumption that hero from a Sanskrit poem was in fact a God.
BS is not asking you to abandon everything but rather to challenge those beliefs by reason:
“Item by item he (a person) has to reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing faith. If after considerable reasoning one is led to believe in any theory or philosophy, his faith is welcomed. His reasoning can be mistaken, wrong, misled and sometimes fallacious. But he is liable to correction because reason is the guiding star of his life."
He actually goes further on as to how these dogmas lead to political and religious terrorism:
"But mere faith and blind faith is dangerous: it dulls the brain, and makes a man reactionary."
What he did is history …. And movies (at least six of them in Bollywood). I won’t go into details of all that. If you happen to have just come from that cozy place we call under-the-rock; he had, for example, fasted for 116 days at a stretch for his prisoner rights (which gained him popularity); before that threw non-lethal bombs in parliament (he didn't want to kill anyone) and let himself (along with his partner in crime) arrested so that he could tell the country about his ideas and didn’t appeal against his death sentence.
In this particular semi-auto-biographical essay, BS makes a lot of arguments in favor of atheism. He wrote this in an effort to defend himself from accusation of vanity (the old Indian thing, atheism =vanity or arrogance). A lot of them are commonplace, others are special. Just think how hard it is to die at a young age for an idea, if you do not believe in afterlife:
“The day we find a great number of men and women with this psychology who cannot devote themselves to anything else than the service of mankind and emancipation of the suffering humanity; that day shall inaugurate the era of liberty. Not to become a king, nor to gain any other rewards here, or in the next birth or after death in paradise, shall they be inspired to challenge the oppressors, exploiters, and tyrants, but to cast off the yoke of serfdom from the neck of humanity and to establish liberty and peace shall they tread this-to their individual selves perilous and to their noble selves the only glorious imaginable-path."
His idea of freedom was not limited to political sovereignty:
“The ultimate goal of Anarchism is complete independence, according to which no one will be obsessed with God or religion, nor will anybody be crazy for money or other worldly desires. There will be no chains on the body or control by the state. This means that they want to eliminate: the Church, God and Religion; the state; Private property." - (not from this essay)
This much at age of twenty three.
This is the kind of thing that should be taught at schools. His clear-minded religious and political philosophy stands as a voice of conscience for power holders of the country.
Given the way he had been disillusioned from so many dogmas, if he had lived on he could probably have freed himself of past as well – and probably would have felt disgusted at this Pakistan bashing and British Empire bashing which Indian politician love to indulge in so much....more
When Adam Smith in his 'Wealth of Nations' established basic rules of capitalism, he was able to show justifiction in among incomes of diSmith VS Marx
When Adam Smith in his 'Wealth of Nations' established basic rules of capitalism, he was able to show justifiction in among incomes of different types of workers - although he was somehwhat critical of incomes in form of rent but as far as profits are concerned, he thought they were justified as they were always in propotion to risk involved.
His stand though was mostly for freedom of trade because he believed most restrictions were benifical to none and harmful to some. He backed this belief with several instances and arguemnts.
A century and a half later; Karl Marx enters the scene to find a society divided between (what he calls) Burgoises and Prols.The workers are working in worst possible conditions (something Smith probably never imgined) at very low wages - and became critical of whole system of capitalism. Risk for owners of means of production was low - probably because they were too wealthy to be much affected by anything (earliest version of too big to fail).
Sinful Income
Entreprenaural risk was so low that Marx doesn't see any - he end up seeing these Burgoises as vampires who live on blood of workers. Profits according to him were not reward of risk (there was no risk to his eye) but rather a part of workers' wages stolen by those who happen to own means of production. Thus if means of production were owned by workers in common, their average wages are bound to increase.
According to Marx, Burgoises do not deserve those profits - and we can agree risk free profits are best example of sinful income. Merely being in possession of means of production - already an accident of birth; should not mean a risk free income. All this was good - we could have loved him, but than he goes on to suggest violent action to make the desired social change
The communists .... openly declare that their end can be attained only by forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
... which has given his marxism the bad reputation we know it carry today. Of course he has every reason to be frustrated at such an injustice but calling for violence is a bit too far.
Manifesto
The problem is none of above except the worst parts comes in Communist Manifesto, perhaps I will have to read Das Kapital to find his real theory. All we have here is a ragging academic trying to popularise his opinons. The whole communist manifesto reads like a political document roughly arguing that what we say is truth while all others are idiots. He makes a few good, very good points, here and there - mostly about evolotion of society to present conditions ... but mosltly it sounds too political.
The reson I dislike it so much is that it seems to paint Burgoises, a whole section of society, in black. Such philosophy where a whole community is painted as villains always breads violence. Moreover as Orwell showed in Animal Farm; even if you were to make all equal today; they shall be unequal again tomorrow.
Socialism Today
If we eliminate his call for action (which is mostly what Manifesto is all about), we could have something to talk about. I believe that at least some extent of socialism is crucial for any society to prosper. I mean atleast a standard acess to basic neccessties like food, clothing, sheltar, education and medical care. Even in USA, the best example of Capitalist economy, there are demands for reforms that seek to make distribution of wealth more equal on these grounds. Marx could have been really popular if he was alive these days...more
Loading...
