Lessons from Philosophy

Lesson 5: Japanese philosophy

2011-03-14T04:30:00.000-07:00

The gigantic catastrophe in Japan has consequences for the whole world. I will try to reflect on this situation.

The Buddhist philosophy godai, meaning "five great", is best known in the West. It talks about 'The Five Elements'. These elements are, in ascending order of power, Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, and Void.

Chi

Chi , meaning "Earth", represents the hard, solid objects of the world.

In Japan they had an earthquake of the scale 8,9 on Richter. This is huge, the earth wasn't solid anymore but shaking violently.

Ka , meaning "Fire", represents the energetic, forceful, moving things in the world.

The earthquake destroyed many buildings, pipelines,lives. The earth wasn't solid anymore but moving, moving like fire. As the fire spread from house to house. Setting fire on oil-refineries, which is tremendously hard to put out.

Fū

Fū , meaning "Wind", represents things that grow, expand, and enjoy freedom of movement.

We can compare wind with the news. The news of Japans great misfortune traveled, as the previous example, like a fire. But this news isn't at all harmless; people are scared of the possibility of a nuclear disaster. Like Chernobyl...

Sui

Sui , meaning "Water", represents the fluid, flowing, formless things in the world.

'Thales stated that the origin of all matter is water.' This was an astounding statement in that time and science proved him right. Where there is water there is life. But if there is too much water, the balance will be disrupted. The Tsunami washed away the earth without mercy.

Kū

Kū , meaning "sky" or "Heaven", represents those things beyond our everyday experience.

Nobody saw the disaster coming, but the results were awful. Death, destruction and desperation. How can we cope with such misfortune? "For the last 2,500 years, Chinese have practiced surrendering to fate by following the Way (Tao). They learn to flow with the tide of events, to bend in the wind like bamboo, and to avoid resisting, struggling, or recoiling from what is meant to be."

"It's the great soul that surrenders itself to fate, but a puny degenerate thing that struggles."

-Seneca-

References: http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/surrender.htm

http://www.thebigview.com/greeks/thales.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_elements_(Japanese_philosophy)
http://www.japanese-symbols.org/japanese-symbol-for-water

Lesson 4: Why philosophy?

2011-03-12T06:15:00.000-08:00

This blog is all about philosophy, but why? What can we learn from philosophy or even better, why should we even learn it? When I tell people I study philosophy they all respond in the same way: "Interesting, but what can you do with it?" To answer this question we shall see what other philosophers have to say about the subject.

"Philosophy, A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing."
- Ambrose Bierce

"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know."
- Bertrand Russell

"If a man's good for nothing else, he can at least teach philosophy."
- William James

When we read these statements we would be even less interested in learning philosophy.
The last quote is a typical example of what people say in real life. "What can you do with philosophy?" But I think the question is wrong, we shouldn't ask 'what can you do with philosophy?' but 'why would you study philosophy?'. A small nuance with great impact on the answer.
The reason why we should study philosophy is quite an interesting one. A simple answer would be: to understand the cosmos. But almost any person will reject this simple answer.

The Thinker

First of all, what is understanding? When do you fully understand something? People search centuries for answers but never find the answers, 'why are we here', 'what is the meaning of life', 'what was first, the egg or the chicken'...

The second objection would be: what is the cosmos? Is everything connected and therefore one definition could maybe be given. Or is the cosmos part of billions and billions of elements of life, of molecules consist of atoms, which form protons and electrons? So our simple answer is simply not good enough.

Why should we study philosophy then? Socrates would have said: "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing".

You could think, ok so studying philosophy teaches you nothing. Yes this is true! But in this 'nothingness ' lies wisdom, how can that be? If you know nothing, then you look at things different. The sunset will be special, time will become an abstract and fascinating concept to really think about.

To return to our question, 'why philosophy?' Maybe I have given more questions than real answers, but hey, this is philosophy.

Philosophy is the only science where after studying, we know less than we started...

Lesson 3: The Organisation of Useless information

2011-03-12T03:26:00.000-08:00

The Organisation of "Useless Information" got an enormous amount of articles from people all over the world. It was simply to much to process, so the staff had to take some measures.From now on, if you want to be a member of the organisation you would have to follow some rules. Only if you follow these rules you would get access to the privileges of the library etc.

But ten years after the change of rules, the chairman was confronted with the bitter truth. Since the change of rules there wasn't a single new member! It looks like they can close their doors.

What went wrong?

Lesson 2: Protagoras and Euathlos

2011-03-11T09:34:00.000-08:00

Euathlos was the student of Protagoras, he was going to become a lawyer.
Protagoras was a kind man and made an arrangement with his pupil.
Euathlos does not need to pay for his education until he wins his first case.

But Euathlos decided he wanted to be a musician, so he doesn't work any cases.
Protagoras was pretty upset, after all he put in much effort in his student.
He demanded Euathlos paid him for his efforts. But Euathlos wouldn't pay him. So Protagoras went to court.

He figured that if Euathlos loses, he, Protagoras, will have won and get his money back. And even when Protagoras loses, Euathlos will have won his first case and still has to pay him!

But Euathlos reasons a bit different. If I lose, I will have lost my first case and according to the original arrangement I won't have to pay my teacher. And when I win, Protagoras would have lost the right to demand the money from me. So I wont have to pay him neither!

They can't be both right? Who's wrong?

Lesson 1: Socrates

2011-03-11T07:19:00.000-08:00

Socratic wisdom.

Socrates was born in Greece in the city of Athens, Europe in 469 B.C.

He is considered to be one of the most influential philosophers in the classical era.

He wasn't very rich or very handsome. He couldn't afford any luxury, but he was happy with the life he was given.

Socrates spent his days in a unique way. He wandered the streets of Athens and talked to anyone he saw, rich, poor, young and old. He then asked complex yet simple questions like: 'what is wisdom?' , 'what is wealth?'...

Most people were surprised and couldn't answer his questions. Even the most intelligent people were proven to be no more than fools. One day Socrates walked towards two reputed generals Nikias and Laches. Both had fought in the Peloponnesos war against the Spartans.

The conversation went like this:

Socrates: "Why don't you tell me what bravery is?"

Laches: " Oh my, that is not a difficult task! Bravery is someone who stays in battle formation to fight the enemy en doesn't flee, someone like that is absolutely brave."

But Socrates recalled the battle of Plataiai in 479 B.C. where a Greek unit retreated from the enemy, but then attacked and bravely defeated the enemy.

Socrates: "They say that when the Spartans saw the Persian army they didn't want to fight so they retreated. When the Persians rushed to capture the Spartans they broke battle formation. When the Spartans saw this they turned and bravely defeated the mighty Persians army"

Laches, who thought Socrates made a point, came with another explanation.

Bravery is also determination. But Socrates replied, determination could also be used for other circumstances, besides war. Where there is no sign of bravery. Nikias, the other general, replied that for bravery you also need knowledge and be able to make a distinction between good and evil.

This conversation may seem unimportant, but it had a great impact. The generals learned that they could be brave, even when they retreated.

What do we learn about this example?

Even people who have a high function in society can be wrong. The generals in fact didn't know what bravery was. They had this definition, which was incomplete and incorrect. We should remember these lessons, don't just follow without thinking the 'generals'. Try to reason and you will see that those people do not know the truth.

In the end, what is truth anyway?