Reviews for A deconstructive reading of Chinese natural philosophy in literature and the arts

The average rating for A deconstructive reading of Chinese natural philosophy in literature and the arts based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-02-05 00:00:00 Majd Abboud This is a new review for my reread, four years after the first. Chad Hansen's, A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought, by way of Oxford University Press, 1992, is an excellent book for any serious student of classical Chinese philosophy. It is a "must read," at least twice.       The book makes many important points but misses or devalues one major point. Although I agree with the author's concern that many of us tend to (unwisely and often unknowingly) impose Indo-European philosophical ideas upon ancient Chinese philosophy, part of the consequence of Mr. Hansen's focus is that he consistently tells us what the daoist dao is not, while diminishing the importance of what it is. In teaching us that the dao is not a metaphysical object, he diminishes how the Daode-jing employs metaphysics within this unique dao. The Daode-jing reveals a skeptical realism that guides language use, thought and ultimately behavior. Rather than throwing the rational metaphysical baby out with the sullied bath water, I'd like to toss it back into the mix in order to consider the use of the useless.         If I understand him correctly, Mr. Hansen says that Indo-European notions of "sense skepticism" are not part of the classical Chinese concern. Be that as it may or may not be, Zhuangzi focuses upon sense skepticism; unless of course our "sense of perspective" is not part of sense skepticism. If Zhuangzi's sense of perspective isn't synonymous with "sense skepticism" then it seems to stand at the intersection of our physical sense of sight and how we make distinctions. Classical Chinese philosophy may not contain the logical syllogism of Indo-European philosophy but their language and reason is nothing if not analogical. Its couplets of language parallel each other, intending to set a pathway to guide; a dao.         I consider Mr. Hansen's ideas to be, if not original, as least formulated well enough to be seminal. The daoist dao arises from how our regard of perspective itself can extend these lessons to guide behavior beyond language. The daoist view of language uses skeptical realism as guidance. Through its realistic skeptical lens, we arrive at better judgments because we devalue definiteness in favor of infiniteness. Much of this has been missed over the years because there were several contributors to the Daode-jing and the Zhuangzi. There have been even more followers who have offered different understandings.         So here we go: First we need to value infinity above the definite. This is done by showing how our valuation of infinity can guide us better than definite yet arbitrary distinctions. So let's take it from the top: Undifferentiated reality exists indefinitely, prior to our definite naming of things. At the moment of definition (for language use), we name a "thing." More specifically, a DE-finite "thing" has been separated from an IN-finite universe. The specific thing picked out (as the name is given) has been arbitrary. It could have been any thing; given any name. So, this process of pointing and naming for language's use has established a pattern. Each society, culture, country, may discriminate differently yet many distinctions will be quite common while following the same patterns.         While defining any specific "thing", we have established another part of this pattern; we have inadvertently distinguished its opposite. When we defined a "thing", although we didn't intend it, notice it, let alone think about it, there is now a "no thing." No thing seems to be "nothing," but this circumstance looms large and eventually becomes the undefined elephant in the room. Why? Because no name is absolute. No dao is absolute. Every pick (including trying to define an absolute) is arbitrary, and includes its opposite as baggage. No matter how or what is distinguished, our distinction starts and stops somewhere. Where do we draw this line? Conventionally. Yes. We often make our distinctions in an arbitrary manner that suits our culture. Yet many people claim these arbitrary distinctions right, as if they are absolute. Daoist skepticism has us realize that we have already glimpsed too much about the reality of things to simply revert back to a Confucian dependence upon convention, tradition and ritual. Still, the value of the daoist dao tends to go unnoticed or unappreciated because it is to indefinite when compared to the absolutes proffered within language and social norms.         So, meanwhile back at the ranch of our dilemma . . . In our innocent ignorance, our single distinction has created two things that oppose each other; thing/no thing; this/not this. The Daode-jing begins, like every good creation story, here. A single pick of some thing has created opposition. (In another creation story, the first "pick" of good created the realization of "good/evil." And humanity lost their innocence; their Eden.) No distinction can exist without "creating" an "other." These two are dependent upon each other for their very existence yet we can't see this elephant (our own creation) immediately because this invention wasn't intended. In ignorance of our unseen downside distinction, we defend it's whole(some)ness and oppose any opposition from those who witness our byproduct.         Seemingly from nothing, we now have conflict. There is no problem from our point of view. But "others" can easily see what we have left out (created). How do we know this then? Because we see what they have left out. So here we are: Us/them. Yet each "side" is ignorant of their own elephant in the room. In light of this, this (dao) urges us to devalue our own perspective and embrace the other to see what we have missed. We must devalue our absolutism and take responsibility (de) for our distinctions. We must understand the inherent divisiveness of our distinctions especially if they keep us thinking they are somehow right or absolute (without seeing the wrongness and arbitrariness embedded within).         We should treat opposites as complements since, being different sides of the same coin, they depend upon each other in order to complete each other. (There will always be another side of a coin unless there is no coin at all.) To realize only half of what we create while blaming others for pointing out what arises from the other half of our distinction is irrational. Rather than conflict being eternal, completion can be a constant guide to our inconstant distinctions. Our original sin becomes blunted rather than seeming constant and eternal. Our real-ization, clarity and charity can help guide us.         So what again exactly guides us? This dao refers us to a sliding scale of relative value as opposed to fixed distinctions. Almost paradoxically, understanding how absolute distinctions distract us, can have us realize how an understanding of relativity can make us open to guidance. So although this dao and its moral implications appear to be merely relative, because its foundations are not absolute, the daoist dao sets checks with balances on daos that have foundations that seem absolute yet are merely traditional and conventional. Absolutes are extreme in that they intend divisiveness, intolerance, irresponsibility; they lack humility and humanity. They are inflexible toward other cultures beyond their own. The specific details of the daoist dao is up for grabs according to each society, culture or country as long as they value infinity over conventional and traditional discrimination. After all, if Zhuangzi can generate dream skepticism out of linguistic skepticism, I suppose it's fine to generate a realistic moral guidance from a version of linguistic skepticism.         I've said nothing new here that Mr. Hansen doesn't already know. But the value of this dao seems to have been omitted due to the focus of his argument. Having his same focus I might have done the same.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-11-10 00:00:00 Jon Crego This is one of the best contemporary interpretations of classical daoist thought. Hansen challenges the traditional interpretation of classical daoism being a kind of mystical, esoteric monism and interprets it from a Wittgenstinian perspective. Hansen is one of the best American-born daoist philosophers today. He is chair of the philosophy department at the University of Hong Kong and considered by some to be the reincarnation of Zuangzi. This book is not for beginners but if you have read some of classical daoism and familiar with 20th century philosophy of language, you will love this book.