• About me
  • About this blog
  • Comment rules
  • Other writings

Love of All Wisdom

~ Philosophy through multiple traditions

Love of All Wisdom

Category Archives: Asian Thought

In which I am interviewed

09 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Amod Lele in Buddhism, Christianity, Dialectic, Early and Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Modernized Buddhism, Politics, Sex

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Alasdair MacIntyre, ascent/descent, Augustine, Ayn Rand, Canada, conservatism, Damon Linker, Disengaged Buddhism, G.W.F. Hegel, George Grant, Heinrich Zimmer, interview, James Doull, Ken Wilber, Martha C. Nussbaum, Nicholas Thorne, Randall Collins, skholiast (blogger)

The always interesting skholiast, whose ideas have figured strongly in quite a few of my posts here over the years, took what I consider the enormously flattering step of interviewing me about my philosophy, in both oral and written form. He is posting the interview on his blog in two parts; the first of these is up now. I think the dialogue form is helpful for philosophical thought, and if you’re interested in my ideas I would highly encourage you to read it.

The blurry boundary between premodern and modern

26 Sunday Apr 2015

Posted by Amod Lele in German Tradition, Metaphilosophy, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Modern Hinduism, Modernized Buddhism, Politics, Roman Catholicism

≈ Comments Off on The blurry boundary between premodern and modern

Tags

Andrew Nicholson, Brian Tierney, David McMahan, Donald S. Lopez Jr., G.W.F. Hegel, Martin Heidegger, Michel Villey, modernity, Rammohun Roy, rights, Wilhelm Halbfass, William of Ockham

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about two excellent books on very different topics, both of which I’ve written about at Love of All Wisdom before: Andrew Nicholson’s Unifying Hinduism, and Brian Tierney’s The Idea of Natural Rights.

The idea of human or natural rights has often been taken as something nearly eternal, dating back into antiquity. More careful scholarship, most notably that of Michel Villey, shows us it is not that. Villey takes the work of William of Ockham as a breaking point, a sharp rupture from the previous world that had no concept of rights, which brings in a very different metaphysics where rights now play an important role. The brilliance of Tierney’s work is to qualify this point, showing a gradual transition from the world before Ockham to the world after him. It preserves Villey’s basic point that rights do not go back to antiquity, but shows that the boundary between premodern and modern is much blurrier than previous scholarship had imagined.

The idea of Hinduism has often been taken as something nearly eternal, dating back into antiquity. More careful scholarship, most notably that of Wilhelm Halbfass and Heinrich von Stietencron, shows us it is not that. Halbfass takes the work of Rammohun Roy as a breaking point, a sharp rupture from the previous world that had no concept of Hinduism, which brings in a very different metaphysics where Hinduism now plays an important role. The brilliance of Nicholson’s work is to qualify this point, showing a gradual transition from the world before Roy to the world after him. It preserves Halbfass’s basic point that Hinduism does not go back to antiquity, but shows that the boundary between premodern and modern is much blurrier than previous scholarship had imagined. Continue reading →

The history of rights (II)

29 Sunday Mar 2015

Posted by Amod Lele in Epics, Foundations of Ethics, Greek and Roman Tradition, Metaphysics, Morality, Politics, Roman Catholicism

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

Alasdair MacIntyre, Bhagavad Gītā, Brian Tierney, Gratian, Hugo Grotius, law, Michel Villey, rights, William of Ockham

Last time I began exploring the history of the concept of rights (as in human or civil rights), through the works of Michel Villey and Brian Tierney. I noted that the concept as we now understand it has its roots in Latin ius, which had a meaning more like law and one’s proper share than like rights. How did this concept become the concept of individual rights that we now have today?

Villey lays the blame (and for him it is blame) on one key thinker, William of Ockham (or Occam). Continue reading →

The history of rights (I)

15 Sunday Mar 2015

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Greek and Roman Tradition, Morality, Politics, Vedas and Mīmāṃsā

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Alasdair MacIntyre, Aristotle, law, Leif Wenar, Michel Villey, obligation, rights, Ulpian

Is the concept of (human) rights a modern conceit, as Alasdair MacIntyre thinks? To answer that question, it helps to look at the premodern roots of the concept of rights in some detail. The French legal historian Michel Villey has probably done more than any other to help us understand the historicity of the concept of rights – to recognize that the idea of a right as we understand it today is not a human universal, but has a specific history. (Unfortunately, few if any of Villey’s works have been translated into English; even the Wikipedia link above is French only.) Something like Villey’s work probably underlies MacIntyre’s understanding of the history of rights. Still, if we examine the similarly pioneering work of Cornell historian Brian Tierney, we will see that Villey’s claims are at least somewhat overstated, and MacIntyre’s even more so.

The etymology of the English word “right(s)” goes back very far – it is shared not only with German and Dutch Recht but with the word ṛta from the Sanskrit Vedas, denoting the cosmic order underlying the world. But what’s most important in the history of “rights” and related words is not the words themselves but the underlying concept, the one that comes to be expressed in modern European languages as droit, derecho, Recht, rights. That concept begins as a word which is not etymologically related to the modern European words, but which those words all translate and which is the root of modern European thinking about them: Continue reading →

Is there Indian political philosophy?

15 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by Amod Lele in Confucianism, Epics, Islam, Metaphilosophy, Modern Hinduism, Monasticism, Politics, Vedas and Mīmāṃsā

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Anthony S (commenter), Arthaśāstra, Bhagavad Gītā, Disengaged Buddhism, Fred Dallmayr, Hitopadeśa, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahābhārata, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Pañcatantra, Rāmāyana, Rammohun Roy, Sayyid Qutb

On the Indian Philosophy Blog, commenter Anthony S asked an important and difficult question: what are good resources for thinking through Indian political philosophy?

. I’m interested not so much in comparative philosophy as comparative political thought/theory, specifically in terms of Indian and “Western” thought regarding the international/global. While I am happy comparative philosophy seems to be taking off in recent years, I wish the intensity was the same in political science/theory. If anyone has some good thoughts/resources regarding any of this, I’d be very appreciative.

I started replying in my own comments, but I think the topic deserves a post of its own. Continue reading →

Goodness as preventing suffering

01 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by Amod Lele in Anger, Flourishing, Foundations of Ethics, Free Will, Judaism, Karma, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Metaphysics, Morality, Patient Endurance, Self

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Baruch Spinoza, Mark Siderits, Śāntideva, Shyam Ranganathan

A while ago I referred to Śāntideva’s thought as “ethics without morality” – a deliberately provocative formulation based on Shyam Ranganathan’s eccentric definition of morality as that which conduces to anger. (I don’t agree with Shyam’s definition myself, but putting matters in those terms for the sake of argument helps us to make an interesting and important point.) The idea for Śāntideva is that because everything has a cause, no one is truly to blame for their actions, and therefore we should not get angry at them.

Mark Siderits, in a 2008 article in Sophia, has called this view “Buddhist paleo-compatibilism”: “compatibilism” meaning roughly that while Śāntideva thinks it morally significant that everything has a cause, he still thinks it appropriate to blame people for bad actions.

I don’t think that that is what Śāntideva means, based on a reading of the Sanskrit text of Bodhicaryāvatāra chapter six. I think Siderits reads a great deal into verse 32 that is not actually there, and that is at odds with Śāntideva’s explicit argument in verses 22-33. But I won’t expand on that particular point here, because overall I find the detailed textual argument less interesting than the more general constructive argument. Continue reading →

Of drowning children, near and far (II)

18 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Confucianism, Family, Foundations of Ethics, Generosity, Morality, Prejudices and "Intuitions", Shame and Guilt

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Australia, Charles Goodman, consequentialism, Mencius, obligation, Peter Singer, Śāntideva, utilitarianism

Last time, I observed Peter Singer’s proposed radical revision of our moral views – the claim that, when we keep money that we could give to help the starving or diseased without major sacrifice, we are doing something as bad as if we let a drowning child drown. Is Singer right?

At the heart of Singer’s argument, by his own reckoning, is this principle: “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” He explicitly states that the implication of this “ought” is duty and obligation, not merely charity and generosity. It is not just that sacrificing one’s own comfort and pleasure to help those in need is good, but that any refusal to do so is bad, something deserving of one’s own guilt and shame and others’ condemnation.

Now on what grounds should we accept this principle, if indeed we should? Continue reading →

Of drowning children, near and far (I)

04 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Confucianism, Foundations of Ethics, Generosity, Human Nature, Morality, Prejudices and "Intuitions", Shame and Guilt

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Australia, Karl Polanyi, Kenneth McRobbie, Mencius, Peter Drucker, Peter Singer, trolley problem, utilitarianism

The image of a drowning child is a vivid one – enough to make it a key example in two very different traditions of moral philosophy. In ancient China, Mencius used the image to illustrate humans’ natural inborn moral benevolence: we would all “have a feeling of alarm and compassion” at such a sight, and not out of any form of self-interest. Thousands of years later, in the early 1970s – when Chinese philosophy was known to the West but it would rarely have occurred to a Western philosopher that he should study it – the Australian utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer used the same image. In his famous article “Famine, affluence and morality”, written in 1971 and published 1972, Singer says this:

if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.

But Singer puts the image to a very different use than Mencius. Continue reading →

Intermediate ascents

23 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by Amod Lele in Deity, Jainism, Monasticism

≈ Comments Off on Intermediate ascents

Tags

Alasdair MacIntyre, ascent/descent, atheism, chastened intellectualism, Gnosticism, ibn Sīnā, intimacy/integrity, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas P. Kasulis, Yoga Sūtras

It seems to me that the concepts of ascent and descent allow relatively easily for intermediate positions between them, compromises that attempt at a synthesis. I suspect that in this respect they are different from the related binary of intimacy and integrity. Thomas Kasulis tries to argue that intimacy and integrity are incommensurable – one may experience elements of each at once, but it is difficult to take a moderate position between them, let alone to establish a synthesis. I am not convinced that Kasulis is right about this, but I do think that at least middle grounds on intimacy and integrity are harder to establish than on ascent and descent.

For relatively few seek the pure transcendence of the Yoga Sūtras, abiding in a pure universality outside the changing world. It is an uncompromising and drastic ascent that demands we act and be with a higher universal, leaving the particulars of the world behind us. Jain monks, following a similar path, deliberately renounce dependence to all particulars up to and including food – they often end their lives through sallekhanā or santhara, intentional slow starvation. Continue reading →

Reading the Zhuangzi as a composite text

09 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by Amod Lele in Confucianism, Daoism, Hermeneutics, Metaphilosophy, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion

≈ Comments Off on Reading the Zhuangzi as a composite text

Tags

Chris Fraser, Guo Xiang, Harold Roth, Thomas Kuhn, Zhuangzi

This week’s post follows the previous one and should be taken in the same light: namely, that while my views expressed in it have developed in response to a thoughtful and valuable exchange between me and Chris Fraser, it should not be taken to imply any views on Fraser’s part that are not already expressed in his published works.

I have long noted how for a philosopher, the most productive way to examine a text from another time is to examine the mind behind that text – so that one can follow Thomas Kuhn’s advice to “ask yourself how a sensible person could have written” that text with all of its apparent absurdities. This approach runs into trouble with composite texts, which are not the work of a single author. In thinking about the composite work attributed to Śāntideva, I had found it quite satisfactory to instead identify a single redactor. Last time, however, I noted how such an approach may be problematic for a text like the Zhuangzi, where the redactor of the edition known to us, namely the commentator Guo Xiang, has a Confucian agenda that appears to be at odds with some of the statements in the text itself.

But if that’s so, the next question is: what then is the best approach to take, as philosophers and not just philologists, to a composite text like the Zhuangzi? Continue reading →

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Welcome to Love of All Wisdom.

I invite you to leave comments on my blog, even - or especially - if I have no idea who you are. Philosophy is a conversation, and I invite you to join it with me; I welcome all comers (provided they follow a few basic rules). I typically make a new post every Sunday. If you'd like to be notified when a new post is posted, you can get email notifications whenever I add something new via the link further down in this sidebar. You can also follow this blog on Facebook. Or if you use RSS, you can get updates through the RSS feed.

Recent Comments

  • Paul D. Van Pelt on On the damned topics of Buddhist philosophy
  • Paul D. Van Pelt on On the damned topics of Buddhist philosophy
  • Paul D. Van Pelt on There’s no such thing as racial purity
  • Amod Lele on There’s no such thing as racial purity
  • Amod Lele on There’s no such thing as racial purity

Subscribe to receive Love of All Wisdom by email:

Post Tags

20th century academia Alasdair MacIntyre Aristotle ascent/descent Augustine autobiography Buddhaghosa Canada Confucius conservatism Disengaged Buddhism Engaged Buddhism Evan Thompson expressive individualism Four Noble Truths Friedrich Nietzsche G.W.F. Hegel gender Hebrew Bible identity Immanuel Kant intimacy/integrity justice Karl Marx Ken Wilber law Martha C. Nussbaum modernity music mystical experience nondualism Pali suttas pedagogy Plato race rebirth religion Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha) technology theodicy United States utilitarianism Śaṅkara Śāntideva

Categories

  • African Thought (15)
  • Applied Philosophy (383)
    • Death (46)
    • Family (54)
    • Food (22)
    • Friends (21)
    • Health (33)
    • Place (37)
    • Play (18)
    • Politics (240)
    • Sex (25)
    • Work (48)
  • Asian Thought (462)
    • Buddhism (333)
      • Early and Theravāda (140)
      • Mahāyāna (142)
      • Modernized Buddhism (102)
    • East Asia (102)
      • Confucianism (62)
      • Daoism (23)
      • Shinto (1)
    • South Asia (149)
      • Bhakti Poets (4)
      • Cārvāka-Lokāyata (5)
      • Epics (16)
      • Jainism (24)
      • Modern Hinduism (45)
      • Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika (6)
      • Sāṃkhya-Yoga (16)
      • Sikhism (1)
      • Vedānta (42)
      • Vedas and Mīmāṃsā (7)
  • Blog Admin (29)
  • Indigenous American Thought (8)
  • Method (279)
    • Metaphilosophy (180)
    • Method and Theory in the Study of Religion (156)
  • Practical Philosophy (433)
    • Action (17)
    • Aesthetics (53)
    • Emotion (196)
      • Anger (42)
      • Attachment and Craving (32)
      • Compassion (9)
      • Despair (7)
      • Disgust (5)
      • Faith (20)
      • Fear (15)
      • Grief (9)
      • Happiness (52)
      • Hope (20)
      • Pleasure (37)
      • Shame and Guilt (10)
    • External Goods (55)
    • Flourishing (103)
    • Foundations of Ethics (126)
    • Karma (44)
    • Morality (79)
    • Virtue (187)
      • Courage (7)
      • Generosity (14)
      • Gentleness (7)
      • Gratitude (13)
      • Honesty (15)
      • Humility (27)
      • Leadership (7)
      • Mindfulness (24)
      • Patient Endurance (31)
      • Self-Discipline (10)
      • Serenity (39)
      • Zest (8)
  • Practice (147)
    • Karmic Redirection (5)
    • Meditation (47)
    • Monasticism (47)
    • Physical Exercise (4)
    • Prayer (16)
    • Reading and Recitation (14)
    • Rites (24)
    • Therapy (11)
  • Theoretical Philosophy (406)
    • Consciousness (23)
    • Deity (77)
    • Epistemology (141)
      • Certainty and Doubt (19)
      • Dialectic (21)
      • Logic (15)
      • Prejudices and "Intuitions" (31)
    • Free Will (18)
    • Hermeneutics (66)
    • Human Nature (36)
    • Metaphysics (117)
    • Philosophy of Language (31)
    • Self (78)
    • Supernatural (55)
    • Truth (64)
    • Unconscious Mind (16)
  • Western Thought (527)
    • Analytic Tradition (107)
    • Christianity (162)
      • Early Factions (8)
      • Eastern Orthodoxy (3)
      • Protestantism (27)
      • Roman Catholicism (61)
    • French Tradition (50)
    • German Tradition (97)
    • Greek and Roman Tradition (126)
      • Epicureanism (25)
      • Neoplatonism (2)
      • Pre-Socratics (6)
      • Skepticism (2)
      • Sophists (8)
      • Stoicism (22)
    • Islam (44)
      • Mu'tazila (2)
      • Salafi (3)
      • Sufism (10)
    • Judaism (38)
    • Natural Science (103)
      • Biology (33)
      • Philosophy of Science (50)
      • Physics and Astronomy (11)
    • Social Science (197)
      • Economics (48)
      • Psychology (85)

Recent Posts

  • On the damned topics of Buddhist philosophy
  • There’s no such thing as racial purity
  • The Gnostic aesthetics of leg waxing
  • Missed posts for Love of All Wisdom subscribers
  • Passages of death and hope

Popular posts

  • One and a half noble truths?
  • Wishing George W. Bush well
  • Do Speculative Realists want us to be Chinese?
  • Why I am not a right-winger
  • On faith in tooth relics

Basic concepts

  • Ascent and Descent
  • Intimacy and integrity
  • Ascent-descent and intimacy-integrity together
  • Perennial questions?
  • Virtuous and vicious means
  • Dialectical and demonstrative argument
  • Chastened intellectualism and practice
  • Yavanayāna Buddhism: what it is
  • Why worry about contradictions?
  • The first philosophy blogger

Personal favourites

  • Can philosophy be a way of life? Pierre Hadot (1922-2010)
  • James Doull and the history of ethical motivation
  • Praying to something you don't believe in
  • What does postmodernism perform?
  • Why I'm getting married

Archives

Search this site

All posts, pages and metadata copyright 2009-2026 Amod Lele unless otherwise noted. Comments copyright 2009-2026 their comment authors. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA) licence.

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.