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

Love of All Wisdom

~ Philosophy through multiple traditions

Love of All Wisdom

Category Archives: Western Thought

Taking back ethics

09 Thursday Jul 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Buddhism, Flourishing, German Tradition, Greek and Roman Tradition, Metaphilosophy, Morality, Virtue

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Aristotle, Bernard Williams, Charles Goodman, Damien Keown, Harry Frankfurt, Michael Barnhart, religion, Robert M. Gimello, SACP, virtue ethics

In the past few years, especially since the publication of Damien Keown’s The Nature of Buddhist Ethics, there has been a small academic cottage industry devoted to the question of how one might best classify Buddhist ethics. Which of the three standard branches of analytical ethics does it fall under: consequentialism (à la J.S. Mill), deontology (à la Kant) or virtue ethics (à la Aristotle)? The debate has generally been a tussle between virtue ethics (Keown’s position) and consequentialism (Charles Goodman). My friend (and contributor to this blog) Justin Whitaker suspects that a deontological interpretation of Buddhist ethics is possible, but he’s a voice in the wilderness so far.

At the SACP, Michael Barnhart proposed a way of sidestepping this debate entirely. As far as ethics itself goes, he says, Buddhism is particularist; it doesn’t adhere to any real theory, it just responds to particular situations. Where it does have a theory isn’t in ethics at all, but in something else entirely: the question of what we care about, or should care about. (Specifically, he argues, Buddhists claim we should care above all about suffering.)

Barnhart based this idea on Harry Frankfurt’s essay, “The importance of what we care about.” I didn’t comment on his paper right after the SACP, because I wanted a chance to read Frankfurt’s piece first. Having read it, I would now say that Barnhart and Frankfurt both run into a common problem: an unreasonably narrow definition of ethics. Continue reading →

Ethics without morality

02 Thursday Jul 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Anger, Free Will, German Tradition, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Morality

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

Bernard Williams, Charles Goodman, Damien Keown, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jonathan Haidt, Mark Siderits, Śāntideva, Shyam Ranganathan

There’s been a debate in the past couple of years between Mark Siderits and Charles Goodman over Śāntideva’s attitude toward free will. In his chapter condemning anger, Śāntideva says a number of things that sound completely determinist:

Even though my stomach fluids and so on make great distress, I have no anger toward them. Why do I have anger toward sentient beings? Even their anger has a cause…. Certainly, all the different crimes and vices arise out of causes; we can’t find an independent one…. Therefore, when one sees an enemy or a friend doing unjust acts, one should think “it has causes,” and remain happy. (Bodhicary?vat?ra verses VI.22-33) Continue reading →

Neither career nor hobby

30 Tuesday Jun 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Family, German Tradition, Social Science, Work

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

academia, Betty Friedan, gender, generations, haikujaguar, Max Weber

I wanted to link here to a wonderful post I just found on Livejournal, though it appears to be a couple months old. The author, an artist, has written eloquently on something I’ve been finding vitally important but had not yet managed express. Namely, there is a concept missing in our vocabulary about work: we have a serious blind spot for what is between “career” and “hobby.” A career is what you do for money; anything you don’t do for money, gets relegated to the status of an indulgent pastime, a mildly pleasant but unserious way to while away the hours until your real work begins anew.

There’s a hidden, and I think pernicious, assumption underlying such a dualism: that anything not done for money is just not that serious. Feminists have rightly criticized the effects of such an assumption when it comes to childrearing and homemaking; but I think we’ve yet to seriously think about its effects for other kinds of unpaid work.

I do not plan on this blog ever making me any money. Nor do I plan on it advancing my academic career. If either of those happens, great. But those are not the point; I feel an inner drive to do a kind of writing that I can’t make money off of, and that’s more important to me than the kind of writing that does pay. This is something central to my life, and it makes no sense to relegate that to the category of “hobby.”

The original post’s author (who goes by the alias haikujaguar) suggests that we should refer to our meaningful unpaid work with the honourable names of “vocation” and “calling.” I’m less certain about this, because for so long these terms have had the connotation of paid work. The term “calling” comes from the German Beruf, which now simply means paid work. (Was sind sie von Beruf? is German for “What’s your job?”) Continue reading →

Intimacy and integrity

26 Friday Jun 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Confucianism, East Asia, Epistemology, Jainism, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Modern Hinduism, Sāṃkhya-Yoga, Self, Truth

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Harvard University, intimacy/integrity, Jason Clower, Max Weber, Mou Zongsan, Parimal Patil, Thomas P. Kasulis, Yoga Sūtras

I’ve found Thomas Kasulis’s distinction between intimacy and integrity to be one of the more helpful ways to think through the significance of culture in philosophy, especially when dealing with East Asia. To help Westerners understand East Asian thought, Kasulis portrays it as having an “intimacy” orientation, as opposed to a more familiar “integrity” orientation.

Now Kasulis is aware enough to realize that there are exceptions to all such generalizations, and some of his examples of “intimacy” come from the West too. The distinction is supposed to function more like one of Max Weber’s ideal types. That is to say: one may never encounter intimacy or integrity orientations in their pure forms; any actual culture or person or book will probably contain some mix. Nevertheless, by thinking of the two as relatively coherent extremes, one is better able to understand what’s going on in the middle.

When applied to ethics and politics alone, the distinction is not particularly original and could even come across as something of a cliché: basically, the modern West is individualistic and oriented toward individual rights and the integrity of the individual, while East Asia focuses on the intimacy community and the ensuing responsibilities of interdependence. Where Kasulis’s work gets interesting is when he applies the distinction to theoretical philosophy. Continue reading →

Why computers don’t understand

22 Monday Jun 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Consciousness, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Alan Turing, Edward (Ted) Slingerland, John Searle, Ryan Overbey, technology

My previous post on consciousness, responding to Ted Slingerland’s views, attracted great responses that deserve a more detailed explanation. Ryan Overbey addresses my claim that scientific experiment cannot disprove consciousness because such experiments depend on experience and perception:

You say “experience and perception” presume consciousness. In that case, consciousness for you seems to be defined as any system of taking in sensory data, storing information about that data, and processing that information. Am I reading that correctly? We have computer programs that can do these things. Would they fit your criteria for consciousness. If so, cool! If not, why not?

The answer to the question here is: absolutely not. Taking in empirical data and processing it, in the way that a computer program does, does not count as experience, perception or consciousness. Why? Continue reading →

The God that matters

21 Sunday Jun 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Deity, Islam, Judaism, Metaphysics, Roman Catholicism

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Anselm, Iris Murdoch

You believe that there is no God? Well, what is God? Suppose that God is the greatest being that can be conceived. Now even if you don’t think that such a being exists, you can still understand the idea of such a being; you can still conceive of it. Therefore, whether or not such a being exists in reality, it must at least exist in your mind. But a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in your mind. Therefore, for such a being to exist only in your mind, and not in reality, would be a contradiction in terms; for if it existed only in your mind, it would both be the greatest being that can be conceived (that’s what you’re conceiving of) and not be the greatest thing that can be conceived (because the same being existing in reality would be greater). So the greatest being that can be conceived – this being must exist in reality as well as in thought.

This is a simplified version of Anselm’s argument for the existence of God, often called the “ontological” argument. I’m not sure whether it really works; I’m inclined to say it doesn’t, although it’s hard to say where the logic goes wrong, especially in the more sophisticated version presented by Anselm himself.

Nevertheless, I consider it the best and most important of the proofs of God’s existence, even if it doesn’t work. Why? Continue reading →

When is a philosophy a technique?

18 Thursday Jun 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Meditation, Metaphilosophy, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Sāṃkhya-Yoga

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Christopher Chapple, Joseph Prabhu, Mencius, Michael Barnhart, Peimin Ni, religion, Rita Sherma, S.N. Goenka, SACP, Silong Li, Yoga Sūtras

A question that I saw recurring throughout the SACP was technique: when is philosophical reflection about our ends or goals, and when is it just about means to those ends? I’d previously thought about this question with respect to S.N. Goenka’s vipassanā meditation: the word Goenka uses most frequently to describe it is “technique.” The webpage describing vipassanā refers to it as a “non-sectarian technique”: thus Goenka’s claim that people from “any religion” can practise vipassanā – as long as they don’t bring any religious symbols into meditation practice.

This question of technique came up at least three times at the SACP. Continue reading →

Defending consciousness

15 Monday Jun 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Confucianism, Consciousness, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science, Self

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Confucius, Edward (Ted) Slingerland, René Descartes, SACP

First event at the SACP was a panel involving Edward (Ted) Slingerland, discussing Confucius’s thought. Slingerland was arguing, against the somewhat behaviourist interpretation promoted by Herbert Fingarette, that Confucius has a conception of “interiority,” or subjectivity – that we are not just the sum of our roles and actions, but there’s a consciousness inside.

The objections to Slingerland were of two kinds. First, people misinterpreted him and objected to the idea of interiority (or consciousness), thinking that he was arguing for interiority himself, even though he repeatedly insisted he was only interpreting Confucius and didn’t believe in it himself. (I’m surprised how many people did that.) Second, people objected (roughly) that Confucius couldn’t possibly have believed in interiority, typically on the grounds that he was a lot smarter than that.

The big surprise, to me, was that nobody (least of all Slingerland) seemed to step up to the plate and defend interiority – to say that yes, there’s actually something going on inside our minds. Continue reading →

Authenticity

12 Friday Jun 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Aesthetics, Food, German Tradition, Social Science

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

authenticity, identity, Karl Marx, music

To describe something as “authentic” today is usually thought to give it high praise. But I sometimes question how much of a good authenticity really is.

What makes a thing authentic? Central to authenticity, it seems to me, is the absence of choice. To decide to be authentic is a contradiction.

If people built a house out of stone in 1850 because it was the only material available, we call it an authentic stone house; we do not say this when, of the many materials available to build your house out of today, you choose stone. A Jamaican raised in a Kingston shanty, exposed to reggae all his life, makes authentic reggae himself – in a way that someone who comes in from outside to make reggae music does not. If I were to open an Indian restaurant, people might consider it authentic since I am ethnically part Indian, something I didn’t choose; whereas if I were to open a Thai restaurant, nobody would consider it authentic, even though I can cook much better Thai food than I can Indian.

So why is this something we value? Why do we praise the thing people didn’t choose over the thing they chose? I think it has to do with the inescapable presence of modernity and capitalism, living in the age Marx described so well in the Communist Manifesto, where the “bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.” What is chosen can be bought and sold easily. One can certainly buy and sell authenticity; but one cannot create authenticity. In the prosperous modern world, the unchosen is scarce, and that makes it valuable.

Gandhi as lord, liar or lunatic

10 Wednesday Jun 2009

Posted by Amod Lele in Christianity, Deity, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Modern Hinduism

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Bart D. Ehrman, C.S. Lewis, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jesus, Mohandas K. Gandhi

Cross-cultural philosophers often wish to treat Jesus of Nazareth as a great philosopher, whose life and thought we can learn from – but one who is fully human, no more divine than the rest of us.

C.S. Lewis hated this move, thought it was intellectually sloppy. 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

  • Pail D. Van Pelt on Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Amod Lele on Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Pail D. Van Pelt on Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Pail D. Van Pelt on Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Paul D. Van Pelt on Should we be polite to AIs?

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 (380)
    • Death (44)
    • Family (53)
    • Food (22)
    • Friends (21)
    • Health (33)
    • Place (37)
    • Play (18)
    • Politics (239)
    • Sex (25)
    • Work (48)
  • Asian Thought (459)
    • Buddhism (331)
      • Early and Theravāda (140)
      • Mahāyāna (140)
      • Modernized Buddhism (101)
    • East Asia (101)
      • Confucianism (62)
      • Daoism (22)
      • Shinto (1)
    • South Asia (148)
      • Bhakti Poets (3)
      • 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 (28)
  • Indigenous American Thought (8)
  • Method (278)
    • Metaphilosophy (180)
    • Method and Theory in the Study of Religion (155)
  • Practical Philosophy (431)
    • Action (17)
    • Aesthetics (52)
    • Emotion (195)
      • Anger (42)
      • Attachment and Craving (32)
      • Compassion (9)
      • Despair (7)
      • Disgust (5)
      • Faith (20)
      • Fear (15)
      • Grief (9)
      • Happiness (52)
      • Hope (19)
      • 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 (146)
    • Karmic Redirection (5)
    • Meditation (47)
    • Monasticism (47)
    • Physical Exercise (4)
    • Prayer (16)
    • Reading and Recitation (14)
    • Rites (23)
    • Therapy (11)
  • Theoretical Philosophy (403)
    • Consciousness (23)
    • Deity (76)
    • Epistemology (141)
      • Certainty and Doubt (19)
      • Dialectic (21)
      • Logic (15)
      • Prejudices and "Intuitions" (31)
    • Free Will (18)
    • Hermeneutics (66)
    • Human Nature (34)
    • Metaphysics (115)
    • Philosophy of Language (31)
    • Self (78)
    • Supernatural (54)
    • Truth (64)
    • Unconscious Mind (16)
  • Western Thought (525)
    • 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 (101)
      • Biology (31)
      • Philosophy of Science (50)
      • Physics and Astronomy (11)
    • Social Science (196)
      • Economics (48)
      • Psychology (85)

Recent Posts

  • Should we be polite to AIs?
  • Why teach virtue to a robot
  • Being marginalized doesn’t make you smarter
  • “The future will belong to the mestiza”
  • Hiding your ideas in plain sight

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.