Chapter 20 philosopher's conclusion

What lessons did I learn from these conversations?What do they bring me?They inspire me to have a growing admiration for Buddhism as wisdom and a growing skepticism for Buddhism as metaphysics.They also allow me to glimpse some explanation for the current appeal of this doctrine in the West.This is first of all because Buddhism fills in the realm of the arts of life and morality a vacuum created by the escape of Western philosophy. From the sixth century BC until the end of the sixteenth century AD, philosophy in the West consisted of two main branches: the guidance of human life and the understanding of nature.About the middle of the seventeenth century, Western philosophy lost interest in the first branch, abandoning it to religion, while the second branch was taken up by science.What remains of philosophy is the at least uncertain study of the supernatural, that is, of metaphysics.

In the earliest days of Greek philosophy, theory was not dominant.So, from Heraclitus fragments B40 and 129, it is clear that just being a learned man is not enough to be a philosopher.To study philosophy in this age is, above all, to be a decent man, to attain salvation and happiness by living a good life, and to point out, by example and teaching, the way of wisdom for those who wish to do so.The Greeks pursued wisdom on the basis of its practical value.A philosopher is at the same time a good, moral and resourceful person.This astute insight is the hallmark of a "sophiste" (sophiste), a term originally without any pejorative connotations.At that time, philosophy was not one of many disciplines, much less a supreme discipline governing many others.This is a metamorphose integrale of the means of life.However, this position was abandoned by Western philosophy and no one inherited it.Buddhism has occupied this ground in our time, and this occupation is all the easier because it has no rivals among us.

①The term sophiste (sage) later refers specifically to sophists and sophist philosophers. Undoubtedly, starting from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, theory became dominant and became an indispensable carrier of wisdom and rational proof.From then on, cognition and wisdom become one, but the legitimacy of cognition lies in leading to wisdom, and wisdom keeps the priority.The good life exists, and the knowledge of truth involves an understanding of the world and, if necessary, of things that may exist outside the world.The rational contemplation of real things and the acquisition of happiness through wisdom, the union of the two for justice, was preserved forever in Stoicism and Epicureanism, until the end of the seventeenth century in Spino Sasha's "Ethics" is completed. (I'm talking about rational contemplation and not mystic contemplation. This is the original meaning of the word "theory" theorie. In Greek, in Plato's writings, theoria means "immediate perception" of real things, which Same as Descartes' use of the word "intuition". Intuition (intuition) has nothing to do with "divination", but comes from the Latin word intueri, which means "to see".)

From this point on, the Socratic question "How should I live?" is dropped.In modern times, philosophy is gradually being reduced to a theoretical exercise, a field in which, for all its pedantic arrogance, it is clearly no match for science.As for science, it develops in its own right, but it does not establish morality or wisdom.People try to make it all nonsense that they say on these subjects, and everyone can prove that scholars are as unwise and imprudent as the common man, ethically and politically. Politics from the seventeenth century on, precisely, has been the subject of new and important works from which our thinking is still nourished.But it has also become the refuge of the orderly and ruling mind in a philosophy that has resigned itself as teacher of conscience and driven from the throne it occupies as king of knowledge.Henceforth, since this is all it has, justice, happiness, and truth also appear to it as an autocratic, even totalitarian, construction of a perfect society.Its absurd conceit that it found the basis for "science" in the nineteenth century shows that the pursuit of individual and social autonomy is replaced by collective coercion based on posturing science.What Aristotle called the "political animal" is no longer human.It's just a poor monkey who's been trained to imitate his masters under threat of death.As I have emphasized several times in previous conversations, our century has had a disastrous experience with those great political utopian utopias, the collapse of which is, it seems to me, also the reason for contemporary man's renewed quest for a personal wisdom one.

As far as the so-called scientific basis is concerned, in fact, the evil is not that philosophy is transforming society, because this has always been its right and even its duty.The evil is utopia.In essence, utopian fantasy appears before human reality in a rigid pattern fully prepared, adjusted in the abstraction to even the tiniest detail, conceived without regard to any empirical material of.Human reality thus finds itself thrust from the very beginning by utopian fantasy into the role of confrontation with this pattern, that of a transcendental conspirator and traitor.Buddhism teaches, however, that rejection of others (intolerence) is never a vehicle for goodness (Bien), be it politically or morally.Coercion, proselytization, and even propaganda are all prohibited according to this doctrine.This may be a supplementary reason for Buddhism's appeal to Westerners in the post-totalitarian age we are living through.

To the ancients, no doubt, politics belonged to philosophy, determined by morality and wisdom, justice and peace of soul, all mixed together, until Kant made happiness the counterproof of virtue.From the pre-Socratic era (lepoque presocratique), "the needs that thinkers strive to satisfy are also felt as social needs".The image of the ancient philosophers as selfish and calmly indifferent to the annoyance of public affairs is an unfounded cliché.One of the components of Buddhism that I found to be significant in this series of talks is its political projection.In what sense?In a sense, I think, close to that of the Stoics.The Stoics believed in a general law, both rational and moral, which the philosopher should internalize while, at the same time, establishing a "citizenship of the world."This cosmopolitism (cosmopolitisme) literally completes political philosophy, but it does not permit any indifference, no disdain for the philosopher with regard to the everyday politics of his society. "The philosopher of Chrysippus is a man of action." Ernest Renan has any, in a touching chapter in his Histoire des origines du christianisme, for We have reproduced the way in which wisdom and power were combined in the most civilized era of the Roman Empire - the time of Antoninus.He described "philosophy's efforts to improve civilized society."Of course, philosophers, whether Greeks or Buddhists, should avoid any involvement with the machinations that we deplore with the adjective "politician" in today's vocabulary.What degree of intervention should the philosopher observe?This is an old debate. "Is it necessary for a philosopher to take part in politics?" The Epicureans answer: "No, unless he is compelled by exigencies." The Stoics say: "Yes, unless he is compelled by such or Stop like that."

① Michelle Fred, "Greek Wisdom", Paris, Formalion, 1996 edition. ② famous Stoic philosopher.Lived between 290 and 210 BC. In this field, contrary to the mediocre interpretations and the obvious misinterpretations that have long characterized Buddhism as a doctrine of indifference, of Nirvana understood as terribly insensitive, there is much to learn from Buddhist teachings .Buddhist quietism has become something of a legend.For me, that was one of the serendipitous discoveries of those conversations. What my interlocutors failed to convince me in this series of conversations, however, was the validity of that part of Buddhism that I would like to call metaphysical, since we are not dealing with a religion, although in Buddhism Among them, there is no lack of religious representation.Simply put, the theoretical background of Buddhist wisdom remains unproven and unverifiable in my opinion.While valuing this wisdom in its own right, this wisdom was offered in time to the West, which has long since lost its intellectual tradition, I feel that I would only like to see it in its pragmatic form. Accept it, it's the same as I would treat Epicureanism or Stoicism.

For me, the situation can be summed up this way: the West has triumphed in science, but it has no laudable intelligence or morality.The East can bring us its morals and its guidelines for life, but they have no theoretical basis, except in psychology, which is not exactly a science, like sociology.If one understands wisdom as the connection between happiness and morality, then a life lived according to it is surely the saddest when it closes itself within purely empirical limits, without the help of a metaphysical background one of life.It must, however, accept these limitations.Wisdom is always speculative.From Buddha and Socrates onwards, human beings have tried in vain to turn wisdom into a science.And it is in vain if one tries to extract a morality and an art of living from knowledge that has become verifiable.Wisdom does not rest on any scientific reliability, nor does scientific reliability lead to any wisdom.But both wisdom and scientific reliability are always indispensable to each other, always separate from each other, and always complementary to each other.