Philo QT Reviewer
Philo QT Reviewer
Philo QT Reviewer
" The truth," Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and a terrible thing, and should therefore
be treated with great caution." -J.K. Rowling Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
We learned in the previous section about the branches of philosophy. Each branch
of philosophy seeks to arrive at the truth regarding that which they are concerned.
Philosophy, however, does not claim to be the sole source of truth. In fact, as a
second-order inquiry, it tries to confirm and look further beyond what sciences have already
discovered. Aside from the truth, it is more concerned with the way we process the
information in order to distinguish the truth from those that are false. Sometimes, it happens
that people have different versions of truth. The truth which they profess to be the only truth
came from different root or source.
For example, people of different cultures may have varying versions of truth
regarding a particular practice. Another example is when people of different beliefs argue
about a certain truth which concerns religion. Nevertheless, there are truths which cannot
be questioned by people regardless of their differences.
Truth, like the term philosophy, does not have a single definition. Because of the
various meanings, people understand it differently. In his universal pragmatics, Jürgen
Habermas claims that there are other domains in life in which we understand truth
differently.
DOMAINS OF TRUTH
Objective Domain – this pertains to the natural world that maintains a relative
independence from the perspective and attitude of human beings that perceive them.
Social Domain – here, “truth” is analogous with (not the exact equivalent) of a general
agreement or consensus on what is right as opposed to what is wrong.
Corpuz et al. (2016) cited that “Richard Rorty offered a simple way of defining truth:
truth can be understood as what has passed “procedures of justification." They added,
“Justification means the process of proving the truth or validity of a statement. This process
is made up of ways of critically testing a claim against certain criteria.”
As we have seen from the previous slides, there are different domains of truth –
objective, social, and personal. According to Rorty, each domain of truth has corresponding
criteria for justifying the claim of truth under it.
Scientific/objective domain
Social domain
• Truths are tested against their acceptability to a particular group in a particular time
in history.
Personal domain
• Truths are tested against the consistency and authenticity of the person who claims
it.
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, "It is important that a declaration of conversion must
be declared publicly."
It is of great importance to find out what domain of truth concerns the claim of a
person. Recognizing the domain of truth will help you engage yourself in a meaningful and
healthy discussion with someone.
We have learned in the previous lesson that truth is the quality of being in accord with fact
or reality. What about opinion?
Corpuz et al. (2016) introduced in the book that they published a way on how to
critically examine opinions.
First – clarify what an argument is. An argument is a group of statements that serves to
support a conclusion.
According to the definition, this is not yet an argument. It is just an expression of opinion.
"There is no hope in the Philippine government because many officials are corrupt, and
Filipino voters continue to elect them."
According to Logic, not all arguments are good or sound. Additionally, not all
arguments are true. There are arguments that are sound (logically constructed), but
questionable in terms of truthfulness.
What is fallacy?
It is of great importance to study the different types of fallacies in order for us to avoid
making fallacious arguments and to prevent being misled by fallacies that we hear or read.
Ramos (2016), on a book that she published, enumerated and defined 11 types of
fallacies.
11 Types of Fallacies
For example, a person who got caught stealing something would cry and tell the officers
about his/her poor situation. Sometimes, justice or truth is disregarded when emotion
overtakes reason.
Logical Form:
For example, since nobody has proven that ghosts do not exist, then it makes sense to
believe in them.
Logical Form:
For example: "Noisy children are a real headache. Two aspirin will make a headache
go away.”
Tip: When you suspect equivocation, substitute the word with the same definition for all
uses and see if it makes sense.
Logical Form:
Claim X is made.
4. Composition – this infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true
of some part of the whole. The reverse of this fallacy is division.
This fallacy occurs when you apply to others what is true to you. Remember, not because it
works on you means that it will work on others, too. For example, you solved your financial
problem by selling one of your properties. This will not work for all especially to those who
do not own much.
Logical Form:
A is part of B.
A has property X.
5. Division – one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or
some of its parts.
Example: It was reported that some members of the English club kept the fund in their
pockets. Justin is a member of the English club. Therefore, he is one of those who stole the
money.
Logical Form:
A is part of B.
B has property X.
6. Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument against the person) – this fallacy attempts to link
the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
However, in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are
legitimate if relevant of the issue.
Example: Despite of the perfect qualifications for the presidency of the student council,
Denver still got rejected by many because of his religion.
Information like religion, when not relevant to the topic or situation, must not be used
against a person.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Forcing someone to believe that what you are saying is true or else something bad will
happen to him/her is an example of this fallacy.
Logical Form:
For example, a product that is endorsed by a famous celebrity has become popular to the
public. Since many people love that celebrity, it is possible that many would buy the product
that she endorsed. People are likely to purchase the product because of the appeal of the
celebrity rather than the benefits that it could give to its users.
Logical Form:
9. Post Hoc (False Cause) – since that event followed this one, that event must have been
caused by this one. This fallacy is also referred to as coincidental correlation, or correlation
not causation.
Example: Chelsea unintentionally broke their family portrait. Days after that, one of their
family members was caught in an accident. Therefore, the breaking of their family's portrait
was the cause of the accident.
Logical Form:
Y occurred, then X occurred.
Therefore, Y caused X.
10. Hasty Generalization – one commits errors if one reaches an induction generalization
based on insufficient evidence. The fallacy is commonly based on a broad conclusion upon
the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole
population.
Example: Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy Smiley toothpaste brand.
Therefore, it must be great.
Explanation: It turns out that only five dentists were actually asked. When a random
sampling of 1000 dentists was polled, only 20% actually recommended the brand. The four
out of five result was not necessarily a biased sample or a dishonest survey; it just
happened to be a statistical anomaly common among small samples.
Logical Form:
11. Petitio Principii (Begging the question) – this is a type of fallacy in which the
proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.
Example: "Fred says that he believes UFOs are real because he has seen what can only be
described as UFOs."
Technically speaking, to beg the question is not a logical fallacy. This is because it is
logically valid, in the strictest sense, but it is utterly unpersuasive. The thing that you are
trying to prove is already assumed to be true, so you are not actually adding anything to the
argument. It would be like saying a product is the most expensive because it has the
highest price.
The important to note about fallacies like begging the question is that the argument they’re
trying to make isn’t necessarily wrong; it’s just poorly constructed or supported. In this case,
the second half of the sentence simply restates the first half in reverse order. It would be
akin to saying that the Civic is a car made by Honda because Honda makes a car called the
Civic.
Logical Form:
Note: The fallacies enumerated above are only some of its types. There more types of
fallacies. In fact, if you would pay more attention to what is happening around you, you
might notice how these fallacies are being used by people.
Through this lesson, we can learn how to distinguish truth from opinion and truth from
fallacies. This will also help us to think critically in all situations. According to Horace, "a
word once sent abroad can never return." Thus, be cautious in every word that will proceed
from your lips. Let not our speech be filled with fallacies.
In Plato’s early dialogues where Socrates was the main character, like in
Protagoras, Gorgias,Meno, Crito, and others, this method has proven to be very effective un
exposing the views of his opponent. Socrates gained the ire of the Sophists, or ‘the wise
ones’ by showing the absurdity of their ideas through dialectics. The Sophists were known
to be the first professional teachers who exacted money for their services. Socrates never
asked for any monetary consideration for his lectures, teachings or dialogues. Also, they
claimed that they could teach somebody to become wise. They were considered as masters
of the art of rhetoric and persuasions. Moreover, they treated wisdom as a skill
or techne which could be taught to anyone interested on becoming wise.
Of course, Socrates and Plato disagree with their teachings, in general; especially
on their promoting the relativity of morality and their asking for a professional fee, in
particular. As a result, disagreement between the two parties has emerged. Some of the
notable sophists in Plato’s dialogues were Protagoras (man is the measure of all things),
Gorgias (virtue is not one but many), and Thrasymachus (justice or righteousness is the
interest of the stronger party).
It is difficult to trace between Socrates and Plato, on which of the two should be
credited with which ideas. What is certain though is that Socrates had influenced Plato in
the development of his philosophical ideas. The Socratic influence is evident in the early
and middle dialogues of Plato, including his opus, The Republic. It was only in his later
dialogues that Plato started to develop his own philosophical ideas independent of the
Socratic influence.
Platonic Philosophy
Plato’s Metaphysical System
(The Quest for the Idea of the Good)
Philosophy is wisdom. The Platonic philosophy will add further that knowledge is wisdom,
and virtue is knowledge. How does one distinguish knowledge from opinion? The grandeur
of Plato’s philosophy and its corresponding metaphysical system is based on a complete
worldview that is consistently explained within his assumptions. His predecessors may have
started the discipline of philosophy but he was the philosopher who had put philosophy in its
respective pedestal as a discipline. According to Alfred North Whitehead, a philosopher and
logician, “The safest characterization of western philosophy is that of a series of footnotes to
Plato.” His philosophical views lead towards the establishment of the first ever institution for
higher education called the Academy.
Plato believed that this world is not the basis for the attainment of true and real knowledge.
He assumed the existence of another world in another dimension. He claimed that the
objects of real knowledge must be ageless and eternal. Unfortunately, everything in this
world is considered as appearances. The things that we perceive through our senses are
always changing. How can we have true knowledge if, as it were, these objects that we see
in this world – our perceptions of the physical world where we see tables and chairs and
other objects – are always changing. For Plato, if something is to be accepted as
knowledge, there must be an ultimate basis for it that is absolute and unchanging. Thus,
this world could not be the source of real and ultimate knowledge. Because for something to
be accepted as knowledge, that object of knowledge must be ageless and eternal.
Therefore, he assumed the existence of another world where the real objects of knowledge
could be found. He called this the world of Forms and Ideas. The world that we are familiar
with is the changing world, where everything is changing. In this case, the objects that we
see in this world could not serve as the ultimate basis of knowledge.
Moreover, Plato assumed that before we were born, our souls were once part of the
World Soul. The World Soul has immediate and direct contact with the world of Forms and
Ideas. Consequently, it is the World Soul which has a perfect and direct knowledge of the
forms and ideas because it is the only entity that has full contact with the world of Forms
and ideas. Moreover, in the world of Forms and Ideas, there is a hierarchical structure.
Thus, in the hierarchy, the easiest ideas to be recognized by the soul would be
ideas about material objects, followed by mathematical ideas and then abstract ideas. The
highest and most difficult idea to be recognized is the idea of the Good. The idea of the
Good is the goal of Plato’s philosophy, the attainment of the good life.
He further states, in his ‘Allegory of the Cave’ that, “The soul of every man
possesses the power of learning the truth and the organ to see it with and just as one would
have turn the whole body around in order that the eye should see light instead of darkness,
so the entire soul must be turned away from changing world until its eye can bear to
contemplate reality and that supreme splendor called the GOOD.” Here, he assumes that
we have the innate ability to recognize and remember the perfect knowledge that we had
before our soul joined the body, when it was still part of the World Soul. Plato believed that
before we were born we had perfect knowledge as part of the World Soul. But the moment
that we were born and when our soul joins the body, the body has the effect of corrupting
the soul. thus, it makes the soul forget the knowledge that it had before joining the body. For
this reason, Plato claims that “knowledge is remembrance.” It was a matter of remembering
the knowledge that you had before in order to be able to pursue goodness and the Good
life. Here, Plato forwarded the idea of the dualism between mind and body. Later, other
philosophers like St. Augustine and scholastic philosophy would incorporate this into the
Christian doctrine, where the body is evil and the spirit is good.
For Plato, the pursuit of knowledge is connected with wisdom. The constant attempt
of man to remember the good and, thus, regain knowledge is tantamount to having wisdom
because to know the good is immediately to pursue it. No one does wrong knowingly. For
those who fail to do what is good, perhaps their soils have failed to remember the
knowledge that they knew before. Thus, according to Plato, “Virtue is knowledge” and
“knowledge is wisdom.”
In Plato’s allegory, he described prisoners inside a cave, where they are chained facing a
wall. Behind and above the prisoners are people carrying objects along a road and beyond
this road is a burning fire. The burning fire would cast the shadows of the people with their
objects to the wall in front of the prisoners. Consequently, the prisoners could see only the
images or shadows cast by these objects. Once the prisoner is set free, and would be
forced to turn around, he will realize that the cause of the shadows were the people on the
road with the objects they carry and the fire. But if he is further forced and dragged out from
the cave, he will realize that the sun is the source of whatever is true and good for all things,
thus, his soul will be enlightened towards the intelligible world, or the world of true reality.
Once the vision of the good is attained from the sunlight, he will be unwilling and reluctant to
descend and go back to the cave or the world of darkness again. This process of the
enlightenment of the soul or the mind’s eye represents its ascent from the world of opinion
inside the cave with its beliefs and illusions to the world of real knowledge where the real
object of knowledge could be found, the forms and ideas – this is Plato’s divided line.
Plato believed that poets and artists should be banished from the Republic because
they are creating a tertiary copy of reality. Since the object found in the world of the senses
is constructed by Plato as merely secondary copies of Forms and Ideas existing in the true
reality. Moreover, the realm of the shadows and reflections are always changing, thus they
cannot be the objects of real knowledge. In the first place, Plato believed that for something
to be accepted as objects of knowledge, they must be clear and unchanging.
Belief of conviction, or pistis, on the other hand, our commonsensical view about the
world. This includes one’s commonsensical notion of morality, which should not be the
basis for real knowledge. This is what many of us would be familiar with, practical
knowledge. Compared with illusion, belief is a bit clearer and is based on a more grounded
based of looking at the physical world. But still, commonsensical knowledge is not real
knowledge, according to Plato. For example, from common sense knowledge, one may
agree with Protagoras, one of the sophists or wise men in Athens, whose views Socrates
and Plato were always debunking, that man is the measure of all things. If knowledge will
be based only on belief and common sense, many might accept this proposition. But Plato
believed that any sensible discussion of morality must be based on some objective
standard. If this will not happen, then, we are always in a changing world where beliefs
about morality and our standards for it would keep on changing, according to every person’s
perception. Again, this is not knowledge but only opinions because these are considered
belonging to the world of appearances, or reality as it appears to us.
For Plato, the real objective is the search for knowledge. Knowledge has two levels,
reason or noesis using the intellect, and dianoia or understanding using scientific,
mathematical or abstract hypothesis. Noesis is claimed by Plato to be higher than dianoia
because it deals with grasping of complete or perfect knowledge of forms and ideas,
especially the idea of the Good in the world of Forms and Ideas. This is the direct
apprehension of the transcendent objects of knowledge in the other world of dimension, not
in this physical world. Moreover, Plato emphasized that this knowledge is not dependent on
the physical world or the world of the senses. This is the knowledge that is achieved
through competition.
According to Socrates, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This passage is
meant to emphasize the importance of the contemplation or the philosophical life in order to
remember the perfect knowledge that the soul knew before it joined the body. This is done
without having to rely on the senses, which could clutter our understanding with
appearances or opinion, but solely through the forms and ideas themselves, without having
to rely on the senses, in order to reach, attain and remember knowledge of the highest idea
of them all: the idea of goodness which is the key towards the attainment of wisdom.
Before achieving full or complete knowledge, the person has to go through the
process of recognizing his own ignorance or aporia. This recognition and realization of
one’s limitations and ignorance will help the soul gain noetic insight and enlightenment. This
is the only time that one could be prepared for true knowledge using the ‘eye of the mind’
which is the soul of the intellect. The mind’s eye could be honed through dialectics and
constant questioning and by recognizing one’s ignorance in order to grasp the universal
form of Goodness, thus, reaching the highest form of knowledge. The attainment of this
knowledge means that one would simultaneously proceed to apply this knowledge to the
particular instances in his life, thus becoming virtuous and attaining wisdom.
Dianoia, on the other hand, has to do with a lower type of knowledge, which is
associated with mathematical, abstract or scientific understanding. Dianoia still relies on
some assumptions, hypothesis and imagery from physical or sensible world. For example,
calculations in geometry and mathematics would often require pictorial representation of the
abstract ideas that they are trying to explain and manipulate for proper understanding.
Hence, they would have to draw geometric figures like circles or triangles in order to
represent their ideas. But regardless of the perfect circle that they have drawn to represent
the abstract and mathematical ideas they were trying to convey, for example, their process
of reasoning still belong to the abstract and mathematical realm and no amount of physical
representation of an actual figure of a circle that they have drawn would suffice to represent
the idea of a circle as ‘an infinite number of points equidistant to a center.’ Thus, to a certain
extent, dianoia is still dependent on the sensible world for an explanation and
representation of its assumptions and images. But, the process of understand itself, or
dianoia, is operation not at the level of the sensible or physical world, but in the abstract and
mathematical level.
The divided line is a visual metaphor for Plato's ontological (and epistemological) view of the
Universe. Reality is divided into two basic parts: the invisible, unchanging realm
of universals (or Ideas also sometimes called Forms), and the visible, ever-changing realm of
particulars (i.e., physical objects). Each of these two realms may be sub-divided giving us four
realms of being and cognition. The lowest region is the realm of images (eikones) or reflections
of physical objects which are cognized through the faculty of imagination (eikasia). Next is the
realm of physical objects which are cognized through opinion or trust (pistis). The next level is
the realm of mathematical objects (or what we would call abstract ideas) which are cognized
through intellect (dianoia). Finally there is the realm of ideas which are cognized through reason
(noesis). These four realms represent the ontological hierarchy of Plato's middle metaphysics.
The indubitable premises are logically true and nonsensical to doubt because the
moment that you doubt them, you would contradict yourself. These clear and distinct ideas
which Descartes considered as the starting points of knowledge: the self, God, and material
objects. Hence, they became the three indubitable premises of knowledge. These three
could be discovered using the method of systematic doubt. They are considered as
substances, where, though the use of the transcendental faculty or reason, one would be
able to gain knowledge of, without having to rely on the experience as a source of
knowledge.
Let us take Descartes’ proof for the existence of the self as an example of the use of
his method of systematic doubt. The method of systematic doubt consists of doubting
everything that can be doubted until you arrive at clear and distinct ideas which are
nonsensical to doubt. For something to be accepted as one of the starting points or
premises of knowledge, an idea must be clear and distinct. Descartes believed that one of
the logically certain premises is the existence of the self. He began his proof for the
existence of the self by doubting everything that can be doubted. Even if you doubt
everything that can be doubted (e.g. you can doubt your parents, if they are really your
parents; or your brothers and sisters, if you are really related by blood; or even the
existence of things in the other room, if nobody is there to perceive them; etc., as Descartes
argues that you can even doubt your own doubt!), you can still be sure and certain about
one thing, that you are doubting. Doubting is a form of thinking. Thinking could not happen
in a vacuum. There must be an owner of these thoughts. Therefore, thinking implies that
you exist as a substance. You would be contradicting yourself if you doubt that you exist, at
the very moment that you are doubting. As a result, the self exists at the very act of
doubting, which is a form of thinking. Or in other words, cogito, ergo, sum or ‘I think,
therefore, I am.’
Moreover, the existence of the self as a substance is independent of the body. The
self, as a substance, exists at its own nature and has an independent existence. It exists on
its own without being dependent on the existence of the body. Thus, according to
Descartes, he could imagine himself existing without a body, but he could not imagine
himself existing without the mind. He then went on to use the method of systematic doubt to
prove the two other indubitable premises of knowledge, the existence of God and material
objects, as infallible knowledge of substances guaranteed by the faculty of reasons.
Some critics, on the other hand, could not accept Descartes’ argument. For one,
there was already the ‘I’ that does the doubting and the thinking right from the start. The
self, that he concluded to exist, was right there at the beginning of his argument as an
assumption or premise. I doubt (dubito); I think (cogito); therefore, I exist (existo). Another
point raised against him was that he assumed that someone has to perceive things and he
is different from the things he perceives—that is, the knower is a different or separate entity
from the known. But you are not sure whether or not you are actually different from your
perceptions and experiences because there is a possibility that the self is a sum of
perceptions and experiences that you have formed from birth. This is the claim of
empiricism which contradicts the rationalism of Descartes.
Oriental Thought
Western thought differs greatly with that of the oriental thought specifically the
Chinese thought in terms of the Aristotelian logic (a pair of contraries cannot be both true:
“A” can never be “not-A” v.v.) (Macioca, 2015). Another difference that these thoughts have
is the Taoist theory of the Yin and Yang which permeates Chinese culture including
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), martial arts, agriculture, etc.
Society
Body
The Taoist concept of Yin and Yang differs greatly from the Aristotelian logic
mentioned above. The Yin and Yang relationship is not the same with A as opposed to not-
A. According to the Taoist thought, something can both be Yin and Yang at the same time;
there is no pure Yin or pure Yang. This is why they claim that everything is relative: the leg
as we mentioned earlier is Yin only when compared its relation to the head. However, the
leg is Yang when compared with the feet.
Corpuz et al. (2016) mentioned another important aspect of Yin and Yang which is
its ability to transform into the other – Yin can transform into Yang and vice versa. Take a
look at the symbol that represents the relationship of Yin and Yang. Each small dot (the
black one and the white one) refers to the seed of Yang in the Yin and the seed of Yin in the
Yang. Here, as the Yin slowly fades, the Yang slowly manifests itself. Other manifestations
of this phenomenon can be seen in our daily cycle of sleeping and waking up. “Noontime is
when the Yang is at its brightest. As the afternoon progresses the Yang slowly fades and
the Yin slowly manifests: we feel tired and sleepy. Midnight is when the Yin is at its peak. As
the hours tick further, the Yin fades and the Yang slowly manifests itself so we begin to
wake up.” This cycle continues.
Everything is Qi and this literally means energy. According to this, everything in this
world, my self – body and mind, the world and the things around me is Qi, manifesting in
different forms and moving differently as Yin and Yang – thinking/moving, resting/working,
taking in/letting go.
Because Qi is in everything, the relationship between the human being and the
universe is very much intertwined. Unlike the Western modern thinking where the thinker is
separated from the world – looking at the world from an objective point of view, Taoist
thought stresses that human being is one with the universe: everything that happens in the
universe will ultimately affect man and everything that man does will affect the universe
(Corpuz et al. 2016).
· In common sense, it refers to the way of doing things, or that pathway to some
destination.
· In its higher meaning, it refers to the way of the universe, the way things are.
If we reflect on the huge difference between western modern thinking and oriental
thought, we can see that neither of them is fully right nor fully wrong. Both are looking at
truth in different ways. Both use different approaches in arriving at the truth. The truths that
they share are truths we all relate to.
This means then that no one has the final answer to everything. It remains the task
of everyone to continually examine and reflect on the truths that they hold.
The context of religion, tradition, and culture is vital in having a holistic approach in
understanding reality. In this regard, the truth cannot be limited to a purely rational
conception. The human subject experiences many ways of being immersed into the very
reality of the world.
Philosophy in the East differs from the West. The Oriental tradition is grounded in
the unity of things or the inner harmony of nature. Western thought, in contrast, is based in
the perceptive ways of a rational mind. The oneness we find in Chinese or Indian thought
also translates into that inner unity in a person’s sense of self. For the West, it is all about
reason as the full development of truth.
For Oriental thought, being and non-being are true. The Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu
states that: “The Tao is nameless because it is not a concrete, individual thing or
describable in particular terms. Above all, it is non-being. All things in the world come from
being. And being comes from non-being.” This means that “Tao is that by which all things
become what they are. It is that which all principles are commensurable. Principles are
patterns according to which all things come into being, and Tao is the cause of their being.”
The Tao as non-being has a positive character. It must also be noted that “this
positive character can be seen not only in the substance of Tao. It can also be seen in its
function. Just as its nature is characterized by having no name, so its activity is
characterized by having no action.” We can equate the Tao to the inherent order of the
universe. Things obey certain laws, and these laws cause the harmony in the order of
things. The universe behaves in this regard as one. Hence, “Tao after all is the Way… it is
the way by which things are ordered.”
The aim of philosophy in the East, which we can also find in the West, is to know
how to live the right kind of life. It is also about “consciously adjusting one’s conduct to one’s
intellectual convictions.” This sense of unity is what the quest for the truth is concerned of.
For instance, Chinese philosopher Confucius also speaks about virtue through the
idea of Ren or human-heartedness. According to Peimin Ni, “Ren has been translated as
benevolence, human-heartedness, altruism, humanity, goodness, etc.” in addition, when
“twice asked about Ren. Confucius answered: Do not impose upon others what you yourself
do not want.” The latter statement from the Analects is the “Golden Rule.” As a method, the
Golden Rue can help us discern what is right and wrong and decide about the right thing to
do.
If we refer back to Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, it can be said that the “Te means the
perfection of personality. In other words, to obtain Te is to make one’s person virtuous.” If
one follows the Tao, then one is endowed with virtue. A man of virtue is characterized by
moral qualities, like love and frugality. Lao Tzu teaches us “to benefit all things, to treat
those who are good with goodness, and also to treat those who are not good with
goodness, and to repay hatred with virtue.”
For the West, reason is always attached to the empirical world. Philosophy, in fact,
is somehow bound by this attachment. As opposed to Western enlightenment, which was
the liberation of human thought from the Dark Ages, the idea of Buddhist enlightenment
means absolute freedom from all empirical thought. In Zen Buddhism, religion goes beyond
any kind of conceptualization. It belongs to an unobstructed higher plane.
For the Eastern way of thinking, religion is that which carries and transcends the
individual self. Buddhism views the self as attached to the physical world. The same world
sets limits upon man, what this attachment entails ultimately is human suffering. Ultimate
freedom can only be achieved once the self is overcome or once it can “work through a
principle higher than itself.” The religious life in Buddhism is henceforth characterized by
non-obstruction. It is natural and simple.