The harmony in Eastern and Western conception:
Taoism and Classical Greek philosophy.
Henrik Klindt-Jensen, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Preliminary remarks
In this paper, I am going to clarify the relation between the concepts of harmony in Eastern thought - particular in the Taoism - and in the western thought, particular in Classical Greek Philosophy.
Chinese versus Greek philosophy in general
In the ancient Greece, the discipline philo-sophia “philosophy” was born as the concern and love for wisdom; Pythagoras seems to be the first user of the word: he would not proclaim himself as being a wise man, a sophos, but through rationality he could reflect wisdom in a way, where it can be of understanding and use for people of less wisdom; he thus conceived himself as a philo-sophos, a “philosopher” in stead of a sophos.
Furthermore, Pythagoras was a mathematician, discovering the law for harmony in the tone pitches with regard to length of the strings. The Greek Philosophy is born as a Philosophy of nature, not necessary denying the existence of the gods, but not relying on these. The giving up of the gods as the explanation for the world does not imply the old Greek belief in harmony. Now it is found in the co-existence of several elements of nature, by Empedocles four in number. Also Chinese Philosophy states a minor number of elements; the balance of these must also be found in man and thus indirectly in society.
We find a common feature in the conception of harmony in the classical Greek Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy: the harmony is prepared in nature, but man must seek to accomplish the harmony within the society and the concrete individual harmony in body and mind. Here we find the crucial concept of self-control in the Greek Philosophy. It is expressed in the old virtue sophrosyne. If we shall have harmony in society, we must have harmony with ourselves - through sophrosyne.
The Chinese Philosophy is a Philosophy of cosmos as well as philosophy of life. Since the Greek Philosophy is rather reflective, it more separates these areas of thoughts. Born as a thinking of nature, the Greek Philosophy only later reflected upon life – beginning with Socrates. Socrates inherited also wisdom, not concerned as Philosophy before him: he followed the inscription over the entrance to the Apollo Temple in Delphi, stating “Know thyself” and “Not too much”. Such wisdom is a part of Chinese philosophy from its very start – since we have given a more broad definition of philosophy in China. But this wisdom becomes part of Greek Philosophy through Socrates. Socrates was provoked by the sophists, stating relativism and lack of obedience to the gods, the denial of the old values, the virtues belonging to the former aristocratic society. The sophists belonged to the new time, not based upon cultivating inherited land with the use of slaves, a land that originally was appropriated by warfare and courage; the sophist represented the new culture that was based upon trade and craft. Socrates wanted to restore the old values, to reformulate them in a way, where they could enter into the new time. Socrates became critical about the new democracy, where the old values, the virtues where lost. The way forth worth would be a kind of general education; he began with the youngsters on the square of Athens. The new time provided a breeding ground for drift towards egoistic power and greediness. This meant the break of the old harmony. The task was to create a new harmony. You would have to begin with your own self-control, your modesty – which was one of the old virtues: sophrosyne. Socrates’ pupil Plato continued this project of education by his school, called the Academy. Here, he draw Socrates more concrete broader education back into the mythical and metaphysical perspectives. Thus we find the myth of the lost Golden Age, where gods and men had been together, found by Hesiodus etc. The development had been decay to Hesiodus’ own Iron Age. The task was thus to get a memory of the old time and to bring it into the new society. Also in Chinese philosophy, we find a conception of the history in terms of decay. Especially in Confucianism, the task for the philosophy is seen as bringing back the golden time of the early Chou Dynasty, or at least features of it. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle understood themselves in an opposition to the actual democratic way of government of the state; they more believed in some kind of Aristocracy, but not in the decadent form of the reactionary rule of the 30 tyrants, which for few years interrupted the democratic development. The Chinese philosophers – at least in principle - were often true to the actual aristocratic empire, but saw that it was in need of improvements. Thus the Chinese and the Greek philosophers can be compared: earlier on things were much better, but now things are going wrong, people are not finding the harmony inside themselves, and thus the harmony of the state cannot be maintained. Also the leader/ the leaders of the state must train in a way, where he or they can lead himself or themselves, and lead the state in the benefit for all. Philosophy is the medicine for a sick society and the ultimate tool for its leader. Especially Socrates then could have been a fine Chinese philosopher. His devotion for his city-state, polis, namely Athens, his abundance of power in his own behaving, his desire for the harmony and modest self-knowledge is quit worthy for the Chinese castle, as well as for the square of Athens. His insistence on fine old values, developed in aristocratically harmony, is rather Chinese. His humor is of Chinese greatness. And his irony would have killed him in China, just as it did in Athens. But the temperament of the Chinese philosophers themselves goes more in the direction of the later Stoic philosophers: Later on, in the Hellenistic philosophy and especially in the Epicureanism, we find the concept of ataraxia, meaning peace in mind; this must be compared with the Taoistic “wu wei”, “do nothing”: the “wu wei” expresses, that you should not hesitate with doing all kind of desperate things, be aware of what is going on and act in calm accordance with this, so that changes happen though you and not from you, according to the Tao: In Tao Te Ching, it is stated: “Let nothing be undone[i]. Ataraxia is the attitude, where you calmly take part in life in awareness of all the fight for power, reputation etc.
Later again, the stoic philosophy gets impact in the Roman Empire through Cicero etc. So in the end, also the classical western philosophy becomes critical sustaining an empire like the Chinese philosophy was from its very beginning. At that time, however, the classical philosophy was not Greek any longer, but Roman. Paradoxically, the way to harmony goes through some kind of war. Both Chinese and Greek philosophy has origins in war cultures. To be a soldier is to be a man of virtue, and the virtue makes society possible. War is the condition but peace is the way forth worth. You must fight with yourself in order to get harmony, balance, but the fight comes from the war. Philosophy is a proceeding of the war turned to a fight for peace and harmony.
Thus the pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles sees the continuing changes between Philotês/ Philia - Friendship, Love - and the Neikos – Strife - as the cosmic and metaphysical principle[ii]. The changes are expressed by the verb metaballein and the substantive metabolê,[iii] which is also the crucial expression of change in the second part of the Parmenides-dialogue; we shall return to this later. Taoism, as grounded on I Ging, is a Philosophy of changing. Thus harmony is gained through the change of the outer war into and inner fight between opposite feature of our body and mind, and through a strengthening of both in inner balance.
We must also mention Aristotle's concept of the golden mittel way. The classical Greek seek for harmony will also be a seek for avoiding the extremes. We shall further regard four themes in the relation between classical Greek philosophical way of harmonizing, and Taoistical way of harmonizing – the first theme will be the mentioned strengthening:
The theme of strength in Taoism and Greek philosophy
The original meaning of Te is found it the very title Tao Te Ching, is the power[iv]. It is commonly translated virtue, and this meaning cannot be excluded neither: the task is to train the virtue as a spiritual strength. Socrates gives his pupils a mere intellectual training in understanding the old attic virtues as lost values that should be restored. So this point is crucial. The intellectual training is presented in parallel to the physical. The verb is gymnazein to make exercises (without having Clothes on: gymnos means naked). The gymnazein is used metaphorically about the intellectual training. There is, however, no relation between the bodily and the intellectual training. But in Chinese tradition, quite the opposite was and is the case: here, the spiritual strength is generally combined with the training of the body. This is seen especially in the Chai Ch’i. Neither does Lao Tzu’s former mentioned “wu wei”[v] express weakness, lack of decision, but spiritual strength: in “doing nothing”, you do unite yourself with the Tao, so that you are fulfilled with the Te and “nothing is left undone”. Here we have the crucial difference between Chinese and Greek philosophy: The Chinese Philosophy – and not in the smallest degree the Taoism – combines insight, harmony, equilibrium with personal and perhaps universal strength. The strength has also a spiritual dimension. This is simply not the case in the Greek tradition. Socrates, for instance, indeed had been a soldier, a so called hoplite, and during the rest of his days we find him brave and wise in the same perspective. He had been very strong, had gone barefooted through snow, had left the battle-field as the last one etc. – but this strength is not emphasized in connection with his wisdom.
On the other hand, on cannot come to classical Greek virtues like courage and sophrosyne, in the meaning of modesty and self-control, without having some strength in mind and body. The Greeks indeed accentuated the training of the body. But apparently is spiritual strength itself not emphasized explicatively in the Greek tradition as directly connected to wisdom, insight, having virtues etc. It seems that the Greek Eros in taming often replaces the spiritual ethical strengthening in the Chinese tradition. In the dialogue Phaedrus, the soul is allegorized with a chariot with two horses [vi], apparently representing the Eros with it’s to urges: a white horse, driving up, and a black horse, driving down. The driver – apparently the Nous, the reason – must then harmonize and balance the two opposite forces in a very Chinese way, but it has not the strength in itself.
In some sense, the Eros must be conceived as the strength, pointing at the Te, in another sense it points towards the Tao itself; we shall return to this later.
The spiritual strength is general in Chinese tradition in combination with the training of the body. This is seen especially in the Chai Ch’i. It is the spiritual training itself that is the crucial dividing point. The Eros as such can exceptionally take the place even as the Tao itself: in Plato’s dialogue Symposium, Eros is the seek for ones lost other half-part[vii].¨ The theme of duality: the Chinese conception of Yin and Yang versus Pythagorean teaching. The theme of duality is expressed in the relation between Yin and Yang, where these are balanced in harmony. This is stressed in the Taoism, but it is not invented by this school. It is found all over in the different Chinese schools of philosophy. We also find Yin and Yang in a school of its own, the Yin-Yang Chia, represented by Tsou Yen. The very words seem to appear for the first time in a commentary to The book of Chances, I Ging[viii]. Taoism is, as mentioned, simply grounded on I Ging.
Also in the western philosophy, we find the opposing of contrasts as principles, were the contrasts carry each other, two and two; but in the Chinese conception of Yin and Yang, they also contain a little point of their opposites. This seems to be a more specific Chinese way of thinking.
But especially the Greek Philosophy states the contrasts as the thought that oppositions carry each other is as mentioned also found in the western philosophy; it is already found among the pre-Socratic philosophers, especially Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. Here we find a table with two pairs of opposite categories, called archai, principles, twines[ix]. According to the view of duality, presupposed in this table, no unifying principle is needed, no unity precedes the duality: the One and the Many are two such opposite categories to be seen at the same level. The duality does not imply that everything is divided into two worlds, such as we find it in radical dualism in some western philosophy. But there is neither a specific unity to sustain a radical monism, although everything is related to everything. The final inspiration for duality in the Chinese conception of Yin and Yang and in the Greek Philosophy is the contrast between night and day, dark and light, winter and summer etc. Thus we find Yin representing the darkness, the night, the winter etc., and yang the light, the day, the summer, the light etc. This is also the case for the Greek duality: the light and the darkness are also found among the archai-pairs in the Pythagorean table. But in the Chinese duality, there is also a theme of gender, Ying representing the female, Yang the male. This is not found in the twine-table of opposite categories by the Pythagoreans. Here, on the other hand, we find the difference between Good and Evil – the light is the good, the darkness is the evil. This point towards stronger dualism and is alien to the Chinese way of thinking. Here the “Good” is the balance between Yin and Yang, the “Evil” is the lack of harmony.
The duality between female and male is found elsewhere in the Greek tradition: in Plato’s Timaeus we find the cosmos as a child of the male paradigm, and the female receiver of his imprinting. So here the duality male-female is inscribed in a triad (not ‘triad’ in the sense, that the duality presupposes a unity). We shall return to this later. But the basic idea is the same in the Chinese and in the Greek tradition: it is possible to think in contrasts in a way, where they so to speak
Only need each other and no other principle to harmonize them. On the other hand, in both traditions, it is also possible to think contrasts as carried by a third thing: in China, we find the Tao, and in Greece we find Logos and ‘Being’ and other concepts.
The theme of the way
The concept of Tao in Taoism and its Greek parallels, especially the Logos of Heracleites. Generally in the Chinese philosophy, the Yin and Yang must be harmonized. Originally, they were constituted in a balance; in the Taoism, the Yin and Yang in balance is coming from the first principle, the Tao; or it can be said, that the Yin and Yang in balance is established by following the Tao as the Way. This balance, however, can be disturbed; but again, the Tao makes it possible to restore this harmony. The concept of Tao of course neither can be translated to Greek nor to English. Since it is not only the central concept of the whole Taoist philosophy, but also is even an older word which gets more specific meaning in the Taoism, it must be taken as an idiomatic Chinese concept.
In comparing Taoism and Greek philosophy, we must – none the less – try to find concepts pointing in the direction of Tao. We can take the former mentioned Empedocles into consideration: In the Strife, we find the battle for power, the Yang; in the Friendship, we find seek for peace, the Yin – and the continuing changes between these express the Tao.
We have mentioned that the Eros is also to be seen as the force of the Greek Philosophy; both Taoism and Greek Philosophy are in need for such a force. In common Greek comprehension, Eros expresses Greed; seek for Power – that is, the Yang. But the Greek Philosophy is not just such a Yang way of thinking. The Eros, as described in Plato’s Symposium, really is the harmonizing principle, were One seeks ones own lost other half-part. Greek philosophy actually seeks harmony through Eros not only as the force that should be tamed by virtues such as sôphrosynê/ modesty,
good and righteousness; Eros can itself be seen as the harmonizing principle, corresponding to the Tao. As mentioned, the word for ‘strength’ in Taoism, Te, also in itself has this meaning of virtue in the sense, that the force is not a blind, untamed force. The Tao thus is the way, were nothing goes purely accidentally, but according to an order, that successively shows itself. In some sense, you must be virtuous in order to follow the way, the Tao – in another sense, the virtue is, that you simply follow this way!
#p#副标题#e#
In the poem of the historical Parmenides, Peri physeôs, On nature, and also in Plato’s dialogue named Parmenides, we find Hodos, Way: we must choose the right way to the truth, conceived as ‘oneness’: in the poem, the young man is brought to the Goddess of Righteousness, stands in the gate of being, of light[x], telling that being and thinking is the same in going the right way[xi]. On the other hand, the concept of Tao would also include this concept of Truth. In Parmenides’ poem we have an exclusion of being and nothing. In Taoism, there is not much thinking in exclusion or in wrong way. Being is linked with non-being, as it is also the case later by Plato.
The Tao-way is developed for one while going it, harmonizing oneself, and in doing it one realize that the way was always there, so really you have “done nothing”. In Plato’s dialogue The Sophist, the historical Parmenides is quoted for his assertion of being as exclusion of non-being[xii]: the Sophist belongs to this non-being, while the Philosopher belongs to the being. But on the other hand, it is just this non-being, stated and incarnated by the Sophist that clarifies the being, stated and incarnated by the Philosopher. The Sophist, situated in none-being, is somehow necessary in order to determine the Philosopher, situated in being. And here the true being-way of the Philosopher somehow includes the false non-being way of the Sophist. In opposition to the historical Parmenides, Plato then is forced to mix being with non-being. So here we find a more inclusive view of opposites, more close to Taoism.
Another Greek “translation” of Tao could be Logos, which on the other hand is difficult to translate into English. Literary meaning word, Logos is broader to be understood as order, meaning somehow in opposition to chaos, but in another sense in opposition to mythos, ‘the myth’; in Tao Te Ching, it is stated, that
“The Tao produced the One./ The One produced the Two./ The Two produced the Three. The Three produced All Things./ All things carry Yin and hold to Yang. Their blended Influence brings Harmony.”[xiii]
Heraclites expresses:
“Of the Logos which is as I describe it men always prove to be uncomprehending, both before they have heard it and after they have heard it…..”[xiv]
“Therefore it is necessary to follow the common; but although the Logos is common, the many live as though they had a private understanding (phronêsis).”[xv]
“Listen not to me but to the Logos: it is wise (sophos) to agree that All things are One.”[xvi]
Here we see the Tao and respectively the Logos as the principle, the precondition for both unity and separation between all things. Often, the sentence “All things are One” is ascribed to the historical philosopher Parmenides; his own words, however, concern being, to einai: a consequence of this would be that since we must take being as comprehending the varicosity of the world, all things are in a sense One.
In Plato’s dialogue Parmenides, we find a “Parmenides” character, taking his starting point from the One; in the Neo-Platonic tradition it further conceived as the explanation of everything; in Plato’s dialogue The Sophist, the staring point is the historical philosopher Parmenides and his own claims of being. But it is quite interesting, that the very sentence “all is One” is lacking by the historical Parmenides, but is found here by Heraclites. It is interesting, that the unity is not grounded by itself, but by something else: the Logos. Here, we se the strict parallel to Taoism, as we have seen expressed in Tao The Ching: it is the Tao, that constitutes the Unity[xvii].
“Things taken together are whole and not whole, something which is Being brought together an brought apart, which is in tune and out of tune; out of all things there comes a unity, and out of unity all things.”[xviii]
Both Taoism and Heraclites thus must be regarded in terms of monism, but surely the Unity is further conceived as a duality before becoming “all things”. In Tao Te Ching, it is the two, further: the Yin and Yang[xix], by Heraclites it is pairs of opposition in union:
“The path up and the path down are one and the same.”[xx]
“God is day night, winter summer, war peace, satiety hunger; he undergoes alteration in the way that fire, which is mixed by spices, is named according to the scent (hêdonê) of them.”[xxi]
Attempts have been made in order to read Logos just as meaning ‘word’, so that an interpretation in the direction of philosophy of language can be made. Heraclites himself speaks very metaphysically all over. Taoism is conceived to be non-metaphysical; but in Tao Te Ching we find the Tao presented in a way, where it is not completely un-metaphysical:
“…The Tao is hidden and nameless/ yet it is the Tao that skillfully supports and completes.” [xxii]
Also Heraclites’ Logos is essential leading and hidden; only the few have got this insight. In the same sense, the Tao Te Ching must be read in the way, that a Tao is not hidden for the few – otherwise it had never been discovered. We, who read and understand Tao Te Ching and Heracleitus, are now (supposed to be) initiated into this; even if the many hear about Logos, they would be without precondition for the understanding of it:
“Of the Logos which is as I describe it men always prove to be uncomprehending, both before they have heard it and when once they have heard it. For although all things happens according to this Logos, men are like people of no experience, even when they experience such words and deeds as I explain, when I distinguish each thing according to its constitution and declare how it is; but the rest of men fail to notice what they do after they wake up just as they forget what they do when asleep.”[xxiii]
We thus find a theme of opening what was hidden; this theme is shared with mysticism; but Tao and Logos is to be understood in a rational way, too. By Heraclites, we find Logos as corresponding to Tao. By the historical Parmenides, we find the true way of being as corresponding to Tao. In his poem On nature, Peri physeôs, Parmenides presents a man – perhaps Parmenides himself - telling us that in his youth he met Dikê, the goddess of Justice: he met her in the gates of the ways of night and day, which she controls[xxiv]; he was lead to the way of being and had to forsake the way of not-being – ‘to be’ is the same as ‘to think’, this is the true way. So here again we have this theme of opening what was closed; truth is “unhiddingness” (as formulated by Heidegger: “Un-Verborgenheit”). The theme of Tao then is related to the Logos in the pre-Socratic philosophy.
#p#副标题#e#
The theme of Tao must also be seen in connection with the Nous. The pre-Socratic philosopher Anaxagoras stated the Nous as a principle streaming through everything, without limit, apeiron and self-ruling autokrates[xxv]; certainly, it is difficult to translate nous: spirit, thought, reason, rationality, thinking. This must also be seen in connection with Parmenides’ proclaim of the noein, thinking to be the same as to einai, to bee as the true way, corresponding with the Chinese concept Tao. The connection is due to the fact, that noein is the verb corresponding to the substantive nous.
The theme of self-control: Socrates and Tao Te Ching
In Tao Te Ching, we find a theme of self-knowledge and self-control, very similar to the Greek philosophy:
“Those who know others are intelligent;/ Those who know themselves have insight./ Those who master others have force; Those who master themselves have strength.// Those who know what is enough are wealthy./ Those who severe have direction. Those who maintain their position endure./ And those who die and yet do not perish, live on.”[xxvi]
Here, the Chinese and the Greek ways of thinking really meet. Socrates can be taken as the most excellent expression of the Greek version; but it has older roots and can be found also in late antiquity, with the Stoic tradition. Certainly, Socrates died – he was condemned to death by the Democratic council – but, none the less he did not perish from us and is more alive than many, who only live in the literary sense. As Plato describes him in his dialogues, Socrates had a fine empathy not only in relation to the young and open-minded boys, to which he felt love, but also to his opponents, especially the Sophists, which he really did not love.
But Plato stresses the fact, that Socrates took the old saying from the Apollo Temple in Delphi: “Know yourself”. This self-knowledge should be connected with the old virtue sôphrosynê: self-control, modesty, sober mindedness. The concept is sharpened towards the strength, also found in he last quotation from Tao Te Ching: but this is as mentioned alien to Greek tradition.
The prevention of aggregation is related to the sôphrosynê. It is expressed in the other inscription over the Delphic Temple, “Not too much”. We find it in Socrates’ attitude in Plato’s dialogues, although he does not express it explicitly himself. In his youth dialogues, Plato presents us for Socrates without interpreting him in his own metaphysical context. We meet him investigating the old Greek virtues, coming from the aristocratic time, in its actual meaning: such a virtue is sôprosynê, self-control, modesty. In the youth dialogue Charmides, Plato presents us for Socrates still in function as a hoplite soldier. Just arrived from the battle by Poteideia to Athens, a young boy with headache, Charmides, meets him. Socrates tries to play a role of a physician, but Charmides finds him of. Socrates asks: “What is sôphrosynê?” and he proceeds in acting as a physician – a very special one: a Thragic army physician has, in tradition from the legendary physician Zalmoxis, learned Socrates the holistic healing, giving help, therapeia to the body and soul as a whole. He shall use a remedy, pharmakon, and a special magic song, epode, in order to heal: Socrates undertakes the task to cure Charmides, so when Charmides gets the knowledge of sôphrosynê, he will be healed. Typically for Plato’s early dialogues, the final answer is not found. You cannot get the balance of mind and body, emphasized as a whole, without the understanding of the sôphrosynê, without having it yourself: being in self-control, being modest, having some self-control.
Here meets the Greek and the Chinese philosophy in general, and the Taoism in particular. Socrates was condemned as a betrayer of Athens, not recognizing its gods, but he was the most excellent defender of the old gods and values, the virtues: but he saw, that they should be defended upon the new condition: the society was not just given in inheritance any more. His own inner voice, a certain deity called his daimonion was warning him against doing wrong, but to him it only supplied the old state Gods. If it can be said about any western philosopher, that he was wealthy, although really practically owned nothing, since he knew what enough was – then it must be Socrates, living totally according to the virtue sôphrosynê. If it can be said about any western philosopher, that he died and yet did not perish and thus lived on, it must be Socrates: really, he had a remarkable strength, fighting against the mediocrity of his time, dying and thereby alive today. But the spiritual strength itself is – as former mentioned – not an explicit theme in the Greek philosophy.
Conclusion: East and West
The real Tao is hidden for us. Itself it is the fundamental way and order of contrasts. But we can come to it through many ways; each of these ways is a little Tao-path leading to the Great Tao, and still, in the end somehow a part of it. The Greek philosophy gives us many such fine paths. We must seek harmony in the contrasts, and not reject the contrasts, but somehow take them in our-selves – so that we find our own little path, our own Tao both to and in the Great Tao as such.
Maybe the Western way of thinking and action in general, and its philosophy in particular, must be considered more in the side of Yang. But even so, in its origin, in the Greek Philosophy, there was a search for harmony, for balance between oppositions; and several conceptions expressed this quest, as we have seen. Later on, in the Christianity Gods creation of man expressed the Yang: man was in a special condition for naming the animals and conquering land etc. But man’s position after the Fall, the demand for forgiving others, and for loving others not with Eros but with the sacrificing Agape, became the contend of Jesus’ own preaching and expresses the Yin side of Christianity. It must, however, be said that, traditionally, the humility towards nature has not been so emphasized in Christianity, which in this regard especially must be seen as a Yang-religion. But recently, also in this respect attempts have been made in order to reinterpret Christianity in the direction of Yin: nature, too, is created and must be respected as such – man is not the owner and master of it: we are part of nature, and must not destroy the balance of the environment.
The Western way of living and thinking must learn from the Eastern understanding of harmony and balance. But the modern Eastern way of living, on the other hand, must learn not to repeat the failures of the West. The West has, however, to reconsider its own Greek tradition in the light of the Eastern tradition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Tao Te Ching, TTC, nr. 48. The translation: R.L. Wing, The Tao of Power A new Translation of the Tao Te Ching, (The aquarian Press, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire 1986).
[ii] G. S. Kirk & J .E. Raven, The presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge University Pres 1957/77), hereafter K&R: In K&R nr. 418, and nr. 423, ‘Friendship’ is expressed with philotês, in nr. 436, and nr. 427 ‘Friendship’ is expressed with philia. Empedocles seems to have avoided the expression Eros, more directly meaning ‘erotic Love’.
[iii] K&R nr. 429.
[iv] Thus it is translated by for instance R. L. Wing.
[v] TTC nr 48.
[vi] Plato with an English Translation by H. N. Fowler (Loeb Edition, London/ Cambridge 1914/1966) Vol. 1, 246a-d.
[vii] The Symposium is compounded of several speeches by outstanding citizens of Athens. The Eros is interpreted different by the each orator. The famous version where Eros is the seeking back to the lost half part of one self is found in the speech of the comedy-writer Aristophanes, 189a – 194. It is common for all speeches that Eros is raised from the traditional lower level of greed, lust and concrete sexuality, to a higher and more spiritual level.
[viii] Here I am following Ray Billington’s book Understanding Eastern Philosophy (Rutledge London & New York 1977), p 107.
[ix] K & R nr. 289. This number refers to Aristotle’s Metaphysics A5, 985 b 23.
[x] Fr. 1, K&R nr. 343.
[xi] Fr. 2, K&R nr 344.
[xii] 237a.
[xiii] TTC nr. 42.
[xiv] Fr. 1, K&R, nr. 187.
[xv] Fr. 2, K&R nr. 188.
[xvi] Fr. 50, K&R nr. 199.
[xvii] TTC nr. 42.
[xviii] Fr. 10, K&R nr. 206.
[xix] TTC nr. 42.
[xx] Fr. 60, K&R nr. 203.
[xxi] Fr. 67: K&R nr. 207.
[xxii] TTC nr 41:
[xxiii] Fr. 1, K&R nr. 197.
[xxiv] Fr. 1, K&R nr. 342.
[xxv] Fr. 12, K&R nr. 503.
[xxvi] TTC nr. 33.
译文：
在本文中,我要澄清概念之间的关系的和谐,特别在东方思想,道教在西方人的思维中,尤其在古希腊哲学。
中国和希腊哲学中一般在古希腊时期、学科philo-sophia“哲学”生来的关怀和爱智慧;毕达哥拉斯似乎是最初用户这个词:他不会声称自己是作为一个聪明的人,一个sophos,但通过理性他可能反映了智慧在某种程度上,但它可以为人们的理解与使用更少的智慧;他因此受孕自己作为一philo-sophos,“哲学家”来代替一个sophos。
#p#副标题#e#
此外,毕达哥拉斯是一位数学家,发现了和谐的法律关于音调球长度字符串。希腊哲学思想诞生,一个为自然哲学、没必要否认神的存在,而不是依靠这些。放弃神的世界来解释,并不意味着古希腊语的信仰的和谐统一。现在是发现了大自然的几个要素的共存,恩培多克勒四号码。美国也中国哲学所包含的元素数量未成年人,它们必须平衡的人也可发现,从而间接地在社会。
我们发现了一个共同的特点在关于和谐的观念在古典希腊哲学和中国哲学:豫备好了、和谐是本性,但是人必须寻求实现和谐社会和具体个人和谐的身体和心灵。在这里我们看到的自我控制能力的关键概念在希腊哲学。它可以表示sophrosyne在旧美德。我们若有和谐社会,我们必须有和谐与自己sophrosyne——通过。
“中国哲学”是一种哲学对宇宙以及的人生哲学。自希腊哲学思想是相当反射,它更分离这些地方的思想。生而思考、自然希腊哲学对生命之后才开始反映,苏格拉底。苏格拉底继承了也智慧而不是而言,在他面前,他跟哲学在门口的题字,在Delphi的阿波罗神殿,说明“知道自己”、“不太过头”了。这样的智慧是中国哲学的一部分从一开始——因为我们已经给了一种更广阔我国哲学的定义。但此种智慧成为希腊哲学思想通过苏格拉底。苏格拉底的行为,激起了的诡辩家,并告知相对主义和缺乏服从神,拒绝的旧观念、美德属于前者的贵族社会。诡辩家的是新时期,不是基于培养田产继承使用之地的奴隶,被战争和挪用原本是为代表的勇气,一位智者新文化,基于贸易和工艺。苏格拉底想恢复它以前的价值,将他们在某种程度上,他们在那里可以进入新的环境下的时间。苏格拉底开始批评,在对新民主的旧观念、美德在输了。出价值的方式将是一种通识教育的年轻人,他开始雅典的广场上。新的时间提供了滋生漂移对自我中心的力量和贪吃费用。这意味着他的中场休息的旧的和谐。任务都创造出了一个新的和谐。你会开始你自己的自我控制,谦逊——古时的一个德:sophrosyne。苏格拉底的学生柏拉图继续这个项目对教育他的学校,叫这所学校。在这里,他画苏格拉底更具体更广泛的教育回到神秘主义和形而上学的观点。因此我们发现的神话的鼎盛时期,失去了神与人的地方,发现在一起Hesiodus等。发展已经衰亡Hesiodus自身的铁器时代。这项任务很从而得到一个纪念古代并让它进入崭新的社会。在中国哲学的概念,我们看到了一个历史从腐烂。尤其是儒教,任务被看作是哲学的黄金时间带回的早期周杰伦王朝,或至少特征。苏格拉底、柏拉图和亚里士多德了解他们自己在一个反对实际民主的国家,政府更相信某种贵族、而不是颓废的形式的反动统治的30名暴君,这在几年中断的民主进程。中国的哲学家——至少在原则——通常是真正的实际贵族帝国,但见是需要改进。因此中国和希腊哲学家:早期比较好得多的东西,但是现在事情出了错,人们不是寻找内和谐的自己,因而和谐的政府不能被维持。领队/领导的国家要培养在某种程度上,在那里他或可能引起,引导自己或者自己国家的利益。医学哲学就是为一个生病的社会和最终的工具的领袖。特别是苏格拉底然后可能会成为一个优秀的中国哲学家。他的投入为他的城邦和城邦,即雅典,他的丰富的力量在他自己的行为看来,他渴望的和谐与适度的自知之明较为实用价值中国的城堡,以及广场的雅典。他坚持优良的古老的价值观,发展在aristocratically和谐,具有相当的中国人。他的幽默为中国的伟大。和他的讽刺就会杀了他在中国,正如在雅典。但中国哲学家的气质在自己的方向去后斯多葛派哲学家:后来,在希腊哲学,特别是在,我们发现Epicureanism的概念,ataraxia代表和平领会,这一定是与“威”一层的“吴,“不会”:一层的“吴威”表示,你应该毫不犹豫的做各种各样的绝望之事,知道项目的进展情况,根据本在平静的行为,这样所有的变化都发生虽然你,不是出于你,根据道:在讲到,它是说:“什么让生米煮成熟饭了[i]。Ataraxia的态度,在那里你从容参加生活的意识权力的斗争,信誉等。
斯多葛哲学,之后再得到罗马帝国的影响通过西塞罗等。所以最后,也古典西方哲学极为重要的支撑一个帝国喜欢中国哲学是从其产生的开始。然而,在当时,古典哲学是不是希腊的任何长些,但罗马人。矛盾的是,和谐的途径是通过一种战争。中国和希腊哲学起源于战争文化。为士兵是一个有美德的人,与美德使社会成为可能。战争是条件但和平发出的价值。你必须继续战斗与自己以便得到协调,平衡,但是这样的口角来自这场战争。哲学是战争的诉讼转变为一争取和平与和谐。
因此,pre-Socratic哲学家恩培多克勒持续的变化之间的Philotes看到,Philia /友情、爱情——和Neikos -冲突,宇宙和形而上学的原理[2]。这些变化被表达成动词metaballein和实体metabole,[3]也是至关重要的改变的表达Parmenides-dialogue的第二部分,我们将回到讨论。道教,建立在我,詹姆士是一种哲学改变。因此和谐是通过改变了外部和内部争夺进入战争对我们的身心特点,并通过增强,无论是在内部平衡。
我们必须也提到亚里士多德的概念的黄金服这个药。古典希腊寻求和谐将也是一个寻求避免极端。我们将进一步把四个主题古希腊哲学方式之间的关系,协调的Taoistical协调——第一所提到的题目将加强:
主题的强度道教和希腊哲学
Te的原意是真正的冠军发现讲到,是电力(4)。人们普遍翻译德行,这个意义也不能排除任务是培养美德成为属灵的力量。苏格拉底给他的学生们一个纯粹的人才培养在理解旧的阁楼美德丧失了应该恢复值。所以这一点很重要。提出了一种知识培训平行于物质的。那动词是gymnazein使练习(没有衣服gymnos意味着赤身露体)。。gymnazein用来比喻的关于知识培训。不过,没有关系的身体及人才培养。但在中国的传统下,相反,情况确实如此:在这里,精神力量通常结合培训的身体。这是看到尤其是在柴Ch(胡)。前老子的也没有提到“吴威”[v]表达的弱点,缺乏的决定,但精神力量:在“无为”,你与道联合你们自己,这样你流露忒和“无是没做的事情”。这里我们有关键性的区别:中国和希腊哲学——“中国哲学”,而不是在最小的程度道教-结合的洞察力,和谐、平衡与个人,也许宇宙的力量。力量也有精神的维度。事实绝非如此希腊传统。苏格拉底,例如,确实是一个士兵,所谓的hoplite,而且在余生我们发现他勇敢而聪慧的在相同的观点。他一直很强壮,已经通过赤足的雪,离开和最后一件的战场上集会等。-但这力量不是强调关于他的智慧。
另一方面,在古典希腊美德不能来,像勇气和sophrosyne谦虚和自我控制的意义,而无需一定的实力,精神焕发。希腊人的确加强训练的身体。但显然是不重视精神力量本身在希腊传统为explicatively直接连接到智慧、远见、有美德等。看来希腊性爱在驯服经常代替了精神道德加强中国传统。在对话中Phaedrus的,灵魂是allegorized与一辆有两个马(vi),显然代表性爱和这是为了敦促:一匹白马,抬高,一匹黑马,压低。司机,是我们的原因-必须以协调和平衡两个相对的安全部队在这个很中国化的方式,但它并不是力量在自身之内。
在某种意义上,性爱必须怀孕强度,指向那些Te,另一种意义的提出对道自己;我们将回到讨论。
精神力量一般在中国的传统下结合身体的训练。这是看到尤其是在柴Ch(胡)。这是灵性训练本身是最重要的分割点。厄洛斯这样的异常可以代替了正如道本身:在柏拉图的研讨会,性爱是对话寻求其他的丢失half-part(七)。¨二元性的主题:中国的概念和阴阳毕德哥拉斯教学。二元性的主题表现在阴阳间的关系,这些都是平衡的和谐。这是压力在道教,但它不是发明了这所学校。这是发现所有在不同的中文学校的哲学。我们也发现在一所学校阴阳对自身、阴阳逢甲,表现为邵日元。很的话会出现首次在》这本书的机会,我詹姆士[八世]。道教,像先前提到的,仅仅建立在我詹姆士。
也在现代西方哲学舞台上,我们发现对方对比原理,通过各项对比,两个人,两个人,但中国电影观念阴阳,他们也含有小点的对立的。这似乎是一种更中国的具体的思维方式。
尤其是希腊哲学思想状态的对比认为反对携带彼此里也发现了所称,西方哲学;他已经pre-Socratic中所发现的哲学家,尤其是毕达哥拉斯和Pythagoreans。在这里我们看到有一张桌子,相反的两双,称为archai分类、设计原则、设计缠绕[ix]。认为根据《中华人民共和国)的二重性、在这张桌子上,没有一种统一的原则是需要的,无团结在二元性的:一种和许多就是这样两种相反的种类可以看见在相同的水平。二元性并不意味着一切分为两个世界,我们发现它就在激进的二元论在一些西方哲学。但是没有一个特定的统一去维持一个激进的一元论,尽管所有的事情都是有关联他要的东西。最后的激励的二元性在中国的观念,阴阳和希腊哲学的昼夜对比,黑暗与光明,冬季和夏季等。因此我们发现阴代表着黑暗,黑夜,冬天等,和杨光、一天,这个夏天,灯等。这一情况为希腊二元性:光和黑暗中也发现了archai-pairs毕德哥拉斯的桌子。但在中国二元性,也有一个主题的性别,应代表着女性,杨男性。这是不在本twine-table相反的类别的Pythagoreans。在这里,另一方面,我们发现好与坏之间的区别——光明的好,黑暗是邪恶的。这一点对较强的二元结构,是违反中国的思维方式。这里的“好”之间的平衡是阴阳”、““邪恶的”是缺乏和谐。
男性和女性之间的对偶是发现其他地方在希腊传统:在柏拉图的《提马亚斯》,我们发现了宇宙像孩子的男性和女性的接收器范式中,他的印记。所以,在这里,二元性男女记录在了三座(不是“三元组”意义上,这二元性预示着一个统一)。我们将回到讨论。不过它的基本概念是一样的中国和希腊传统:这是可能的对比思考在某种程度上,在那里他们可以这么说
只需要对方,没有其他的原则,以协调。另一方面,在这两种传统,也可进行对比,认为1 / 3件事:在中国,我们发现道,在希腊的理念,我们发现在我和其他的概念。
主题的方式
“道”的概念与道教和希腊语,特别是Heracleites逻辑的。一般来说,在中国哲学、阴阳必须协调。最初,她们是构成均衡;在道教、阴阳平衡来自第一个原则,道;或是说,阴阳平衡道后建立了的方式。这平衡,不论如何,被打扰,但再一次,道使人们有可能恢复社会和谐。道的概念当然不论能被转化为希腊人和英语了。因为它不仅是核心概念整个道家哲学,而且甚至是一个年长的词更特定的意义在道教,它必须作为汉语聊天的概念。
在比较道教和希腊哲学思想,我们必须——任何较少,试图寻找的概念的方向指向道。我们可以带着前提到恩培多克勒考虑:在冲突,我们找到权力斗争,阳;在友谊,我们发现寻求和平、阴,持续的变化之间的这些表达道。
我们已经提到了,性爱也被视为希腊哲学思想的力量,都是道教和希腊哲学思想需要这样的一种力量。希腊的理解、情色共同表达贪婪;寻找力量——也就是说,杨。但是希腊哲学思想并不就是这样一个杨的思维方式。中所述的性爱,柏拉图的座谈会上,真的很难协调原则,是一个寻找属于自己half-part失去了其他的。实际上希腊哲学追求和谐通过不仅厄应力等优点驯服sophrosyne /谦虚,
好和公义,性爱自身会被视作一个协调原则,对应于道。如前所述,“强壮”两字的道教,Te,也是在本身就有这个意思美德在这种意义上,武力不是一只瞎的、驯服的力量。这样的道,也没出错纯粹偶然,但是根据一项规律,先后脱颖而出。从某种意义上说,你必须良性为遵循方式,道——从另一种意义上说,美德是,你只需遵照这些!
在这首诗,《精灵的历史,physeos自然,也在柏拉图的名叫《对话,我们发现Hodos,道:我们必须选择一个正确的途径真理,视为“合一”:在诗中,这位年轻人带到女神的公义,站在城门口,被光(x),说存在和思维是一样的正确的方式去[喜]。另一方面,道的概念中还会这个概念的真理。在我们的《诗排除的存在,什么也没有。在道家思想,没有太多的思考,在排除或错误的方式。是与非有,像这种情形于柏拉图的晚些时候。
Tao-way是研制的一件,协调,去它自己,并且在做一意识到此方法一直存在的,所以真的是你“做了什么也没有”。在柏拉图的对话,历史上一位智者所报《的他的主张,作为排除非有(虽然):一位智者属于本非有,而哲学家属于存在。但另一方面,它只是这非有,提出并体现,一位智者明确存在,提出并体现哲学家。一位智者,坐落在none-being是在必要为了确定哲学家,坐落在存在。而这里真正的being-way的哲学家在某种程度上包括假非有的一位智者。反对历史《,柏拉图然后被迫混合跟有非无。所以,在这里,我们找到了从对立,更具包容性更接近于道教。
另一个希腊“转译”的“道”的标志,可以另一方面是很难翻译成英语。文学含义的单词,标识语是更广泛的被理解顺序,这意味着以反对混乱,但是从另一种意义上说在反对神话,“神话”;在讲到,它是说,
“道产生One. /一个产生两个/这两个产生了三个。这三个生产Things. /一切所有的,都要持守携带阴阳。他们的混合的影响。(给人带来和谐其父]
Heraclites表示:
"的理念和我描述它男人总是被证明是19,包括他们从来没有听见这话,他们也曾听见有人指着他们…. .”[(十四]
“因此,很有必要遵守共同此标志,虽然是很普遍的,许多生活,仿佛他们有一个私人的理解(虽然)。(十五)
“不要听我的而是写给此标志:它是智慧(sophos)同意把所有事。”[十六世]
在这里我们看到分别道标识为原则,的前提都统一和分离一切。通常,这句话凡事都一”被认为是属于历史哲学家;《他自己的话说,但是,人们担心,einai:是由于这是我们必须采取作为世界的静脉曲张理解,一切事情都在某种意义上。
