You may have noticed that I haven’t posted for a while. There are many reasons for this, the most prominent among them being that I have been doing a lot of reading over Christmas break. I dearly wish I could say something more exciting distracted me from blogmatizing – like, perhaps, that I had gone to France with my girlfriend – but the economic strain of the most wonderful time of the year has dictated that excitement will probably not be on the menu for a while.
In lieu of such fun, my attention turned – as it is wont to do – to reading. The reason I didn’t blog wasn’t really just the fact that I was reading. Indeed, at any given time I’m usually reading something. The reason I was such a slouch probably had more to do with what I was reading. I’ve had my head buried in Will Durant’s "The Story of Philosophy," and I want to say right now that there is nothing that saps one’s will to expound upon their own views more than reading about the great ideas of history. Continually, I thought to myself, "Yeah, I could blog today, but Kant and his homies have pretty much taken the wind out of my sails…those bastards."
But the book was not all genius, and I don’t necessarily know that I would recommend it to anyone. The main problem was the author himself. He’s boldfaced in his bigotry toward Eastern philosophy. The book was originally published in the earlier half of the 20th century and it bears the Western biases of that era. It’s not just that Durant doesn’t address the influence of Eastern philosophy, it’s that when he does make passing reference to it, it is always with negative connotation.
One prime example is his summation of the post-Aristotlean era of Greek philosophy. This is a period that marked by the loss of Athenian independence and, later, by the death of Alexander the Great and the end of eastward expansion. The two philosophies that ruled the day during this period were Stoicism – the stalwart acceptance of all the pain and suffering that life offers – and Epicurianism – the desire to bury such pain under carefree pleasure-taking and hedonism.
Durant places the source of both of these philosophies in the passivity of Eastern philosophies such as Taoism and Buddhism. Whereas this may be a very accurate perception of the lines of philosophic influence, Durant fails to draw a distinction between these two philosophic realms and therefore connects the blatantly defeatist attitude of the Stoics and the Epicureans to the minimalism and simplicity of the Taoists and Buddhists. This, I think, is unfair, and it does not take into consideration the transformative effects importation can have on ideals.
Here’s an example of what Durant has to say about this period: "The mystic and superstitious faiths which had taken root among the poorer people of Hellas were reinforced and spread about; and the Oriental spirit of apathy and resignation found a ready soil in decadent and despondent Greece."
I’ve taken an interest in Eastern philosophy for a very long time, but it never occurred to me to think about it in such a negative way. The author takes up this line of argument again when discussing Schopenhauer. For those of you are not acquainted, Schopenhauer’s philosophy – which was born in the aftermath of the defeat of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons in France (events which affected the whole of Europe) – sees the world entirely as will and, therefore, pain. Man is constantly being caught up in the will to power, the will to conquer or the will to own. The perennial disappointment of this will is what makes life painful. Schopenhauer said that one had to transcend this world of will – ideally through the practice of philosophy – in order to find happiness.
Anyone who knows even a little bit about Buddhism will recognize this as a direct correlate of the idea that the material world is maya – illusion – and that happiness will come when we learn to rise above our petty attachments to material goods.
Durant makes this connection as well, but only with in the most negative way. He sees Schopenhauer as a hopeless cynic – which is accurate enough – and carries this cynicism over to Buddhism. Durant seemingly thinks Buddhism expounds the most cynical of philosophies simply because it refuses to accept that salvation can be found through constant acquisition.
Again, I never felt this way about Buddhism. In fact, I always thought of it as a rather progressive religion. I always found the central thesis of Buddhism very perceptive and refreshing. I’ve felt, instinctively, that there was a great amount of truth in the view that suffering is caused by the constant cycle of want and denial of want.
(This probably sounds a bit funny coming from me and, yes, I do recognize the irony that this advocacy of Buddhism comes from someone who can’t make it two weeks without buying at least one CD or record. Let it suffice to say that we all have our own personal demons.)
I think Durant’s bigotry comes from a perverted attachment to Western ideals of conquest and "Manifest Destiny" and other things which have gotten us into more trouble than we need. He refuses to believe that any system of thought that does not fall into this framework is worthwhile. All the while, he ignores the successful spread of Christianity, a belief system based on the teachings of a man who, by most accounts, led a lifestyle that was very much in concert with the teachings of Taoism and Buddhism. (Of course, how much latter Christianity exemplified that lifestyle is up to debate.)
Other than that, the book was very informative but also led to a certain amount of disillusionment. Many of the "great philosophers" were fantastic misogynists. It’s disappointing to see that people who had such great ideas were incapable of seeing past such petty biases.
It must be said, however, that this does seem part and parcel of the general trend of philosophy. Another of the great let-downs I took away from this book is the fact that after 3 millennia of philosophic tradition, great minds are still incapable of formulating a truly transcendent philosophy. With the passage of time, history seems to show all thought systems to be irrevocably caught in the trappings of the era in which they were born.
Then there’s that damn proto-Nazi Nietzsche. What a fuckin’ asshole! For anyone to be that incredibly bitter, he must have really gotten his ass kicked by the cool kids in grade school. The most ludicrous thing about Nietzsche is his disdain for Christianity. It doesn’t even make sense within the context of his own philosophy. How could he fail to see that this opiate of the masses had an important role to play in a system that sought to elevate a "superman" to a position of power?
Yeah…Nietzsche can suck it.
