Book review: An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy

Having dissed the Greeks, it's time for the Chinese. I assure you that this is a coincidence. But what isn't a matter of chance is the illustrations used on the covers of the books: here, the Chinese one is a restful well-ordered garden such as a Zen Buddhist might contemplate within. Whereas the Greek one is of a science-y, analytic nature. That's kinda the overall distinction I had coming into this book, and I didn't lose it in the course of my reading.

Of itself it says: This second edition of An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy presents a comprehensive introduction to key ideas and arguments in early Chinese philosophy. Written in clear, accessible language, it explores philosophical traditions including Confucianism, Daoism, Mohism, Legalism and Chinese Buddhism, and how they have shaped Chinese thought. Drawing on the key classical texts as well as up-to-date scholarship, the discussions range across ethics, metaphysics and epistemology, while also bringing out distinctive elements in Chinese philosophy that fall between the gaps in these disciplinary divisions, hence challenging some prevailing assumptions of Western philosophy. Topics include human nature, selfhood and agency; emotions and behaviour; the place of language in the world; knowledge and action; and social and political responsibility. This second edition incorporates new ideas and approaches from some recently excavated texts that change the landscape of Chinese intellectual history.

I don't think the book managed to impart to my somewhat careless reading much of value of their philosophy, so consider this a rather shallow review, of the book and of the ideas it covers, but that very shallowness is also a judgement. There's a lot of "correlative" stuff: "as above, so below" which is of course drivel, at least if the "above" is the heavens; though the book is far too polite to say so. Perhaps "above" could be interpreted as the character of the rulers, and so we learn by analogy the idea of having virtuous rule? It is a bit like that all the way through: you can make your own interpretations.

Similarly, towards the end and so fresh in my mind, there's the Book of Changes. Literally, this is divination and therefore drivel, but the book is far too polite to say so. Metaphorically, it is a set of ideas and images that can be applied to various situations, an idea which the book likes. But sometimes those images don't chime with modern life: the proper place for the woman is inside the family, the proper place for the man is outside. How should we interpret this? Perhaps those were just ideas for their times, and we treat it as illustrating historical sociology but of no great philosophical import. Or perhaps it was timeless wisdom, and we're wrong (naturally I take for granted the classical-liberal "treat people as individuals, not members of tribes or sex"). Or perhaps it is telling us that a "family unit" is better if nurtured from within by one, who we can label for these purposes "woman", and represented to the outside by someone labelled "man". That's not an interpretation the antients would have liked; the book has no discussion of this, effectively it just says "oh dear".

Most of it seems to be "how to rule", but in a way distinctly different to the approach the Greeks would use. No-one attempts to collate different constitutions and study them; no-one tries to start from first principles and design a constitution however ineptly; instead, if there is a theme, it is to have virtuous rulers.

The last chapter is on Chinese Buddhism, of interest to me because my wife is Buddhist. And it helpfully describes the waves of ideas coming over from India, and then fermenting in place. For my lack of sympathy with Buddhism, see-also This Being That Becomes and Living With Awareness.