(Firstly, my apologies for today's double posting. I'm always conscious of not wanting to flood people's inboxes!)
As this publication is meant to be about Western Philosophy and Buddhism, and as I’ve become stuck for themes, I thought it about time I start reading more western philosophers to get some further material.
I recently got my hands on two books by two philosophers of whom I knew little or nothing about previously. They are Felix Ravaisson and Curt Ducasse. The latter, the 20th century French-American philosopher’s book “A Philosophical Scrutiny of Religion” is an antique copy. I bought it relatively cheap from a private library. It has all that enchanting mustiness of age-yellowed paper and cloth binding. The other, titled ‘On Habit” is a print-on-demand version of the great 18th century French philosophers essay. I’m also looking to get some material on the so-called ‘Cambridge Platonists’ of the 17th century, including Henry More. That period and milieu (the Restoration) was a particular fascination of mine when I was something of an amateur history-of-the-supernatural buff!
But what do the two philosophers mentioned earlier above have in common other than being men of letters, or the ephemeral nebulousness of ‘western’, or even ‘gallic’ identity? As Buddha taught, all names and discriminations are arbitrary, transient, and misleading if too much emphasis is placed on them. All identity is artificial, and the true identity can not be properly captured in words, only experienced; a lesson this ‘western’ civilization, especially in this age, has found little place for (and seems bent on ignoring – more than that, seems bent on actively denying- for the foreseeable future). From the little I’ve read so far, both philosophers appear to understand, in different ways, the primacy of immanence and the priority of existence. And with Ducasse anyway, he speaks favourably of Buddhism.
I confess that I’ve been reeling of late from what I perceive (perhaps incorrectly, or ungenerously ) as a certain weakness of will and dedication to principle among some online political commentators I had previously admired so much and invested so much hope in. Profession of rational principles and rational thinking is great as long as one’s actual intentions are so aligned and one’s actions are consistent with them. Besides, we can all find convenient justification for pretty much any of our doings in snippets from venerable texts. Sometimes (and sometimes less uncommon than is supposed) we can even convince ourselves through authoritative-sounding arguments , inoculating ourselves with pretty words and the beguiling force of aesthetics.
Those that believe they can penetrate the movement of history and world power politics in such a way as to furnish excuses for their enthrallment to popularity and celebrity are no better than most astrologers- and likely working from very similar bases of intent, if only they were honest with themselves enough to recognise it. Whether one looks for affirmation of one’s conduct in ancient tomes or in systems of philosophy, if these but cover over basic recognition of one’s actual motivations, then it matters little whether one’s stated argument is that ‘Jupiter is aligned with...’ or ‘its the historical dialectic revealing....’ Therefore, my own lumpy, pompous sounding, or self-consciously obscurantist allegorical verses shouldn’t be out of place among much of what passes for so-called geopolitical commentary!
Till I sufficiently penetrate the works of Ravaisson and Ducasse then,
Adieu!
And, sincerely, I do wish you all peace and good fortune.
Identity is indeed the fools gold of modern western "thought".
Apparently, identity is so entirely fundamental to social engineers that when their efforts contradict their stance on identity, and mock their own efforts, it goes unnoticed and undiscussed.
I'm still waiting for an explanation on how something fluid and arbitray can demand a concrete response.
The primacy of identity is everywhere in the west, as is the irreconcilable drive to chain identity to whim and fancy. An odd situation indeed.