How should one live? A glimpse of agreement between Greece and China The Greek and Chinese philosophical traditions both have roots in antiquity, and both try to work out how we should live. Overcoming disagreement on this subject, among others, using definitions is a key part of philosophy in both ancient civilisations. Richard King and Anders Sydskjør are looking at the use of definitions in the writings of Plato and Xunzi, an important contribution to the emerging field of Sino-Hellenic studies. Ancient
Greek
philosophers
developed the art of argument, one ancestor of what we call ‘logic’. This provides them with a framework for debate, teaching and science. Chinese philosophers argue, but mostly they are not interested in what argument is. “Although the main Chinese philosophical traditions give us many highly formalised arguments, they developed no rule-book. This has presented modern scholars with the problem of identifying how early Chinese arguments work,” explains Richard King, Professor of the History of Philosophy at the University of Berne. This topic is at the heart of an SNF project, in which King and his colleague Anders Sydskjør are comparing the two traditions. “One way of doing this is by choosing a class of linguistic elements common to both traditions. We have chosen definitions,” says Sydskjør.
Definition and disagreement A clear definition and thus a shared understanding of a term provide a foundation on which philosophers can then debate, and thus refine their views. Clearly, some topics are hard to define. “For example, if you say; ‘let’s
40
talk about justice’, you will find that people disagree about what ‘justice’ means,” points out Sydskjør. So, definitions naturally go with disagreement. In the Western rhetorical tradition, definitions generally come either at the beginning of a discussion or at the end, yet even a casual observer of contemporary politics or academia will recognise that not everybody always follows the niceties of debate. “Much misunderstanding might be avoided if people were slightly keener to define their terms,” says Sydskjør. The way in which this activity was conducted differed in Greece and China however, an issue that Sydskjør is exploring by analysing the use of definitions in the works of Plato and the Chinese philosopher Xunzi. They both addressed many topics in their work, including the Socratic question ‘How should one live?’. “It is hard to evade the Socratic question, and ancient answers are clear and fresh, where contemporary philosophy all too often gets lost in technicalities,” he stresses. “One point about the Platonic Dialogues is that they induce you to philosophise. In them, we see people learning how to do philosophy. For Plato, philosophy is an activity, not a set of
doctrines which you learn and then practice.” Disagreement about terms is one beginning to this activity, and definition one of its crucial aims, an aim which often proves elusive. When attained, it provides knowledge. What is crucial for Plato is that definitions, like other statements, can be true. Thus, they can be used to ground arguments for action and belief. Much attention in the project is focused on Plato’s Charmides, a dialogue between two relatives of Plato’s and Socrates in which the meaning of a virtue, sophrosynê, ‘selfdiscipline’, is debated. One of these relatives is Critias, later part of an unsuccessful junta in Athens, and an important figure to Plato. “Both Critias and Charmides want political power, and self-discipline is notoriously hard for the power-hungry. And philosophy is intimately concerned with ruling for Plato,” says Sydskjør. This is partly a legacy of the Sophists, a group who tried to influence statesmen in ancient Greece. “What the Sophists tried to tell people was; ‘we can make your life better’. That tended to mean, ‘we can make it possible for you to have great political power’,” he explains. “Plato is critical
EU Research
of the Sophists, and insists on the importance of knowledge, above all - on both a personal and political level - to the project of leading your life correctly.” Xunzi belonged to a group of scholars who travelled between courts advising rulers before the unification by Qin Shihuangdi of (part of) what is now called China in 221 BCE. So, he is almost exclusively interested in the correct conduct of communal life. Many of his texts focus on the Socratic question, and ‘Live using knowledge!’ is a key part of his answer, but the context of that answer is very different from Plato’s. For Plato, definitions ground justifications, for actions and opinions. The background is adversarial; make a claim or decide upon an action, and you risk being put on the spot to answer for it. For Xunzi, there are two problems to which definitions provide the answer. How to produce smooth co-operation among people who specialise in different things? Shared definitions enable specialists to communicate with nonspecialists, and allow both leaders and the led to know what the tasks are and when they have been carried out. A cooperative aim.
can become honourable members of society. In Xunzi’s view, earlier sage kings worked out how humans can live together, and we must follow them. “This involves a hierarchical society in which certain rites, religious rituals, play an important role. An individual’s understanding of how and why to fit into this hierarchical society, and the pleasure they take in these rites, are basically what Xunzi conceives of as making a good officer in this society,” outlines Sydskjør. Xunzi is addressing here the elite officers of large states, who were building careers in the official service. “These people had to be knowledgeable and disciplined to make sure that they conformed to the rites, the backbone of Xunzian society,” notes Sydskjør.
Sino-Hellenic studies One contemporary backdrop to this research is tension between China and the West. The globe is ever more interconnected by travel and trade, so Sydskjør believes it’s vital for philosophers to understand and compare different traditions in a scholarly way. “The important thing is to work towards a clear
“Live using knowledge!” is a key part of Xunzi’s answer to the Socratic question, but the context of that answer is very different from Plato’s. The other problem has to do with Xunzi’s own central task – to convince decisionmakers to accept his overall programme. Arguing for it against stiff opposition involves defining a special understanding of human nature, emotion, capacity, and knowledge. The final aim of his treatises is not definition, but the moulding of the reader, ‘massaged’ into accepting the views so clearly presented. His aim is persuasion more than justification. As a philosopher, Xunzi takes a certain view of how humans work, namely that we are born with desires which must be controlled so we
www.euresearcher.com
view of the relationship between these different traditions. Rational argument is a crucial meeting point – even if the styles of argument appear very different,” he says. The project contributes to this aim, with Anders Sydskjør writing a monograph on definitions and disagreement. “Many researchers are comparing Graeco-Roman and early Chinese culture. Deepening our understanding of how they argued, in addition to what they argued for, will be an important contribution to philosophy in the field of Sino-Hellenic studies,” he concludes.
Definition and Disagreement in Plato and Xunzi Definition and Disagreement in Plato and Xunzi Project Objectives
The project focuses on the use of definitions by the use of two thinkers, namely Plato and Xunzi. Plato is a central figure in the Greek philosophical tradition, while Xunzi made important contributions to Chinese philosophy. This research represents a contribution to the field of comparative ethics, yet it distinguishes itself from much previous investigation by adopting the angle that the use these authors made of definitions is best understood in the light of how they understand the nature of moral disagreement. The comparison between the two philosophers gains further traction by understanding moral disagreement in light of the Socratic question; how should we live?
Project Funding
This project is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. http://p3.snf.ch/project-172595
Contact Details
Professor Richard King University of Bern Institute of Philosophy Länggassstrasse 49a 3012 Bern T: +41 78 216 80 80 E: richard.king@philo.unibe.ch Anders Sydskjør E: anders.sydskjoer@philo.unibe.ch W: https://www.philosophie.unibe.ch/research/ projects/definition_and_disagreement_in_ plato_and_xunzi/index_eng.html W: https://www.philosophie.unibe.ch/ about_us/staff/king/index_eng.html Anders Sydskjør
Prof Richard King
Richard King is Professor of the History of Philosophy at the University of Berne. He has held positions at several institutions in Germany, the UK and Switzerland. He has written several monographs on Greek philosophers, and served as the VicePresident of the International Society for Chinese Philosophy between 2016-2018.
41