[sample translations]kim kyung jip, humanities our everyday meal eng

Sample Translations

Kyung Jip Kim Humanities:Our Everyday Meal E ng l i s h

Book Information

Humanities:Our Everyday Meal (인문학은 밥이다) RH Korea Publishing corp. / 2013 / 51 p. / ISBN 9788925551562 For further information, please visit: http://library.klti.or.kr/node/772

This sample translation was produced with support from LTI Korea.

Please contact the LTI Korea Library for further information. library@klti.or.kr

Humanities:Our Everyday Meal Written by Kim Kyung Jip

Prologue Humanities Gives You the Main Dish (Rice) AND Dessert (Rice Cake) The humanities and underground water share certain commonalities. From aboveground, we cannot see with our eyes where underground water flows. Without it, however, many living creatures would face threats to their survival. Investing in the humanities should be viewed as the same as managing and developing veins of underground water. When considered as a target for speculation to earn immediate profit, the underground water known as the humanities soon dries out.

The reason for the weakened status of the humanities lies in the social demands focused on “immediate” practicality such as efficiency and productivity. Until now, they have worked. By learning advanced technologies and utilizing them, we were able to produce products with relatively low labor costs, which provided price competitiveness and enabled exports. Today, it is impossible to make progress by relying on this imitative strategy and knowledge. If we cannot produce original technology and knowledge, we need to try out a completely different strategy. We should change the framework in which we have fragmented knowledge and dug into just one single field. The humanities holds the key for this.

Expanding our thoughts and reversing the way we think! Who else could play this role better than the humanities? Yet, people still raise an outdated complaint – that the humanities gives us neither main dish (rice) nor dessert (rice cake).

How did the humanities respond to this? Until now, it rebutted by saying, “How can you just live on only rice?” It’s not wrong, but it’s insufficient. As we have now moved on

1

from an age of simple manufacturing and low income, the answer will change. Or, it should change, to: “The humanities offer a more delicious main dish and a healthier dessert.” To make a “more delicious main dish and a healthier dessert,” we should realize in particular that we must be equipped with humanities’ way of thinking.

A few years have passed since Steve Jobs of Apple gained huge success and many people scrambled to learn from him. This still continues today. His death in 2011 poured oil on the flames generated by the enthusiasm over Jobs and Apple. Virtually all companies demanded their employees to have a “Jobs mindset.” This was in fact like seeking hot water under cold ice. They failed to discover Jobs’s liberal spirit. Can Korean society accommodate the hippie spirit of Jobs? Can companies generously give six months or a year of sabbatical leave to their employees?

This is where the humanities can play its role. We should be able to feel the correlation that only when we take time to experience mental freedom and pain through the humanities can we generate quality outcomes. That states the core of humanities’ reemergence. The role and responsibilities belong to scholars of the humanities. Moreover, society as a whole needs to recognize why the humanities is necessary, how it could be utilized, and how important it is. After this idea is accommodated, academia and institutions will then go through fundamental changes. We shouldn’t just blame the institutions. We can just simply change the order. Our education system and methodology don’t need to experience changes first so that the humanities can flourish and society can develop. Rather, the rise of the humanities will bring out social self-reflection and criticism in pursuit of texts, and thereby change the education system and methodology.

Humanities gives you the main dish AND dessert! We just haven’t enjoyed the high value added by the diversity of the humanities, preoccupied instead with simply sustaining ourselves.

2

One more thing! I have decided on the title of this book to be “The Humanities: Our Everyday Meal” to suggest that the humanities carry profound utility and value. The second implication of the title is that the humanities is not a means to gain a certain amount of knowledge out of short-term popularity and interest, but something that we should continuously study and integrate into our daily lives just as we eat meals every day. In that sense, the humanities represents lifelong learning and life itself—just as how we cannot live without eating.

Questions Are Powerful!

The humanities does not give definite answers. There surely is just one “book answer,” but the humanities does not talk about one single answer. Learning answers by rote and engaging in repetitive training only builds knowledge. That kind of knowledge is no longer useful.

With just a click of the computer, we can see that kind of knowledge pouring out.

Blind pursuit of texts comes from a self-righteous idea of making people follow a given answer. This pursuit restricts unlimited potential, diversity, and the freedom of humanity.

Those who possess the texts can wield power upon society at will. Thus, the pursuit breeds an attitude with which people abide by the incumbent system and authority. This is heteronomy that makes individuals internalize their non-independence. Texts can therefore be poisonous.

But texts still exert their power on our society.

The solution to this problem cannot be discovered from finding one and only answer to problems and unconditionally following it as a text. The solution comes from nurturing the power to question. The humanities serve as the basis to nurture that power and smash the practice of pursuing the text.

Where should we begin? Even if we decide to start, it would be hard to find the right direction. As for me, I would like to stand at the starting point with the objective of the humanities as Polaris, which is to restore human nature and complete the process of character

3

building. The objectives manifest themselves as the power to think. More specifically, they entail an interdisciplinary nature and reveal integrated knowledge. Without interdisciplinary training and experience or any concrete ways to integrate knowledge, the right step would be to get a taste of it first by following a menu, and then to approach and polish up various fields of the humanities. I would like to humbly present this book as the menu.

4

Content Prologue building Part I

To restore human nature and complete the process of character 4

The Humanities: Broadening the Horizon of the Mind

Chapter I

Philosophy

1. Why Philosophy

22

2. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Karl Popper

31

3. Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism 44 4. Why Eastern Philosophy 5. Do Philosophy! ď ś Books to Read Chapter II

52 59 62

Religion

1. Samuel Huntington and His Critics

72

2. Where Does Narrow-Mindedness Come from?

3. How We Should Read Myths

75

83

4. Religious Issues Are Issues of Modern Society

89

 Books to Read Chapter III

96

Psychology

1. Descartes, Wundt, and Freud

104

2. New Perspective of the World, Carl Jung

107

3. Look at the Bigger Picture not the Trees, Gestalt Psychology

114

4. “Why Am I Doing This?” Suppression and Defense Mechanism

118

5. Behaviorism of Watson and Skinner

121

6. Misunderstanding and Truths about Psychology 7. Birth of New Psychology

129

8. Psychology, Is There a Limit to its Makeover?

9. Rise of New Power, Brain Science

139

10. Again, What Is Human?

145

 Books to Read

125

135

149

Part II Humanity and Humanities: Advancing Forward Chapter I

History

1. From Whose Perspective Is History Written?

2. Narrating History

162

180

3. Reading History in Literature

190

4. Have to Know History to Understand the World

198

5

5. Dwelling on Economic Democratization through History 207 6. History Is My Life  Books to Read Chapter II

217 220

Science

1. In 1543, Faith Collapsed

6

230

2. The Internet Equals Humanism

241

3. What Does Math Mean to You?

247

4. Is Science Neutral to Values?  Books to Read

255

269

Part III

Humanities: Awakening Sensibility

Chapter I

Literature

1. What Is the Best Literature Textbook

286

2. Poems are Zip Files for Life and the World 3. Novels Illustrate Your Stories

307

4. Essays Reflect Sincerity toward Life

315

5. Inevitable Literature Trends

319

6. Power of Stories, Harry Potter

334

7. Language, the Home of Beings

339

 Books to Read

342

296

Chapter II

Art

1. Modern Art is Impolite

348

2. Beauty of Reproduction, Recognition, and Expression 3. Lessons from Happy Tears

352

362

4. Paik Nam June, Embracing Time and Movement 5. Art, Money, and National Power

366

371

6. Our Art, How Brilliant! 375 7. Looking Back on Our Life through Minimalism  Books to Read Chapter III

380

385

Music

1. Why the Music of Haydn and Beethoven Is Different 2. John Cage, Silence Is Music

408

3. Foundation of Rap Music Is the Spirit of Resistance 4. Why Did Pop Music Disappear from Radio?

5. Piano Is Not “Furniture!”

Part IV Chapter I

426

436

The Humanities: Building Relationships Politics

1. Politics Is Life 448

412

421

6. Reflecting upon Gukak (Korean Traditional Music)  Books to Read

394

431

7

2. Democracy Is Human Restoration 3. Be Furious, and Resist

458

4. What is Justice?

464

5. Understanding Leftists and Rightists

451

470 8

6. International Politics Is not Influenced by Power Only 7. New Political Alternative: Governance ď ś Books to Read Chapter II

474

480

485

Economy

1. Human Desire and Capitalism 2. Keynes and Friedman

496

506

3. Emergence and Adverse Effect of Neoliberalism 4. Back to Adam Smith

510

518

5. Economy and Politics, on Both Sides of the Coin 526 6. Economy to Become the Basis for an Open Society ď ś Books to Read Chapter III

541

Environment

1. Nature is No Longer a Source for Goods 2. From Environment to Ecology

550

557

3. Money at the Heart of Environmental Issues 560

534

4. Environment, Viewed from Sustainable Growth and Distribution Justice 5. Natural Right and Right of Nature

571

6. Approaching Environmental Issues with Global Citizenship  Books to Read

564

576

580 9

Chapter IV

Gender

1. Undifferentiated Sex and Gender

588

2. History of Discrimination, Culture of Inequality 3. From Oppression to Freedom

600

4. Grant Human Rights for Sexual Minorities!

5. It is Humanism, not Feminism  Books to Read Epilogue

607

612

615

What Humanities Mean to Me

Author’s Comments

595

620

Wanted to Show People Can Do Philosophy like Me

634

Part I The Humanities: Broadening the Horizon of the Mind I intend to follow questions dealing with “I and the world” in Part I. In the journey that begins with the question “How should we live?” and continues with “What happens after death?” and “What is human?” the first stop to make is philosophy. Our philosophy education, which has concentrated on having students memorize names and theses of philosophers, has rather hindered the process of philosophy blending in people’s daily life, but educators are not the only ones to blame. Philosophers also bear the fault of not introducing the true aspects

of philosophy to the public.

In the face of desperate problems that arise at every important stage of our life, summon the philosophers! Numerous people have gone through the same problems from ancient times to today, and among them, people who showed exceptionally brilliant insights have been philosophers. You will be able to discover that the problems they strived to solve throughout their whole life were not that different from the ones you face right now.

If we understand the complicated and multi-faceted problems hidden behind the death sentence of Socrates who said “[The] law [is] harsh, but [it is the] law,” we can accept the philosophical path of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Looking into how continental rationalism, including Descartes of the 17th century, and British empiricism addressed the discontent against reality and united civil society helps us realize the powerful strength of philosophy.

Religion belongs to an illogical and unscientific realm, setting a world unknown to humans as its premise. Just as numerous unknown stars light the night sky, there are countless beings that humans don’t know about, and won’t ever know no matter how much time passes.

We learn humility from religion, though it is also true to say that religious conflicts are fierce enough to become social problems. Thus, by delving into the historical consideration of Christian fundamentalism, the book tracks the reason why religions that speak about peace and salvation have become so narrow-minded. The book also compares Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations and Harald Muller’s Coexistence of Civilizations.

I hope the objective recognition of religious issues by taking humanities’ viewpoint contributes to re-establishing human character, which is already colored by narrowmindedness, exclusivity, and aggression.

Psychology, born in the late 19th century, has a relatively short history. Part III seeks to update recent studies of psychology which has become the most rapid field of study in

10

pioneering new territories through not only interdisciplinary exchanges with other fields but also in active accommodation of technology engineering. The book covers Freud, Jung, evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and brain science. Plus, it also comments on what fundamental question should be the Polaris of psychology, which has a strong possibility of being abused or of being turned into a mechanism in the midst of constant change and expansion.

11

Books to Read Course in General Linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure, translated by Choi Seung-eon, Minumsa, 2006 The major gateways one must pass in order to understand modern thought include Saussure, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Marx, and Wittgenstein. Saussure in particular is needed to understand modern French philosophy. The same goes for learning analytical philosophy, a subcategory of the philosophy of language. Saussure’s lecture on linguistics yielded significant influence not only on linguistics and semiotics but also philosophy and psychoanalysis. As Saussure published dissertations only, his students Bally and Sechehaye edited his lectures at the University of Geneva to publish this book. The book consists of three lectures on three independent but organically connected subjects. The thesis that all elements of languages are organically interconnected within the framework of linguistic signs may seem simple but it offered a new perspective on a structure that had been previously unobserved until then. The intensive idea that all languages form a structure had a strong influence on structuralism. This book is not easy to read, but once you start, the book will tell readers how great a philosopher Saussure was. The Daewoo Academic Series produced the first version of this translation in 1991. Ferdinand de Saussure (by Jonathan Culler, translated

by Lee Jong-in, Sigongsa, 1998), published by Sigong Logos Series, serves as a good guide to explore Saussure.

The Republic by Plato by Seo Jong-hyeon, Seokwangsa, 2005 (1st edition 1997) When the economist John Kenneth Galbraith presented a list of top 10 cultural heritages of humanity, he chose to put The Republic at the top, which makes it fortunate that a complete translation of the work with thoughtful comments became available for us. This friendly translation of the original text allows us to cite the content without concern. First, the

12

translation focused on sticking to the original text by using abundant resources. After the process, the translation went though grammatical reviews and comparison against the original text three times, which explicitly shows the immense effort put forth by the translator.

Various parts of the book, including the one where he explains why he had added the word “government” in Chinese characters in the Korean title, conveys the pride and insight of one who has mastered a certain area. Plato’s works excite us even today with its liveliness. Along with its vast range of content, the work covers extensive subjects such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, psychology, education theory, and art theory, letting us experience the essence of Plato’s philosophy.

The Hemlock Cup: Socrates, Athens and the Search for the Good Life by Bettany Hughes, translated by Gang Gyeong-yi, Okdang Books, 2012 The book is worth noting for two reasons. First, as a documentary director and a historian, the author persistently follows the mystery surrounding the death of Socrates while meticulously reproducing every part of Athens to an astonishing degree. The vivid description is absolutely outstanding and rendered as if the readers are watching the scenes themselves after traveling in a time machine. Whereas biographies or critical biographies tend to have subjective interpretations of the main character, this book introduces objective and various perspectives. It’s like a camera held in front of every scene. Second, the book corrects and balances previous viewpoints of philosophy scholars who schematically understand Socrates. It helps the readers realize how dangerous it could be to discuss the death of Socrates without taking the context of the time into account. The book will allow philosophers to reflect upon why they should understand the history of philosophy properly.

Modern Ideas of 103 Thinkers by Kim Woo-chang and others, Minumsa, 1996 Minumsa published this book as part of its ambitious project to mark the 30th

13

anniversary of the firm’s foundation. The book follows various ideas and philosophies in the 20th century under the subtitle of “Adventurers Who Steered the 20th Century.” The most distinct feature of the book is that while delving into as many as 103 thinkers, it goes beyond schematic explanations to add comments about the time each thinker lived through. It also contains a helpful forecast for predicting the path of the 21st century. Above all, domestic scholars took part in the project, and the authors belong to a group of rising scholars. Because of this, the book stays loyal to the original objective of viewing modern philosophy from a modern perspective rather than taking a historical approach. Another basis for the objectivity of the book is the fact that a leading publisher in the Korean industry has proudly presented it as a sort of green light for the future course of the intellectual community in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the foundation.

A Social History of Knowledge by Peter Burke, Hyunsil Books, 2006 The book is more than a simple epistemology book. As the subtitle From Gutenberg to Diderot implies, it covers deep secrets in the history of knowledge. The book seeks to find an answer to questions such as who the intellectuals were, what institutions stimulated or hindered intellectual revolution, how knowledge came to life and flowed, and how knowledge will proceed in the future. The last two chapters particularly follow a different narration from the previous ones, analyzing the meaning of knowledge from the perspectives of readers or consumers. In particular, the focus on diverse kinds of knowledge makes the book unique and useful. It contains detailed explanations and fresh insights on subjects ranging from the invention of printing technology, which drove the explosion of knowledge to male and female knowledge, theoretical and practical knowledge, knowledge of power and aristocrats and that of ordinary people, and knowledge of Europeans and non-Europeans. The book, a fruit of a humanities scholar’s 40-year reconstruction efforts, surprises the readers

14

throughout the entire time reading.

Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault, translated by Oh Saeng-geun, Nanam, 2011 Modern philosophy is difficult to discuss without mentioning Foucault, who left behind a massive heritage. To pick a must-read book out of Foucault’s works, I would choose this book. Whereas his Madness and Civilization and History of Sexuality reveal the reality neglected by reason-centered Western culture, this book analyzes and criticizes institutions and structures through which that distortion became a reality. Foucault pinpoints the mental hospital as a symbol that lies at the heart of institutional exclusiveness. For Foucault, the mental hospital is for treating illnesses but an oppressive tool to reinforce self-righteousness and domination of those in power. His mental hospital symbolizes diverse punishment systems that we have. How should we view this structure that protects those with power? The problem is that this structure is not confined to the past. This book requires readers to contemplate reality with a critical view while reading.

Wittgenstein by Park Byeong-cheol, Iroom, 2003 A detailed guidebook to Wittgenstein’s life and philosophy with clear and organized explanations. It is a simple book that is just like the other books published in the “Philosophy for Everyone Series.” It consists of two parts. The first part offers a biography of Wittgenstein and the second, his philosophy. The second part again narrates his early, middle, and late intellectual development in a chronological order so that readers can easily follow Wittgenstein’s philosophy and witness the rare transitional stages in the reasoning of an individual. Finally, the book briefly introduces how his thought has influenced the 20th century. This series project itself is a fresh attempt made by domestic authors.

Among the many books about Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein: The Philosophical

15

Investigations by George Pitcher (translated by Park Young-sik, Sekwangsa, 1990), and Wittgenstein by Anthony Kenny (translated by Kim Bo-hyun, Philosophy and Real History, 2001) have received good reviews.

Philosophy vs Philosophy by Gang Shin-ju, Greenbee, 2010 Gang Shin-ju has engaged with general readers directly and spent more time writing books than standing at a podium. Gang, a best-selling author of philosophy books, majored in Eastern philosophy, but his constant effort to break out of one side of the frame and reach balance produced this book. As his ambitious subtitle Everything about Eastern and Western Philosophies shows, he overcame an intellection imbalance, encompassing both Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy. Gang attracts readers with his easy-to-follow explanations of complicated philosophy. His format of setting rivals for each subject lets readers enjoy big matches of knowledge. Some parts may seem like unfocused fragments of information, but these do not disturb the entire flow of the book. The book, with more than 900 pages, may discourage the readers, but once they start on the book, the fear will soon vanish. Perhaps, the book could be called as a catalogue for philosophy. Since the book does not simply list information but contains clear and sharp commentary, readers who seek to confront the overwhelming subject of philosophy may find it useful.

Meeting Thinkers through Books by Choi Seong-il, Korean Publishing Marketing Research Institute, 2011 For the book critic Choi Seoung-il, books represent faith and life. This book is the fruit of his reading through 218 thinkers in six years. It is difficult enough to read formal and difficult books of thinkers thoroughly, much less to think and interpret. On top of that, based on his meticulous research of over 200 thinkers, he presents a summary and introduction for each in the book. Not only that, he has also included a list of related books. Plus, his own

16

interpretation and experiences make the book even more familiar to readers. The thinkers that Choi chose to explain in his book suggest how he is a person with firm standards, not swayed by great minds or ideas. Not all of them are philosophers. Che Guevara, the writer Goh Jongsuk, the historian Kim Ki-hyeop, and the poet Baek Moo-san also appear in the book.

Through this, the book makes a pick-off throw to us who are familiar with a schematic understanding of “Thinkers = Philosophers.” It is not easy as you think to write with distinctiveness and strong faith while suppressing self-righteousness and subjective interpretations. Choi Seong-il is definitely equipped with this virtue.

Essay on Eastern Philosophy by Kim Gyo-bin  Lee Hyeon-gu, Dongnyok, 2006 (2nd edition, 1st edition 1993) I would recommend this book to those who regard Eastern philosophy as difficult and boring. The book maintains a balance between providing an easy explanation, not missing the basics, and leaving ample room for modern interpretation at the same time.

Although it has the “not-so-special” title of Essay on Eastern Philosophy, there is a clear reason behind the consistent popularity with over 50 printings. That is, you can rarely find a book on philosophy, especially on Eastern philosophy, that has sold so many copies. The two writers enable the readers to feel the diversity and dynamism of Eastern philosophy in reality, which makes this book truly attractive. The best part is where the book corrects the misunderstandings and prejudices about Sun Zi (or Sun Tzu). It describes him as a major contributor in substantiating Confucius’ philosophy and revealing true aspects of humanism, which is the essence of Confucianism, through logical and systematical reasoning, shattering our schematic understanding. The two authors who transitioned from young to seasoned scholars were able to deepen the self-reflection and true meaning they felt while studying Eastern philosophy in the book. Especially, their various re-interpretations based on the sense

17

of reality remind the readers of why we need to restore the Eastern mindset.

Listening to Daodejing in Laozi’s Voice by Choi Jin-seok, Sonamu, 2001 Laozi automatically reminds us of naturalness and non-action. This is not entirely wrong, but the book sharply points out that interpreting Laozi from a naturalist perspective only is the result of our narrow-mindedness. The discovery of manuscripts in 1973 and 1993 brought controversy over his printings. The author argues that Laozi should be fundamentally re-understood starting from that moment. Choi mentions the undeniable fact that previous interpretations rely on Laozi Zhu written by Wang Bi who lived 600 to 700 years after Laozi, not during Laozi’s actually lifetime. Therefore, gaining a proper understanding of Laozi’s philosophy requires us to look through Laozi’s time. To that end, political, economic, and social contexts are vital. The book allows us to seriously think about the direction of life that we should pursue and break out of a human-centered mindset. It may come off as an overwhelming job to read a 500-page book about Laozi, but once the readers begin, it is hard to let go, and naturally leads us to reflect upon our reality.

Upanishads translated by Lee Jae-sook, Pulbit, 2005 Upanishads, a philosophical work from ancient India, literally means “secret wisdom.” The translator Lee Jae-sook earned a doctoral degree in Sanskrit in India, and constantly engages herself in the translation and research works of original Sanskrit texts.

The book has a solid content with original texts, their translations, and the author’s comments for ten selected subjects from the Upanishads. As a book published as part of the project “Philosophy Storage for Teenagers,” it helps readers easily understand the ancient philosophy of India, which serves as another appealing point. We shouldn’t take the book lightly just because it is a book for teenagers. The simple fact that the text deeply influenced many thinkers and artists in the West makes it all the more worthwhile.

18

Practical Ethics by Peter Singer, translated by Hwang Gyeong-sik, Philosophy and Modern History, 1993 As a leading ethicist in “practical ethics” and “applied ethics,” Peter Singer approaches ethical issues from perspectives of preference utilitarianism and atheism. His ethical causes, including Animal Liberation, boil down to bioethical issues that arose in th

recent times. He argues that because philosophical debates of the 20 century have neglected public or social problems, philosophers should return to their original duty. In other words, they need the power to transform or reform the world. This shows his revisionist quality.

Singer concludes that the mid-20th century, during which logical positivism and language theories dominated philosophy, did hold some philosophical advantages, but failed to solve or address philosophical issues in reality. So he begins with a behaviorist hypothesis that says only the behaviors of an individual as a concrete practice can change the world. He builds upon the hypothesis to suggest that we should consider applying ethics and morality in practical issues such as ethnic minorities, gender equality, animal abuse, environment, artificial abortion, euthanasia, and poverty relief.

A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Gilles Deleuze  Felix Guattari, translated by Kim Jae-in, Saemulgyul, 2001 To be honest, it took me two years to finish this book. This was not only due to the massive amount of information, but also because of its complexity. When I read the book again, I began to realize little by little the true aspects of the topics that the two authors’ “metaphysics of desire” throws at us. Although the book was still complicated mainly because of my narrow-minded understanding and tendencies, this doesn’t change the fact that the book opens our eyes to see the essence of modernity. At the heart of the two authors’ reasoning, which can be narrowed down to Nomadic thought, lies analysis and criticism on

19

various intertwined codes putting pressure on our lives.

Rhizome, nomadism,

deterritorialization, and other new concepts surprise the readers with their brilliance, sharpness, and depth. The book makes you consider a new framework of form and reasoning by voluntarily breaking out of the existing framework and removing the intellectual structure pressing upon us in reality. The book is worth challenging if you wish to understand the true aspects of modern ideas all at once in a consilient manner. For those who wish to feel a “happy pain� from a life and thoughts based on the existing framework, the book is recommended. Brian Massumi’s A User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari (translated by Jo Hyeon-il, En:Fold, 2005) is a practical and witty guide for A Thousand Plateaus.

20

1. Why Philosophy?

Oftentimes when we hear a trivial idea presented as something great and profound, we simply label it as “dog turd philosophy.” Technically, those ideas are more a creed of life than philosophy, but nevertheless, no word carries a positive connotation when associated with dog turd. Then how did the expression “dog turd philosophy” make its way into the dictionary when there are no such words as “dog turd literature” or “dog turd law?” Aside from the saying, “In an emergency, it is difficult to find even the most common things like dog turd,” dog turd is useless, disturbing, and filthy. Meanwhile, philosophy is as noble and dignified as dictionaries define: “A study on fundamental principles of mankind and the world and essence of lives,” or “A person’s creed or view of life and values gained from experience.” Thus, the expression is a combination of two terms that are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Humans are rational animals. Rationality implies appropriate logic or reason. In that sense, rationality is along the same line as finality reached through philosophical reasoning.

Philosophy, therefore, coincides with the ultimate goal of all fields of study and reasoning.

Despite this, people still neglect philosophy. For them, philosophy only talks nonsense, or is nothing but “dog turd.” The term “dog turd philosophy” may be a sarcastic remark of how philosophy has its head in the clouds, playing with complicated jargon without providing practical help to daily life. Is the philosophy of our times nothing more than a dog turd philosophy?

A Story of Logic Wife and Metaphysics Husband The term “philosophy” originated from the words philos (love) and sophia (wisdom), meaning “love of wisdom.” In modern times, the standing of philosophy was greatly weakened as very few studies didn’t seek wisdom. In addition, numerous branches of philosophy became independent fields of study, leaving philosophy with logic and

21

metaphysics like an old couple whose children have all moved out. Perhaps, the following story provides a fitting description of our impression of philosophy.

Logic: A nosy wife who never leaves her husband alone Metaphysics: A surreal husband who talks gibberish about the sky and the world without the slightest sense of reality Realizing that they only have each other inside the fence of philosophy, Logic and Metaphysics stay up all night chit-chatting about the good old past, sometimes scratching each other’s backs. Neighbors have neither any special interest in them nor any general interest at all. There are some neighbors who do show a little bit of respect. At first, they think they are an annoying old couple who failed to lose the habit of knocking on every door in the entire neighborhood in a shallow attempt to nose in on other people’s business. As they come to think of it, however, what the old couple says is not completely wrong. This old couple has the ability not only to check the logic of the situation so that things don’t end up in vain, but to also look at the bigger picture. Plus, there is a hint of grace about them.

Although people are reluctant to care about philosophy in their everyday lives or study it for a living, it helps people to reflect upon their past and contemplate the meaning and value of their work. Better to have it than not. That’s right. That’s exactly what philosophy is. Philosophy tries to determine again and again the meaning and value of beings and the world, and of people and of work. It doesn’t offer immediate practical benefits, but without it, we’re mere bystanders pushed to live a period of time called life.

What do people think of philosophy majors? The three most common reactions are as follows: First, “Should I ask them to read my palm?” (I can see philosophy centers everywhere when I pass Miari Hill). Second, “I feel sorry for you. How are you going to make a living 

Translator’s note: In Korea, a “philosophy center” is a place with fortunetellers.

22

out of it?” (But surprisingly, there are a quite a lot of philosophy majors in advertising firms or broadcasting stations). Third, “How noble, do you really live on dewdrops?” (I don’t know about dewdrops but they do drink a lot of Cham Iseul. Sarcasm and polite distance. That’s pretty much it. What happened to philosophy?

Philosophy enables intellectual discernment and self-examination to help make people independent beings. Remember how devastated we were with presidents and CEOs of conglomerates who had no philosophy. Nonetheless, people tend to forget that with poor philosophy, both people and life become a piece of dog turd.

Philosophy Begins with Questions Pragmatic knowledge is not a useful tool for making money by adapting to reality, but a set of creative knowledge that extends human possibilities by taking on challenges in the face of limits. True pragmatism is not measured by how much money it brings. It results in people’s recognition of self-value in their own life and creation. If you agree to this, you can understand the pragmatic aspect of philosophy because philosophy is what takes on a crucial role with respect to recognition of self-value and creation.

Modern philosophers take up a sharp scalpel for events that people do not take seriously. That sharp mind and originality seem attractive at first, but the complexity and difficulty involved might eventually make people hesitate. However, there is nothing to be ashamed of for not knowing the renowned philosophers of our times such as Lacan, Levinas, Deleuze, Lyotard, Derrida, and Zizek. Let’s leave that to actual philosophers. But remember, Immanuel Kant1724-1804’s Copernican Revolution is not for great philosophers only.

We should be able to ask questions first. We need a revolution of thought. “I” should take the lead in thinking, contemplating, and doubting to determine who has the right answer.

We do not have to follow them. We should rather have them follow us. There is no need to 

Cham Iseul: Literally means “real dewdrops,” but is also a name for a popular brand of Soju.

23

focus on theories of one single individual. Lacan may have the answer for this issue, and Derrida may hold the key for that issue. We can summon Plato and question Kant.

Philosophers are not out there for their looks, and the history of philosophy is not to add spiciness to life or to show off its richness. We get swept away and drown in others’ stories because we don’t pose doubts or questions first. As a consequence, we fall into despair and blame ourselves for not being able to understand, or turn our backs against the philosophers, cursing. On the other hand, if, by chance, we either feel that a certain philosopher’s idea suits us or we understand it, we worship the idea like dogma. That’s not a true philosophical attitude.

Philosophy begins with questions. The questions contain half of the answers already.

What’s the use if you read Descartes’ Discourse on the Method but can’t apply the method of doubt yourself? The greatness of Descartes comes from the questions themselves! Others do not raise questions for you. It is what you do yourself. This makes questions independent as they are. Because philosophy is about discovery and realization of an independent self through reasoning, posing questions stands at the heart of philosophy.

Then what kind of questions? Questions in the history of philosophy are summarized into three to four questions. First, who am I and how do we exist? Second, what made the world and where is the world headed? Third, how should I realize my moral self? Fourth, how should it be recognized? In sum, these are intense questions constantly raised to identify the relationship between I and the world.

Philosophers of ancient Greece didn’t simply blurt out their philosophical theories; those were rational explanations of the world. They substituted mythical epics with a rational logic of the world. That is what true pragmatism is.

Horses pull carriages. Preventing carriages from pulling horses is the intrinsic role of philosophy. Without this independence in studying philosophy, people end up living passive

24

lives as servants of materials or mere objects. No matter how much money people have, money should be pulled by people. Philosophy prevents people from being dragged around by money.

Philosophy does not suggest concrete solutions. It became the task of studies that separated themselves from philosophy after modern times. While concrete studies soon become “old fashioned” as time and space change, philosophy even nowadays has not particularly met its expiration thanks to its inherent role. This is why philosophy and literature, the two oldest fields of study, stay at the center of the classics.

Philosophy Is Difficult Not Because of Philosophy I clearly remember the shock I received when The Activity of Philosophy: A Concise Introduction (Fred A. Westphal, Kachibooks) was first published in 1981. It wasn’t because the content was exceptionally great. It was the novelty of the book that made me think, “I’ve never thought a philosophy book could look like this!” In fact, we wouldn’t feel the same if we read the book now, but it was an unfamiliar attempt at the time to categorize philosophical stories by subject. Most philosophy books simply wrote the history of philosophy following a timeline, or dealt with an individual philosopher’s ideas alone.

That book marked the beginning of a flood of philosophy books that talked about philosophy by subject. Until then, philosophy classes in Korean universities were boring and dull. From time to time, certain philosophers or professors woke you up with illuminating insights, but most of them merely scanned the history of philosophy and used all kinds of complicated conceptual terms to explain the philosophers that they’d majored in. It drove into despair even the students who took the class out of respect toward philosophy. As a result, philosophy wound up as a stuffed subject that organized lonely symposiums at which only professors and students who majored in philosophy attended. In other words, the festival held in the form of a symposium had hosts who were blind drunk and with no guests at all.

25

Philosophy professors became the most desperate party when discussion on the crisis in humanities surfaced. Many universities closed philosophy departments, reduced them in size, or dissolved them into another department under a different name.

In fact, books that explain philosophical terminology and conceptual words in the humanities became popular because the terms for philosophical reasoning have become unrelated to our daily lives. While “appealing” to students preparing for essay tests to enter college, these books demonstrated how little conceptual words took part in our daily language – so little that it required a dictionary dedicated to those terms – and how distant the philosophy terms had become for the general public.

The Korean language has sense words and conceptual words, with an abundant amount of sense words in particular. Let’s take colors for instance. There are a variety of different words in the language that describe the color yellow, such as dark yellow, faded yellow, yellowish and so on. In contrast, conceptual words are limited. Not many Korean words mean “think.” Consider, contemplate, meditate, and ponder in Korean all derive from Chinese characters. We don’t find many conceptual words in our daily language; those words appear in books.

What about philosophy books? They are filled with conceptual words as most of them explore concepts. Under these circumstances, philosophy books don’t come off as comprehensible, relevant, or interesting for people. Don’t argue that philosophy is not for fun.

With the right explanation, it can become incredibly interesting. Rather, it has to be interesting!

Philosophy probably uses the most non-daily conceptual words among all fields of study. Even so, philosophers settled down with the exclusive language they shared, neglecting their duty to link philosophical reasoning with the daily lives of the public. To some extent, it is understandable that switching conceptual words with daily vocabulary

26

constitutes a complex procedure as efficient and comprehensive ideographs target the essence of ideas directly. However, not being able to do so at all definitely has been a dereliction of duty by philosophers.

Aside from terminology, there is another reason philosophy can’t become the basis for our daily lives. That is, there is a lack of social interest and understanding. Does philosophy still have a chance to become a part of daily life?

The Baccalaureat, the college entrance exam of France with an extensive history dating back to the time of Napoleon in 1808, consists of a number of streams for different majors in college. Mandatory subjects that the students should take regardless of the streams are French, foreign language, history & geography, mathematics, and philosophy. Among them, the whole nation pays special attention to philosophy. This reflects the French people’s belief that everyone should think about the philosophy question as a topic of reasoning.

Philosophy carries a great deal of weight in the Baccalaureat. Students choose one out of three topics and write an essay in four hours. These topics are even regarded as a standard for measuring the intelligence of France. Once the exam is finished, media covers the topics in its headlines, and civil society groups hold various discussions with public figures and general civilians gathered together. The power that supports French intelligence and culture comes from this generalized philosophical reasoning. Philosophical issues in France are a major concern that has become one of the daily issues.

Although it is neither always true nor desirable, many people envy France, and especially its cultural and political standards. If we become capable of recognizing how philosophical reasoning has taken root as major element in education and in social issues of France, won’t our cultural and political standards improve as well? Philosophy is not a hollow and merely conceptual discourse.

27

2. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Karl Popper Philosophy classes at school don’t offer students much chance to have interest in or hear about historical backgrounds. We may remember how we used to memorize proverbs and names of philosophers, without any curiosity about the history of philosophy, in order to prepare for exams because historical background or contexts were absent in Korea’s philosophy education.

Schools don’t teach the background information and context that led Socrates470?-399 B.C.

to say “Know thyself,” but primarily focus on providing a concise version of his proverbs,

theses, and thoughts -before moving straight on to Plato428/427-348/347 B.C.. Next on the list is the theory of Ideas which digs into the Idea of the truth and the Idea of goodness. Nobody questions why Plato introduced this concept of Idea. To understand Plato, we need to study Socrates first, which in turn requires knowledge about Greek culture and history. The GrecoPersian Wars is the first step. Without any knowledge about that war, we can’t understand why Socrates said “Know thyself” and engaged in dialogues.

From What Is the World Made of to How Should I Live Let’s begin with Thales624?-545? B.C., the father of Western philosophy who developed the theory that the fundamental substance of the entire world was water. The history of philosophy records Thales as the founder of the Milesian School, although the Milesian School is technically not a “school” per se because to be qualified as a school, there had to be teachers, students, a school building, a systematic study, and passed-on theories.

The ancient Greek cities of Miletos and Elea had a strong interest in substances and in form and being, respectively. Basically, they pursued the same purpose of searching for the primary principle, the arche. This was one of the distinct characteristics of the Greek civilization, a prerequisite when studying Thales.

Thales’ hypothesis that nature came from water indicates that he employed hylozoism

28

(a viewpoint that all matter has life and vitality) to address problems that could not be theoretically explained. Unlike the materialism of the coming age, hylozoism at the time did not have a theoretical structure. In a sense, it is reasonable to view it as a metonymic or synecdochic explanation. Figurative speech may have been the only option left as theoretical structure and realistic grounds for arguments had yet to be established.

Philosophers sought to acquire “the first principle” by discovering answers to the question, “What is the fundamental nature of objects or the originating source of being?” A primary principle provides an explanation for every problems governed by it, which allows for the utmost efficiency for philosophers. However, the world constantly changes. At the same time, it maintains its originating source.

For instance, seasons change, but the passage of time remains as an unchangeable and indisputable law. The next step was to look for a specific object that represented itself differently in each situation, but whose fundamental nature remained unchanged. This was water. Water is liquid but becomes a solid material when frozen, and gas when boiled.

Appearances may change but not the source.

Efforts to search for an originating substance of nature continued. Heraclitus540?-480?

B.C.

, known for his saying “Everything flows,” believed that the world was made of fire. He

and Thales were both monists. According to Empedocles490?-430? B.C., the world consists of four elements – water, fire, earth, and air. This was pluralism.

Although monism is economical in that it explains everything in the world with a single substance or entity, there are too many cases where this can’t be applied. Hence, one more principle is added, leading to the advent of dualism. Indeed, dualism does not provide an answer to the questions of how the world exists, what the world consists of, and how it is operated, but it does offer more diverse explanations of phenomena than monism. Two becomes three, four, and five. Finally, it develops into pluralism. But during the process,

29

pluralism obscures the original endeavor of investigating an efficient and rational response to the inquiry on the originating principle of the world. This redirects the attention based on the belief that the primary substance lies with the thesis, “Everything changes,” not with specific elements. As a matter of fact, this is an inevitable process. Aren’t there too many things in the world that we still don’t understand in spite of outstanding scientific development? Definitely even more so for ancient societies. In other words, it was a so-called dead end for natural philosophy.

Perhaps natural philosophy came to an end in ancient Greece because doubts surfaced over its usefulness. People did not fall for futile debates that seemed plausible on the outside.

How to live was a more important question. A series of wars may have also contributed to the transition of philosophical topics from what the world is made of to how I should live.

Protagoras485?-410? B.C.’s statement “Man is the measure of all things” reflects this transition.

The political system of ancient Greece, in which one-third of the entire public except for slaves and women participated, played its part to alter the focus of public interest from nature to humankind. Greek society thereby advanced into a new age of politics from an age of philosophy.

As eloquent speech and rhetoric became necessary to achieve political success, logic started to flourish. Not all logic was sound and intact; a lot was nonsensical, almost as much as sophistry. Plato, an aristocrat, was offended by these politicians and philosophers who presented ideas that didn’t make any sense and called them “sophists” with a sarcastic touch in the tone. Sophist originally meant “wise man.”

While the previous natural philosophy was a part of absolutism centered on a primary principle, sophist philosophy strictly adhered to relativism. As Plato’s case illustrates, most people in power welcome absolutism. Absoluteness implies universality and inevitability.

Those in power wish everyone to follow their own decisions and assessments. That is why

30

they are swayed and tempted by absoluteness. Dictatorship stems from here. It disregards the independence of individuals. But in the democratic society of ancient Greece, people began to recognize the value of individuals, albeit not to the extent of the idea of a “free individual” as in modern times. The important point was on what implications and values something had “for me.”

Relativism acknowledged the relativity of recognition and values, which led to a denial of unconditional obedience to absolute powers. At the same time, excessive relativism brought about negative attitude by transforming into skepticism or irresponsibility. The tendency of relativism to refuse any kind of objective grounds for decision made it vulnerable to moral corruption. The case in point is the sophists. Socrates became infuriated by this state of moral anarchy.

What Drove the Great Philosopher Socrates to Death?

Socrates fought twice in wars for Athens. He felt that Athens, the home country he had risked his life to save, was destabilized by a coalition of unqualified philosophers and evil politicians. For him, the culprit behind the decline of Athens was relativism. At that time, democracy just began to set foot in the society, replacing the oligarchic reign of terror. Critias, one of the tyrants responsible for the terror, was a student of Socrates and an uncle of Plato.

Alcibiades, an Athenian general who betrayed Athens and supported Sparta to win victory in the Peloponnesian War, was also one of Socrates’ students and a cousin of Pericles. History says he was ridiculed as a figure who “inherited everything from Pericles but honesty, and learned everything from Socrates but morality.”

We must keep in mind this context had placed Socrates at the very center of Athenian politics, meaning that Socrates and his student Plato advocated totalitarianism or aristocracy.

This is the reason Socrates was prosecuted and summoned before the court. Aristophanes450?388 B.C.

, a contemporary play writer of Socrates, offers a precise portrait Socrates’ inclination

31

in his satirical play Cloud (Nephelai). Our image of Socrates as a person upholding a firm belief that “[the] law [is] harsh, but [it is the] law” is in fact built based upon Plato’s personal interpretation of Socrates.

Nevertheless, Socrates did not explicitly criticize the harmful consequences of relativism or moral corruption nor did he openly support absolutism. He chose to encourage people to realize these on their own. This is a point worth noting. Allowing people to recognize the issues by themselves without forcing or teaching them to do it – this is the power of philosophy. The essence of philosophy is realizing the issues about I and the world “by ourselves.” Socrates, from this perspective, was the first philosopher to fully exhibit the power of philosophy. This power and value are still valid today, regardless of whether he was anti-democratic or not.

Under the thesis “Know thyself,” a phrase inscribed in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Socrates debated with sophists. He threw a series of questions to public figures with high reputations so that they would acknowledge their ignorance during the course of the dialogue.

This is the so-called “Socratic method,” or “Socratic midwifery.”

Imagine this. A person proud of his profound knowledge enters an agora and meets an old man, ugly but highly respected. The old man asks a simple question. Thinking that it’s a piece of cake, the person answers easily to show off his intelligence. The old man doesn’t stop asking questions. In the end, the man accepts the fallacy of his knowledge. To make matters worse, this is done in front of the whole crowd. How humiliating would that have been? People in the square witnessed numerous cases of ignorance and falsehood. Socrates even inquired those in power, laying bare their powerlessness to the entire world. This might have been the factor that sparked public criticism against the authorities. Socrates may have become a public enemy among ruling powers because of this. Contrary to what we are aware of, there are more multi-faceted causes behind the death of Socrates. Critics of Socrates point

32

out that Socrates himself brought the death sentence upon himself by disrespecting and insulting the jury.

Socrates’ dialogue is definitely attractive. Yet, the conversation proceeds in a fairly obvious way if examined carefully. Bernard-Henry Levy1948- even concluded that the Socratic Method was nothing but a trick since discussions never ended with two different perspectives.

It always boiled down to a pre-determined conclusion. The dialogues resemble wellstructured plays with a foreseeable ending. A sophist argues his point until a certain stage where he changes his mind, agrees with Socrates, and Socrates finally wins. Because of this, some suggest that the real Socrates was diluted while being revised, corrected, and castrated

by Plato. Meanwhile, others argue that Plato would never do such things. The purpose of this discussion is to remove blind deference to Plato and Socrates.

A Philosopher Who Received Absolute Respect for the Longest Time Let’s move on to Plato. Plato automatically reminds us of Ideas, and we all understand briefly what that is. Meanwhile, nobody pays much attention to what formulated the concept and why. That is, we’re not grasping the true meaning of the concept.

Plato, born to an aristocratic family, devoted himself to Socrates. But then, the teacher unexpectedly died. For Plato, the power that drove Socrates to his death was people armed with relativism. So he believed that his mission was to fight against it. He needed something that could overpower relativism. He found absolutism. And its alpha and omega was the Idea.

Truth had to be unchangeable, universal, objective, and inevitable in nature. Plato’s concept of Idea carries all of these qualities. Thus, Ideas should not be found in materials or have properties of materials because materials inevitably change and cease to exist in the end. Idea is both an entity transcendent to materials, and an essence of an object that controls the object.

Plus, our sensation cannot capture the Idea. The sensation is a mechanism of our physical response to appearances. Since senses are prone to change, it is impossible to know Ideas

33

through senses. Only through rationality—not sensation—can we recognize Ideas.

Plato’s theory of Ideas is appealing. The theory is economical from an epistemological perspective in that it penetrates the core, breaking away from complicated minor issues. Ontologically, it is a simple theory which eventually converges to monism.

There’s more. It exerts ethical superiority because it follows absolute values and takes the responsibility that ensues, vice avoiding responsibilities, which was one of the features of relativism.

Plato did not thrust the concept of ideas on people and relied on rational and transcendent intuition from the start. He explains absolute ideas as logically and systematically as possible. Whenever he hit a wall, he used intuition, analogy, and metaphors.

Above all, he revived his teacher Socrates and built a thesis based on dialogues with him.

Plato’s Dialogues, which encapsulates his conversation with Socrates, is the fruit of this effort. Perhaps, this transcendent monism might have fit reasonably with Plato’s aristocratic nature. He is prominent not only for being a great teacher of ancient Greek thoughts, but also for establishing the cultural basis of Europe. How was this possible?

In the time of ancient Greece, polytheism dominated Europe. Rome was generous about the religions of the people it conquered. The best-known example of this was the Pantheon temple. Pantheon literally means the “house of all (pan) gods (theon).” The fact that Rome gathered these deities in one place proves its generosity while tacitly boasting that it held a firm grip on all gods. The circumstances changed when the empire adopted Christianity as its national religion.

Christianity is the most famous example of monotheistic religion. Until officially approved as a religion in 313 A.D., Christianity had to withstand all sorts of pressure. When Rome placed oppression, the charge was “atheism” which meant denying Roman gods.

Before, the situation did not allow theology to be established, but it became an imperative

34

after Christianity was appointed as the national religion. National religion implies that religion had become a political product. It is therefore critical to apply political interpretations to religions.

The Roman Empire favored the idea of religious unity, capable of promoting integration far more fundamentally than ruling with the military or with laws

Roman law

. It was

Constantine I280?-337—the Roman Emperor, not the Pope or a church leader—who convened the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Faced with the task of ruling a massive and diverse set of colonies, the emperor was deeply attracted to Christian cosmopolitanism for politics.

Furthermore, Christianity was not a specific religion of other European ethnic groups, but an “independent” religion introduced from the outside world. Designating a Gothic god as a Roman god might stimulate opposition from the Germanic people, and vice versa. The third option, something neither mine nor yours, was neutral. The emperor probably considered this aspect as well.

The problem was how to blend a monotheistic religion into a polytheistic culture. In this context, Plato came to the rescue. Replacing the highest kind of Idea with the one and only God provided a theoretical foundation for theology. Moreover, Ideas were absolute and transcendent. Isn’t this a perfect embodiment of God’s nature? This encouraged the Church Fathers, along with St. Augustine354-430, to regard Plato as a savior of both philosophy and theology. Also, Plato placed materials at a subordinate position while suggesting that spiritual elements were immortal. This thesis matched the teachings of Christianity if the two concepts were substituted for the body and spirit.

Plato and His Enemies Christianity accepted Plato as the sole orthodox basis of philosophy and theology.

This supported Plato’s influence that prevailed in Western culture for a long time.

Meanwhile, Aristotle384-322 B.C., Plato’s student who constructed a theory in opposition

35

to Plato’s theory of ideas, was stigmatized as an “alien philosopher” by the early churches, brutally suppressed until his revival in the 13th century by St. Albertus Magnus120?-1280 and his student St. Thomas Aquinas1224/1225-1274. In fact, in Umberto Eco’s Name of the Rose, Aristotle’s Poetica appears as a forbidden book, and people who got caught reading it were killed. In medieval time, Plato was the sole philosopher who dominated Europe.

Churches were not alone in worshipping Plato. As all people in power tend to want others to recognize their absolute and unchangeable authority, nothing satisfies this desire better than Plato’s philosophy.

A modern philosopher Karl Popper1902-1994 laid out harsh criticism of Plato in his work The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper held that it is the “observable falsification,” not absoluteness, that decides whether something is a true study or not. If a theory is not refuted although it is refutable, it means that the certain theory has earned temporary respect.

According to him, the history of these theories constitutes the history of science and thought.

Thus, for Popper, Plato was inevitably a dangerous thinker. Although Popper’s criticism seems quite strong given the fact that Plato was an ancient Greek figure, this in turn shows the powerful influence Plato had on all aspects of Europe including philosophy and culture over a long period of time. Popper believed that theories that were empirically irrefutable such as Plato’s Ideas or Christianity’s God could not stand as an objective theory shared by the society. They are merely subjective “beliefs” of individuals. Popper’s argument suggests how reckless it would be to unconditionally push for absolutism or the theory of Ideas.

Taking a view of Plato’s theses along with the historical backdrop and their impact enables us to acquire a more extensive understanding of Plato’s implications for “us in our times.” Nothing obliges us to respect and study ancient philosophers as if there is “nothing new under the sun.” What matters for us is Plato as a “living” philosopher, helping us to reflect upon our lives.

36

2. Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism Just as Plato automatically reminds us of Ideas, René Descartes1596-1650 in the same way reminds us of his thesis, Cogito ergo sum—“I think, therefore I am.” The problem is, that’s as far as people’s knowledge goes. In some better cases, such knowledge covers continental rationalism, but Descartes’ thesis is not a mere sentence; it is a revolution. Why? The Church exercised absolute power over entire Europe in medieval times. This does not mean that churches stayed as a sole authority for a thousand years. It was fortunate that they were churches, and that clergy did not have children to pass on their power. Complete clerical celibacy was put in place following the papal bull issued by Pope Gregorius VII10201085

at the end of the 11th century, which codified clerical celibacy based upon the assessment

that church corruption resulted from the power succession of the cathedral churches.

Churches underwent gradual change and growth while sometimes cutting their own throats with veiled enmity and corruption that involved clergy consumed by a severe greed comparable to that of politicians, and at other times, cleverly maintaining their power in the midst of conflicts and tensions between corrupt and anti-corruption forces.

Knowledge, unlike politics, was subject to a total monopoly by the churches. Abbeys stored and screened all books and labeled those that did not suit their tastes with “red tags.”

This created the well-known Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a list of prohibited works. Index at the time referred to this list. The Church even printed an Index in 1559 that listed every single book prohibited by the Church.

Medieval theology and philosophy proclaimed that humans, a creation of God, couldn’t learn the truth by themselves as the truth carried properties of completeness. For them, completeness belonged to God’s realm, and was not in the realm of His creation. To learn or become closer to the truth, people had just one option: to do so through God’s grace.

37

These are the theories of grace or illumination. These circumstances ultimately limited the freedom of the people. The truth was the exclusive property of the Church, yielding unlimited power to medieval churches.

Descartes came into this picture and opposed the monopoly of knowledge. His thesis, “I think, therefore I am” was deemed dangerous in that it chose doubt as a precondition for knowledge. Such doubt wasn’t something that could be settled through the Bible or scholasticism.

Descartes, Nonetheless Doubted Descartes feared confronting the Church. He was a Catholic. When he finished his first work in 1633 while staying in the Netherlands, he heard that Galileo Galilei1564-1642 had been convicted at a religious trial, which made him give up publishing his work out of fear.

He ended up discarding most of the work. After four years, he published Discourse on Methods anonymously as a precaution against possible dangers.

Descartes, a man careful by nature, knew exactly what happened to Galileo and Giordano Bruno1548-1600. He immediately sought to prove the thesis that God existed. He intended to convince the Church that his viewpoint did not violate the Church’s teachings or stance, but his relatively poor demonstration of the thesis was not sufficient to relieve the Church. It considered Descartes to be a heretic and included his works in its Index 13 years after his death. Until the 18th century, he remained a figure too dangerous to even publically mention his name.

Despite his fear of the Church, Descartes never gave up on his thoughts. Rather, he raised a flag. He did not adopt a standard tactic. Instead, he chose an indirect one, relying on the concept of “doubt.” He believed that the beginning and the basis of a study should be reaching a “clara et distincta (clear and distinct)” perception. Descartes’ doubt, commonly known as “methodical doubt,” was itself a seed for revolution.

38

Previously, when the most powerful authority – namely the Church – established a hierarchy of knowledge, nobody ever raised any doubt over it. But Descartes volunteered to do so. That itself was a challenge. If we overlook these facts when studying methodical doubt and focus only on his “method,” it is impossible to realize how philosophy changed the course of history at the time.

From repeated doubt, Descartes landed on a simple (?) conclusion. There was no room for doubt in the fact that I doubted everything, and it was I who was doing the doubting.

In that way, the short phrase, “I think, therefore I am” thus “waved farewell to the Middle Ages.” It was neither prayer nor grace that provided the truth. I, the “res cogitans (thinking thing),” reached the truth. This marked the beginning of thoughts and knowledge that Church authority could not interfere with. It was certainty.

In retrospect, Descartes planted the seed for the modern era. This declaration of independence presented by early modern thought led to the notion of “free individuals,” the basis that pierces through to the modern period. This was possible because the revolution of reasoning was led by the “me” of one’s self, not offered from outside. The modern philosopher Emmanuel Levinas1905-1995 criticized Descartes for his excessive emphasis on self-independence which then brought about a disregard for the existence of others, but this happened much later.

What British Empiricism Achieved Revolution of thoughts stimulated revolution in reality. People began to raise doubts over the authority to which they had previously adhered. After obtaining the meaning and value of “self,” people fully opposed the vested interests who were still obsessed with absolute authority. This caused the French Revolution. Of course, a range of political and economic circumstances contributed to the Revolution, but the reasoning of civil society, which budded from Descartes’ rationalism and was awakened by the Enlightening,

39

constitutes a clear driving force. Hence, a period of time that has that has a public without philosophy can never create history.

What about British empiricism? Those who have learned British empiricism may first picture distinct properties in contrast to continental rationalism, such as “the primary and secondary qualities” of John Locke1632-1704, a bundle of ideas of George Berkeley1685-1753, and the skepticism of David Hume1711-1776. But there are other factors to look at first.

Empiricism does not accept the innate ideas that rationalism holds. Empiricism found it hard to acknowledge innate ideas because everything happens for a reason under empiricism. This generated the theory of tabula rasa. More famously known as Locke’s theory of “blank slate,” the term in fact was employed more actively by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz1646-1716, not Locke. This theory openly criticized continental rationalism, manifesting unique British qualities such as perspective based on evolution theory and reasoning based on theory of causation.

Leibniz used the term in his work New Essays on Human Understanding, a rebuttal of Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Nowadays, the term symbolizes empiricism. According to the theory, all perceptions are gained through experience. No innate knowledge exists at birth like a blank, white piece of paper because there is no experience at all. The theory asserts that knowledge builds up as a result of accumulated experience on the paper.

Experience derives from sense implications. Although reasoning does play a certain role during the process, the sense experiences are clearly the epicenter. Experience is perceived through the senses, and senses through me. Empiricism and rationalism follow along completely different methods and attitudes of philosophical reasoning, but there is one commonality they share: there is no “universal self” equipped with “universal reason,” but the specific and individual self that does the reasoning. This was the spirit and essence of the

40

early modern times. At the center of all knowledge, there is me! How surprising and provocative is this?

Aside from the part where it is the self that does the reasoning, there is an evident difference between rationalism and empiricism. The former draws out universal knowledge through reason. It comes off as a tempting idea for those in power, just as the theory of Ideas offered by Plato did. If the willpower of the power comes into force, the thought that one’s knowledge must be agreed upon since it is a universal one might turn into uniformity and dictatorship. On the other hand, empiricism stands against this universal knowledge.

Moreover, Hume never gave up on the essence of knowledge even while confessing that he remained skeptical over knowledge and the subject. Knowledge comes from me, the specific and independent being, not from the universal human. It is worth noting that among many factors, it is empiricist knowledge that enabled Britain to become the first in establishing constitutional monarchy.

The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number, the Right to Happiness Comes First for Everyone Empiricism gave birth to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism normally reminds people of the thesis “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” along with utility. These are all correct.

It is also right that utilitarianism perfectly suited the new frames of the Industrial Revolution and capitalism in Britain as a social ethic. This results in the common misinterpretation of the theory that it stresses utility only. Indeed, this misunderstanding encouraged the powerful and the rich to use utilitarianism as a tool to realize their desires. It was abused with the thought that in order to accomplish the greatest happiness of the greatest number, a sacrifice of the weak minority “inevitably” followed. John Rawls pinpointed precisely this fact as the harmful consequence of utilitarianism in A Theory of Justice.

Utility cannot be neglected in a modern industrial society. However, the point we

41

should focus on is the declaration that “everybody has the right to pursue happiness.” Let’s bring this into the context of the 19th century. This right does not belong to aristocrats only.

Happiness is perceived through our sense organs, something which everybody has. It is not that the aristocrats or the rich have a tongue that feels sweetness and ordinary people don’t.

Empiricism arrived at this conclusion early. The fact that the motto of utilitarianism, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” was the slogan of the political scientist Francis Hutcheson1694-1746 carries significant implications since this context led to the demand for general suffrage. People consider general suffrage as a given nowadays, but it came off as a sensational argument at the time. Utilitarianism emerged as a combination of and response to these thoughts.

The fact that thought and philosophy brings about revolution does not serve as a mere slogan for declarations! Hence, what thought or philosophy people believe in becomes extremely important. One philosophical idea develops into another in the form of thesis and antithesis, or action and reaction. The antithesis of rationalism was empiricism, and Kant’s critical philosophy was the comprehensive reaction to these two. Hegel’s dialectic was a revolution that overthrew the existing logic system centered on Aristotle’s work. Thomas Kuhn argued that science is also a part of that revolution.

We oftentimes fall into confusion amidst diverse thoughts in modern philosophy. The confusion is caused by the lack of a main or primary stream. Until recently, syllabi for university courses such as Philosophy 101 or History of Philosophy covered up to Kant or, if it went deeper, Hegel. They might give an excuse that there isn’t enough time, but there are other reasons. The primary thread that unified the history of philosophy existed in a steady way starting from Socrates (or Thales, if it starts from the earlier period) to Kant. Such courses simply had to teach these thinkers consecutively. However, after Kant or Hegel, philosophy divides into numerous branches, which makes it harder to grasp a core thread. As

42

teachers failed to understand it, the courses would then abruptly end when it reached around that period of time. Given this fact, it is only reasonable that people who learned philosophy through those courses don’t understand the diversity of modern philosophy. The diversity comes in part from people’s developed intelligence, and from rapid diversification of the society. Mainstream thought now carries no significance. Or, it has become impossible to interpret the world with any one single theory. Therefore, this evolution of diverse theories and ideas eventually represents various ways of reading the world.

4. Why Eastern Philosophy?

Recently, Eastern philosophy has been gaining phenomenal popularity. There is a never-ending list of books about the Analects alone. Korea’s public broadcasting stations continue to air Kim Yong-ok’s lecture on the Doctrine of the Means, hitting a high audience rating. Cultural centers at TV stations and local governments are enjoying huge popularity for opening up Eastern philosophy courses not only on Confucius and Mencius, but also on the notoriously complicated philosophies of Laozi and Zhuangzi.

Where is this enthusiasm coming from? There are two reasons. First, the recognition of the limitations of Western culture and philosophy. Korean society inclined steeply toward Western thought and culture while going through industrialization. They represented advanced culture and thought at the time. In a way, this was unavoidable since the historical failure to follow Western thought and culture resulted in regression. But now, the limits have become visible.

It gives us considerable burden just to keep up with Western philosophy, which has become too complicated with too many branches. There’s more. On top of all this, doubts began to surface over existing knowledge under the name of post-modernism. No matter how hard we try to catch up, we always stay one step behind. Maybe we can call this the

43

limitations of a follower. We have approached theories and logic only, leaving no room for background and context. Admiration toward Western civilization as a role model no longer exists. We have put the brakes on this unilateral Western-centered attitude. Our livelihood has improved, and certain industries have even come to excel those of the West. We now have pride. Above all, our intelligence achieved growth.

Second, emerging China. We are already witnessing a loud belch from China’s Rise of the Great Powers. The communization era was nothing more than a brief vacuum in Chinese culture and philosophy. Some view that it was Maoism that had established early modern Chinese thought. Technically, it remains controversial whether Maoism has its basis on philosophical reasoning.

China is recovering its original status. Now, the circumstances encourage us to actively perform exchanges with China. An exclusive devotion to the West does not work anymore. As a result, interest in Chinese culture and classics is growing.

Philosophy of the Spring, Autumn, and Warring States Era Honestly, the recent interest in Eastern philosophy, or Chinese philosophy to be specific, concerns me. Scholars of Chinese philosophy may say that the concern has no grounds but nevertheless, I’m worried that we might fall into reactionism. First of all, Eastern philosophy originated from the Spring, Autumn and Warring States era, carrying limitations in terms of time. Many thinkers have appeared since then, but our interests still stay within the boundaries of Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, and Zhuangzi. This means we don’t give much attention to outstanding philosophers and their works of the modern period. Eastern philosophy confined to Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, and Zhuangzi is the same as Western philosophy only exploring Plato and Aristotle. Can you imagine Western philosophy trapped in just those philosophers? Perhaps, people find Eastern philosophy attractive due to the stability that the identity of classics provides us in comparison to the complicated and

44

difficult modern Western philosophy that has become even more confusing with numerous branches. If this is the reason, such popularity might fall into the trap of stagnancy. We should make efforts to recognize and overcome this risk.

The Hundred Schools of Thought that we are familiar with refer to significant figures from the Era of the Warring States period between the 8th and 3rd centuries B.C. Eastern philosophy delves into this era for two reasons.

First, unlike Western monarchs whose priority was battles, Eastern monarchs never stopped studying even while warring. Although not all feudal lords engaged in study, they did seek to attract and retain those with knowledge and wisdom. A great number of strategists and advisors looked for monarchs in various countries. While treating knowledge in a practical way to spread their thought, they never neglected investigating into the essence of things such as the value of humans and running a nation.

Second, as the Warring States era came to an end and opened the door for a unified kingdom, it became necessary to select one single school. The country could not just randomly choose any theory to be its ruling philosophy. The Han Dynasty narrowed the theories down to Confucianism and Mohism, and ultimately adopted Confucianism.

Integration of thought and politics is certainly a product of an advanced culture, distinct from the West. Religion integrated Europe and in China, thought took on that role. Let’s face the fact that unification based on a specific thought inevitably implies intolerance or oppression toward different ideas.

Since the Han Dynasty, Chinese dynasties have abided by the teachings of Confucianism. Even the kingdoms founded by foreign powers followed them as well. This made traditional interpretation of Confucianism a rigid orthodoxy, and the slightest deviation from it led to repressive responses. Not many scholars would dare allow themselves to be labeled as an enemy of the theory. Even if they did present a theory according to their own

45

beliefs, few people followed them. Thus, it is not an overstatement to say that Confucius ruled China.

The fact that after the unified kingdom no other ideas came out to surpass the Hundred Schools of Thought of the Warring States era suggests how thoughts were controlled.

This is a different aspect from the course of development of Western philosophy and thought.

Especially, the difference in the level of control stands out more clearly after the early modern period.

Zhu Xi1130-1200 was a scholar of the Southern Song Dynasty, which placed a stronger emphasis on literature than on the military. While this promoted cultural growth, the country eventually had to relocate its capital to a region south of the Yangtze River to maintain at least half of its nation after a foreign power invaded the country and seized the emperor.

Without any power in actuality, the only pride left for them was the belief in their cultural superiority over the culture of the invading forces.

Just as people often say that generosity comes from abundance, the same happened with philosophy. Zhu Xi reinforced the flexible philosophy of Confucius with strict and elaborate logic and knowledge. The narrow-mindedness of the scholars that didn’t accept departing from their interpretations never disappeared. That attitude took root in the tradition of Chinese Confucianism. Afterwards, Yang Ming’s philosophy wasn’t accepted, and Shixue (practical learning), which flourished briefly in 18th and 19th centuries, couldn’t survive as well.

Confucius Will Live When He Is Killed Korea adopted Zhu Xi’s interpretation of Confucius, the strictest and the most accurate of all interpretations, as the only viable text. Breaking away from that framework even the slightest bit would have created a huge disaster. Such a rigid and closed thought and culture, colored with Sinocentrism, obscured the foresight necessary for learning about the

46

outside world. This to some extent relates to the indignity we suffered from colonization by Japan who opened up as a nation earlier than us.

Unfortunately, this limitation is still valid. Regardless of how much we can learn from Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, and Zhuangzi, and how we might interpret them in a modern fashion, the limitation is clear. Kim Kyeong-il1 argued that “Confucius should die for the nation to live,” but if we expand the meaning of this phrase further, wouldn’t it mean that “Confucius will live when he is killed?”

Throughout the 20th century, China, the origin of Confucianism, constantly “killed” (?)

Confucius. Examples of the efforts are the slogans “Let’s raze bookstores that sell Confucius’s ideas” during the May Fourth Movement, and “Let’s criticize Lin Biao and Confucius” movement during the Cultural Revolution. Intellectuals gained access to diverse thoughts and ideas of the West after opening up, and began to pursue Marxism and Leninism, while at the same time strongly slamming Maoism as a Confucian feudal thought disguised as Marxism. Ironically, this demonstrates how deep the root of the Confucian school had spread across Chinese thought and culture.

Chinese philosophy began to be studied from an early-modern perspective since the 1930s when Feng Youlan1895-1990 published A History of Chinese Philosophy. However, criticism over its stagnancy still exists because in spite of its immense accumulated knowledge, Chinese philosophy did not go through a dynamic transformation such as confrontation or accommodation with new thought. This is reflected in the modern philosopher Li Zehou1930-’s words that Chinese philosophy is a half-philosophy.

Without any solutions to address the criticism that there is nothing new in Eastern philosophy other than interpreting Confucius and Mencius and dealing with Laozi and Zhuangzi, the popularity and interest that just began to boom will not last long. More than 1

Author of the book Confucius Should Die for the Nation to Live

47

anything, we should search for thoughts of early modern and modern philosophers. Even under the strict oppression of the unified country, there must have been scholars who sought to refute Confucianism or offer new thought. The teachings of Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, and Zhuangzi are undoubtedly great, but we should consider coming out of the box.

There is another thing to keep in mind. We should be careful not to tilt the recent enthusiasm about Eastern philosophy toward anti-Western inclinations as well as reactionism, or ethnocentrism. Superficial use of the Eastern classics for the purpose of self-development should also be avoided.

It is welcomed that there are efforts to recover the root of our cultural identity, escaping from blind pursuit of the West. Whatever the reason is, this is a fortunate result. It is even more so in that exploring Eastern philosophy and literature with interest forms a basis to create a better culture. If we need to decide on the methods, I would like to introduce the philosopher Karatani Kojin1941-. He acquired global universality by explaining peripheral issues that non-Westerners have through Western early modern and modern thought.

By reinterpreting Marx’s Capital, Karatani asserted that labor movements should be switched to consumer movements in the modern era. Although the argument was regarded as unfamiliar at the time, consumer boycotts nowadays have been gaining consensus as an important way to bring out social changes in the face of the tyranny of capital.

The transition from laborers to consumers allowed this argument to gain feasibility, which makes us reflect upon our errors of immediately closing Marx’s Capital just because Communism fell. We should ponder on the fact that this seemingly simple transition supported the process of overcoming Western thought and represented the journey to internalizing the Eastern spirit.

5. Do Philosophy!

Extreme sports is a dangerous field of sports that entails the risk of serious injuries

48

and even death. You experience extremity by riding a bicycle on a snow-covered field, hiking on rocky mountains, flying across the sky, and working your way through the waves. Inline skating, skateboarding, and bicycle stunts used to be categorized as three major extreme sports, but recently, the term has also come to encompass snowboarding, ice climbing, snowmobile riding, bungee jumping, paragliding, and waterskiing.

What is so attractive about extreme sports? For some, it seems dangerous and risky.

Those who participate in the sports climb up steep cliffs with their bare hands as if it were nothing. Is it worth risking your life? Extreme sports fans say that right at the moment when they engage in the sports, they become the only person existing in the whole world. They enjoy being an independent self that proceeds toward the goal while fighting with and embracing nature.

Everybody prefers something easy and convenient. But comfort and convenience sometimes prevent you from being an independent self. Extreme sports is attractive because it offers independence by refusing comfort. For that thrill, people end up taking up the challenge and recklessly undergoing the sport.

Philosophy can be deemed as an extreme mental sport. It relentlessly asks questions and looks for answers on its own. There are no definite answers or teachers. As Master Linji?866/867

once said, it is a grave match where you have to “kill the Buddha when you meet the

Buddha, kill the arhat when you meet the arhat, and kill the founder if you meet the founder.”

A great thinker may be a rock wall, a profound philosopher may be a typhoon, and a teacher with extensive knowledge may be frightening waves. Philosophy grows through that fierceness. The goal of investigating the world and life is to discover the self, and eventually, the relationship between the self and the world. It does not bring immediate and practical benefits. Yet, people for a very long time never avoided or refused philosophical issues.

Confucius decisively stated in the chapter on Li Ren in Analects that “If I see the path

49

in the morning, I am happy to die at night.” People generally focus on the path in the phrase, but what’s more important is that it is “I” who sees the path. No one sees it for me. This is why he sternly states that he will even sacrifice his life for it. Confucius, Mencius, Descartes, and Kant all devoted their whole lives to philosophy. While others come up with simple and convenient answers to problems and lead an easy and comfortable life, philosophers think again and again, intensely clinging onto the problems. It goes the same for monks who sit straight and assign themselves to leading a devout Buddhist life.

I didn’t introduce a broad range of philosophical theories or philosophers’ thoughts in this chapter. This is not a philosophy book, and above all, I wanted to think about what attitude we should take toward philosophy.

France did not intend to try out the Baccalauréat as a simple test for college admissions. The basis lay in the social premise that nurturing insightful and intelligent citizens through philosophy tests fosters national power and culture. It is unbearably regrettable to see France with that window and Korea living an indifferent life without even a small window. I don’t mean groundless admiration. France not only has included philosophy in its college entrance exam, but also has a great number of citizens who show interest in the test. This demonstrates how the French people integrated mature reasoning on their life and society into their daily life. The existence of philosophy decides the prestige of societies and countries, not to mention individuals. That is the true “prestige of a nation.” Thus, to heighten it, philosophy should take root first. Companies must set a clear corporate philosophy first.

With this, both managers and employees can, without getting lost, continue with their ecosystemic development model in case of success.

Philosophy is not a concept, but a practical way of life. Philosophical reasoning unites the self with the society and the world, so that people fulfill global citizenship as universal beings without falling in the trap of becoming selfish beings.

50

What are we doing now? Are you satisfied? If not, do philosophy!

51