Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!husc4!hadeishi
From: hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Characterization
Message-ID: <363@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 12:04:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: husc6.363
Posted: Thu Oct  9 12:04:10 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 04:42:56 EDT
References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@husc6.HARVARD.EDU
Reply-To: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Organization: Harvard Science Center
Lines: 43

In article <3760@umcp-cs.UUCP> mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes:
>In article <337@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>> . . .
>>	So my stance, as it were, would be to mistrust all rational
>>frameworks, and, in fact, to discard them when doing serious
>>philosophy
> . . .
>> by Lao Tzu some 2,500 years ago.  Despite its
>>antiquity, however, I do not believe that it has really been understood
>>and practiced by very many; however it remains a telling critique
>>and indictment of almost all of traditional Western philosophy.
>>(Hee hee - I love making ridiculous pronouncements like that,
>>especially when they're true, Hee hee).
>
>"Almost all" saves you.  Heidegger, Gadamer, and others in what is
>called "hermeneutic" philosophy also argue the rational justifiability
>of what you say, and argue it firmly within, and by detailed comparison
>to, Western philosophy.  References:  Heidegger: "What is a Thing"
>(actually a critique of Kant), Gadamer: "Reason in the Age of Science"

	Thanks, Mark.  I have been told that a Zen master once met
Heidegger and told him "I really admire what you've written about Zen."
Heidegger replied someting to the effect of "But I don't know anything
about Zen."  The Zen master said "You don't know that you know, but
what you write about is pure Zen."

	However, (having read some Heidegger) I find I prefer
the somewhat less wordy approach of the Zen masters.  Somehow the
spirit and immediate applicability to daily life of this philosophy
can become obscured by lengthy explanations (such as you find in
Heidegger and other existentialist writers.)  But this is a matter
of taste, perhaps.

	(I do think the Zenists are at least slightly more effective
at achieving an understanding in their students; and the Zen
less-wordy method has the added advantage that pretty much anyone can
eventually get some profound benefit from it, without having to be
an intellectual or a student of philosophy.  Also Zen I think,
because of the simplicity of the approach, tends to have more
direct effectiveness in such things as serving tea, martial arts,
writing poetry, cutting wood, walking around New York, et cetera.)

			-Mitsu