Zhuangzi Critical Summary

In the last two paragraphs of chapter one of Zhuangzi's writings (p. 213 in Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy), a character Huizi likens a large gnarled tree to Zhuangzi's lofty philosophy.

“I have a big tree, the kind people call Spring. Its trunk is so gnarled it won't take a chalk line, and its branches are so twisted they won't fit a compass or square. It stands by the road but no builder looks twice at it. Your talk is similarly big and useless, and everyone alike rejects it.”

Unshaken by Huizi's outright rejection of his philosophy, Zhuangzi replies with:

“Haven't you seen a weasel? It bends down then rises up. It springs east and west, not worrying about heights or depths—and lands in a snare or dies in a net. Now the yak is so big he looks like clouds hanging from Heaven. He sure can be big, but he can't catch mice. You have a big tree and are upset that you can't use it. Why not plant it by a nothing-at-all village in a wide empty waste? You could do nothing, dilly-dallying by its side, or nap, ho-hum, beneath it. It won't fall to any axe's chop and nothing will harm it. Since it isn't any use, what bad can happen to it?”

This has much philosophical significance. First of all, Zhuangzi does not make a point to explicitly name Huizi's point about the tree wrong. His response unobtrusively provides Huizi with a different way to see the tree, which stands for his philosophy. The manner of Zhuangzi's response is very important because acting this way is in agreement with other portions of his philosophy which describe following the attitude of being unshakable in all things, and letting the world be as it is. Examples of this can be found throughout the text, such as page 210:

“The whole world could praise him [Songzi, assumed to be a sort of sage] and he would not be encouraged. The whole world could condemn him and he would not be upset.”

and pages 211-212

“The world longs for chaos, but why should they fret and make the world their business? Nothing can harm these people.”

and page 218

“The Way is lost in the glorification of right and wrong.”

and page 223

“When you and I have started arguing, if you win and I lose, then are you really right and am I really wrong? If I win and you lose, then am I really right and are you really wrong? Is on of us right and the other one wrong? Or are both of us right and both of us wrong? If you and I can't understand one another, then other people will certainly be even more in the dark.”

This last excerpt touches on the importance of understanding rather than being limited to ego based labels of right and wrong.

Besides Zhuangzi acting in demonstration of his philosophy, he gives brief descriptions of a weasel and a yak. The animals aren't depicted with any exaggerated flashiness. He sort of just kind of tells us how the animals are – weasels jump around, free of worry, and eventually are caught and killed, and yaks are big which limits their ability to catch mice. I think what Zhuangzi is trying to say is that these animals are as they are, and to see them with a particular observer-imposed end in mind will be upsetting because is not their purpose.

Following this train of thought, Zhuangzi suggests that Huizi plant the tree somewhere where he could just kick back and relax underneath it. It seems Zhuangzi is trying to get Huizi to see that if the tree were meant to be chopped down and used as building material, it would have grown straight in the first place. This relates to Daoist thought because in order to use a gnarled tree as building material, a builder would have to exert a lot of extra effort, directly contrasting the Daoist concept of wu­wei, or effortless action.

When Zhuangzi's philosophy is substituted for the gnarled tree, the reading suggests that perhaps it is not supposed to be taken completely seriously, such as that philosophy attributed to Mozi, Mengzi, and Kongzi (whom Zhuangzi seems to lightly mock). Perhaps expecting Zhuangzi to be excessively serious and concerned with ethics misses the entire point. Maybe “everyone alike rejects it” because they expect the philosophy to do something other than what it was designed to do. When it is used appropriately, it can be enjoyed.

A root of many troubles in my own life is that I can expect things to be other than they are. When they are not as I expect, it is easy to get upset and caught up in unneeded conflict. These lapses understanding usually occur for me because of some emotional attachment to the past. In these cases, if I were to have realistic expectations in the first place, there would have been no problem. I think this is what Zhuangzi is getting at when he is talking to Huizi. It makes sense, for basically what he describes is to see the world as it is, no more or less, and enjoy. The Way flows, like water, and maybe it is best to relax, listen to tian(nature or Heaven), and go where it takes you.

Nirvana and Sunya, Chinese Philosophy, Summary and Critique

Nagarjuna wrote Mulamadhyamakakarika, or Treatise of the Fundamentals of the Middle Way. The content of these chapters attempts to explain the metaphysics behind Buddhist thought, introducing the belief that everything is sunya, translated in class as “empty” or “open” or “undefined.” Also, as discussed in class, Nagarjuna believes there are two types of truths: one of ultimate truth, which is where all things are ultimately sunya, and instrumental or conventional truths, which may be true within a context but are not ultimately true.

In Chapter 1, Nagarjuna establishes that both creation and destruction are not ultimately possible. He comes to this conclusion using the fundamental Buddhist concept that 'self' or individuality is an illusion. From here Nagarjuna asserts that nothing can be destroyed because nothing individual has existed in the first place (Inada, ch. 1 sec. 9). Likewise, he asserts that creation is ultimately impossible because, “the statement, 'from the existence of that becomes,' is not possible,” because nothing has existed in an independent state, (Inada, ch. 1 sec. 10). Since there is not truly anything with a specifically different self, relationships and non-relationships are not possible, for to have a relationship there must be two or more existing 'things' which are in relation (Inada, ch. 1 sec. 14).

In Chapter 25, Nagarjuna responds to an opponent who is inquiring about how the relationship between nirvanaand sunyais possible. The opponent asks:

“If all is sunya, and there is neither production nor destruction, then from whose abandonment (of defilements) or from whose extinction (of suffering) can nirvana be attained?” (Inada, ch. 25 sec. 1)

The opponent's argument has three parts, touching first on Nagarjuna's claim that all is empty, then on chapter one's assertion that creation and destruction are impossible, and then asks if these are both truths, who is it that has the suffering in the first place from which nirvana is attained when the suffering is extinguished.

Nagarjuna's response is that the opponent is having difficulty understanding because the opponent is looking at suffering as existing within a person (Inada, ch. 25 sec. 2). In actuality, there is no individual upon which the suffering is occurring. Nagarjuna demonstrates this by describing nirvana, in the rest of the chapter, as part of the “uncreated realm while existence and non-existence are of the created realm,” and as indistinguishable from samsara, or the world of ordinary experience (Inada, ch. 25 sec. 13 & 19). As such, it is as if nirvana is always 'going on' or 'being,’ (to use rough language).

I had questions about nirvana prior to reading Nagarjuna's Treatise. It seemed that though nirvana was described in class as the absence of dukkha, as free of the cause of suffering, and as free of grasping, it was nonetheless under this definition that a state where the lack of suffering is existing. It didn't make sense that a state of being could be without self, because obviously 'lack of suffering' is discernible from 'suffering.' Because one state is different from the other, I saw this as individual, which doesn't hold up with the Buddhist doctrine of 'no-self.'

Nagarjuna cleared this up for me. The idea I get from reading Nagarjuna, particularly the concept conveyed in section 13 of chapter 25, is that nirvana is like the primary pre-potential that is so ineffable it is even beyond existence and non-existence. The potentials of the concepts of existence and non-existence have to be born from something, and it is as if nirvana is the platform from which these potentials sprang, so to speak. Perhaps, I think, this is why Nagarjuna saw nirvana as uncreated. To be uncreated is to be like a potential. If nirvana is uncreated, then it is no longer as simple as a state of non-suffering. This reconciles my questions, because suffering and non-suffering are both of the created realm.

Kintzle & Bride, Intervention following a sudden death - summary critique

Kintzle, S., & Bride, B. E. (2010). Intervention Following a Sudden Death: The Social Work-Medical Examiner Model. Health & Social Work, 35(3), 221-224.

Millions of people are left without services when grieving from the sudden death of a loved one. The intense emotional response to sudden loss can have effects upon generations. Medical examiners investigate the context and cause of death for people who die suddenly. The job of the medical examination team, generally, is to rule out the potential of foul play, and provide understanding and closure to families about the cause of death. While not traditionally a part of the examination team, social workers have increasingly been hired to perform specific tasks in this field. The job of the social worker’s role in medical examination settings is outlined by Kintzle & Bride (2010).

Generally, social workers simultaneously serve as a liaison and interpreter between the medical examination team and the family of the deceased, and advocate for the needs of the grieving family during the investigation process. The social worker understands the process and helps put the family at ease as much as possible. Communication at the scene of death can be difficult due to the intense emotional activation of people present. The social worker facilitates communication and builds rapport between the medical examination team. Social workers in this setting can keep pressure off of the medical examiner’s office, and are better trained to interact with grieving and traumatized people than medical examiners, investigators, and police.
Three therapeutic duties also exist. of a social worker on a medical examiner team: intervention with traumatized individuals and families at the scene of death, bereavement support, and referral assessment for a variety of agencies, including funeral services, clean-up, insurance, etc. A protocol is given for interacting with families over a period of several months in which grief counseling and referrals are the focus of most interactions.

Critique
Kintzle & Bride article provide a framework with no real data to support it. For example it would be helpful to know how many people use framework that is outlined, what competing models are in place, and why the lengths of time for follow-up phone calls or other interactions are listed. Nothing is discussed relating to critical periods for trauma recovery; it appeared that the lengths of time for follow-up and referrals were arbitrarily chosen for other reasons, or because it ‘seemed like’ the right amount of time. It would be nice to know how many social workers are on medical examination teams. Perhaps there are very few, which would explain the looseness and lack of cited research.

Problems for Clarke's Version of the Cosmological Argument

1.  Clarke does not show that there must be one necessary being.


2.  Clarke does not show that the necessary being (s) must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


3.  Clarke does not show that the necessary being (s) cannot be natural, the big bang itself, or some other physical phenomena.


4.  Clarke does not show that the necessary being (s) cannot be the universe or matter itself.


5.  Clarke does not address the reason or explanation for God's existence.  The PSR has no exceptions, he maintains.


6.  It looks like Clarke commits the Fallacy of Composition any way you interpret him.  He has to argue that what is not true of the parts (they are not necessary) must also fail to be true of the whole.  Or, he must assume that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole, which is not the case for many properties.


7.  The PSR does not apply to whole sets, or subsets, only to individuals.  5 eskimos.  Beyond explaining the individuals, no further explanation is needed or makes sense.


8.  The Problem of Evil.  Even if Clarke argues that it would take infinite power and knowledge to build a universe, an objective assessment of the pain and suffering in the world does not make it clear that the creator must also be infinitely good.

(Most theodicies attempt to show that the existence of God is possible or logically compatible  with the existence of evil.  Clarke needs to argue that the existence of good and evil in the universe shows that the creator actually is infinitely good.  Arguing that God could have reasons for allowing pain and suffering falls far short of the cosmological arg strategy of arguing that in fact things in the universe make it clear that there is a god)

Critique of Euthyphro, Crito, & Letter from Birmingham Jail: Mixed Platonic Ethics

In Euthyphro, Plato's characters converse in attempt to determine whether there can be a universal measure in determining the virtue of piety. In this dialogue, the men agree that there is a certain unity of the virtues; that all virtues are tied together. As such, Socrates and Euthyphro's dialogue indirectly addresses the issue of whether there is a universal measure for morality in general (because it is moral to be virtuous). At the end of the dialogue, this is left unanswered.

In Crito, Plato's characters are in agreement that, “We are never intentionally to do wrong...that injustice is always an evil and dishonour to him who acts unjustly.” Though simple, this is nonetheless an answer to the question raised in Euthyphro. Based on this measure of morality, an act merely is pious if it is made with pious intention. Here is the universal measure, and it is short and to the point. So in determining whether Euthyphro is acting piously by prosecuting his father for murder, one needs only to determine if Euthyphro is acting with pious intention. According to the dialogue, Euthyphro initially believes his action is pious, else he would not have become drawn into a discussion about the nature of piety with Socrates. Therefore, Euthyphro's actions are pious.

“We are never intentionally to do wrong,” serves as an excellent moral measure for the virtuous individual, though it can be amended to be a more precise determiner of morality. In Plato's dialogue, “we must do no wrong,” is agreed upon by the characters, to which they induce, “...nor when injured, injure in return...for we must injure no one at all.” A direct relation between injury, or harm, and wrong is made here.

The word 'wrong' should be replaced with the word 'harm' in Plato's moral measure. If it is not initially interchangeable, true 'wrong' in its most basic understanding is either causally preceded or succeeded by harm. One should take note that harm in itself is not wrong; harm is a very subjective term. To intentionally produce harm, as a singular or primary motive, is the only real wrong.

As such, if the nature of right and wrong lies in the containment of harmful intention, morality is a matter of the point of view of the actor at the moment of the act.

Immediately after hearing this, one must remark on the subjectivity of such a moral measure. This is one of the strengths of Plato's measure, however, because other moral measures, especially at the time, such as relying on the judgment of the many, ultimately result in immoral or robot-like action. Freedom of will is a strength of 'do no intentional harm.'

An interesting facet of 'do no intentional harm' as a moral measure is very different, even opposite actions can be taken and both can be moral, as long as the person who is doing the action is doing so without purposeful harmful intention. A mother could use spanking as punishment one day, then a month later switch to rewarding her child's positive behavior while giving no attention to unhealthy behavior. Both stances on child rearing are morally right at the time they are used, because the mother's primary intention is to raise a respectful child, even if the former practice is physically harmful to the child. This moral measure allows the individual room to grow and improve the basis of their personal morality.

Though truly an excellent measure of personal morality when adopted on a individual basis, 'do no intentional harm' would have much difficulty being put into political practice. The past has not shown personal accountability to be a strong human trait in the whole of society. Without some sort of enforcement, it would be very difficult to get murderers, rapists or thieves to admit that their motives were to intentionally harm, when they could easily lie about their intentions. With a 'do no intentional harm' constitution, it would be likely impossible to impose any physical laws regarding conduct without contradicting the freedom of action Plato's premise requires. In any existing society, laws inevitably come out out of a need to hold accountable those who are compelled to act immorally. As there is no known way to prove intention, this moral measure would soon break down. No society is of yet ready to handle this responsibility.

In Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail, he addresses a group of fellow clergymen who did not agree with a peaceful march protesting segregation. King's ideology is poured out through this letter. His account of justice is as follows:

“Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

This premise concisely sums up King's moral code. It proves to be a more tangible measure of morality than 'do no intentional harm.' It may not allow for as much free action as a 'do no intentional harm,' but King's premise is highly applicable to society and law. Even if the majority of a population is not accountable enough to act morally, as such was the case when King wrote Letter from Birmingham Jail and Plato wrote his dialogues, the morality measure is still strong enough to keep those immoral in check. Laws can be built from King's premise on justice. It does not matter here what the motives behind an action are, so long as the result of the action brings about an uplift in the human personality.

In the case of segregation, King stated, “It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.” Clearly this is degrading of human personality. Under Plato's measure 'do no intentional harm,' segregation could be morally permissible. Many Southern whites still honestly believed black people were less intelligent, dangerous, less civilized and overall less capable then their white counterparts. Operating on this belief, segregation made sense to them at that time in order to preserve the integrity of their 'race.' The primary motivation of these Southern whites, in allowing segregation, could have been for the good of their community. The harm done to their black neighbors, if they were aware of it, could have been an unfortunate result of their primary motive. Thus, from a white person's point of view at that particular moment, there was nothing morally wrong with segregation. Plato's moral measure falls short as a political ideology.