CHAPTER XV
CREATION OF NEW
PHILOSOPHY IN
THE AGE OF GLOBAL VILLAGE
KIRTI BUNCHUA
The global village in our age needs a philosophy, not only for survival,
but to enable it to live in a better condition than humanity has ever before
experienced. This paper suggests a "contextual philosophy" which has
no determined content, but offers a method to be used as the common attitude for
all schools of philosophy. Contextuality plays the role of metaphilosophy for
all philosophies and of meta-studies for all branches of human knowledge.
Metaphilosophy employs a critical mind to analyze and evaluate all
philosophies and classify them into five paradigms according to the value of
each. Each paradigm can play its role in a process of globalization if and only
if it accepts its limitation in order to collaborate with all others in a
pluralistic spirit. By the same token, all the meta-studies may contribute and
collaborate as parts of the common heritage of one and the same humanity. In
this way, each and everyone may have a role to play in our global village.
This is the indispensable basis for the peaceful coexistence for which
our global village yearns.
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A METHOD FOR PHILOSOPHICAL WORK
As a Catholic who taught philosophy and Christianity in state
universities where most instructors, students and administrators were Buddhists,
my first problem was how to render myself and my thoughts acceptable to my
students. I could not use the method of Matteo Ricci -- explaining Christianity
in Buddhist terms -- because such method had been strongly objected to by some
intellectual Buddhists. The Neo-Hindus had used such a method to interpret
Buddha as the last incarnation of Narayana and some of the earlier
interpretations of the Vatican Council looked upon Buddha as a forerunner of
Christ. Intellectual Buddhists had protested against both interpretations and I
have always opposed such a mixing of religious beliefs.
At first I held the attitude of a compromising philosopher with a vague
idea of a compromising philosophy. I was criticized that this was not a happy
term as it suggested that religions were quarrelling and I was making myself a
reconciler; it would be too much to accept such an honor. In response I changed
my policy into a philosophy of mutual understanding. This too was criticized,
this time for the danger of seeming to be a new religious movement combining all
religions, which, of course, was unacceptable. Another solution, drawing upon
the phenomenological method of Husserl, was to bracket (epoche) the faith
of each inquirer in order to gain the unbiased understanding of philosophy and
religions. Some worried that such methodical doubt would advance into real
skepticism.
Finally, I arrived at a contextual method. However, the Christian context
is not a simple one, but a cluster of contexts, because Jesus Himself was
open-minded enough in the matter of philosophy, though He urged each person to
commit himself to the works of charity. With this religious and pluralistic
open-mindedness, I am developing a contextual method and using it as the leit-motif
of my teaching and administrative activities. Finally, being sent by the
Assumption University to study the philosophy for civil society at the Center
for the Study of Culture and Values of The Catholic University of America, I
adapted civil society as the purpose of the contextual method.
As the pioneer in teaching Western philosophy, or rather teaching
philosophy in the Western way in Thailand, I probably taught in all the state
universities in Thailand established before 1990. I had to write the first
manuals of philosophy in the Thai Language, and in so doing had to invent the
vocabulary needed for the purpose. I drew on Greek, Latin, Pali, and Sanskrit
languages, beside Thai language in its profundity, as well as comparative
literature and have written so far about 40 manuals of philosophy and religions,
mostly in the Thai language. Based on my research on oriental philosophy His
Majesty King Bhumiphol of Thailand appointed me Professor in Philosophy and
Fellow of the Royal Institute for life. As Chairperson of Philosophical
Departments of Chulalongkorn University I developed its courses up to the
doctorate degree in philosophy and former students, including many intellectual
Buddhist monks, are teaching philosophy in all universities and colleges of
Thailand.
Retired from Chulalongkorn State University, I was asked to organize the
Philosophical and Religious Studies Department in Assumption University where
there is now a Ph.D. program in philosophy and an M.A. in philosophy and
religious Studies. These emphasize the teaching of Thai Buddhism, professional
ethics and the Bible for spirituality.
As the study of philosophy and religions is not complete without
exposure-immersion, I learned Buddhism seriously (together with the Pali and
Sanskrit languages) while teaching in the Buddhist Mahamakut and Mahachula
Universities. My vacations were spent practicing Buddhist meditation with
several Masters in many schools of meditation. With the collaboration of some
volunteers, at our Spirituality ashram, I and my wife regularly organize courses
of Buddhist Meditation for the Buddhists, Oriental Meditation for the
Christians, Bible Study for the quality of life, and consultations for healthy
and happy families, regardless of traditions and faiths.
Many Christians interested in Buddhist meditation go directly to Buddhist
masters and then become hostile to Christianity, and vice-versa. With some
preparation and introduction, they could go with more confidence and with a
clearer idea of what they are seeking. Christians interested in Buddhism should
not feel that the Buddha is against the spiritual values in Christianity,
especially Divine Grace for each person. By the same token Buddhists who are
interested in Christianity should not feel that Christ is against any spiritual
value in Buddhism, especially the teaching of Metta and the tactic of
enhancing the quality of life through Samadhi and Vipassana.
For all the above-mentioned programs, I have tried to formulate a
methodology of teaching philosophy and religion at Assumption University. This I
call "the contextuality method," that is, to teach and evaluate each
philosophy and religion in its context. I divide the intellectual and spiritual
context into five paradigms. The fifth paradigm has two phases: deconstructive
and the reconstructive. We are trying to reconstruct civil society from all the
good elements of past and present philosophies.
The Basis of
Values in a Time of Change
From the foregoing experiences in a life of research, I have come to a
philosophy of globalization as follows.
The time of change calls either for a changing value base (which means
values without a fixed standard for common judgment) or for a change of the
value base (which means establishing a new standard for the common judgment of
values). A critical mind cannot accept a changing value base, because a changing
base cannot be a standard of valuation. The only option, therefore, is for a
change of value base.
Each age needs an appropriate base for its values according to the
characteristics of the age. Our age is unanimously proclaimed as the age of
globalization. The appropriate value base must respond to the characteristic
needs of globalization.
Globalization means not only that we can use today's technology of mass
media to communicate throughout the world as in a village of old times, but
especially that we must learn how to live in the globalized world as our
ancestors lived in a village. Surely we need an appropriate philosophy -- a
philosophy for the global age, or global philosophy -- having at least some of
the following characteristics:
1. It opens the gate to all humane philosophies.
2. It has humanity as its object.
3. It aims at preparing all to live appropriately in the age of
globalization.
4. It supposes the whole world to be one village in the hi-tech
information system.
5. It considers all human values of equal rank.
6. It considers all cultures as belonging to the culture of humanity.
7. It has the ambition of bringing all human knowledge and experience
into one perspective and explains all human interest under one perspective:
global philosophy or philosophy of globalization.
The philosophy of globalization needs a meta-philosophy to guarantee
growth and development.
ROLES OF
META-PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy as the love of wisdom started with questions about the
external world -- questions that ended with somewhat satisfactory answers which
sooner or later generated further questions and further answers. Once philosophy
had developed subjects of knowledge, it could not help asking about its role in
human knowledge. Several satisfactory answers have been established, each fit
for the context of each period in which it arose. Each answer is one
meta-philosophy. The one fit for the age of globalization is the meta-philosophy
of the globalized world which I would like to appropriate as the foundation of
Philosophy.
1. At the start of human inquiry, philosophy played the role of mother of
all branches of knowledge. This was the role of philosophy in the Primitive Age.
2. When branches of knowledge separated themselves to form independent
subjects, philosophy had to be content with the remaining questions and answers.
This is more or less the age of antiquity.
3. When only metaphysics and epistemology challenged philosophers, they
began to follow up the conclusions of all subjects and developed applied
philosophies for them all, using metaphysics and epistemology as pure philosophy
to question any conclusion and to propose possible answers. This latter role
began with Hegel.
4. When the various subjects had their own philosophers who could
practice the applied philosophy of each particular subject better than the pure
philosophers themselves (as today many scientists can do the philosophy of
science better than the professional philosophers, for example), philosophers
were forced back to the ghetto of pure philosophy to practice at best the
history of philosophy. This phenomenon took place between the two World Wars.
5. Presently pure philosophy is deemed meaningless and useless, as has
already happened in many intellectual circles. It is time for professional
philosophers to come out from the ghetto of pure philosophy to reflect seriously
upon the roles of philosophy. It is time to take the philosophy of philosophy or
meta-philosophy seriously, as well as the philosophy of history of philosophy or
the meta-history of philosophy. Philosophy must now take an independent role,
trying to state its own identity aiming to collaborate with all branches of
human knowledge to promote peace and human welfare. This vision was initiated by
the first post-modernist philosophers and continues to exist as what we would
like to call globalized philosophy or globalizism in philosophy.
The Nature of
Metaphilosophy
First, meta-philosophy is the philosophy that questions the origin,
development, nature and roles of philosophy in each individual and in society.
Second, meta-history of philosophy is the philosophy that questions the
relation between one philosophical conviction and other philosophical
convictions, between philosophers and philosophical schools and various trends,
between philosophy and history and between philosophy and other phenomena in
society.
Methodology
First, the methodology of meta-inquires treats all knowledge of
philosophy as raw material.
Second, it questions and answers along the above guidelines.
Third, it questions the current philosophy in new ways.
Fourth, it concentrates on questions that are within the scope of our
current trend.
Fifth, it emphasizes teamwork, e.g., the mutual sharing of knowledge,
opinions, understanding, supporting and developing.
Globalization
Taking all the foregoing development of philosophy into account, we are
trying to develop a trend that may serve humanity in this age of globalization.
It may be similar to postmodernism, but may have characteristics of our own. We
prefer to call it a globalizational philosophy. Its main characters are as
follows:
1. It is based on the self-criticism.
2. It offers to be the liaison of all human phenomena and creativities.
3. It promotes the training and education of the mind toward unbiased
judgements.
4. It enhances human dignity.
5. It uses the most up-to-date hermeneutics as the main tool for analysis
and human values as the final aim of evaluation.
6. It recruits resource people with a critical mind who know how to
analyze and evaluate with some degree of rightness.
PHILOSOPHICAL
PARADIGMS LEADING TO A GLOBALIZED CULTURE
The contextual method in teaching philosophy seems successful in creating
the atmosphere of understanding and sharing needed for our country, which is
developing with a global prospective. For this purpose we divide human
intellectual development vertically into five philosophical paradigms and
horizontally according to the main source of cultures and inquiries.
Homo Sapiens continuously has
developed creative capacities since the beginning of the species. That
development in the past can be divided roughly into four steps, with the present
development of a contextual capacity as the fifth step. We shall call them the
"Five Paradigms of Human Thought." It is to be noted that in the world
of paradigms, while new ones rise up, the old ones do not cease, but continue
side by side with the new ones.
1. Primitive Paradigm. This paradigm occurred in the mind of
primitives as soon as humans appeared on earth. It is as old as humanity. We
can, therefore, assume that this paradigm began to exert its role not less than
2,000,000 years ago and has never died.
The first humans who lived on earth lived in pure nature, at the mercy of
nature, often threatened by natural forces, and sometimes victims of natural
disasters. Animals, when danger is at hand, are pushed by the instinct of fear
to flee for their life. When the danger disappears the animals are unworried,
because they do not reflect. Humans are different. Though they have the
fear-instinct like animals and run for their life in a time of danger, after
several experiences of threatening dangers they reflect upon their past
experiences during times of peace. Primitives, wishing safety for themselves and
their families, faced such questions as: "Whence came the natural disasters
and how could they be eliminated?" Though there were many possible answers,
what appeased the anxiety of the primitives was that natural disasters together
with all natural events were caused by the manipulations of mysterious powers.
All believed them to exist and to manipulate all natural happenings
capriciously. They were called different names by different groups of peoples.
From such fundamental belief, the primitives concluded that they could
avoid natural disasters only by complying with the will of the mysterious powers
and that they could gain advantages over other creatures by pleasing those
powers. These mysterious powers were called by various names; generally they
were the "On-Highs" above all visible realities. The primitives tried
hard, therefore, to know the will of the On-Highs and to know how to please
them. Those who professed to know these techniques were considered the knowers
or "the seers" among the primitives and enjoyed many privileges. They
were indeed benefactors of the other primitives, because if no one could offer
satisfactory answers, the fright-stricken primitives would have been in an
inescapable state of fear. Though physically still victims of disasters, at
least psychologically they could be convinced that they were not destined or
doomed to unpredictable destruction. They believed that they could survive
because they knew how to please the On-Highs; those who fell as victims to
natural disasters were presumed to be negligent in pleasing the On-Highs.
As to why the primitives were so easily satisfied with the above answer
and did not try to solve their problems through the understanding of the laws of
nature, it would seem that they did not believe in laws. They experienced
changing nature and saw the dissimilarities rather than the similarities, the
changes rather than the laws. For them the universe was in chaos. This is their
pure philosophy or metaphysics. Under the terms of such a philosophy the above
answers were satisfactory and one hardly had reason to be interested in finding
the laws of nature. On the contrary, one put all one's efforts into inquiry
about problems one believes to exist: how to know and how to please the will of
the On-Highs. This form of thought was the only trend in human thinking for more
than two million years. Surely with such a paradigm, humanity could hardly make
progress in knowledge, except when people happen by chance upon rare and
unintentioned inventions. However, the creative capacity of man could not help
advancing to the ancient paradigm about 3,000 years ago.
The highest ideal for the devotees of the first paradigm is:
"If the will of the On-Highs is not actually expressed, follow the
customs", because the customs expresses the will of the On-Highs, until
further informed by some believable technique. "You can violate anything
except the customs" is the universally accepted criterion of conduct. Even
the will of the On-High is accepted on the basis of some custom.
2. Ancient Paradigm. The people of this paradigm believe that the
world has its own law. It is the cosmos, not the chaos of the Primitives.
There might have been some geniuses before the Ancient time who believed
that the World had its own law, but as they did not transmit their belief to
others, so it disappeared at the time of their death without affecting any
change. If they did communicate it and no one believed it, they would have been
denounced as crazy unbelievers and might have been put to death as a cursed
person. Those, therefore, who first discovered the orderly cosmos and could
safely convince others to join them in their beliefs were indeed great geniuses.
We do not know who those were in human history. The oldest document that shows
this belief is the first page of the Bible. It is the written record of oral
traditions among the Hebrew tribes even before Moses. It had been transmitted
orally from generation to generation and was put into the written Bible about
3,000 years ago. The Bible told us how God put an order into the universe, thus
changing the status of the universe from chaos (the universe without laws) to
cosmos (the universe with laws). Since then the Universe has evolved according
to those given laws. Though God, as the law-giver, has the right to change any
law at will, He would not have done it without necessity, because, generally, it
is necessary to stress the importance of the laws He Himself has established.
In the Greek historical record, Thales (640-545 B.C.) has been
called the first who thought of the world (meaning the universe) as cosmos. In
Indian culture, Buddha was the first to teach that the universe and
everything in it strictly follow the Laws of Dharma. In the Chinese
culture we find Confucius presenting Tao as the laws of conduct for
private as well as social life, while Lao-Tzu presented it as natural law.
Since man came to believe that the universe has fixed laws, he has had a
great interest in discovering them. While Western people in the Middle Ages had
to pass through a phase of interest in the law of nature before developing an
interest in the law of the Spirit, Eastern people jumped over the interest of
the law of nature to grasp immediately the law of the Spirit. Eastern people
have grasped the law of the Spirit since the time of Buddha and became
interested in the law of nature only when they came into contact with Western
education two centuries ago.
The Metaphysics of the Second Paradigm is the belief that the universe
has its own law. Man must know it and use it as the basis for his happiness in
this life. For this reason, the Greeks and the Romans constructed great palaces,
great theaters and great baths, but small temples. If they agreed to construct
some great temples, it was for the sake of their own fame and pleasure rather
than for the benefits of their future life, which belongs to the Third Paradigm
starting in the Middle Ages.
During ancient time, only very progressive people had the Ancient
Paradigm in their hearts. Many others still clung to the Primitive Paradigm,
that is, they still believed in the mysterious powers that controlled nature,
accordingly they both hoped and feared at the same time. If they used the
facilities offered them by the inventions of more progressive people, they used
them with the mentality of the Primitives. For example, they might attend the
theaters created by the Ancient writers which taught some natural laws, but the
people of the Primitive Paradigm would attend it with the hope of magic to gain
the favor of the mysterious powers.
The supreme standard of conduct for the Third Paradigm is "to follow
the laws." Kings have authority because they guarantee peaceful
coexistence. Their words are laws, not because they express the will of God, but
because they express the Kings' will to guarantee peaceful coexistence. By this
token, one can transgress anything but the laws promulgated by the will of the
Kings or the leaders of societies.
3. Medieval Paradigm: In Western culture this paradigm started
about 2,000 years ago, with the beginning of Christianity. In the East it
started at the beginning of the Buddhist Era, about 500 years before the West.
The Ancient Paradigm of the East started about the same time by the School of
Caravaka, but it did not develop very much and soon died out. This paradigm
believed that the universe follows fixed law, but held that the laws of this
world cannot give man real happiness. Medieval men who had this paradigm in
their hearts devoted all their worldly resources to paving their ways for the
happiness in the next life. They used to be parsimonious for their own living
but lavish in accumulating merits for the life-to-come. There were plenty of
examples of those who lived a strictly mortified life. They constructed great
and sumptuous cathedrals and religious objects, but poor houses -- just enough
for their own survival. Their ideal was different from those of the ancient
paradigm who constructed temples just big enough for their greatest profit; but
for their own residences, nothing was spared to make them as useful and
luxurious as possible.
Meanwhile, some in their midst lived by the Primitive or the Ancient
Paradigms and were considered by them as gentiles (uneducated) and unbelievers.
Therefore, it is not surprising to see, in all religions of that time,
manifestations of all three paradigms. The supreme criterion of goodness in this
paradigm is conscience according to the teaching of each religion. One could
transgress anything except the rules laid down by the religious authority.
4. Modern Paradigm: Since the beginning of the natural sciences
around the year 1500, the scientific method stands as a fixed and clear method
for advancing the human knowledge of the Universe. After establishing itself as
an independent subject, natural science invented and progressed so rapidly that
many people hoped it might solve all problems of man. People hoped that one day
it might cure and prevent all diseases, and eliminate death and old age. They
hoped all men might remain young for eternity, fearing neither sickness, old age
nor death. They imagined that the scientific method might be applied to social
organization, so that men might share their happiness with equity and justice;
and that men would share their responsibility by each of working as little as
possible. Most of their time would be spent in recreation and enjoyment, without
any mixture of fear and worry of any kind. Live would become "a Paradise on
the Earth" without any need for a future life.
This Paradigm believes that the universe follows fixed laws. By knowing
enough Laws of the universe, we may transform our earth into a real paradise.
The believers of this paradigm would devote their resources to promoting
scientific research, so that their expectation might become true as soon as
possible. The fundamentalists of this paradigm set policies to undermine all
kinds of religious belief and hopes for the happiness of the after-life.
Nevertheless, people of the Primitive, Ancient and Medieval Paradigms continued
to live among them. In all aspects of life, there remain manifestations of the
four paradigms competing with each other. The same phenomenon can be found in
the beliefs and the practices of the members of all religions.
The supreme criterion of goodness in the modern paradigm is reason, which
is used to convince people according to the epistemology of pure philosophy.
This is the criterion for all kinds of judgment and evaluation.
"Reasonableness is always right, and unreasonableness is always
wrong".
5. Contemporary Paradigm: We come now to the critical mind, which
characterizes the fifth or contemporary type of human capacity and comprises
analysis and evaluation. The aim of our project is to train our students in
these two valuable capacities during their undergraduate education, so that they
may develop and effectively use the critical mind in their further study and
especially in their daily life. In so doing they can act responsibly in all they
do or think of doing, this will lead them to the authentic happiness according
to reality, both for themselves and for all their neighbors.
With the critical mind as our tool, we shall proceed to analyze how to
use the adaptive capacity to control our creative capacity which, though very
dangerous, is not bad in itself. Under appropriate control, it yields marvelous
benefices, if we can control the creative capacity so that it can create safely
and beneficently, instead of cutting short the creative endeavor for the naive
reason that "it is dangerous," it can proceed to consider the
following points:
- Effects of the creative capacity
- Causes of war and peace
- Formation of detachment.
For our present purpose, we
shall limit our considerations to the second point. Once we come to the
conclusion that another world war would risk the total destruction of humanity
and the earth, we must find a way to prevent it effectively because we cannot
allow even one more risk. We must immediately identify the sufficient cause of
war so that we may tackle the right problem. By the capacity of our critical
mind we find that it is attachment. We find further that all the four previous
paradigms belong to the same category -- philosophy of attachment -- that is,
when an opinion is confirmed right, then all the others must be wrong. The
followings are the sequences of attachment:
Attachment begets
Division
Division
begets
Competition
Competition begets
Distrust
Distrust
begets
Annihilation
Annihilation begets
Fighting and War
It is not surprising, then, that the whole course of the history of
mankind is full of wars and fightings. It is a pitiful observation that the
whole of human history has seen only one fortnight of global peace -- only
fourteen days with no record of any fighting between nations. It was the special
fortnight after the explosion of the atomic bomb over Nagasaki.
So, if we could eradicate attachment from human minds, it would be like
throwing the cause of war into the flames, or cutting the invading fire at the
wind head, as a Thai motto says. By so doing, we hope to end wars, fightings and
quarrellings from the roots. Detachment will replace attachment, thus:
Detachment
begets Division of
Responsibility
Division of
Responsibility
begets
Collaboration
Collaboration
begets Trust
Trust
begets
Mutual Understanding
Mutual
Understanding
begets
Peace
We conclude, then, that if we
want peace we must eradicate attachment.
CONSEQUENCES
1. After the two World Wars, philosophy paid special attention to
dissolving the attachment in human mind. It tried to present a variety of topics
to plant doubts in the mind of the new generations. Kant's philosophy has been
presented largely as an analysis that leads to doubting the truth-value of our
experiences and knowledge. Other ideas have also been proposed, for examples,
that the straight line may be longer than the curved one, the rocket that runs
straight away may come to the starting spot, etc. Our actual curricula seem to
persuade our students to doubt and shun attachment.
2. After some time, the campaign seems to be too successful: the new
generation becomes more and more detached, but as a side effect, many become
skeptic about the new education. There are signs of longing for the old days and
the utopia of a paradise lost. However, philosophically speaking, we can by no
means return to and promote the philosophy of attachment; the consequences would
be so disastrous that it is worth risking a new way out.
The important side effect of extreme detachment is the confused mind
whose symptoms are worrying without reason, dissatisfaction with life, spleen,
and finally suicide. There is a great gap between generations. The old
generation, understanding neither itself nor the new generation, blames the new
generation and tries to draw it back to the old standard. The new generation,
likewise understanding neither itself nor the old generation, perseveres with
obstinacy. Both generations, misunderstanding the real causes of the gaps, and
misunderstanding each other, regretfully miss the solution of the problems. As
the primary cause of all these affairs is philosophy, so the authentic solution
must be philosophical.
3. Some suggest transcendental intuitionism as the solution, reasoning
that as we are not clever enough, but have to believe the clever persons who
reach transcendental intuition. We have to accept them with devotion, commit
ourselves to them and put all their teaching into practice with a firm
conviction that our masters are correct. This way, in fact, helps many to cure
themselves from confusion and hesitation, but it cannot solve the problem of
society. If the schools remain small, usually they have no problem, but as soon
as the schools become great, they beget jealousy and panic. The reason is that
this way leads back to attachment, trading attachment to persons for attachment
to thoughts. The consequences repeat the same process: attachment, division,
competition, distrust, annihilation and war.
4. Some suggest pragmatism as the solution, that is, competing for
practical efficiency. Many in our days can avoid being worried by becoming
competing salesmen. They try to reach the target and even to go beyond the
target. They can, in fact, avoid being worried, but after some time, many of
them become stressed and have to cure themselves. This surely is not the right
way to solve the problem of stress.
5. Some suggest solving the problem by the "Three Dares
Principle": 1) dare to encounter the problem, 2) dare to evaluate the
solutions, and 3) dare to act with responsibility. However this principle has to
be implemented humbly, otherwise one may lack human relationship and fall out
with others.
6. The last and the best way is dialogue. This way is slow but sure. It
opens the way to all kinds of goodness. It encourages the collaboration without
requiring agreement, and it creates an atmosphere of detachment in place of
attachment.
7. Peace is to be firmly established on the basis of mutual
understanding, by accepting the fact that men have different gifts, different
ways of doing good, different reasons for doing good. Following the principle of
"Unity in Diversity," or better still "Diversity in Unity"
means always to praise all forms and all reasons for doing good.
8. We hold the principle of detachment, but are not attached to it; in
practice we hold:
In necessity, unity,
In contingency, liberty,
In totality, charity.
Philosophy: the
Source and Center of Globalized Culture
There is a serious problem at the level of graduate studies for the
topics of human knowledge are subdivided into so many tiny branches that the
branches lose contact with one another. Many scholars may be compared to the
foresters who, though walking in the forest, do not see the forest for the
trees. Some see only one species of trees, some see only the leaves, some see
only the trunks, some others see only the soil, etc. In reality all these topics
are correlated. If all these scholars, while concentrating themselves on the
tiny topics of their interest remember that each tiny topic forms a part of the
whole and has relation with all other topics of knowledge, their dedication
might bring more benefits to humanity and the human race might be safer.
Philosophy, being taught and learnt in a proper way, will help the
students effectively to see the correlation of subjects in an easy way, for
philosophy is the origin and source of all subjects of knowledge, either
directly or indirectly. All the applied branches of contemporary philosophy
follow up the progress of all branches of knowledge using pure philosophy as the
common core of their investigations. As all branches of knowledge are derived
from philosophy and all aspects of human civilization are influenced by the
philosophy of their period, any change in philosophy also affects the
development of every branch of knowledge from their roots. In the opposite way,
the difficulties that arise from the field of application may inspire new
question leading to philosophy and finding a better way out.
Question
Answer
Question
Answer
Question
Answer
This figure tells us that philosophy of humanity progresses through
questions and answers. Each new answer leads to the change of all human
activities, resulting in progress in all aspects of a culture.
CONCLUSION
Humanity has come a long way through trial and error. We have tried every
mode of distrust only to see it fail time and again. Still, it is not easy to
convert people from distrust to trust. Only by deliberately engaging in breaking
down the walls of distrust can we open the way to the trust on which friendship
is based. History has brought us to the brink of a "high-tech" global
society. In the past those focused on worldly powers competed among themselves
for the upper hand. Those dedicated to the Kingdom of the Good in the name of a
true love are the very contradiction of such competitiveness. How did the former
manage to awaken to the error of competitiveness before the latter? They learned
how to join forces to exploit those dedicated to the good. The latter still are
so divided, so bent on competing with each other, that they make themselves easy
prey and even collaborate in the destruction of others who should be our allies.
How can this be?
The pressing task is to learn how to collaborate with sincerity rather
than to continue to compete in building the Kingdom of God (which I equate with
the Kingdom of the Good, or in Thai expression, the Kingdom of Dharma). We need
both a kenosis and a metanoia. Kenosis means emptying
oneself of the "old man" with its timeworn way of loving what is like
us and competing with what is different from us. This emptied self can then be
filled up through a metanoia to open eyes to a new way of seeing: the
contemporary way or paradigm. With this new outlook, we can become a "new
man" that sets no limits on love. "If you love only the people who
love you why should God reward you? Even the tax collectors do that" (Matt.
5:46).
Only in this way can a truly enriching sharing come about, for
Detachment
begets
Division of Responsibility
Division of Responsibility
begets
Collaboration
Collaboration
begets
Trust
Trust
begets
Mutual Understanding
Mutual Understanding
begets
Real Peace in all levels
Only then can we expect true and internationally mutual understanding
which is, without doubt, the most valuable fruit that education for peace can
bear. We must begin now to educate the next generation internationally by the
Fifth Paradigm, that is, to rejoice in and for the happiness of others without
discrimination?
All the above considerations cannot be otherwise than a serious program
of education for preparing humanity for the culture of the global village.