功夫と哲学（メモ）

PEIMIN NI “Kung Fu for Philosophers” http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/kung-fu-for-philosophers/

Ni氏*1はGrand Valley State Universityの哲学教授。既にコメントに答えるかたちでの続篇”Philosophers for Kung Fu: A Response”*2もアップロードされているのだが、こちらの方は後日。
さて、先ず「功夫」＝武術というイメージが蔓延していることが指摘される；

Indeed, the concept of kung fu (or gongfu) is known to many in the West only through martial arts fighting films like “Enter the Dragon,” “Drunken Master” or more recently, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.”*3 In the cinematic realm, skilled, acrobatic fighters like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Jet Li are seen as “kung fu masters.”

燃えよドラゴン 特別版 [DVD]

酔拳 [DVD]

グリーン・デスティニー [DVD]

しかし、「功夫」は武術に限らない；

(…) In fact any ability resulting from practice and cultivation could accurately be said to embody kung fu. There is a kung fu of dancing, painting, cooking, writing, acting, making good judgments, dealing with people, even governing. During the Song and Ming dynasties in China, the term kung fu was widely used by the neo-Confucians, the Daoists and Buddhists alike for the art of living one’s life in general, and they all unequivocally spoke of their teachings as different schools of kung fu.

そして、この「功夫」こそが中国哲学及びそれと西洋哲学との差異を理解するための鍵となるという；

This broad understanding of kung fu is a key (though by no means the only key) through which we can begin to understand traditional Chinese philosophy and the places in which it meets and departs from philosophical traditions of the West. As many scholars have pointed out, the predominant orientation of traditional Chinese philosophy is the concern about how to live one’s life, rather than finding out the truth about reality.

その例として先ず挙げられるのが、『荘子』「逍遥遊」に出てくる胡蝶の夢の話。デカルトの夢とは違って、荘周は自らが“the transformation of things”（「物化」）を被っているを自覚するのであり、”one should go along with this transformation rather than trying in vain to search for what is real”ということを示しているのだという。さらに、孔子のいう「正名（rectification of names）」、孟子と荀子の性善説と性悪説も「功夫」の立場から解釈される――”the views of Mencius and his later opponent Xunzi’s views about human nature are more recommendations of how one should view oneself in order to become a better person than metaphysical assertions about whether humans are by nature good or bad.” そして、”Though each man’s assertions about human nature are incompatible with each other, they may still function inside the Confucian tradition as alternative ways of cultivation.”なのであると。それから、仏教の「無我（no-self）」も「功夫」の立場から解釈しなければならない。

荘子 第1冊 内篇 (岩波文庫 青 206-1)

方法序説・情念論 (中公文庫)

論語 (岩波文庫 青202-1)

荀子 上 (岩波文庫 青 208-1)

荀子 下 (岩波文庫 青 208-2)

中国哲学の言語を「自然の鏡」（Richard Rorty*4 ）と誤認してはならない。中国哲学は西洋哲学に慣れた人には消化困難であるという。そういう人は屡々「鍵となる用語の明確な定義の欠如」やテクストにおける「線形的な論述の不在」に拒絶反応を示してしまう。しかし、用語が明確に定義されていなかったり論理が直線的に流れなかったりすることは寧ろ「功夫のための要件」なのだという――”Only by going beyond conceptual descriptions of reality can one open up to the intelligence that is best exemplified through arts like dancing and performing.” そして、さらに

This sensitivity to the style, subtle tendencies and holistic vision requires an insight similar to that needed to overcome what Jacques Derrida identified as the problem of Western logocentrism. It even expands epistemology into the non-conceptual realm in which the accessibility of knowledge is dependent on the cultivation of cognitive abilities, and not simply on whatever is “publicly observable” to everyone. It also shows that cultivation of the person is not confined to “knowing how.” An exemplary person may well have the great charisma to affect others but does not necessarily know how to affect others. In the art of kung fu, there is what Herbert Fingarette calls “the magical,” but “distinctively human” dimension of our practicality, a dimension that “always involves great effects produced effortlessly, marvelously, with an irresistible power that is itself intangible, invisible, unmanifest.”*5

後半では、西洋哲学おける「功夫」的なものが探られる。Pierre Hadot（Philosophy as a Way of Life）とMartha Nussbaum*6（The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics）によると、ソクラテス、ストア派、エピキュロス派といった西洋古代哲学は「主に良き生を生きるための徳、霊的修練や実践に関心を持っていた（mainly concerned with virtue, with spiritual exercises and practices for the sake of living a good life）」。西洋哲学も初期においては中国哲学と同様に「功夫」としての哲学だったわけだ。その後、西洋哲学は「自然の鏡」を目指すようになるが、それによって、私たちの振る舞いが自明視された哲学的理念によって形づくられているという事実が隠蔽されてしまうという結果を招いているという。
次いで、中国哲学とプラグマティズムの比較；

The proximity between the two is probably why the latter was well received in China early last century when John Dewey toured the country. What the kung fu perspective adds to the pragmatic approach, however, is its clear emphasis on the cultivation and transformation of the person, a dimension that is already in Dewey and William James but that often gets neglected. A kung fu master does not simply make good choices and use effective instruments to satisfy whatever preferences a person happens to have. In fact the subject is never simply accepted as a given. While an efficacious action may be the result of a sound rational decision, a good action that demonstrates kung fu has to be rooted in the entire person, including one’s bodily dispositions and sentiments, and its goodness is displayed not only through its consequences but also in the artistic style one does it.

チャールズ・テイラー*7のコミュニタリアニズムが言及されて、最後はアリストテレスとの比較；

This kung fu approach shares a lot of insights with the Aristotelian virtue ethics, which focuses on the cultivation of the agent instead of on the formulation of rules of conduct. Yet unlike Aristotelian ethics, the kung fu approach to ethics does not rely on any metaphysics for justification. One does not have to believe in a pre-determined telos for humans in order to appreciate the excellence that kung fu brings. This approach does lead to recognition of the important guiding function of metaphysical outlooks though. For instance a person who follows the Aristotelian metaphysics will clearly place more effort in cultivating her intelligence, whereas a person who follows the Confucian relational metaphysics will pay more attention to learning rituals that would harmonize interpersonal relations. This approach opens up the possibility of allowing multiple competing visions of excellence, including the metaphysics or religious beliefs by which they are understood and guided, and justification of these beliefs is then left to the concrete human experiences.

*1:漢字で書くと、倪？

*2:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/philosophers-for-kung-fu-a-response/

*3:See also http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20090810/1249933057 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20091231/1262234609 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20100128/1264605744

*4:See http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20070610/1181486737 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20070611/1181558493 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20070612/1181614433 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20070627/1182955727 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20070708/1183920429 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20070709/1183951338 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20071031/1193800309

*5:Herbert Fingarette Confucius —The Secular as Sacredからの引用。

孔子―聖としての世俗者 (平凡社ライブラリー)

*6:See also http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20080325/1206459982 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20100616/1276631039

*7:See also http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20080217/1203218119 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20080722/1216726112