#the absolute pick of the literati <3 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

saetorimedia · 6 years

Text

Highly popular with Chinese families and business groups, this 198-room hotel showcases the country’s public bathing culture in its extreme. More than 70 public pools congregate in an immense, outdoor hot spring zone, each with a different theme, from the TCM pond to the Turkish Doctor Fish pond to the sizzling Volcano pond.

While city hopping around Shanghai, we decided to take a day or two off and enjoy it in some hot springs as soon as we found out there’s an entire part based around hot springs. We spend a couple of hours finding the right one, some of them are super luxurious and in that case also very expensive. But we found EA Springs, they offer a wide variety of baths for a fair price.

What are hot springs? A hot spring is a spring produced by the emergence of geothermally heated groundwater that rises from the Earth’s crust. While some of these springs contain water that is a safe temperature for bathing, others are so hot that immersion can result in injury or death. However Hot springs are a very regularly visited sight in Asia, the warmth of the water of different degrees is supposed to be good for you health and your skin. There are different types of hot springs, man made baths like EA spring or natural pools as you have them in Iceland.

汤山温泉度假区 Tangshan Hot Spring

Tangshan Hot Spring is the No. 1 of the China Four Major Spas. It is the only hot spring that has obtained double certification from European & Japanese hot spring water quality. Tangshan got its name because of the hot spring. It was regarded as the “Holy Spring” by the emperor of the Southern Dynasty since more than 1500 years ago and was well-received by the officials and literati.

Easpring Tangshan Adress: No. 8 Wenquan Road, Tangshan Town, Jiangning District 江宁区汤山街道温泉路8号; +86 25 51190666; Price: Nightly rate from RMB 580 (US$93.2) plus 15 percent, RMB 100 ($16) per person to enter the hot springs zone for hotel guests, RMB 218 ($35) for outside guests; official website http://nj.ea-spring.com

We booked the room online at booking.com as we always do with any trip we go on. We booked a room in the hotel but when we arrived we were upgraded for the same price of to a small almost private hut on the grounds with our own private pool. As we were visiting the springs in the fall (oktober) it was fairly quiet in the entire hotel. We noticed right away that the springs and the hotel are separate but you pay less for the visit when you stay in the hotel. We already got our moneys worth with our own hot pool in the backyard. We got shown around the room, it had shutter doors which gave it a really chinese feel. The Aji (cleaning lady) showed us in but after we came back to agree to the upgrade the first very well stocked mini fridge was now completely empty. But we still got some complimentary drinks! The small shop in the hotel had only some chips, soft drinks and instant lamian to buy.. and a lot of swim suits of course. But we bought some chips and soda’s since we’d been carrying around our own bottles since they’re super cheap at the chinese carrefour.

Our room

the bathroom and exit to the garden

the small garden

the bath in the garde

Please be aware when you visit this hotel, bring your own food and drinks unless you’re okay with eating Chinese dinner and breakfast or want a snack or alcoholic beverage while in your room!

When we were settled we filled our pool, which was impressive as it pumped really hard and filled up the deep tub in about 5 minutes with scorching hot water. There really is nothing better than sitting outside, looking at the sky and the vegetation around you while sitting in a hot bath, with a cold drink and good company. Just this made me relax beyond believe. We must have sat in it (on and off) for about three hours. (With the sounds of a couple a couple of doors over getting some loving on……..) We let them know however that we could hear the entire thing and it got quiet!

in the bath

during dinner

Afterwards we went to get a bite to eat, people around us we’re in their bathrobes and with wet hair and it just felt really good and relaxed. We picked a hot pot type situation with some vegetables supposedly being cauliflower, however when it came instead of cauliflower it was cabbage. We added the cold meat we ordered separately and ate until we were full. We came back to our room after checking our messages in the lobby, Wifi isn’t working in the hut rooms. Then we sat in the pool for 2 or 3 more hours after refilling it with hot steaming water. We hit the beds after and slept until the sun came up, the beds were comfortable and you could hear birds and the wind around you since we hadn’t fully closed the windows as the weather was good outside.

When the morning came we got ready and had some food to eat, the typical Chinese breakfast. fried rice, meat, pork buns, sweet buns, rice porridge, eggs and more. But after 2 weeks we were really used to it and ate a lot, took some yoghurt cups for later and soon enough got our 24h tickets to the springs and when we went in we were blown away, granted it ended up being two rainy days.

EA springs has around 50 pools and then the 30 private spring pool huts. Every pool has a different temperature and different herbs or ‘flavours’. We got to sit in red wine and coconut milk. They also have a turkish dr fish pool. Which was scary at first because as soon as you step into it what looks like 100s of fish come swimming towards you and start nibbling on your skin. But by the time I was used to the nipping feeling I sat there for almost an hour being eaten alive.

They have 1 large Leisure pool and a couple of mud, salt or heated sand ‘baths’ but you pay extra for these. The staff brings you warm tea every 10 or 20 minutes and you can buy some food. Foods like hot bath boiled eggs and peanuts. When you’re done with the bath they have roman style warm marble floors you can lay on to dry off and they have a relaxing room where you can buy a few more snacks while relaxing in amazing chairs. If you do you have to change into a snazzy silk outfit.

Opinion 8/10 I give this hotel and it’s facilities a 8 out of 10 because, as we were there during a down season, there weren’t many people around. We could take our time and relax completely. The staff besides not speaking english is absolutely friendly and help out with everything. However, there is not much to do around the hotel, no shops or restaurants or even people. There are supposed to be some caves but we had no idea how to find them by foot. Though if you want a relaxed day or two give this hotel a shot. Enjoy any of the 50 baths and if you can upgrade to the private pool hut so you can enjoy the water until the middle of the night.

Would you like to take a relaxing day in China while you travel the country? There is no better place to relax than a hot spring. I visited EA Spring in Nanjing while we were there and highly recommend it! #China #Nanjing #hotsprings Highly popular with Chinese families and business groups, this 198-room hotel showcases the country’s public bathing culture in its extreme.

#easpring #easpring tangshan #hot springs #nanjing #purple mountain #shanghai #tangshan mountain

0 notes

free-mormons-blog · 7 years

Text

Myths and the Scriptures -- Old Testament and Related Studies -- HUGH NIBLEY 1986

Myths and the Scriptures

A student confronted for the first time by classical and Oriental myths that read like reruns of well-known Bible stories—such as the garden of Eden episode and the Flood—often goes into a sort of shock, emerging from which he announces to family and friends that he has just discovered a fact of life: the Bible is just a lot of mythology.

Such a conclusion may be the result of a faulty approach to the Bible as well as to the myths. The first thing to do in such a case is to apply cold packs and calm the student down, pointing out to him that such deeply religious writers as Dante and Milton not only were aware of many parallels between Christian and pagan lore and imagery, but also freely mingled the two together in constructing their faith-promoting epics.

Some of the earliest religious writers were edified by the Egyptian Phoenix, and the later Fathers of the traditional church diligently catalogued those heathen myths and doctrines that most closely resembled their own beliefs as proof that the gentiles had always pirated the true teachings of the prophets and patriarchs.

The idea was that the Egyptians had picked up a lot of stuff from the Israelites during the latter’s sojourn in Egypt, and of course the Egyptians got it all mixed up. Also, since Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham had all left writings behind long before Moses, it was only to be expected that in times of apostasy their teachings, in contaminated form, should fall into profane hands.

There is a good deal to be said for this theory, for the myths and rites of all the ancient world, if traced backward in time, do show a marked tendency to conform more and more to a few basic themes and to converge on a limited geographical area as their apparent place of origin. But whatever the real explanation, there is a very real relationship between the biblical and the worldwide pagan traditions. There has been no question of proving that such a relationship existed; however, there has always been the neglected task of showing just what that relationship is.

This sensible and promising line of approach to the problem of mythology and the Bible has been vigorously rejected by the modern clergy, by professional scholars, and by the literate. Three points bear elaboration here.

1. The clergy, Christian and Jewish alike, have insisted before all else on the absolute originality and uniqueness of the teachings of Christ and Moses respectively, laboring under the strange illusion that if anything coming from any other source shows a close resemblance to those teachings, the claims of the founders to originality and hence to divinity are in serious jeopardy.

A close resemblance between biblical and nonbiblical teachings and practices is necessarily a “suspicious resemblance.” Theologians have worked out their own theory of communication between God and man, which they have strictly limited as to time and place, allowing no latitude whatever for the possibility of anything occurring that is not accounted for in the Bible.

Indeed, the Fathers of the fourth century insist that we may safely assume that whatever is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible could not possibly have occurred—ever or anywhere.

The present-day insistence, especially by the Catholics (though vigorously challenged by the brilliant Jesuit Hugo Rahner), on the absolute originality of Jesus is the result of total rejection of the idea of dispensations. If we know, however, that the gospel has been on the earth from time to time ever since the days of Adam, then it is easily understandable that recognizable fragments of it should be seen floating around in sundry times and places.

But “dispensationism” has long been anathema to the clergy. Hence their hostility to the Apocrypha, their marked coolness to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and their hot denunciation of Joseph Smith for giving the world ancient writings that not only resemble the Bible but also lay claim to the same inspiration while widening, the horizon of God’s covenant people to include times and places heretofore undreamed of.

2. Professional scholars, who as a matter of course reject the whole idea of inspired writings, have been as reluctant as the clergy to recognize resemblances between the myths and legends of various parts of the world as being anything but the purest coincidence. The reason for this is departmental pride. For example, a Celtic or Semitic scholar may very well know more about Greek than I do; but if Greek is my one and only field, I may still turn up my nose with a great show of scientific skepticism and technical superiority, and categorically refuse to consider even the possibility of a relationship between the documents I can read and the documents I cannot read.

A dazzling demonstration of this type of precious myopia was the century-long refusal of Egyptologists to acknowledge any connection whatever between Israel and Egypt (they used it as an argument against Joseph Smith), though links and ties confronted them at every turn. When Erman finally showed beyond a doubt that an important piece of Egyptian wisdom literature also turned up in the body of Hebrew wisdom literature, he was almost ashamed of his discovery and never followed it up.

Secular scholars, on the other hand, have been quick to take any resemblance between heathen traditions and the Bible as absolute proof that the scriptures are simply ordinary stuff. The classic example of this was the Babylonian flood story, discovered by Layard in the mid-nineteenth century. It resembled the biblical account closely enough to show without doubt that they were connected, but before any search for the source of either version was undertaken, it was joyfully announced that the biblical account was derived from the Babylonian and was, therefore, a fraud. The experts were wrong on both points—the Assurbanipal version is really a late redaction, and the duplication of the flood story, instead of weakening it, actually confirms it. Indeed, if there really were a universal flood, it would be very strange if memories of it did not turn up in many places, as in fact they do.

3. Most students learn about ancient myths from teachers and textbooks of literature by way of the late classic poets to whom the myths were little more than literary playthings. A student cannot understand “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” without knowing something about the many myths that cluster about the figure of Theseus, but the teacher’s only concern is to put the student in the literary picture, and for that a trip to the handbook suffices.

For the student of literature, the myths are but handy aids to the writer, useful devices for achieving decorative or erudite effects, as they were once the paint and gilt of decadent poetry. Since the day of Augustus, the literati have had neither the desire nor the equipment to look beneath the surface.

Hardly worth mentioning at this date is the nineteenth century Wissenschaft, which inevitably explained everything as “nature myth”—primitive man’s reaction to his natural environment. The ancient Sophists played around with that idea, naively assuming, as did the scholars and scientists of a hundred years ago, that any reasonable explanation for a phenomenon that they could come up with would necessarily be the true and correct answer—how could it be otherwise if it was a strictly rational conclusion free of all superstition and religion? It was an impressive exhibition of scientific gullibility, but it is not taken seriously today, now that we know a lot more about ancient myths than we did.

In recent years the early myths have acquired a new status and dignity. A steady accumulation of comparative studies tying this to that and these to those now crams the stacks of our libraries. Spread out before the mind’s eye, their myriad pages interweave into a grandiose texture, a vast shadowy tapestry in which we begin to discern the common backdrop of all history and religion.

But the books are still sedulously segregated and widely distributed among the floors and alcoves of the library, and to bring them all together into the one organic whole from which they were taken is a task that will yet tax the capacity of the computer. Meanwhile, we must imagine the pieces of this huge jigsaw puzzle as heaped in separate piles, each representing a special field of study or cultural area, from Iceland to Polynesia. To date no one has taken the trouble to integrate the materials in even one of these hundred-odd piles; and as to taking up the whole lot and relating every pile to every other, so far only a few bold suggestions have come from men of genius like G. Santillana, Cyrus Gordon, or Robert Graves, whose proposals get chilly reception from specialized scholars who can only be alarmed by such boldness and appalled by the work entailed in painting the whole picture.

But such study as has been done shows us that the old myths are by no means pure fiction, any more than they are all history. As the Muses told Hesiod, “We know both how to fib and how to tell the truth”; and, as Joseph Smith learned of the Apocrypha, “there are many things contained therein that are true, and there are many things contained therein that are not true” (see D&C 91)—all of which means that we must be very careful in accepting and condemning.

Today, formidable task forces of first-rate scholars and scientists are working on the Atlantis problem, whereas a very few years ago anyone careless enough to express interest in that question was announcing his candidacy for the asylum. The world that “deepbrowed Homer” was supposed to have conjured up out of his own head has in our own day taken on flesh and blood, and today we read the novels of Marie Renault or Robert Graves with a feeling that Theseus or Heracles were probably real persons who did at least something like the deeds attributed to them.

If we attempt to untangle the probably historical from the fanciful, we soon discover the common ground on which they meet and fuse: it is ritual. Myths arise at attempts to explain ritual doings, whose meaning has been forgotten—”What mean these stones?” After much discussion back and forth, the consensus now emerges that it is the rites and ordinances that come first. This should have been clear from the outset, since myths and legends are innumerable while the rites and ordinances found throughout the world are surprisingly few and uniform, making it quite apparent that it is the stories that are invented—the rites are always there.

Such indeed has always been the Latter-day Saint position. Adam first performed an ordinance and when asked to give an explanation of it replied that he knew of none “save the Lord commanded me.” (Moses 5:6.) Then it was that the true explanation came forth from the mouth of a heavenly instructor.

But if in later times members of some distant tribe, having inherited the rites, were asked to explain them, they would have to come up with some invented stories of their own—and that would be myth. It is in their contact with ritual that history and fantasy share a common ground and mingle with each other.

Take the model heroes Theseus and Heracles, for example. We know that they are ritual figures because they repeatedly get themselves involved in well-known ritual situations. Thus each in his wanderings is not once but often the guest of a king who tries to put him to death, forcing the hero to turn the tables and slay the host or his officiating high priest in the manner intended for himself. The nature of this business is now well understood, thanks to hundreds of similar examples collected from all over the world and from every century, making it clear that we have to do with an established routine practice of inviting a noble, visiting stranger to be the substitute for the king—on the throne, in the favor of the queen, and finally and all too quickly on the sacrificial altar—thus sparing the king himself the discomfort and inconvenience of being ritually put to death at the end of a sacred cycle of years. This exotic little drama was more than a fiction; it was an actual practice, surviving in some parts of the world down to modern times, but flourishing with particular vigor in the Near East around 1400 B.C., the period to which most of the Greek myths belong.

Since, as we have said, myths are invented or adjusted to explain ritual, the two are naturally identified, and hence any event reported in a myth is customarily dismissed as purely mythical. But that won’t do any more, because such strange ceremonial events actually did take place, regularly and repeatedly.

Ancient civilization was hierocentric—centered around the temple. The everyday activities of farming, trade, and war were all ritually bound to the cycle of the year and the cosmos. The great periodic rites were of a dramatic nature, but they were none the less real: a coronation is the purest ceremony, yet for all that it is still real recorded history; a war or migration, though only too real to its victims, would be carried out with strict ritual propriety, according to the religious rules of the game. It is hard for us to understand this ritualizing of history, but once it was a very real thing, and one can still find it miraculously surviving among the Hopi.

So when the ancient myths from all over the world show us the same situations and the same adventures and monsters recurring again and again, we may look upon this endless repetition not as discrediting the historicity of those events and situations but as confirming it. These myths tell about such things happening because that was the type of thing that did happen, and the ritual nature of the event guaranteed that it should happen not once but over and over again.

Nothing illustrates this principle better than the long-despised (by scholars and clergy) and neglected book of Abraham. Since we have chosen Theseus and Heracles as our archetypes, we may well consider the most spectacular and celebrated stories of how each escaped from his inhospitable host. The last and worst actor that Theseus had to deal with was Procrustes, whose notorious murder bed has become proverbial. Was there such a bed? A century ago the Egyptologist Lefebure noted that there are quite a number of old traditions around the eastern Mediterranean about kings who built cruelly ingenious altars, sometimes mechanically operated, usually of metal, and shaped like beds, on which they would put to death their noble guests.

In 1859, B. Beer pointed out for the first time that Abraham belongs in the old Procrustes tradition, noting that the wicked Cities of the Plain where Abraham was given a bad time all had in their central marketplaces ritual beds on which they would sacrifice strangers by stretching them out if they were too short and whacking them off if they were too tall to match the exact length of the bed. This, of course, is the celebrated Procrustes technique, and Beer duly notes that Procrustes’ other name, Damastes, has exactly the same meaning as Sodom—the “Forcer” or “Violator.” Furthermore, Beer reports early traditions telling how Eleazer, when he went to represent Abraham in those cities, appeared there in the exact form and stature of Abraham and narrowly escaped being put to death on such a bed. So we have Abraham on the altar as another Theseus or Heracles, surprisingly sharing the fate of the great patriarch of the Athenians!

But Lefebure also notices that Theseus and the bed of Procrustes have a close counterpart in the story of Heracles’ most famous and sensational escape. This took place not in Greece nor in Asia, but in Egypt, at the court of Pharaoh. The Greeks regarded this as the first and oldest example of the oft-repeated royal sacrifice of an honored visitor, the archetype of them all, and they always located it in Busiris, which actually was from prehistoric times on down, the most celebrated and venerated center of human sacrifice in Egypt.

Egyptologists do not doubt the reality of a periodic sacrifice of the king of Egypt in early times, or the practice of drafting a substitute (preferably a noble, redheaded stranger) to take his place, first on the throne to establish his identity with the king, and then on the altar. So we have a three-way tie-up, and a very firm one, in which Theseus is related to Heracles as an intended victim on the famous “cruel altar” of a desperate and designing king. The same Theseus is also related to Abraham in a like situation by the peculiar name and nature of his evil host Procrustes. And Abraham in turn is tied to Heracles as the intended but miraculously delivered victim on the altar of a pharaoh of Egypt.

What are we to make of these three heroes? Do their stereotyped adventures cancel each other out? On the contrary, they confirm each other as long as we recognize that the reality that lies behind them is a ritual reality. The book of Abraham is particularly strong on this point, making much of the awesome ceremonial nature of the doings in which the patriarch as a young man got himself dangerously involved. We are dealing with well-established routines of which nothing was known a few years ago.

Recently someone has noted that mention of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham is to be found in the once widely read Bayle’s “Dictionary” as early as 1732 and suggested that that is where Joseph Smith got the story. But all Bayle says on the subject is that there is a rabbinical tradition “that he was cast by the Chaldeans into a fire, from which he emerged unscathed,” with the usual stereotyped observation that the story arose from a misreading of his escape from “Ur,” Ur meaning both “Ur” (the city) and “fire.”

And that is the whole story—no mention of any altar, let alone a description of deliverance by the angel accompanied by the disastrous earthquake and other details that any reader of the book of Abraham knows about. Bayle mentions the rabbis but gives us no references whatever. All this is preserved in early Jewish tradition but was not published to the world before 1859, and the really significant documents did not first see the light until within the past twenty years or so. Actually, Joseph Smith’s account of Abraham is a highly unoriginal story, one that can be documented from a hundred parallel sources. But nobody in Joseph Smith’s day knew anything at all about that story or dreamed of putting Abraham in the mythical picture where he fits so nicely. The story is in every detail an authentic myth, describing an authentic ritual, and as such is to be considered seriously as authentic history.

Another example. To the Babylonian flood story and the Greek myth of Deucalion (the Greeks made much of their forefather Japetus—Japheth), Joseph Smith added yet another tale of the deluge, which he boldly attributed to the Egyptians. It was the story of a great lady who came to Egypt just after the flood, found the land still under water, and “settled her sons in it,” establishing the monarch by matriarchal right. (Abraham 1:24.)

It was not until the second decade of the present century that H. Junker gathered together the widely scattered Egyptian documents that told the same story preserved by the Egyptians since the beginning of their history by being ritually dramatized every year in a great national water festival. This episode from the book of Abraham is, like the story of Abraham on the altar, a perfect little vignette, placed with unerring accuracy in its proper ancient setting.

In conclusion, like those rare elements in deserted mines and dumps that miners and prospectors have hitherto ignored but that now promise great riches, the riches of mythology, so poorly worked in the past, still await the serious exploitation made possible by new skills and techniques.

There is no telling what wonders may be brought to light simply by bringing together new combinations and associations of documents already in our possession. But from the few hesitating steps that have been made so far, it already appears that the ancient myths, wherever they turn up, have a tendency to fit together into the same picture, supporting and confirming each other due to the solid ground on which they stand—the reality of ritual, by which history becomes a religious phenomenon—as is markedly the case in the annals of the Pharaohs. This leads us to conclude that there is a serious historical reality behind the myths as a whole, in spite of the adjusting and romancing that sometimes effaces them almost beyond recognition.

The myths thus provide us with a new and powerful tool for searching into hitherto inaccessible recesses of the past. Though the use of this tool has barely begun, it has already given us a useful means of checking up on the revelations of Joseph Smith, showing us that what were thought by some of his critics to be his wildest stories, the purest figments of his imagination, turn out to be mythological commonplaces, overlooked by generations of scholars and clergymen.

NOTES

* “Myths and the Scriptures” was published in the October 1971 New Era, pp. 34—38.

0 notes

studioacs-blog · 7 years

Video

youtube

Zhuangzi: a philosopher of nature; some comparisons with Kant

“In the North Sea, there was a fish called Kun, with the length of thousands of miles. Kun transforms into a bird called Peng, and its back spanned thousands of miles.” In the first chapter of Zhuangzi [1], Zhuangzi painted the ‘sublime’ picture of the mysterious creature of immense figure, that uses wind or the ocean to move freely. Yet Zhuangzi sought the ultimate meaning of being free, which refers to not being dependent on any objects in one’s existence and knowledge.

Despite not having an explicit concept of ‘the sublime’, Zhuangzi[2], the philosopher, scholar and romanticism literati from the Warring States period of China[3], pursued tirelessly the concept of the vastness and infinity of nature and life. Zhuangzi’s school of thought is comparable to Hume’s, in that it did not consist of a systematic building such as works by Plato, Aristotle or Kant (Hansen, “Zhuangzi”). Zhuangzi combined the Daoist metaphysical focus with epistemology when he was examining the world (Augustin, 2011). He was the supporter of core principles of Daoism,[4] such as Wu Wei[5], but what made him distinctive among the Hundred Schools of Thought enlightenment movement[6], was that he takes a naturalistic and “anti-humanistic” approach[7]. Zhuangzi was considered to have laid down the foundation of Chinese Aesthetics[8]. His philosophies also inspired the integration of Chan Buddhism[9] in China a few centuries later.

From a first glimpse, Zhuangzi and Kant could not be more different: Kant stresses individual transcendence, while Zhuangzi is concerned with natural immanence (Nelson, 2011). They both envision the concepts of freedom, harmony and balance (Nelson, 2010), yet Kant focuses more on the senses and experiences of humans, and talks about freedom of humans from nature. Zhuangzi proposes fusing the existential human experience with the nature, and blurring the lines between the truth of being, and the “reality of a dream”[10].

However, there are also a few similarities between Zhuangzi and Kant. For instance, the discussion of the sublime, is also implanted in the Daoist mysticism and expressed as a metaphysical reality[11]. In many occurrences, Daoism mysticism is used to deal with what is referred to as the fearful unknowingness of fate, the cosmos, and the nature.

In the west, we had Socrates who discussed the possibility of afterlife[12]. The Daoist way of treating the sublimity of life (and death) is more pessimistic, as Zhuangzi puts it, the matter of life and death is ‘as natural as sky turning bright and dark’, transformable and insignificant. Daoism implies that the highest form of enlightenment is recognizing life and death as ‘futile’, simply transcending the awareness of them (Smullyan, 1977). Hence, when we look at Zhuangzi’s discussions of nature, we can interpret it as a conceptualization of the sublime, an idealization of the uncanniness, something that is without origin or ending, concept or form.

Zhuangzi and Kant also had similarities in their judgements of aesthetic. They both consider it a subjective thought, and both focus on the psychological analysis of the subject. Kant considers the beautiful to be what pleases universally without a concept, or purposive without purpose (van den Braembussche, 2009). Thus, “a stuff that has work to do” is not in the range of judgement of beauty (Kant,1952). Zhuangzi suggests that the spiritual pleasure only makes sense when it is no longer being suppressed by the material gain, and people should get rid of substances to achieve ‘absolute freedom’ (Coutinho, 2004). In comparison to Kant, who dives into the pure forms of beauty constructed by “sense experience, understanding and feeling”, Zhuangzi considers the virginity and unknowingness of nature as the pure and the beautiful, and he constantly talks about Wuhua, the merging of self with the nature[13].

Once, Zhuangzi and his friend, philosopher Huizi had a debate over the joy of fish in the river. Zhuangzi stated that the fish were happy, but Huizi questioned how he could have known that when he was not a fish himself. Zhuangzi answered, “you are not me, how do you know I cannot know the joy of fish through my own joy?” Zhuangzi rejected the rational and dogmatic reasoning, and resorted to imaginative abilities of men, exploring the possibility of transcending the boundaries between human and non-human existence, and in some way, this resembles the notion of a priori intuition proposed by Kant. However, when Kant considers the human perception shaped by space and time, the “a priori forms of sensible knowledge” (van den Braembussche, 2009), Zhuangzi employs skepticism, more specifically, a “sense skepticism” with regards to the validity of one’s sensed realities (Ivanhoe, 1993).

This essay shallowly picks up a few fragments of this magnificent school of thought to compare to Kant’s, yet there are other western philosophers who have been compared to Zhuangzi, such as Nietzsche, Hegel, or even Huxley. We invite you to check out the links below, as well as seek more thorough researches online. (825 words)

[1] 逍遥游 (Wandering in Absolute Freedom), also translated as “Free and Easy Wandering” or “Going Rambling Without a Destination”, is the first chapter of Zhuangzi, an anthology of texts of the philosophy school lead by Zhuangzi. This is one of the earliest texts that contributed to the philosophy of Daojia, or school of the Way, and later influenced the development Daoism as a theology and secular philosophy / religion. Consult this Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry http://www.iep.utm.edu/zhuangzi/#SH3a for more summaries and interpretations of this particular chapter, or any other interesting contents of Zhuangzi (note: this chapter consists of mainly mythical and metaphorical writings, whereas later chapters focus more on actual ideas and conceptualizations).

[2] Zhuangzhou, often known as Zhuangzi, was born around 369 BC and died around 286 BC. He was born roughly around a century after Confucius’ death, but nevertheless established his status among the flourishing Schools of Thoughts. Unlike many other scholar turned politicians of his time(advisors), Zhuangzi only ever secured an official position once, as a low ranked county clerk. One would think being an official at all is completely against Zhuangzi’s beliefs, but according himself it was the perfect balance between earning a bit of money to get by, and enjoying his freedom.

[3] Eastern Zhou dynastic periods of ancient China, was divided by Spring and Autumn period (dating from approximately 771 to 475 BC), and the Warring States Period (475 to 221 BC, until first unified empire of China was established, known as the Qin Dynasty).

[4] It is difficult for us to summarize Daoism (also known as Taoism), the school of the Way, but a 7”31’ YouTube video of explanations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcQcwPAiMwI might provide you with some basic principles. And this text by the Met Museum is one of the best and clear introduction of Daoism and Daoist art, if you are interested in learning about the historical context and positions of Daoism before and after Zhuangzi: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/daoi/hd_daoi.htm

[5] Wu Wei (无为) is one of the core principles of Taoist living, mainly stressing ‘the concept of non-action and non-interference with the natural order of things”. This philosophy is deeply rooted in the making of Chinese culture and the way of thinking and doing for Chinese people, for more than two thousand years.

[6] The enlightenment movement, The Hundred Schools of Thoughts, occurred during the Warring States Period mentioned above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSfM3bYL0q8 this 6”30’ video briefly the 3 contending foundational schools of thought: Confucianism / Ruism (Confucius, Mencius, etc.), Daoism (Lao Tzu, Zhuangzi, etc.) and Legalism (Guanzi, etc.). Besides representatives for each of these systematic philosophies, there are many other scholars who propose different ideas and form their own schools, such as Mozi, Huizi, Sun Tzu, etc.

[7] More critiques on this ‘misinterpretation’ of Zhuangzi’s seemingly anti-humanistic philosophy, please read the marvellous and thorough chapter of ‘China, Nature, and the Sublime in Kant’. The author also criticises Kant to be ‘racist’ when it comes to Chinese philosophies and that he was not “getting” Daoism. https://philpapers-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/archive/NELCNA.pdf

[8] “Is there such a thing as Chinese Aesthetics?” Check out p.96 of this journal: http://www.journals.vu.lt/problemos/article/view/10357

[9] “By the fourth century A.D., a distinctly Chinese form of Buddhism emerged that was harmonized with the ancient teachings of the Daoist sage, Lao Tzu. It became known as Chan Buddhism and it had some similarities to the more widely recognized Japanese variation, Zen Buddhism.” Read more about the developments of Chan Buddhism here: http://www.dharmalounge.net/chan-buddhism-the-secret-and-sublime

[10] A quote by Zhuangzi says, “One who dreams of drinking wine may in the morning weep; one who dreams weeping may in the morning go out to hunt. During our dreams, we do not know we are dreaming. We may even dream of interpreting a dream. Only on waking do we know it was a dream. Only after the great awakening will we realize that this is the great dream.” http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chuangtz.html (web page of quotes from Zhuangzi)

[11] In Daoism, there are a lot of mythical elements presented as “truth”, or “reality”, in order for people to understand that the life they are experiencing right now, is not the only truth or reality. The depth of this topic though is extremely hard to explain, here is a podcast of some discussions (around 14”) if you would like to be inspired https://youtu.be/rcvqZYeb_x4

[12] Interesting and well-made video on philosophers’ perspectives on death (crash course philosophy) featuring Socrates, Epicurus, and Zhuangzi! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjQwedC1WzI (9”)

[13] To better understand Zhuangzi’s conception of ‘merging with nature’, here is an intriguing and representative tale about Zhuangzi’s butterfly dream, briefly introduced by this dude (4”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t-IVCI1KHk

Along with the poem about drinking and dreaming in note 10, these are two of the most representative instances of ‘dreaming’ in Zhuangzi. Zhuangzi takes a normative and relativist approach in constructing realities / imaginaries. In an Ivanhoe (1993) essay, the two texts are analyzed more in detail: https://www-jstor-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/stable/1465056

References:

Augustin, B. (2011). Daoism and Daoist Art. Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved from http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/daoi/hd_daoi.htm

Coutinho, S. (2004). Zhuangzi and early Chinese philosophy vagueness, transformation and paradox. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hansen, C. (2017). “Zhuangzi”, In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/zhuangzi/

Ivanhoe, P. J. (1993) Zhuangzi on Skepticism, Skill, and the Ineffable Dao, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 61(4), pp. 639-654. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/stable/1465056

Kant, I. & Meredith, S. J. C. (1952). The Critique of Judgement. Translated with Analytical Indexes by James Creed Meredith. Oxford.

Nelson, E. S. (2011). Kant and China: Aesthetics, Race, and Nature. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 38: 509 - 525. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.eur.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2011.01672.x/full

Nelson, E. S. (2010). China, Nature, and the Sublime in Kant. In S. R. Palmquist (ed.), Cultivating Personhood: Kant and Asian Philosophy (pp. 333-348). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Retrieved from https://philpapers-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/archive/NELCNA.pdf

Smullyan, R. M. (1977). The Tao is silent. New York: Harper & Row.

van den Braembussche, A. (2009). Aesthetic judgement: The legacy of Kant. In Thinking Art (pp. 111-137). Springer.

Brought to you by

Roxi Cui (343428): ruoxi.cui[at]gmail.com

Na Dong (384429): monana931020[at]gmail.com

#literature #philosophy #aesthetics #submission

0 notes