Based on a
book by William DeWitt Hyde published originally in 1904.
The five great philosophies are Epicurean, based on atomic theory and
with emphasis on pursuit of pleasure; Stoic based on the psychological principle
of apperception with emphasis on self-control; Platonic based on universal
ideals and cardinal virtues with emphasis on subordination; Aristotelian, based
on empiricism with emphasis on sense of proportion and practicality; and Christian
based on the spirit of love.
Epicurean philosophy is about leading a “simple life” of “pleasure” based
on the observation that all of us want to be free of pain and fear. Pleasure is
defined as “the absence of pain in the body and trouble in the soul”. What is emphasized
is not on blind pursuit of pleasure, but on an attitude of the mind which
focuses on what is immediately at hand, prudence and moderation in everything.
It also emphasizes not getting hung up on the results. One can see a similarity
to the teachings of Gita in the emphasis on moderation in effort and also on
“accepting what comes”.
It says: “Do not hurry; do not worry”. There is “no useless regrets of
the past; nor profitless foreboding for the future”. These are also similar to
some of the Vedic and Buddhist teachings.
Although the attitude of the mind recommended by Epicureanism leads to
relaxed life, not pursuing wealth and fame, it is also self-centered. It is
somewhat similar to the Caravaka system of India. Its biggest weakness is that
it treats other lives as means to one’s pleasure.
According to Dr.Hyde, some famous proponents of Epicureanism are
Herbert Spencer and Walt Whitman. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism is a
variant of this philosophy.
Stoic philosophy says that external facts, possessions and experience get
their value from the way we respond to them. Sensation and associated
experiences come from without; ideas and reactions come from within. We cannot
control the external factors which follow universal laws. Health and wealth
affect us all differently because we react to them with our inherent patterns
which are different. But, we can unlearn. We can learn to accept reality.
Stoics emphasize self-control and change of attitude to external events. In
this, this idea is similar to the modern day version of Cognitive-Behavior
psychology. But, this attitude is to apply to oneself and not to impute to
others.
Stoics teach us how to accept vicissitudes of life by surrendering to
the Universal Law. Some of the proponents of stoicisms are Epictetus, Aurelius
and Matthew Arnold. They taught us “the secrets of that hardy virtue which
bears with fortitude, life’s inevitable ills”.
The weakness is that unconditional surrender to one’s fate takes away
the incentive to change things that can be changed. One can see the similarity
to some of the Vedic teachings.
Philosophy of Plato deals with the worth and the relative value of things.
It says that it is virtue that determines how far one goes to seek pleasure and
avoid pain. Pleasure and pain are good up to a point. “What is the point? What
is the limit? Virtue is the point up to which the bearing of pain is good, the
limit beyond which the bearing of pain becomes an evil”. Virtue is the supreme
goal and whatever makes it attainable is good, whether it is pleasurable or
painful. Whatever hinders that virtue is bad, whether it is pleasurable or
painful. Virtue has to be practiced for its own sake, not expecting rewards or
honors; in spite of hardships. The philosophy is very similar to that of Gita
and actually favors asceticism.
What are some of those
virtues? What makes them virtues? Plato talks about righteousness and
unrighteousness – both in the “republic” (the state) and the individual. In the Republic, unrighteousness is “….each
of the great classes in the state – working men, capitalists, police,
politicians, scholars – are living exclusively for themselves and are ready to
sacrifice the interests of the community
as a whole to their private interests.” In a righteous state each one of
these classes will be working towards the welfare of the whole. Good or bad, righteousness or
unrighteousness, virtue and vice of actions are defined by their ability to
contribute to the welfare of the whole. It is the sacrifice of the whole for
its parts which constitutes vice.
When these ideas are
applied to the individuals, Plato defines the actions by their driving force –
was it driven by appetite, spirit or reason?
None of them should be allowed to dominate. Any one of them acting alone
ignoring the interest of the “self” as a whole (the whole person’s welfare) is
“bad”. This is where Reason comes
in. Reason has to bring in balance
between appetite and spirit.
That particular form
of virtue “that results from the control of the appetites by reason in the
interest of the permanent and total self is temperance”. One needs fortitude
to control the spirit’s “inability to bear a transient, trifling pain patiently
and bravely for the sake of the self as a whole”. The third virtue is Wisdom which “consists in the supremacy of reason over appetite and
spirit; just as temperance and courage consists in the subordination of
appetite and spirit to reason”. In
essence “Virtue and vice are questions of the subordination or insubordination
of the lower to the higher elements of our nature, of the parts of ourselves to
the whole”.
Righteousness consists of the three cardinal virtues – temperance,
courage and wisdom, as noted earlier. At the level of the state, it “consists
in each citizen doing the thing to which his nature is most perfectly
adapted…….with a view to the good of the whole”. In an individual, it consists
“in having each part of one’s nature devoted to its special function: in having
the appetites obey, in having the spirit steadfast in difficulty and danger,
and in having the reason rule supreme”.
Plato goes on to
describe the four stages through which a state can degenerate, if there is no
harmony or righteousness. Those stages are: ambition, democracy (defined as a
state where each citizen does what he pleases), tyranny and aristocracy!
The weakness of this
view is that it favors acts based on an ideal which is not practical in this
world. It leads to asceticism and other worldliness. Indeed this view is close
to the mysticism of the east (and of the west) and Neoplatonism of early
followers of Christianity such as Boethius and Plotinus.
Aristotle’s philosophy relates all of our actions and thoughts
to means, ends and social context. He rejects the epicurean idea of pleasure
since it does not pay attention to the welfare of the individual or of the
society as a whole. He rejects the stoic principle of “surrendering to the laws
of nature”, since it gives no scope for the worth of the individual and human
effort. He was not a follower of Plato, his own teacher, and his ideas of an
ethereal “supreme good” and the “ideal”, but prefered concrete and practical
ideas to live in this imperfect world.
Aristotle was closer
to the Vedas when he said that effect is in the cause. Happiness is the effect
if one performs his functions and duties with a view towards “permanent
personal interests” and “wide social ends”. “Goodness does not consist in doing
or refrain from doing this or that particular thing. It depends of the whole
aim and purpose of the man who does it, or refrains from doing it”. “It is not
what one does; it is the whole purpose of life consciously or unconsciously
expressed in the doing that measures the worth of the man or woman who does
it”. Finally, “Virtue and vice reside exclusively in the will of the free
agent”.
Aristotle’s first doctrine is that “we must work for
worthy ends”. It equally important that
the means with which we gain those ends are used wisely – just as much as need
to aim the noble end, not too little, not too much. This is the doctrine of the
“mean” in discussing the instruments required to function. In Aristotle’s own
words, “By the mean relatively to us, I understand that which is neither too
much nor too little for us; and that is not one and the same for all”. What is right for one man in one set of
circumstances may not be right for another man in another set of circumstances.
In these, the teachings are so similar
to the concept of Dharma, flexible to time and context.
In order to get this,
Aristotle emphasized knowledge for its own sake, “for only he who knows how
things stand related to each other in the actual world, will be able to grasp
aright the relation of means to ends on which the success of the practical life
depends”. This is the driving force
behand all modern advances in science.
Wisdom is the next requirement and also courage to
follow the means once the end has been determined. These virtues can be acquired by repeated
practice like any other art or skill.
“You must do the thing before you know, in order to know how, after you
have done”. In Aristotle’s words: “We acquire the virtues by doing the acts, as
is the case with the arts too. We learn art by doing that which we wish to do
when we have learned it; we become builders by building, and harpers by playing
on the harp”.
The fifth system covered in
this book is Christianity. The
essential teaching of Christianity, according to this author is Love, and the
humility that goes with it. The “love” taught by Jesus is not the word with its
current meaning(s); but “the outgoing of the self into the lives of others”,
particularly to the meek and the poor (as is shown by the current Pope). The
“negatives” of the early teachings of the prophets (such as the Ten
Commandments) as to what to avoid and what the prohibitions are, were converted
into a simple, “positive” value – that is LOVE. If you carry Love in your
heart, those prohibitions become unnecessary.
“Treat both others and yourself as their place and yours
in God’s coming Kingdom require……All things, therefore, whatever ye would that
men should do unto you”. We come to this same spiritual place if we accept that
He or It is in you and me, and both of us have the same predicaments and needs
in life and your life is sacred, and so is mine. How can I hurt you without
hurting a part of myself? How can I not make you happy, without making myself
happy?
Besides, “Law and
institutions are made for men, rather than men for institutions and laws; and
the instant an old law ceases to serve a new need in the best possible way,
Love erects the better service into a new law or institution, suspending the
old. Any law that fails to promote the physical, mental, social and spiritual
good of the persons and the community concerned, thereby loses Love’s sanction
and becomes obsolete. Law for law’s sake, rather than for the sake of man and
society, is flat denial of Love” says the author of this book. This statement supports placing morality over legality and
covenant over contract, in human interactions.
Love implies reverence
for the other. It “is kind to the evil and the vicious and magnanimous to the
hostile and the hateful”. It does not make fuss about its sacrifices. It is
given to all of His creatures, expecting nothing in return.
