Swiftboating Kant: A Buddhist defense

Last updated on: May 2, 2009 at 7:26 pm by Justin Whitaker

Swiftboating Kant: A Buddhist defense 2009-05-02T19:26:00-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Part of my MA dissertation some four years back was a defense of Kant as a potential interlocutor for Buddhist ethics in the current age. Kant, I came to discover, is a mysterious figure.

First of all, Kant was a systematic thinker. That is, he was concerned not just with one aspect of philosophy or another. He knew that ethics must be grounded in metaphysics, which must be grounded in epistemology, which required intimate knowledge of anthropology, and so on. Nothing was to be left outside his thought, for all must be accounted for in true philosophy.

The problem that arises comes not from Kant, but from his interpreters. These brave men and women are usually specialists in but one of these fields and thus examine Kant with exceedingly narrow perspectives. Such interpreters are similar to the proverbial blind men and the elephant, none recognizing the elephant for what it is and all disagreeing about what they’ve found. I sometimes think of them as scientists with a rubik’s cube, each of them looking ever-so closely at just one face of it, arguing about the colors it displays and ultimately, “what good is it, anyway?”

The Irish philosopher and Baroness Onora O’Neill is one of a handful of contemporary students of Kantian thought striving to rehabilitate us from 200 years of Kant-bashing. Another great is Stephen Palmquist, who works in Hong Kong, notable for his “3-perspectives” approach to the Kantian corpus. (he is also organizing the first ever Kant in Asia conference later this month)

These thinkers, and others, see that Kant must be read as a whole. This is contrary to many early (and current) interpreters as well, perhaps, as the style of Kant himself. His writing style suggests an isolated, chunk by chunk aproach to the world, sectioning off and examining closely before moving forward with each step. But a close reading of his early and later works suggests that this isolation and technical examination was always in service of a broader, humanistic and ethical program.

So when we hear that Kant is dry or that his ethics are ’empty formalisms’, we can only say that this is a case of ‘gotcha philosophy’ a swiftboat distortion of the facts using the facts themselves.

If we read Damien Keown’s 1992/2001 “The Nature of Buddhist Ethics” we find one such swiftboat attack, coming from Aristotelian philosopher, J.M. Cooper, who says ‘Aristotle…does not think of moral constraints themselves as imposed on persons without regard for (and even despite) their own good, as Kant…tends to do.’ (p.202) Interestingly, Keown states the Kantian position more correctly elsewhere in his book,‘The relationship between kusala and puñña constitutes the summum bonum of Buddhism in a manner similar to the way in which the conjunction of virtue and happiness is understood by Kant’ (p.126). If we accept Keown’s analysis here it seems that we must reject Cooper’s claim about Kant.

Ironically, this treatment of Kant is much like the Western reception of Buddhism, in which it has been branded as nihilistic, romantic, mystical, atheistic, and so on. As with Kant, the enormous corpus of Buddhist writings makes it easy to cherry-pick those that agree with our temperments or prejudices (either favorably or unfavorably). I cannot claim a comprehensive knowledge of either, but I can say that my experience of both has taught me to be extremely suspicious of “extreme” interpretations of either. And by extreme I mean those interpretations that would have us ignore a significant body of the material. To consider Kant dry and ’empty’ for instance we must ignore his anthropology and work on virtue. Various accounts of Buddhism dismiss it as a philosophy of pessimism – ignoring the 3rd and 4th noble truths, or as rational and empirical – forcing us to ignor or dismiss mytho-cosmological aspects of the texts.

It is perhaps our all-too-human tendency to swing to extremes. It is also perhaps our laziness that urges us to simplify and dismiss other people’s world-views. But a middle way forces us to read sympathetically the lives and thoughts of others, to neither demonize nor bow before any other.

Unfortuntatly, the middle way takes work.

(rubik’s cube image from here)

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 1, 2009

Buddhist environmental ethics

Next Post

May 3, 2009 Race Day

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz