Nausea and etc.

After a long interval, last weekend, I read "Nausea" written by Jean-Paul Sartre, in 1938, again. But this time I quitted to read soon. I felt it is ridiculously no-interesting. I've read it to write a paper about French Philosophy at university and I think I was enjoyed it. Like the author admitted later in life of him, the book was written with young and narrow views.



I found there were many memos I made in the book. Reading it, I found that I was far younger and that I didn't have many thinking of ways. I think I didn't find myself at that day. However, I also found that I desperately tried to find out what myself is from view point of French philosophy and found that I had failed. Moreover, I had to suffer because I had to make a paper for the class of History of Western philosophy though. :-)



The essential qualities of the book would be an identity crisis. Although the central character found existentialism that his existence come before a concept that what he is, it is also an identity crisis from my view point. Although the central character is 30 years old or so, and it is same as me, I think he is an immature person. I remember I wrote "Even though he found his existence come before concept that what he is, it is also what he is. He didn't find what he is, he just choose what he is.". As to this point, I agree with me who was younger than now. I don't have skill to gouge something more importan though. Like Jean-Paul Sartre said in later life, existentialism is a result of selfish thinking chopping off existence from circumstance. The reason the central character lost his importance of existence is philosophical nature of the God that he doesn't exist, Europeans have been facing. There is nothing special in what I say though.



As my impression, "Death of the God" is similar to that kids say "Santa don't exist". But, as they say, I think Nietzsche didn't mean it, rather he lamented "Death of the God" because he thought the God is origin of moral and ethics. It seems many European philosophers thought so. Once a European philosopher talked on the relation between moral and the God in Japan. Then he was criticized. If the theory is true, it means Japanese don't have moral. Japanese think there are moral between horizontal relationship. Of course, there are many theory and it is more complex than I say, but it is/was a major opinion among Japanese philosophers. 和辻哲郎(Watsuji Tetsuro) is representative of it.



As to recent trend of Japan's moral study, it seems philosophers tend to think moral is in relation between nature and human. It is not new, but basis of Japanese culture. Just we are turning back to the original thought as people in present. I think the philosophy which theorizes the interpretation of the world is Buddhist philosophy, not as a religion. That is, Japanese philosophy. Buddha should be the nature itself and should be the philosophical fact itself because it is the truth. Philosophical fact should be nature itself as long as philosophy is finding what human is. Needless to say, Buddhist philosophy should not be inconsistent with science. The way of dental treatment is also Buddhist truth. :-) Results of DNA research is also too. What nurse understand about patients are also the buddhist truth. Those truths are called as 世俗諦(Sezokutai in Japanese) by buddhist which means secular truth. "Buddha" means the person who realized the truth. Perhaps other country's Buddhism also think so. As for me, I always have skeptical view about Buddhism and others.



Basically I think things we have to believe is untruth on the ground of philosophy. As to the word "philosophy", as far as I know we don't regard Christian thought as philosophy in Japan. It is called as scholastic philosophy. Although I'm not sure the what is the border between scholastic philosophy and philosophy, perhaps philosophical logicality without believing is vital factor of the difference. If it lack the logicality, it is "thought". As to buddhist philosophy, it is also different from philosophy, it is not so much philosophy as "Darsana". Darsana(this is sanskrit word) means "way of viewing". Philosophy(哲学) is seeking truth, as a definition by Japanese philosophers and I use it. Darsana and philosophy have similar nature. And Buddhist thoughts like cycle of rebirth would be regarded as thoughts.



Unfortunately, I don't have skill to explain about deep world of buddhist philosophy in English. If I can write about it in Japanese, I can explain far more but everybody would be bored. :-) Although I want to explain about "中論(Cyuuron)" written by Nagarjuna and "唯識思想(Yoga buddhist philosophical thought) of 世親(Vasubandhu), I don't know how to explain in English. I will have coined too many my original words.



I think some people would think "then how buddhist meditation involves with the philosophy?". I think I should mention one more important thing that philosophy is not experience itself. That is, it is just a words. Words(Concepts) and real are different. We can't reach the truth only with words. Words are just a tool to explain. We need to joint the two. The cement is philosophy of religion which think of firsthand experience.



When we discuss about the firsthand experience, Christian faith and Buddhism become closer. In some senses, Japanese philosopher 西田幾多郎(Nishida Kitaro) tired to integrate even Christian faith into Buddhist philosophy. Although he would be killed if he lived in mediaeval Europa, I want to mention about him but to be continued later.



Well, I suppose the three monotheistic religions and Buddhism would changed in a thousand years. Buddhism like religion would be world wide as long as we think much of logic. Conversely, I may not expect from any religions. I wrote this blog without a plan, I hope what I wrote will be understand without misunderstanding.



I took the photo at a store. It is a お内裏様(Odairi-sama) of Hinaningyou(a doll for Girls' Festival).