[One Sip of a Book] "I Think, Therefore I Am"... Descartes Meant Something Different

Editor's NoteSome sentences encapsulate the entire content of a book, while others immediately resonate with readers, creating a point of connection with the book. Here, we present meaningful sentences excerpted from books.

The author provides an overview of the history of Eastern and Western philosophy at a glance. From the birth of ancient Greek philosophy to post-structuralism, from the origins of Confucianism to Yangmingism, and from Thales and Socrates, Laozi and Confucius to Kant and Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Derrida, the book offers useful knowledge about prominent philosophers from both East and West. The lives, core concepts, representative works, and historical backgrounds of philosophers who established major ideas in Eastern and Western philosophy are clearly summarized.

Philosophy was born as a means to discipline religion, but eventually carved out its own path to fulfill the need and desire for rationality in human society. In this process, philosophy developed a dualistic worldview to address its own complexity. (...) By the twentieth century, there emerged the argument that the dualistic binary structures?linguistic, ethical, and ontological?that had dominated human society should be dismantled entirely, and that a new social structure should be created. Of course, up to this point, countless debates, struggles, and at times violent conflicts had continually occurred. All these intense conflicts were part of humanity's quest to obtain more sophisticated and advantageous guidelines for survival. The very history of this passionate pursuit of truth is the history of philosophy, and the sum of the slogans that led this history is what philosophy is. In this sense, the history of philosophy can be said to be philosophy itself. <Page 16>

People often think of hedonists as decadent individuals who love eating and drinking. However, Epicurus was a person who completely distanced himself from such pleasures. At one time, people even slandered Epicureans as a group who shouted, "You will die tomorrow, so eat, drink, and be merry!" But this was merely a fabrication by the Stoics, who were antagonistic toward them. (...) Epicurus lived by thoroughly suppressing physical desires. He believed that true pleasure lay in freeing oneself from numerous desires and maintaining one's mind in a peaceful state. <Pages 101-102>

According to Mencius, although King Hui did care for his starving people, from the people's perspective, his actions were of little significance. (...) "Is there a difference between killing a person with a club and killing with a sword?"
"In the sense of killing, they are the same."
"Then, is there a difference between killing a person with a sword and causing people to die by failing to govern properly?"
"There is no difference there either."
"Then why are you letting your people starve to death, Your Majesty?" <Pages 186-187>

Xunzi's argument is fundamentally not so different from Mencius's theory of the innate goodness of human nature. Mencius believed that because humans possess the four beginnings?benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom?within their nature, they are ultimately inclined toward good actions. He said that by developing these beginnings and fully embodying them, one could become a sage. On the other hand, Xunzi argued that even if one is born with an evil nature, by observing propriety and law, practicing benevolence and righteousness, and accumulating these virtues, one can also become a sage. Although their views on human nature are opposed, their methodologies for becoming a sage are the same. <Page 196>

However, in "I think, therefore I am," the word "therefore (ergo)" was actually not used by Descartes himself. This conjunction was inserted in the process of translating Descartes's words into Latin. Therefore, it is a mistake to judge that Descartes proved his existence through "thinking." What mattered to Descartes was the fact that "I exist as a thinking being." Through this, he sought to prove the existence of God. <Page 300>

Nietzsche rejected all past ideas, cultures, traditions, and systems. In fact, he viewed everything from the past as an enemy to be destroyed. Therefore, he insisted that Christianity, along with the philosophy, customs, classes, and hierarchies supporting it, must all be overthrown. The phrase that best represents his argument is "God is dead." Since God is dead, everything that was sustained by God has also died. The philosophy that supported God, the history for God, the culture of God, faith in God, the church, customs?all these worlds have died together. (...) Since God is dead, there is now nothing that is true, and everything is permissible. Duty disappears, and only will remains. One throws off the sense of obligation?"I must do something"?and embraces the free will of "I want to do something." This reality, where everything is rejected, is his sense of nihilism. However, this nihilism is overcome through the concept of the "overman." <Page 383>

Levi-Strauss argued that this structuralism could be applied not only to anthropology but to all social sciences. Structuralism is based on the semiotic theory used in linguistics. Just as phonologists in semiotics are interested in which differences in sounds create meaning and which do not, anthropology, the humanities, and the social sciences should be interested in which differences in certain objects or behaviors create meaning and which do not. (...) The statement "Anthropology is merely a branch of semiotics" means exactly this. It is a call for a revolution in all disciplines based on structuralism grounded in semiotics. <Pages 452-453>

A world without difference is a world without individuality, and a world without individuality is a world without individuals, and a world without individuals is a dead world. Within the sameness of binary opposition, things must be different yet the same, opinions must differ yet be the same, and whether something tastes good or not, it must simply be an apple. In this way, the philosophy of sameness leads to the complete loss of individuality by refusing to acknowledge difference. (...) In the recognition centered on the sameness of binary opposition, difference?the essence of individuality?not only fails to be respected but inevitably becomes something to be eliminated. This results not only in the removal of diversity from society, but also in the perspective that the positions and views of minorities or the weak are always regarded as evils to be eliminated. <Page 483>

New Insights into Eastern and Western Philosophy | Park Youngkyu | Gimmyoungsa | 22,800 KRW