1. If you were "confronted with apparent contradiction,"(pg 45) would you try to seek the Middle Way or would you insist on debating for the "correctness of one belief vs another"? Which approach do you think is better when making a decision for the society?
2. "We might expect to find differences in: Beliefs about controllability of the environment, with Westerners believing in controllability more than Easterners."(pg 44, 45)
Do you agree with this statement? Explain why or why not using examples.
3. On page 41, it says that "・・・the history of Europe had created a new sort of person-one who conceived of individuals as separate from the larger community and who thought in terms of imbued with freedom."
Give an example of a historical event in Japan which affected the characteristics of the personality of a Japanese individual.
Group Leaders:
Saori Matsuoka
Yoko Hanaki
Ayaka Yahagi
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
[2]Yes, I think it is possible that there will be differences in people`s beliefs about how much the environment can be controlled. However, I don`t think that this comes just from a difference in their ways of thinking, but instead has its roots more in geographic conditions. Do you know about the “Coefficient of River Regime”? It is a barometer used to measure how much the amount of water flowing through that river changes over the course of an year. This ratio is decided by dividing the maximum amount of water that flowed through a river by the minimum amount. When the number you get for a certain river is high, you can see that the amount of water which flows through that river changes a lot in an year. This is a serious matter when you need to control the flow of water. This number has a tendency to be high in Eastern Asia, and low in Europe. For example, the Line River, which is the boundary line between France and Germany, has a number of 8. You may be surprised to hear that the maximum amount of water which flows through the Line River is 8 times more than its minimum amount, but you will probably be even more surprised when you hear that the number for the Shinano River, which flows through Niigata and Nagano and is the longest river in Japan, is 130. These sorts of differences in environment are probably one large reason influencing the differences in thinking about nature. Rivers in Europe are usually easier to use for the benefit of humans. It is easier to travel on them, and you can rely on their flows to stay more or less consistent. I also think that people have had an inclination to live where there were rivers that they could utilize. People in Europe would have tried to find a river best suited for living, and although I am sure that Chinese people would have done more or less the same, it would have required much more work for the Chinese to be able to use the river beneficially. Because of examples like this, I believe that there are differences in the way Westerners and Easterners think, but I think that you cannot simply state that the difference in their perceptions about controlling nature came from the difference in the way they each looked at the world. Their differences in opinion about the controllability of nature may have been one factor that helped to shape the differences in the way they perceived themselves and their social world, but it may not have been, as Nesbitt mentions on page 45, something that followed the differences in habits of mind. He seems to be treating the differences in people`s beliefs about the controllability of nature only as a result of his hypothesis, and not a factor that he can consider. There is no concrete proof yet (at least up until chapter 2) that a difference in social structure was the only factor that had an effect on Eastern and Western styles of thought. There may be a difference in the way Chinese and Greeks think, and there may be a difference in the way they perceive nature and how much they can control it. However, it feels like Nesbitt has the order of things the opposite way around. If people`s beliefs about the controllability of nature had any relation to the differences in people`s perception of the world and themselves, it seems more natural for the former to have an influence on the latter, and not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteIn brief, I share neither eastern nor western way because the solution sometimes lies in the middle.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in Europe or America, there are a profusion of talk show programs in which people argue about everything. Most of them are simply meaningless and it is not even worth discussing about. In fact, in any case, they never come to the conclusion because they even do not listen to each other, otherwise too busy to think over what to say next. Such a never- come- to –the-conclusion talk might be one of the funniest parts in western culture, then, nobody realizes that nobody listens to nobody.
However, I do not champion the eastern way either, such as seeking the Middle Way. The best example is the most of Japanese politicians. They behave like add school girlies who are too abstract to make people understand what they really want to achieve. In reality, the eastern solution “Seeking the Middle Way “sounds very aesthetic, on the other hand, such a dummy instruction simultaneously.
Besides, the author inclined to generate every single matter in an extremely polarized way, namely East or West. (Although I do know what his intension of the book is.)
Even though I definitely agree with the predominant ideas of the author, this kind of “white-or-black thinking” reminds me of some of typical teenagers who merely has limited life-experiences, hence, cling to their own biased ideology, which is often wrong, and even dangerous. Then, those of all people tend to become someone tainted with prejudice as far as I know.
In summary, the balance between eastern and western must be the key point, blending the positive sides of both, namely asserting what each of us truly thinks and finding out a mutual understanding. Therefore, my answer lies just between them. It is enough to compare both of them. I rather think it is time for us to shift to this new type of solution à la Eurasian.
（１）Although I know that “concluding in the middle way” does not always solve the root of a problem, I often find myself seeking for the middle way in order to make things smooth. However, I think the balance between the two, “insisting on the correctness of one’s belief vs. another” and “finding means to resolve disagreements” is important in society. I once read that Japanese are poor in discussing about and solving things where the arguments differ from one another. I think this is because as Nisbett argues in the book, Asians emphasize harmony, therefore debates and discussions that have many opposing opinions are more likely to stagnate, which often results in finding the middle way (sometimes a wise decision but one that can lack substantial resolution.) On contrary, generally speaking, the westerners are more familiar with debating and arguing for the correctness for one’s belief. However, in real life things are rarely black-or-white. Therefore, this western way can lack possibilities for alternatives or end with an extreme solution.
ReplyDeleteThus, I consider that the combination of the Western and Eastern way of handling controversies is important and efficient for the society. For example, through the Western style, one can bring the discussion to a deeper point and examine the fundamental aspects of the problem and afterwards, through the Eastern way, one can look for compromises and alternatives to settle the discussion.
2)I think the statement "The Westerners believe in controllability more than the Easterners" is no longer true. This statement is commonly said and I even remember that I had memorized a theory thought of by Tetsurou Watsuji called "fuudoron". According to this theory, East Asians have a monsoon type of thinking which means they take a passive attitude towards nature and tolerate the phenomenons caused by it. Westerners, on the other hand, take a defiant attitude and do not obey nature. This might have been true in the past, but not the present. In fact, it may be the other way round now. This can be seen from the actions taken toward global warming. The Westerners have already realized from mistakes in the past that humans can not control nature. For example, the acid rain caused forests in the northern parts of Europe to die off. Therefore, they are the ones that try to control the energy used by humans. However, Easterners have not experienced a mistake serious enough to make them consider the energy that they are wasting. Therefore, Easterners do not take much action to prevent global warming. This tendancy can be seen especially in China. In the international meetings, some countries tried to make China reduce the energy it consumes, but they would not listen. As seen from this example, the statement that Westerners believe in controllability more than the Easterners is not true.
ReplyDeleteAs I was typing this, I became more and more unsure if what I was saying made any sense. I am sorry if it does not.
to Miyuki Shinohara
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point on the importance of combining the Eastern and Western way of handling problems. I tend to seek the middle way when I'm trying to settle things down, but there are times when I feel that seeking the middle way isn't the best solution to the problem. As you mentioned above, the middle way can "lack substantial resolution", and it may not necessarily change the situation. In those cases, I believe that it is meaningful to debate over the correctness of one's belief and have discussions with people who have different opinions.
[2] I agree that westerners believe in controllability more than Easterners do. As Yuto argues, I think difference in beliefs about controllability of the environment comes from a geographic condition.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Watsuji Tetsuro, a moral philosopher, climatic differences affect people’s character. In the west, it dries in summer and rains in winter. The dryness in summer disturbs weeds to grown thick in the ranch which makes it easier for peasants to care the land. This obedient nature of the west farm makes people in the west believe that they can control anything including the environment. In the east, on the other hand, monsoon brings heavy rain, storm, and floods, and at the same time it brings wonderful summer sun, vigorous plants, and rich foods. This bipolar nature in the same region makes people in the west fertile in acceptability and patience. If you endure harsh season, you will be rewarded by nature.
I think that Westerners’ controlling character can be seen in a colonial policy that was taken place hundreds years ago. Westerner colonized and controlled Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia as if they are a ruler of the world. This historical attitude of westerners makes me feel that Westerners believe in controllability more than Easterners do.
1.
ReplyDeleteWhen faced with a difficult situation or when one needs to make a choice, sometimes it is easier to rely on the "Middle Way" to lead us to the answer. Of course it is important to acknowledge the fact that "Middle Way" exists for a reason. The majority believes in the "Middle Way", so why wouldn`t it be right?
This may be straying away from the "Middle Way" concept but if the strongest belief is believed to be the "right" belief, that could be dangerous.
When making an important decision for the society, it is neccesary for people to think and question and evaluate every solution so that they can come to the best decision. A decision like that will affect everyone, not just the majority. One needs to keep an open mind. As an alternative, it is important to consider the "Middle Way" point of view. So, like Miyuki and Saori said, the balance between the two is important when making a decision for the society.
[3] I studied the history of Japanese writer and journalist Raityo Hiratsuka at junior high school. She led the activities for Women’s rights toward the end of the Meiji period and founded the New Women’s Association which demands the freedom of women in politics. She is just one of the many who strived to gain the rights of women. People were suppressed because they were women and that was the way people lived in societies at the time. I think Raityo Hiratsuka was indeed convinced that individuals were separate from a group, and that she had strong ideas of liberty for those individuals. Raityo Hiratsuka’s characteristics were not affected by a particular event, but by the way life existed in Japan in the Meiji period.
ReplyDelete[3]
ReplyDeleteI think one reason that personalities in Japan is more harmonious compared to the West is the fact that Jaoan was greatly influenced by China in the history. Chinese are brought up to respect the elderly and seniors. Japan may not be so strict about these traditions, but I think it is true that many Japanese cultures were brought from other Asian countries.
To Emma
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on that point. It is true that many Japanese cultures were brought from other Asian countries such as China, and that therefore there are many similarities between Japanese culture and ones in other countries. It is very interesting to see similarities and sometimes differences between them.
To Yu Kominami
ReplyDeleteI had thought that Japanese people tend to conceive of individuals as part of the larger community rather than as separate from it. But after reading your comment, I realized that there were many who conceived of individuals as separate from the larger community as well, like Raicho Hiratsuka did.
To Madoka Kubota
ReplyDeleteIt is true that sometimes it is easier to rely on the Middle Way when finding the solution. And as you pointed out, when making a decision for the society, it is important to question and evaluate every solution, not just try to seek the Middle Way. So I think the balance between the two is important in making a decision for the society, too.
3.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is an historical event, but I have heard that because Japanese were farmers, they had to stay in groups, and they couldn't respect what the individual had to say. Because you can't farm alone, people had to make schedules as groups and give out tasks to each people so they can make something as a group. That is why Japanese still tend to stay in groups. However, because there has been much influence from the West since the 1900s, Japanese has learned to stand up for your own beliefs and act on it. For example, the university students protesting during the 1900s shows that people are standing up for their beliefs and trying to change something.
1)I think Middle way approach is better decision to make for the society. I’m sure that to debate for the correctness is important for individual; however, if it is for the society, I think it is essential to resolve the disagreement of the contradiction. Each person has own point of views and it is impossible that all people share same opinions. Therefore, to insist on debating for the correctness of the truth can cause confliction. Also, when sharing belief, it is impossible to judge whether that belief is correct or wrong, so I think it is important to compromise to find means to resolve the disagreement.
ReplyDelete(3) There once was a time when all Japanese thought they were the best and the strongest race of the whole world. However, of course, it was one of the worst mistaken ideas that Japanese had embraced in their mind. The fact that Japanese had won Russo-Japanese War had caused many Japanese to overestimate the world powers such as United States. The main purpose of Russo-Japanese War was to compete for dominance of Korean Peninsula between Russia and Japan. At that time, Russia was the most powerful country, and also had France for their back up. On the other hand, Japan was just one of the little island countries in Asia. This situation made even greater influence to Japanese when they had actually beaten Russia, and when the news had spread to the whole world making everyone shocked and amazed. This increased their desire to colonize all Korea and China. Therefore, Japanese had invaded a lot of Asian countries, and soon after, the most disgraceful event was given rise, Manchurian Incident. This incident had brought about Sino-Japanese War, and hence World War 2, which, in other words, ruined Japan as a country because of each individual’s arrogance. In conclusion, overconfidence was one of the main characteristic which every one of Japanese had had in their mind in the early 20th century.
ReplyDeleteto Hanna Otani
ReplyDeleteI think it is true that the attitude of Easterners towards the environment have changed in recent times. In the past, the theory of Tetsuro Watsuji might have been true. As Yuto mentioned in his comment, the characteristic of the rivers in the Western and Eastern regions had influence on the people’s attitude towards the controllability of nature. Because the rivers in Europe were more easily used by humans, they tended to believe in the controllability of the environment more than the Easterners, who lived by rivers which frequently caused floods. However, advancements in technology had made Easterners capable of being able to control nature, for example, constructing dams to prevent floods, and I think that Easterners no longer consider nature as something that is too powerful for them to handle.
I disagree with the statement that Westerners believe in controllability of the environment more than Easterners. For example, people today are trying to prevent global warming. It is not just the westerners who are doing this.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of control may differ in each country because the environment is not all exactly the same. However, all countries have climate changes,air and water pollutions, disruptions of nature,etc. These are caused by human activities and they are achieved to desired conditions by humans. Therefore, I think that it is not just the Westerners who take control of the environment nowadays but it is the humans that do.
To Emi Arakawa
ReplyDeleteI think your opinion that the Japanese became to have a characteristic of staying in groups because they had to farm together is true. However, I don't really think Japanese people now have learned individualism. For example, you used the university students protesting as an example. In that affair, some people claimed their own opinion but most students attended the protest didn't have their opinion and simply obeyed the order of the day to be in majority. I think the Japanese have still have strong tendency to obey opinion of the majority.
To Yuka O'hara
ReplyDeleteAs you said, in the world today, human being can't live without changing and controlling the environment. However, I still think Asian people are less believing controllability of the environment than Westerners. For example, in India, profound pollution of the Ganges River is a big problem because many people believing in its ability to wash away dirt and inpurity so deeply that these people only turn a deaf ear to the voice trying to stop the pollution and keep polluting the river by throwing garbage into the river. I think this is good example of an affair made by the fact people in Asia have believed in and been fascinated by the grandeur of nature, so they can't notice that they have such strong controllability of the environment though they have that.
To Chisato Nakao
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that Middle way approach is better in making decision for the society. If it can come true, nothing is superior to being able to feel satisfied their life. However, I afraid that this way can be done only in a quite small society without big problem. In reality, We don't have enough time to make the compromise every one can agree with. Such big society as Japan or Kanagawa prefecture, if we made decision in this way every time, the problem will get worse while we are trying to make decision.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo Misa Takehira
ReplyDeleteI think your explanation using the climatic difference of the east and the west. By the way, you said that the colonial era implies the Westerner's belief in their controllability. However, Chine had also occupied wide area of the Asian as the "central country",hadn't it? Doesn't this means that Chinese people also have controlling character? I'll be glad if you'll answer to my question.
(1) I prefer to “reason together”, like Meiland said in 1-13, as a third justification for why reasons matter. This way, we could polish the likelihood of truth, by critically examining the opinions raised. However, then the conclusion of this debate should not end in either side or just in one answer. We then further discuss how we can apply evenly, in other words, in“Middle Way” so that everyone can be thoroughly involved. Otherwise, whatever the answer is, there will be some people who become left out. For example, helping the homeless to get jobs and houses is a middle way solution to achieve removing them from the streets, parks, and subways. If this is just done by chasing away the homeless people, it would not satisfy them but the public, which is not a comlete solution.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, “Middle Way” is the representation of the Group Harmony, an idea from the Eastern culture, which is where I was brought up.
3),
ReplyDeleteSince the end of Edo period, the idea of Western Individualism had gradually spread out. Yukichi Fukuzawa, who founded Keio University, said that a country can finally be independent after each citizen get independent. This words encouraged a lot of young Japanese in Meiji period when Japan got the most affected by the West. Not only Fukuzawa but also so many intellectuals such as Soseki Natsume considered the idea of individualism as an essential notion for Japanese. The shift of subjects in Japanese literture from Edo to Meiji and Meji to Showa is very interesting to see also. Many of litersures after Meiji write on conflicts between individuals and authorities.
To Haru Yabumoto
ReplyDeleteI think the shift of Edo to Meiji is very interesting to see too. Under the Edo Bakufu, Japan took the Sakoku policy, and for a long time, foreign relations and trade were strictly regulated. However when this period ended and the Meiji period started, more and more Western ideas began to spread throughout Japan. I think the Meiji Restoration was an important event which had great influence on the personality of a Japanese.
To Yoko Hanaki
ReplyDeleteI think that's a good point. It's true that Chaina occupied wide area of the Asian, and that can be meant Chinese people also have a controlling character. However, I think most of the people in the world have a controlling character. Japan once tried to controll Asian countries in the name of The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. I think people make an action of controlling if they have enough money and ability. What I wanted to say was that Westerners believe in controllability more than Easterners do in that they tried to expand their domain not only in Europe but also in Asia, Africa, and south America. They carried out no matter what cost it takes. This Westerners' controlling character may comes from climatic condition, as Watsuji describes. For above reasons, I think Westerners' controlling character is much stronger than that of Easterners'.
[1]If I were "confronted with apparent contradiction",I think I would try to seek a middle way.Although, if it were for the society, I cannot say that it is the best thing to do.Seeking a middle way is to compromise.When you compromise, you have to give up some of
ReplyDeletethe good part of both opinions, so it means that the decision you make is not the best that you could make at that time.Like when politicians discuss important topics that relates to citizen's life, politicians have to insist on debating on what they think is right, even though he would make enemys by doing so.
To Miki Kawate
ReplyDeleteI think I often try to seek a middle way when I am confronted with apparent contradiction as well. But as you said above, seeking a middle way is compromising. In politics, it seems the best way not to seek a middle way but to insist on debating. By discussing like that, politicians could make what is seems to be the best decision.
(1)
ReplyDeleteI would choose to take the 'Middle way', if I am confronted with contradictions. Although I do not think this is always the best choice to make. The 'Middle way' sounds safe and reliable. If the choice turns out to be negative, there would be less damage if we take the 'Middle way'. I still believe that it is good for the society because it is a way of compromise and many people will agree with it. The 'Middle way' keeps the harmony in the society. However, I think that debating for the "correctness of one belief vs another" sometimes yields positive results and a absolute solution. Always choosing to take the 'Middle way' in the first place is unadventurous and it will discourage people to have debates. The 'Middle way' could be better but it may not be the 'best' way in some cases.