Wabi-Sabi and spiritual exercise

The explicit formulation of an aesthetics in the Western sense only started in Japan a little over two hundred years ago. But, by the Japanese aesthetic we tend to mean, not this modern study, but a set of ancient ideals that include wabi (transient and stark beauty), sabi (the beauty of natural patina and aging), and yûgen (profound grace and subtlety). These ideals, and others, underpin much of Japanese cultural and aesthetic norms on what is considered tasteful or beautiful. Thus, while seen as a philosophy in Western societies, the concept of aesthetics in Japan is seen as an integral part of daily life.

The Japanese aesthetic ideals are most heavily influenced by Buddhism. In the Buddhist tradition, all things are considered as either evolving from or dissolving into nothingness. Koren says that this 'nothingness' is not empty space. It is, rather, a space of potentiality. Let me use an analogy, if we take the seas as representing potential then each thing is like a wave arising from it and returning to it. There are no permanent waves. There are no perfect waves. At no point is a wave complete, even at its peak. Nature is seen as a dynamic whole that is to be admired and appreciated. 

Wabi-sabi is the aesthetic defined as the beauty of things "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete" (Koren, below). Things in bud, or things in decay, as it were, are more evocative of wabi-sabi than things in full bloom because, like the falling cherry blossom, they suggest the transience of things. As things come and go, they show signs of their coming or going and these signs are considered to be beautiful. In this, beauty is an altered state of consciousness and can be seen in the mundane and simple. The signatures of nature can be so subtle that it takes a quiet mind and a cultivated eye to discern them. 

In Zen philosophy there are seven aesthetic principles for achieving Wabi Sabi:
Fukinsei: asymmetry, irregularity; 
Kanso: simplicity; 
Koko: basic, weathered; 
Shizen: without pretense, natural; 
Yugen: subtly profound grace, not obvious; 
Datsuzoku: unbounded by convention, free; 
Seijaku: tranquility.

Each of these things are found in nature but can suggest virtues of human character and appropriateness of behaviour. This, in turn suggests that virtue and civility can be instilled through an appreciation of, and practice in, the arts. Hence, aesthetic ideals have an ethical connotation and pervades much of the Japanese culture.

As can be seen from the above list, in the Zen tradition Yūgen is just one of the components of Wabi Sabi. Nevertheless, it is an important separate concept in traditional Japanese aesthetics and strongly informs the notion of Wabi Sabi. 

The exact translation of the word depends on the context. In the Chinese philosophical texts where the term was taken from, yūgen meant "dim", "deep" or "mysterious". Yugen suggests that beyond what can be said but it is not an allusion to another world. It is about this world, this experience. 

" To watch the sun sink behind a flower clad hill. 
To wander on in a huge forest without thought of return.
To stand upon the shore and gaze after a boat that disappears behind distant islands.
To contemplate the flight of wild geese seen and lost among the clouds.
And, subtle shadows of bamboo on bamboo." 

All of these real-world experiences are portals to yugen.

(Zeami Motokiyo) 

Zeami was the originator of the dramatic art form, Noh theatre, and wrote the classic book on dramatic theory (Kadensho). He uses images of nature as a constant metaphor. For example, "snow in a silver bowl" represents "the Flower of Tranquility". Yugen is said to mean “a profound, mysterious sense of the beauty of the universe… and the sad beauty of human suffering”.

Wabi, sabi, and yugen refers to a mindful approach to everyday life reminiscent of the mindfulness in the arts. 

Geidō refers to the way of the traditional Japanese arts: Noh (theater), kadō (Japanese flower arrangement), shodō (Japanese calligraphy), Sadō (Japanese tea ceremony), and yakimono (Japanese pottery). All of these ways carry an ethical and aesthetic connotation and appreciate the process of creation[9]. To introduce discipline into their training, Japanese warriors followed the example of the arts that systematized practice through prescribed forms called kata - think of the tea ceremony. Training in combat techniques incorporated the way of the arts (Geidō), practice in the arts themselves, and instilling aesthetic concepts (for example, yugen) and the philosophy of arts (geido ron). This led to combat techniques becoming known as the martial arts (even today, David Lowry shows, in the 'Sword and Brush: the spirit of the martial arts', the affinity of the martial arts with the other arts). All of these arts are a form of tacit communication and we can, and do, respond to them by appreciation of this tacit dimension.

After the introduction of Western notions in Japan, Wabi Sabi aesthetics ideals have been re-examined with Western values, by both Japanese and non-Japanese. Therefore, recent interpretations of the aesthetics ideals inevitably reflect Judeo-Christian perspectives and Western philosophy. 

Koren (below) says that “The immediate catalyst for [his] book was a widely publicized tea event in Japan. ... It suddenly dawned on me that wabi-sabi, once the preeminent high-culture Japanese aesthetic and the acknowledged centerpiece of tea, was becoming—had become?—an endangered species …”

I agree with Koren wholeheartedly and his book is an important contribution to the literature. 

Wabi-Sabi: for Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosopher by Leonard Koren

Wabi Sabi is best thought of as looking upon nature in itself as a spiritual exercise. The photographs throughout the book are a clue as to where to look but they are not the thing itself: put the book down and go out and look.

Acknowledgement:
Much of this review is taken from my contribution to Wikipedia.

Nichomachean Ethics

In this short piece, inspired by re-reading The Ethics, Aristotle (384 to 323 BCE), I intend to illustrate what ethics means and implies for Aristotle. This has a modern relevance, especially because of the development of Virtue Ethics, and needs to be pointed out as so many modern uses of the term 'ethics' unhelpfully reduce the content and scope of the term. 

In The Ethics, Aristotle sets out to examine the nature of human flourishing. Aristotle argues that human flourishing consists in the 'activity of the soul in accordance with virtue'. So what are virtues? They are precisely those principles of excellence that lead to human flourishing. In its earliest appearance in Greek, this notion of excellence was ultimately bound up with the notion of the fulfillment of purpose or function (telos).

Aristotle argues that it is for the sake of thriving that we do everything else - what leads to this? Just as the virtues of an axe leads to its excellence in chopping, it is the virtues of the soul that lead to human thriving. The virtues of an axe would be in something like its heft, its robustness, and in its hard edge. So what activities of the soul constitute our virtues? First, let us remind ourselves that to the ancient Greek it would be almost incomprehensible to wonder if virtue (arete) might not lead to flourishing. It would be as odd as wondering if a good heft, a robust and well secured shaft, and a hard-sharpish edge might not lead to the ability of an axe to chop well. To the ancient Greeks, it was obvious that virtues led to flourishing (if the virtues could be identified and cultivated). Hence, the Aristotelian quest is to articulate human virtues - those principles of excellence that lead to flourishing. For an axe flourishing is to chop. For a person flourishing is living up to one's full potential.

One proposal for a principle of excellance is the 'Doctrine of the Mean'. Aristotle states that a virtuous activity of the soul is one that aims for the mean or middle ground deficiency and excess. Thus, he tends to view virtue as a relative state: there are no absolutes: morality calls for judgment. This doesn't make his ideas 'Moral Relativism'. He makes an the analogy with food. He would say that for a toddler a slab of meat might be too much but for a body builder it might not be enough. The sufficiency is not in the meat but in a relationship between the properties of the meat and the particulars of the one who needs feeding. For each situation, "the mean" exists between the state of deficiency and the state of excess but this is not laid down in some pre-given measure, a measure that does not take into account the precise and individual circumstances. 

Aristotle proposes many different examples of virtues and vices, together with their mean states. There are moral virtues, such as courage and justice, and intellectual virtues, such as knowledge and wisdom. He discusses things like generosity and anger. All of this very interesting and insightful. He was aware, of course, that there are things, actions and emotions, that do not allow an actual mean state. His main point appears to be that leading a life that flourishes implies the ability to make judgements that find a balance.

For Aristotle, the virtuous person is one who is capable of observation and ratiocination (the bases of informed judgment) for only such a person can be sensitive to the situation and find the middle ground. We are imperfect and err on one side or the other. 

Aristotle says virtues have to be cultivated. Further, he says, only one who has been brought up correctly is fully capable of virtue. Thus, Aristotle argues that virtue is not a natural state; we are not born with it and can only acquire it through an enculturation that is wider than a formal education. 

A virtuous person, being properly brought up, does not have to calculate that disgusting things are disgusting - they see it straight away. There is an art to living and this are means that sometimes one must just see things straight away and at other times one contemplates the options.

Without the art of living one is likely to reduce virtue to a recipe [or Code of Conduct, or Professional Ethics] and thus miss the middle ground in some circumstances. In other words, not to be virtuous after all. Thus, to be virtuous one must act virtuously with the intention of virtue, and not just the form. To be virtuous,  amongst other things, is to be mindful and fully engaged with living.

- - - - -

I recommend the latest edition of the book by Irwin. It has a good revised translation with generous notes that include a summary of the argument of each chapter. (The Ethics, is a compilation by his son Nicomachus, or possibly the notes were dedicated to him, and thus it is called the Nicomachean Ethics.)

The last days of Socrates

The last days of Socrates                 

The publisher's summary is as follows: "The trial and condemnation of Socrates on charges of heresy and corrupting young minds is a defining moment in the history of Classical Athens. In tracing these events through four dialogues, Plato also developed his own philosophy, based on Socrates' manifesto for a life guided by self-responsibility. Euthyphro finds Socrates outside the court-house, debating the nature of piety, while The Apology is his robust rebuttal of the charges of impiety and a defence of the philosopher's life. In the Crito, while awaiting execution in prison, Socrates counters the arguments of friends urging him to escape. Finally, in the Phaedo, he is shown calmly confident in the face of death, skilfully arguing the case for the immortality of the soul."

The key to understanding Socrates, says Hadot, is to see philosophy as a way of life: ''a love (philos) of the good.'' That philos comes from within, but after it is awakened it must be renewed through self-questioning and self-examination as a kind of internal dialogue. But what characterises Socratic therapy above all is the “importance [given] to living contact between human beings”.

Hadot illuminates how much of what Socrates said was a form of spiritual exercise; a thing done in dialogue. Socrates taught that knowledge was not a body of propositional knowledge to be passed on from one to another. No, instead, knowledge was a way of Being communicated through dialogue. Famously, he brought his interlocutors to a state of frustration by showing that on their conception of what they thought they knew, they did not know. For example, when one interlocutor defines Justice Socrates reveals his inconsistencies. Challenged to quit his irritating others with his clever but confusing arguments and offer his own definition of justice, he replied: ''I never stop showing what I think is just ... I show it by my actions.''

Thus, doing philosophy no longer meant acquiring "knowledge" but meant questioning ourselves because we have a feeling that we are not as we ought to be. What was required was an inner transformation. In doing philosophy, propositions do get packaged in various themes but they aim not to inform. Instead they strive to persuade, train, and thereby transform. When we strive for wisdom - that is live philosophically - everything that is separately packaged must be lived and practiced inseparably. To acquire wisdom, the philosopher must strive to cultivate their character (internal) for right living (external).

Above all Socrates addressed himself to those who thought they possessed wisdom through their education: the aristocrats and the Sophists he met in the market place. The Sophists thought they could sell their "knowledge" to all comers. But, for Socrates knowledge was not their packaging of propositions (or formulas) that could be sold ready-made. When Socrates claims he knows only one thing - that he knows nothing - he is repudiating the traditional concept of knowledge. He is saying that not only cannot knowledge be acquired ready-made but that it must come from within and be nurtured from within (through dialogue with others and oneself). When Socrates harassed his interlocutors to a point where they were no longer sure of what they knew and what was the basis of their actions he was engaged in a kind of therapy. The interlocutors begin to question themselves or dropped into a state of confusion or irritation. The first step to 'recovery'.

Socrate said that he was like his mother who was a midwife providing a public service by attending to his fellow citizens. His 'maieutic' [may-YOO-tik] method of bringing forth ideas from an interlocutor comes from the Greek word for "of midwifery". He also, likened himself to a gladly as, at times, he had to sting people into thought.

Socrates' ministration were intended to be very different from the teaching of the Sophists who taught for pay. The Sophists had the ability to construct clever argument and were willingness to teach others to do the same. They were not Greek. They travelled, noted and spoke of the fact that people believe rather different in different places. They said truth was not to be found in transcendent sources such as the gods; they built a view of justice on the notion of social agreement or culture. It is easy to see that they could be judged to be a threat to a stable society.  Their ability to persuade by clever argument and technique, led many Greeks to see them as a dangerous element in their society, "a public nuisance and worse".

Unfortunately, although Socrates went to great lengths to distinguish himself from the Sophists, his fellow Athenians couldn't make the distinction in their hearts or minds. Thus, it is understandable that those who were motivated to do so, did not find it too hard to convince the Athenian assembly that Socrates was a danger to the state. He was tried and sentenced to death.

The four short dialogues on the last days of Socrates are a delightful read and are quite moving. Socrates life is one of the most profoundly influential lives in Western culture. This would not have been so had he ran away from Athens. It was the fact that he did not run that showed, then as now, that he was no ordinary sophist.

"O Crito, if it thus pleases the gods, thus let it be. [They] may kill me ... but hurt me they cannot." 

Socrates' death was messier than the book portrays, death by hemlock poisoning isn't a dignified matter. It was a heavy price to pay.

End note:
Some of this review is drawn from my review of Hadot's Philosophy As A Way Of Life.