On Ancient Wisdom Part
Whenever I did something wrong, my father would always say, "listen to ancient wisdom and you will never be wrong. Let your ancestors be your guide and follow their advice." I have always thought that something is not quite right with that statement. After all, how can those in the past know about the problems of the future? That only assumes that the world does not change. And perhaps this is where we should tackle this question on "ancient wisdom": to what extent should we follow ancient wisdom? I believe that ancient wisdom must not be blindly trusted on; on the other hand, it must be re-situated according to the modern context. If not, what we will end up getting is an old idea forcefully shaping a new world, like a baby's shirt forcefully wore by a teenager.
People like to see "ancient wisdom" as guidance to their lives. Rules of filial respect, family structure, respect for authority, moralily or ethics can indeed be useful in helping a person to live a meaningful and happy life, since these rules allow a person to create healthy bonds both as an individual (with their own souls) and as a member of a society (with other people). On the other hand, we have to understand that they are use-full in its most basic sense: they function to situate people of a particular society into that society. These rules are wisdom at the time because they work: they help people become friends, give society certain structures so that people can live in harmony.
These wisdom are in fact part of a system that organizes a society in a certain way. The problem is that that certain way is not perfect. In a society where there are basic differences between people (age, sex, social class, even race), these differences are given different values and stacked into different hierarchies so that a society can function. Certain groups of people (being to a specific sex, social class and race) are privileged because of these hierarchies. The best example would be the upper-class men in ancient China: patriarchy is sanctioned by many philosophers (certainly no one rejects it), and men had authority based on their social class. Women or poor men were always subordinate to these men, yet they believe that either they should accept their lot, or they should follow wisdom and obey authority, or they try to climb up the ladder within the bounds of the system. The hierarchies, however, are arficial and arbitrary; yet often times these values are naturalized, as if they are either divinely-sanctioned or naturally-given. By naturalizing these wisdom, they can function to their very best: people would not question them, which makes that society run much more smoothly.
As time progresses, these rules become wisdom, and wisdom now acquires a historical support to further naturalize itself: it had been like that for a thousand years, so it must have been like that since the beginning of time. If it had been like that since the beginning of time, then it must also be like that until the end of time. If it is always like that for eternity, then it must be true. Ancient wisdom must be obeyed.
Normally a system would be able to sustain itself without changing much; this is of course the case in pre-modern China, as well as Europe in the Dark Ages. There isn't anything to alter the structures of hierarchies; ancient wisdom remains in the education of each new generation. Students of new generations either blindly accepts received ancient wisdom, or they reinterpret the wisdom into their own terms, which is possible because society hasn't changed all that much. But very few systems can sustain itself without huge changes; this is evident in world history: the West (back in the days) invaded everyone else, which forces all other nations of the world to entirely change their systems of social organization. We, of course, live in the aftermath of this reorganization. The systems we have now are in fact entirely different from the systems in ancient times. If this is the case, then how can ancient wisdom serve the same function as it did back in the "good old days"? If one still insists on saying that ancient wisdom is the guidance to life, I ask, how can one justify that? Certainly I'm not saying we should throw away all ancient wisdom, but one at least ought to ask the question: why should those ancient rules still apply to the modern world?
A teenager may have nothing to do with a baby's shirt, but the shirt may be re-made into something useful (like a handkerchef), or it could be kept as a symbol of one's history and memory, without a need to use it in one's real world. I think this is what we should do as modern citizens of this new, globalized world - to reconsider our "ancient wisdom" not necessary just as practical knowledge, but also part of our individual identity and cultural memory.
People like to see "ancient wisdom" as guidance to their lives. Rules of filial respect, family structure, respect for authority, moralily or ethics can indeed be useful in helping a person to live a meaningful and happy life, since these rules allow a person to create healthy bonds both as an individual (with their own souls) and as a member of a society (with other people). On the other hand, we have to understand that they are use-full in its most basic sense: they function to situate people of a particular society into that society. These rules are wisdom at the time because they work: they help people become friends, give society certain structures so that people can live in harmony.
These wisdom are in fact part of a system that organizes a society in a certain way. The problem is that that certain way is not perfect. In a society where there are basic differences between people (age, sex, social class, even race), these differences are given different values and stacked into different hierarchies so that a society can function. Certain groups of people (being to a specific sex, social class and race) are privileged because of these hierarchies. The best example would be the upper-class men in ancient China: patriarchy is sanctioned by many philosophers (certainly no one rejects it), and men had authority based on their social class. Women or poor men were always subordinate to these men, yet they believe that either they should accept their lot, or they should follow wisdom and obey authority, or they try to climb up the ladder within the bounds of the system. The hierarchies, however, are arficial and arbitrary; yet often times these values are naturalized, as if they are either divinely-sanctioned or naturally-given. By naturalizing these wisdom, they can function to their very best: people would not question them, which makes that society run much more smoothly.
As time progresses, these rules become wisdom, and wisdom now acquires a historical support to further naturalize itself: it had been like that for a thousand years, so it must have been like that since the beginning of time. If it had been like that since the beginning of time, then it must also be like that until the end of time. If it is always like that for eternity, then it must be true. Ancient wisdom must be obeyed.
Normally a system would be able to sustain itself without changing much; this is of course the case in pre-modern China, as well as Europe in the Dark Ages. There isn't anything to alter the structures of hierarchies; ancient wisdom remains in the education of each new generation. Students of new generations either blindly accepts received ancient wisdom, or they reinterpret the wisdom into their own terms, which is possible because society hasn't changed all that much. But very few systems can sustain itself without huge changes; this is evident in world history: the West (back in the days) invaded everyone else, which forces all other nations of the world to entirely change their systems of social organization. We, of course, live in the aftermath of this reorganization. The systems we have now are in fact entirely different from the systems in ancient times. If this is the case, then how can ancient wisdom serve the same function as it did back in the "good old days"? If one still insists on saying that ancient wisdom is the guidance to life, I ask, how can one justify that? Certainly I'm not saying we should throw away all ancient wisdom, but one at least ought to ask the question: why should those ancient rules still apply to the modern world?
A teenager may have nothing to do with a baby's shirt, but the shirt may be re-made into something useful (like a handkerchef), or it could be kept as a symbol of one's history and memory, without a need to use it in one's real world. I think this is what we should do as modern citizens of this new, globalized world - to reconsider our "ancient wisdom" not necessary just as practical knowledge, but also part of our individual identity and cultural memory.
posted by Tristan at 11:09 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home