The Art of Doing Good or On the Meaning of Philosophic Borrowings

Abstract

Amid the criticism of academic philosophy this article raises the question of what philosophy is capable of doing in order to achieve mutual understanding between cultures. Where shall reflexivity of a person, whose goal is to do good, be directed? What is the universal understanding of how to do good and whether Eurocentrism hinders its comprehension? While comparing two possible an­swers to these questions – the Kantian and the Buddhist one – the author is try­ing to avoid relativism and consumerism, where mutual understanding is either impossible or reduced to a relationship of worldview details exchange, to bor­rowings. Therefore, philosophic action is understood here as a matter of transla­tion according to the model “the same but differently”, where “differently” is as­sociated with the knowledge of peculiarities of a different culture and “the same” is associated with the area of meaning. The European logic of meaning allows it to be expressed by a set of eternal (metaphysical) issues, to solve which free re­flexivity may also turn to materials of another culture. The Kantian answer to the question “How to do Good?” has given a proactive lawmaker, which line of ap­proach is implementation of the universal law of morality. Difficulties along this path make I.Kant consider virtue to be art and see “aesthetic mechanism” in it, ability to contemplate your own morals. Can a Kantian learn this art from Bud­dhists? Virtue for Vasubandhu is also a Path but there is no universal law along it and “giving Dharma” shall be done differently to different people. In addition, the abhidharmist does not separate “practice” of psychotechnics from absorption of “theory” and classification of dharmas, what European is prevented from un­derstanding due to a different conceptual mold, another system of differences. Noting its specificity and answering the question of meaning of borrowings, the author expresses doubt in regards to its presence.