An Inquiry into the Good

by Kitarō Nishida and Nishida Kitarô

Book Overview

An Inquiry into the Good represented the foundation of Nishida's philosophy--reflecting both his deep study of Zen Buddhism and his thorough analysis of Western philosophy--and established its author... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0300052332
• Release Date: January 1992
• Publisher: Yale University Press
• Length: 218 Pages
• Weight: 0.68 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 5.4" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Entertaining

"Knowing and its object are completely unified." Unity or singularity is, in many cases, is a thinly disguised moral argument. In many cases, the person drawing the line will appeal to objective facts in order to establish the line, but the valuation attached to that line is purely subjective and for the most part a moral argument. Take for example the nationalist versus internationalist argument. The nationalist says that the true line of demarcation is along national lines. He points to the common heritage of the people of the nation, their interdependence, their common language, common faith, and common geography. All of those characteristics may be objectively verifiable, but the valuation he attaches to those facts is subjective. The internationalist points out the commonality of world resources - the oceans, the air we breathe, etc - and the humanity common to all peoples. Again, these characteristics are objectively verifiable, but the valuation the internationalist attaches to those facts is subjective. In Nishinda's case, he would have us believe that the right place to draw the line is in a way that places the knower and the object known on the same side of the line. But, like the nationalists and internationalists, that's just one place we could draw the line, and he hasn't offered us a compelling reason to draw the line in the first place. I'm not saying the line we typically draw is correct - there is no "correct" or "incorrect" in drawing of lines. But we do have a compelling reason to draw the line along established subject-object lines; that compelling reason being in that it helps us to avoid the pitfalls of idealism.

Brilliant beginning, but...

This review will divide itself roughly into two sections. In the first section I will attempt to provide a brief summary of Nishida's philosophy as presented in this book which, due to limitations of space, will remain profoundly inadequate. In the second section I will attempt to make a case for also reading Nishida's later works in addition to this work. An Inquiry into the Good is Nishida's first book, and it is also his most popular book. While it is certainly profound in it's own right, and deserves close attention, Nishida's thought underwent a tremendous development throughout his life. So I thoroughly recommend that anyone who reads this book also attempt to get their hands on some of Nishida's later works (especially Intelligiblity and the Philosophy of Nothingness and Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview). I. Nishida's ultimate concern in this work, as his title suggests, is with the question of the nature of the good which can be considered an ethical question in the broad sense. This fact is often overlooked because Nishida considers questions about value to be intimately connected with questions about the nature of reality, or what we ordinarily call metaphysical questions. In fact one of the great motivating sources for Nishida's philosophy as a whole is Nishida's attempt to overcome what has become known in the West as the fact/value dichotomy. So in order to address the nature of the good Nishida first has to address questions about the nature of reality. An Inquiry into the Good is not, therefore, a book merely about ethics in the restricted sense of that term. Over half of the book is devoted to attempting to answer metaphysical questions about the nature of reality and so Nishida's primary interest in the nature of the good is often overlooked. Before answering this question about the nature of the good Nishida first has to address more general questions about the nature of reality. Nishida's approach to metaphysics, however, is unique. Nishida was personally influenced profoundly by zen. Zen is often suspicious of abstract, rational conceptions of reality and instead favors a method of "direct seeing" in approaching reality. This is in direct contrast to the Western method of approach to questions about the nature of reality which rely primarily on logic and rational argument in attempting to determine or uncover the nature of reality. Nishitani Keiji summarizes these different approaches well in his book on Nishida. Nishitani writes, "The sense of quest...as it appears in Plato's dialogues entails a spirit of inquiry aimed at the gradual discovery through dialogue of something new, something not yet known to the participants. This spirit appears as the standpoint of pure reason that seeks to uncover something new and completely unknown, to discover according to the laws of logic." The Western method usually begins with premises accepted as self-evident, or with facts known directly through sense experienc

The Clarity of a Diamond Cutter

I am not sure why other reviewers said they found this book overly difficult. Yes, Nishida was a layman who trained in Zen meditation, but to my thinking, his spartan verbal approach does not detract from the task at hand; on the contrary, this stoic attempt lends to the book's sublime clarity and intelligence. So, yes, the work requires special attention and thought, but what of value does not? Overall I find his discourse to be universal rather than localized and, as such, I feel this text will be of interest to ALL students of philosophy - not just those studying Zen or Buddhism, but those with an interest in James, Heidegger, pragmatism, existentialism, or even poststructuralist thought. Thus, I recommend this book highly. That said, however, I do have one or two reservations. On one hand, this slim but dense philosophical text represents a brilliant attempt by Nishida to reconcile the traditional Cartesian subject/object bifurcation so privileged in the Western philosophy, but de-emphasized in Buddhist thought. I think Nishida accomplishes this daunting reconciliation with startling clarity, as well as insightful, thought provoking analysis. His arguments do, in fact, remind me a lot of Heidegger's Being and Time, with only a fraction of the words! On the other hand, I find his overall philosophy somewhat troubling. That is, if we conflate the subject/object (as Heidegger does as well), what are we left with? To me, it would be a foundation-less present moment without moral precedent whereby, say, a Nietzschen Super Man, can - and historically has done so - successfully hoodwink philosophy in the name of Nationalism. Nishida was, in fact, a member of the controversial Kyoto School, and he did sit back and watched silently (whether he approved or not is not clear even today) as the radical military faction of Japan's emerging Rightwing pre-War political movement incorporated their words as a foundation to their staunch nationalistic ideology and propaganda - leading, of course, to war. But does that negate the power of this specific text? I would say no, and hence, my five star rating. Give it a read. Then read it again. I think it will begin to sink in. Is it difficult? Well, yes, but then again, as I said before, what of value is ever easy?

A tedious read, with some real gems within.

Nishida's book was a bit tedious. The translation seems good and his writing style isn't deliberately cryptic. Familiarity in Eastern thought, particularly Zen Buddhist thought, greatly aids making sense of what he says. Also a familiarity with Kant and Hegel (whom he responds to) and the Western tradition would be greatly helpful. Aside from his key point on reckoning with things in their immediacy (paraphrase), I found quite a gem in his description of God in his later chapters -- a view of God even atheistic materialists might agree with. All in all a good book, lacking in style but not in substance.