A SIMPLE AND A DEEP TOOL
SOME UNDERSTANDING OF PHILOSOPHY FOR NURSING SCIENCE
STUDENTS
SOMPARN PROMTA
(A Lecture
Given to Ph.D. Students, Nursing Science Program,
In the invitation letter sent to me, I must talk about
philosophy with you. And the letter says that the philosophy which is the
subject of our conversation includes both Western and Eastern philosophy. I
fully know that talking about philosophy to anyone who stays outside philosophy
is not easy. And the scope of the talking could vary according to the group of
the people who are the audience. The information that is given to me concerning
you is that all of you are Ph.D. students of the nursing science program. A
thing that I have questioned myself is that why the nursing science students
need to know Western and Eastern philosophy? I think if I can answer this
question, it might be good for me to provide the contents of the talk.
It could be possible that the program managers would
think that you are human beings. Every student in every program of study is a
human being, including me who is the man to provide
you the talk. Some subjects, which are the objects of our study, can be said to
be external things looking from a perspective that the inner life of man alone
cannot be called the outer condition of the human life. The study of anything
can be considered as the interaction between man and that thing. In this sense,
when we talk about the nursing science, it could be possible that in the eyes
of the program providers, you need something as the tool for the reflection of
yourself as man when you have the contact with external things in the world.
Science and philosophy differ in that science needs
something in terms of the practice more than philosophy. To understand the
difference between science and philosophy it might be good for you to
distinguish that there are two kinds of need in the life of human beings. The
first kind of the human need, which might not be different from things required
by other species in the world, is the need for the survival. We need food, air,
water, shelter, and so on for the purpose of survival. You can call this kind
of need the physical need—if you prefer that word. The second need, which may
be unique in man and can be found in some higher species in the world, is not
directly related to the matter of the survival. Some philosophers (such as
Aristotle) believe that man is a political being by nature. Saying this,
Aristotle means that the need of political things such as the political
community, the political rulers, the political system, and so on has been
deeply given in the blood of human beings. It could be possible to think in the
way which is similar to the way given by Aristotle. For example, it might be
possible to say that man is a religious being. In the same way, it might be
possible for some people to believe that man is a philosophical being. Religion
and philosophy do not play the role as the tool for survival like food, water,
air, and housing. The question is why man needs religion and philosophy. I
think if we can answer this question, the thing that I try to give you in this
paper might be easier.
I would like to say that man has been created into this
world in such a way that something that man needs is beyond the scope of things
that can be used for the survival. The example of this kind of need is the need
to understand things in the universe. Religion, philosophy, or even science in
some dimension can be best considered within this light of understanding. We
see the stars. The seeing of the stars has nothing to do with our survival. But
man, we are talking about man when they have evolved enough as seen in this
day, likes to look at the stars and feels that it might be good for them to
know what are these things and why they have been created in the universe.
Nursing science can be considered as a kind of science
which is designed to serve the purpose of survival of man. When we are sick, we
need medical care and treatment. This thing can be explained in itself, not
differently from eating, drinking, and breathing. However, nursing science can
be considered at its some part as the deeper tool for the survival of man. Let
me explain what I mean when I talk about the deeper tool. In my opinion, the
tool that we use in our life can be of two kinds. The first one is the simple
tool and the second one is the deep tool. We drink coffee from a cup. We
come to work with cars. The cup and the car do not have the influence on our
personality when they are used by us. But it greatly differs when we read a
book. The contents of the good books can have the influence over our
personality. In my view, the books are the deeper tool. In the same way, when a
nurse has to take care of people, she uses something as the tool, and one of
the major tools used by the nurse is the nursing science. As I have said
previously, some part of science can be considered as the simple tool, but some
part of it can be considered as the deeper tool. If science that we use does
not have any influence over the mind or the personality of people, we call that
kind of science the simple tool. Most of the simple tool in science is involved
with the human body. I think that one of the essences of the nursing science is
the relationship between the nurse and people. And it seems that the nurse has
been required by work and discipline to have the relationship with people more
than the doctor.
There could be two kinds of relationship with other. The
first one is a thing that I would like to call the machine relationship. And
the second one is the thing that I would like to call the human relationship. I
believe that in the work as nurse, sometimes we just have the machine
relationship with people because they do not need something special within that
situation. But in some case, people need the human relationship from the nurse.
That is, people feel that they need some human beings to take care of them. At
this point, I think we need to understand what is the
difference between human beings and machines.
In Western philosophy, there are some philosophers who
think that exactly man is a kind of machine. For these philosophers, there is
no difference between man and the machine. So, they do not believe that we need
the nurse to have the human relationship with people. The computer robots can
act not differently from the human nurse. However, some Western philosophers do
not believe that man is a kind of the machine. In the view of these
philosophers, we need the human nurse to do something which cannot be done by
the robot.
It seems that Eastern philosophy thinks that man and the
machine are totally different. Exactly, there is some
I think we need to talk about three things and their differences.
I am talking about Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and science. I fully
know that there are many subtle things in these three things and that anyone
who needs to talk about the differences among these three things must be
confronted with highly difficulty. However, ultimately I need to do this very
hard work. I would like to put Western philosophy and Western science together
as the Western thought. And the result of my doing this is that on the other
side we would have the Eastern philosophy which naturally includes Eastern
religion.
Western science and philosophy are counted different
disciplines. There are some differences between them. However, in my opinion,
both of them are based on some ideas and these ideas might be different from
the basic ideas to be found in Eastern thoughts. I am talking about the spirit
of Western thoughts which is not the same as the spirit of Eastern thought. And
saying this, I do not have the intention to compare between them and point out
that there is some side which is better or higher. Metaphorically, I am talking
about two kinds of flowers. They are different. But both of them are beautiful
in their own kind.
What is the spirit of Western thought that I have seen? I
think it is the deep belief that to understand things in the universe we need
to know the detail and the composition of them. This is normally called in
Western philosophy as reductionism, Western science is very clear to be a reductionistic principle in gaining knowledge. Western
philosophy could be understood in the light of reductionism as well—I believe
that. Philosophical knowledge given by Western philosophers is known as the
powerful tool and insight to deeper and deeper penetrate into things in the
universe, including the human life itself. I myself have been trained in
Western philosophical tradition and even now have been teaching Western
philosophy. I accept that Western reductionism is very strong and useful tool.
When I am sick and come to the hospital, the things done to me by the doctors
and the nurses are the things that I believe very useful and they always have
the explanation why they have done this or that thing to me. This is the very
positive side of Western science and philosophy. It seems that reductionism and
another property of knowledge which is called objectivity are very much
compatible with each other. In the view of Western thinkers, knowledge has to
be public in the sense that anyone can understand it and can test whether or
not it is true. When things in the universe have been reduced into more and
more smaller parts and people see that each part has some certain role in the
whole system, that is the good knowledge, and from such good knowledge people
would have the potential to manage and solve the problems to happen normally in
that thing. When our car does not work, we send it to someone who knows the
whole system of the car. This man has the ability to reduce the whole car into
parts and knows further that the problem of the car comes from which parts.
After knowing them, he would fix the problem. Our car comes back to the normal
state again.
Eastern thoughts also have some part which is involved
with reductionism as we have considered. Indian metaphysics as found in
Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism has reduced things in the universe into parts.
From this we would understand that reductionism really exists both in the West
and the East. But the difference lies in that the position of Western and
Eastern thoughts concerning reductionism is not the same. It seems that for the
Western thinkers, we do not need tools other than reductionism in gaining
knowledge of the universe and the ways for the solution of the problems to
happen inside every system in the universe (the human body and the car are the
example of one single system—the car is a system, the human body is also a
system.) Eastern thinkers such as the Buddha and Lao Tzu do not think like
that. In the view of the Buddha, we need reductionism in some cases. But in
some other cases, if it is clear that only reductionism is not enough we do not
have the reason to reject another tools.
Another tool that we are talking about is the same thing
as what we have called above as the deep tool. When our car has the problem,
the tool used by people to solve the problem of our car is just the simple
tool. The meaning of simple tool is the thing that can be used by anyone
including the machine. It could be possible that those who fix our car are
robots. The fact that the knowledge provided by Western thoughts can be used by
anyone including the machine can be considered positively. I myself have
considered this aspect of Western knowledge positively as said. Turn to Eastern
knowledge. We would see that in some cases reductionism and objectivity of the
knowledge as found in the Western knowledge has been accepted. But the point is
that in some cases Eastern thinkers such as the Buddha think that the event or
the problem might be better managed or solved if we use tools other than
reductionism. Certainly, in using another tools, it does not mean that we need
to reject reductionism. To understand the position of Eastern thoughts, I think
the following example might be of usefulness.
Suppose I am sick. And they bring me to the hospital. At
the hospital, some doctors and nurses are given to me. These people do the
things that they have to do to me like other patients in the same hospital.
This is the normal thing. Suppose my sickness just wants some medical treatment
and the doctors who take care of me are wise, including the nurses, some days
have passed, and the doctors say to me that I can go home. During the time that
I stay in the hospital, everything done to me by doctors and nurses is not
special in a sense that it can be done by the robots (imagine that suppose
there is a hospital where the doctors and nurses are all the machines and they
can do everything in the same way as done by the human doctors and human
nurses, and in some cases these machine doctors and nurses seem to work better
than the humans.) From what we have said above, the thing that we can say is
that the tool used by doctors and nurses is the simple tool. And I believe that
the Western thought likes to search for this kind of tool for the reason that
(a) it is objective knowledge, and (b) it can be used by anyone including the
machine.
If things in the universe do not need tools more than the
simple tool, that might be extremely good. But I think everyone knows by
themselves that their life sometimes needs some tool which is more than the
simple tool as said. For example, suppose the sickness that brings me to the
hospital is not just a simple one, but the serious cancer. I believe something
which is given to me might be the thing that can be practiced by the robots.
The robot doctors might be able to give me the medical treatment which is
accepted the best one according to medical knowledge of the present. But
suppose the cancer which occurs in my body is very serious and the doctors
think that they might not able to bring me back from the hand of the death. At
this point, I think the tool to be used with me might not be just the simple
tool such as saying to me that sorry we cannot cure your sickness, it seems
that you must die. Certainly, that saying is the truth, very truth. But the way
to give me that truth must be something which is better than this. I do not
need to discuss about what is the better tool as I mean. It is the duty of
people in the society to think together about this thing. But my point is that
it is clear that something in the human life needs the tool which is called by
me the deep tool and it is our burden to think what is the deep tool to be
applied to our life in some special cases as in the example above.
Eastern thought seems to provide us the thing that can be
interpreted as the deeper tool as said. For example, in Buddhism the Buddha
teaches people that old age, sickness, and death are the normal things to
follow our life when we have been born into this world. Our birth is compared
to the tree in the sunlight. And old age, sickness, and death are compared to
the shadow of the tree. We cannot separate these two things from each other.
The only thing that we can do is to silently accept them. It could be possible
that the sun of our life would be temporarily covered with the coming clouds.
And that makes that shadow of the tree not appear. We know that some say when
the clouds go away the sunlight must shine to the tree and the shadow of the
tree must appear inevitably. This is the truth of the human life that we can
never do anything in terms of the change. We cannot change anything. Medical
science is just a tool to produce the artificial clouds to hide the sun behind
temporarily. But no one in the world including the great scientists can hide
the sun behind the artificial clouds forever. When the clouds that we have made
go away, the sun of life will shine, and the shadow of life which is old age,
sickness, and death will come to visit us equally. There is no difference
between the kings and the poor farmers. We are all the trees in the sunlight.
The deep tool in the view of the Buddha is not the tool
for fighting against anything in the world. Exactly, it is the tool for the
fighting against oneself by oneself. Why we need to fight against things in the
world? Because we think that we need to overcome it and it is possible to
overcome that thing. when I am sick, I think that I should overcome my
sickness, and this is why I come to the hospital. Medical treatment is the tool
for the fighting against sickness. And we have found that sometimes we can win
the sickness. However, in some cases, the sickness is so strong and we know
that we cannot win it. Within this fact the tool that we need must be the one
which is not designed for the fighting against things in the world (in this
case it is the human sickness.) The Buddha thinks that we have another way to
deal with the sickness that we cannot win. The tool given by the Buddha
concerning this kind of situation in the life of human beings can be called the
deep tool in a sense that it is not the simple tool as the tool that we have
designed to fight against sickness.
Every simple tool is alike in that it is based on some
objectivity and that makes it possible for anyone including the machine to use
it. On the contrary, the deep tool is not based on such a clear-cut
objectivity, and this makes it not possible to use by anyone without a thing
called continuous learning. But we should not think that the deep tool does not
have discipline. In my understanding, to be a tool needs to be based on some
discipline otherwise such a thing must not be able to be called the tool. The
thing that I call discipline within this context can be understood in terms of
two things. First, in terms of ontology or something which is the philosophical
or religious view which says that there are causal relations of things in the
universe and some of them could be the things that human beings might not be
able to clearly know or understand. In terms of ontology as said, there are the
causes and the effects, and the relation between them is the main reason that
generates things and their behaviors as we have seen in the universe. There is
the causal relation between this kind of medicine and this kind of sickness in
such a way that when the sickness meets the medicine the sickness will be
destroyed. This is an example. Second, in terms of the process of learning to
understand that ontology. It could be possible that human beings cannot be able
to know everything in the world of ontology as said. But we have to accept that
some part of the learning has the enough power to free human beings from the
problems that cannot be won with the simple tool.
There are the stories recorded in Buddhist texts about
the people who face extremely unbearable suffering in their life. A woman loses
everything in her life (husband, sons, parents) and that makes her temporarily
mad before she meets the Buddha. From these stories, one thing that we have
learned is that the problems that happen to the life of these people go beyond
the scope of the things that we can use the simple tool to fight against them.
The sons and the husband of the woman have died, and there is no one in the
world can bring them back from the hand of death, including the Buddha. The
deep tool of Buddhism starts with a number of basic understandings that the
person needs to have for the solution of the problems that they are facing. In
the case of the woman who loses all beloved persons, the first thing given to
her by the Buddha is that even though the things that she loses are the things
that have the most meaning to her life, these things are still the external
things, and not her life at all. The Buddha says that a person has been born
into this world with one's own life. Other things outside our life should be
deemed as the external things. Sons, husband, parents, friends, dogs, cats, and
so on should be deemed as the external things. Certainly, these things have the
profound meaning to our life. But the truth is they are not our life. This is
one of the basic understandings given to the woman by the Buddha.
As there is no clear-cut objectivity in the utilization
of the deep tool, it has been the burden of the person to try to understand and
accept the happening things by themselves, and this is why the Buddha always
says that “I am just the
way-teller. The burden to walk along the way is totally yours!” People have the
different life, and this makes them to find the deep tool and use it
differently by themselves. There is one thing that shared by all people who use
the deep tool. They are all human beings, and to solve their own problems one
important thing that they have to be is be human being, think and feel as human
being, and solve the problem on the basis of being human as said.
In the Western world, people also have their religion
such as Christianity. I am inclined to believe that there is the deep tool in
every religion of the world. If my belief is true, what we can say is that my
saying at the beginning of this article (the West seems to do not have the deep
tool) might be false. Exactly, they have this thing in religion and in some
part of their philosophy. The human life needs both simple and deep tool. It
could be debated that whether or not there is the thing called the deep tool in
Western thought. But this is not the serious point, in my opinion. The very
serious point concerning the discussion of simple and deep tools should be:
first, is it true to say that the human life and the human world need both
simple and deep tools; and second, does the West have the potential to
cultivate the thing called the deep tool in their civilization? For me, the
answer of the first question is yes! And the answer of the second question is
why not!
August 17, 2019