Nishida Kitaro: The Man and his Thought (Studies in Japanese Philosophy)

by Keiji Nishitani

© Chisokudo Publications 2016
Nishida Kitaro is a translation of essays Nishitani wrote about his teacher between 1936 and 1968. This series of meditations by one master on another provides a remarkable, living portrait of Nishida the person and conveys the excitement he aroused in his students. Focusing on Nishida’s maiden work, An Inquiry into the Good , Nishitani penetrates to the core of his thought and presents it in language that is a marvel of clarity. The collection’s concluding section, which deals with Nishida’s critics, stands out for its lucidity and fairness.
Also available as an Apple iBook

Genres: Philosophy, Biography, Japan

272 pages, Paperback

Published September 4, 2016

About the author

Keiji Nishitani was a Japanese philosopher of the Kyoto School and a disciple of Kitaro Nishida. In 1924 Nishitani received a Ph.D. from Kyoto University for his dissertation Das Ideale und das Reale bei Schelling und Bergson.

He studied under Martin Heidegger in Freiburg from 1937-9.
He held the principal Chair of Philosophy and Religion at Kyoto University from 1943 until becoming Emeritus in 1964. He then taught philosophy and religion at Otani University.

At various times Nishitani was a visiting professor in the United States and Europe.

According to James Heisig, after being banned from holding any public position by the United States Occupation authorities in July 1946, Nishitani refrained from drawing "practical social conscience into philosophical and religious ideas, preferring to think about the insight of the individual rather than the reform of the social order."

Reviews

[Simon Blomberg · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book didn't do it for me.
I started reading it, because I was interested in reading some japanese philosophy. Instead of satisfying that interest, it's gone now (;hopefully not for forever.)

So how did that happen? I'll explain my problems in order of the book.
The book actually doesn't start with philosophy, but instead with a historical perspective of Nishida, the person. The author himself starts that section by saying that he failed. That he should deliver an objective account, but because he was too close to Nishida, he just can't do that. This didn't bother me at all; instead, I thought that this would make his perspective especially interesting. At that time, I didn't know that the author would write strange theories and stories about his mentor Nishida that sounded so baffling that I find it questionable that this actually got published:


"Zen tamed the fierce life-force that raged within Nishida and made it into a finely honed will." (p.37)

"The impulsive element in his personality took the form of powerful desires and harsh sentiments, which he made strenuous efforts to rein in and to purify."(p.26)

"I took out a pencil to write down the title of a book. It was a short stub of a pencil that I used to carry around with me for emergencies, not because I was particularly fond of using short pencils. Catching sight of it, Nishida handed me one of his pencils with the remark that mine was pretty useless. His was a long and well-sharpened pencil with a good lead in it. I felt as if something inside him were thrusting itself out at me. The image of Nishida handing me that pencil and the vivid expression on his face still come back to me from time to time."(p.33)

"Might there not have been an extraordinary temperament flowing in the family line that erupted in the person of Nishida?"(p.25)


Two things here. First, I agree with the author: His writings about his teacher are indeed a failure. Second, the way Keiji writes about his mentor points to an issue I would later feel rear it's head when I read how he presented Nishidas thought. There seems to be a kind of admiration in how he explains it that is philosophically questionable. The idea that Nishida might have been entirely wrong seems to be far away from the authors mind. In the beginning I thought that this was like that, because he wanted to present the best version of Nishidas thought, but throughout the book more ancient thinkers writings are mentioned with a similar kind of admiration. Keiji sometimes mentions that philosophy at that time was still distinguishing itself from religion in japan. Perhaps this is why a certain tone of dogmatic acceptance of older scriptures emanates from his writings too.

The second part of the book then explains Nishidas philosophy. And perhaps I'm not the best person to speak on this part. I picked this book up, because it claims to be an introduction to Nishidas thought, which made me think that as an "introduction" it should be readable even for a total stranger to japanese thought. Crucially though, it doesn't claim to be an introduction to religious philosophy. The only other review on this book -on goodreads at the time of writing- suggests that "a person has some footing within Eastern philosophy (in particular some footing in Buddhism, in particular Chan/Zen Buddhism). Also footing in continental philosophy and it would help having an understanding of the philosophy of religion.",none of which is true about me. I'm a beginner in analytical philosophy.

Nevertheless I'm not entirely convinced that my issues stem exclusively from a personal lack of knowledge. The book does claim to be an "introduction" in some way, so why are there constantly expressions used that aren't explained properly. If "absolute nothingness" is so important for Nishidas thought, then shouldn't it be explained thoroughly? I'm wondering who this "introduction" is for. As it stands, it seems to me as though this introduction would really only work for people that don't really need an introduction to it’s topic anyway.

It also didn't really work well as a first confrontation with continental philosophy for me, but I'm unsure wether or not that is the fault of the book. As it stands, with my current knowledge of philosophy, I can only say this: Most of the theories presented in this book were pretty wild to me. I don't know how the authors came up with them. It's a kind of metaphysics that seems removed from reality. Even if it had some really interesting parts and moments were I thought that one could talk about reality in the way that the book does, I saw no advantages to it's general overall approach.

I've given it two stars, because, though I don't like the approach and find it questionable as an introduction, it does seem to be doing what it's doing pretty well. There is a clear structure to the text and Keiji seems to understand what he is presenting very well (;I have to do some guesswork there though). So even if this really isn't the book for me, I don't think that it's a book for noone.

Personally though, I'm pretty disappointed.

[Chant · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a person that has read Nishida's 'An inquiry into good', I found the treatment from fellow Kyoto school philosopher, Keiji Nishitani, a very fun and interesting look a semi-look at Nishida Kitarō's life and his philosophy (logic of Basho and nothingness in particular).

I would suggest that a person has some footing within Eastern philosophy (in particular some footing in Buddhism, in particular Chan/Zen Buddhism). Also footing in continental philosophy and it would help having a understanding of the philosophy of religion. Which is to say that you have to have some footing in philosophy before getting into the meat of Nishida.

I could write more (I might), but I have to go to work.

Also the translation and scholarship from James Heisig is superb, which one comes to expect.