Zen and Philosophy

Chapter 23. The Dialectical World as the Absolutely Contradictory Self-Identity: (1938–1940)

Chapter 23 The Dialectical World as the Absolutely Contradictory Self-Identity (1938–1940) It seemed to Nishida that by 1938 the Ministry of Education had lost all guiding principles and was merely reacting to constantly changing political pressures. He spent the winter of 1938 in Kamakura. As soon as he arrived in Kamakura on January 27, he contacted Kido, minister of education, but Kido was too busy to see him. Instead, Kikuchi Toyosabur ö, head of the academic department, got in touch with him. Nishida conveyed his concerns that the Ministry of Education was catering to the demands of the home ministry and the army. In this environment, irrational accusations and simplistic reasoning, clad in pseudoscientific language, were on the rise and began to assail philosophical inquiries. For instance, “liberalism” was interpreted to mean “selfish individualism” and therefore should be banned.1 Some officials of the Ministry of Education, annoyed by Nishida's persistent criticisms, began to accuse him in public meetings, openly demonstrating their hostility against him. Nishida suspected that their accusations were prompted by his severe criticism of the activities of the Center for National Spiritual Culture, which he had voiced to the officials of the academic department. In February 1938 a celebration commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Meiji constitution was held in Tokyo, providing a perfect opportunity for the ultranationalists to stage their nationalistic sentiments.2 On April 1, the national mobilization ordinance was issued by the government in preparation for the Japan-China war. Shortly before then, a book by Amano Teiyü,3 Döri no kankaku [The sense of reason], came under attack by ultranationalists . It criticized military training as a part of the school curriculum and stated that it was “hampering Japanese education” and should be abolished.4 The sensitive matter was hushed up, with the agreement Dialectical World (1938 –1940) that Amano would not reprint the book.5 When the problem was thus contained, Nishida felt relieved but asked Hidaka Daishirö, who was assisting Amano, to be vigilant because the ultranationalists could renew their attack any day.6 Amid these worries there was a happy interlude for Nishida. On March 14 he went to visit Kimura Hisashi, his friend from the time when they studied mathematics together under the tutorage of Kamiyama Kosaburö in Kanazawa. He and Kimura renewed their friendship and began to see each other regularly at the monthly meeting of the Imperial Academy. Nishida wrote of Kimura after his death: You told me to come and visit you because you had finally built a house in Tokyo. I called on you at your brand new house in Shinmachi in Setagaya. We went right back in time by sixty years, to the olden days, and engaged in lively conversations, with no thought of decorum or propriety. Your wife, seated at our side, laughed and said that we argued like children. . . . That was the first time I met your wife, who was already a grandmother! . . . You saw me off and told me to bring my wife with me next time.7 Nishida reported the visit to Yamamoto with a touch of irony: “Kimura has changed to want to see an old friend like me; it goes to show that he has aged!”8 Mrs. Kimura, recalling the day of Nishida’s visit, told him that her husband said there was nothing like old friends.9 There was to be no “next time,” however, for Nishida to visit Kimura: first Nishida was struck by illness and then Kimura died. Earlier the same day, before visiting Kimura, Nishida had attended a meeting of the board of directors of the Showa Study Group (Shöwa kenkyükai), held in Nihonbashi. Gotö Fumio,10 Arita Hachirö,11 Miura Tetsutarö,12 Matsui Haruo,13 Ökura Kinmochi,14 Nasu Shiroshi,15 Takahashi Kamekichi,16 Sasa Hiroo,17 and Tajima Michiji18 were present. Nishida was invited to the meeting by Gotö Ryünosuke,19 who asked him to speak on the characteristics of Oriental philosophy in contrast to Western philosophy, and to consider whether such a thing as “national philosophy” was conceivable.20 Although some Japanese intellectuals now view the Showa Study Group as some sort of “fascist group,” it was actually considered too progressive and anti-kokutai by the ultranationalists of the pre-1945 period. Members of the Genri Nipponsha, for instance, harshly criticized the group.21 The Showa Study Group had a humble origin. It was initially established as a...