The Meaning of Life: Perspectives from the World's Great Intellectual Traditions

The professor brings an earnest respect for the subject and gives digestible introductory-level summaries of multiple Eastern & Western philosophical schools and thinkers. Very enjoyable while offering entry points for further study into any of the areas covered for anyone looking to go deeper. Thumbs up.

A little about me first. I am a life long learner and a student of East Asian Language and Literature, specifically Chinese and Japanese. I have spent years studying Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and the many schools of Chinese thought and have had the privilege of studying under prolific, respected, sinologists. I've purchased and thoroughly enjoyed many of the Great Courses lectures on history, religion, and philosophy thus far, but I am dumb founded by what I have encountered in this. I cannot and will not comment on the Western tradition as it is portrayed, but the lack of understanding of what actual Taoist and Confucians believe and think is very evident. There is a terrible trend in the West of misrepresenting the Eastern intellectual tradition due to a long history that I don't care to explain as this is a review (just do some serious research, it'll make a lot of modern sinologists happy) which this gentleman seems to follow. The first indication was the fact that a man with a doctorate (and I fully respect his degree of education) can't even find time to consult someone on how to pronounce the names and terms related to the great eastern traditions. Mysteriously, though, he is able to pronounce Laozi's name relatively correctly, where as, Kongzi and Zhuangzi's names have been butchered; it bothers me that names a well known as these are mispronounced (my only guess would be that he saw pinyin vs Wade-Giles romanizations and just went with it). This may seem petty, and I was still willing to give him a chance, but after he started lecturing on the Tao Te Ching (which he mispronounced), it was evident that he didn't really understand the tradition. Granted, the material is meant to make you think in abstract ways, his ways of interpretation seemed to follow another terrible trend--interpreting a poorly written translation, while having no proficiency in the original language (it happens a lot). I want to illistate this point by pointing out that translates Wu Wei as "spontaneous action" when this literally means "without action". Perhaps, the lecturer is trying to accentuate the idea that Taoist philosophy emphasizes natural movement, both in nature and society, that is also characterized by spontaneity, but I'm more inclined to think that just went with whatever he could find without going into the real roots of the meaning of the phrase. But, my gripes about his Taoist portrayals are not my only gripes! Right around where I stopped in disgust was where he started Buddhism. Okay, I know, he's pretty knowledgeable in the field of Buddhist studies, but that's not my complaint. It's the fact that he's trying to humanize the Buddha (yes I see the irony behind this statement) in such a way that it makes that it seems like he's trying to make it sound more scholarly? Perhaps. Well, for example, when telling the story of the Buddha's enlightenment, he omits some crucial details of the story that are very present in the Pali cannon; such as how he was tempted by Mara and then, only after resisting Mara, touched the ground, causing a tremendous earthquake. Maybe I'm being knit-picky, but details are everything.

Okay . . . At risk of making this longer than it's probably worth. Here's my summary of my review: the lecturer is intelectual and to be respected, but I feel that he's aserting a position about much of the eastern intellectual tradition that maybe he doesn't specialize; namely, the taoist and confucian. I have faith that his portrayal of the western traditions are accurate, but I'm very disappointed in his portrayal of the eastern traditions.