168

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Nursing Philosophy

,

4

, pp. 168–169

Dia

logu

e

Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKNUPNursing Philosophy1466-769XBlackwell Publishing Ltd 20034Dialogue

Critical Response to Rodgers and Yen’s Article

Karen Rich

Correspondence: Karen Rich, 11470 Ashton Lane West,

Gulfport, MS 39503, USA. E-mail, Krich00@att.net

Critical response to Rodgers and Yen’s article: rethinking nursing science through the understanding of Buddhism

Karen Rich

RN BSN MN

Doctoral Student, University of Southern Mississippi, College of Nursing, MS, USA

Introduction

Beth Rodgers and Wen-Jiuan Yen argue that theWestern epistemology and ontology that has domi-nated scientific development, and consequently thedevelopment of nursing science, has been generallyopposed to Eastern philosophy. These authors pro-pose that there is value for nursing in the examinationof a Buddhist, or Eastern philosophy, but that it hasbeen difficult to connect to traditional Western sci-ence. This difficulty in making relevant connectionsseems to keep Western science, and therefore, nursingmired in a scientifically ethnocentristic position.

I concur with the wisdom of nurses collectively

emptying their cups

to consider different approachesto conceptualizing the discipline. However, I believethat Buddhism and Eastern thought are not as foreignto Western science as some might believe. I would liketo argue two points in support of this thesis. Onepoint being that the Western philosophy of DavidHume, who was referenced in regard to traditionalModern philosophy in Rodgers and Yen’s article, wasmore similar to the Buddha than many people realize.The second point being that Western science hasalready embraced some of the philosophy of the Eastthrough the scientific ideology of quantum physicsand chaos theory. This ideology may be more widelyacceptable to nurses who want to keep nursinggrounded in empirical science.

Hume and the Buddha

Many would agree that the Scottish philosopher,David Hume, has been one of the most influentialfigures in Western empiricism. What many have notunderstood is that Hume was also very similar to theBuddha in his ideas of

self

, or more accurately,

no-

self.

The Buddha proposed that humans do not consistof an unalterable ego, a permanent cosmic self, butrather an illusory self that is in a continual flux inter-connected to the harmonious whole. Although Humeapproached

A Treatize of Human Nature

(1739–1740)and later

An Enquiry Concerning Human Under-

standing

(1748) and

An Enquiry Concerning the Prin-

ciples of Morals

(1751) from an empiricist perspectivethat he hoped would support a science of the humanmind, his notions were very Buddhist in nature. Inmaking this argument, I believe that it is best to letHume speak for himself. I therefore allow him tospeak through quotes taken from Section 6

Of Per-

sonal Identity

contained within

A Treatize of Human

Nature

edited by Norton and Norton (2000). Hume’sphilosophy was based on the belief that human ideasresult from empirical impressions:

But self or person is not any one impression, but that to

which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to

have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of

self, that impression must continue invariably the same,

throughout the whole course of our lives . . . But there is no

impression constant and invariable. It cannot therefore be

from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the

idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such

idea.

Critical Response to Rodgers and Yen’s Article

169

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Nursing Philosophy

,

4

, pp. 168–169

[He ventures to affirm that mankind is] nothing but a

bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed

each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a per-

petual flux and movement. (pp. 164–165)

Rodgers and Yen explore the Buddhist philosophyof causation which I argue also resembles one of themost notable propositions in Hume’s philosophy, thatof necessary connection. Though not detailed fully inRodgers and Yen’s article, the Buddhist concept ofcausality contained in the theory of dependent origi-nation proposes that cause and effect cannot be sep-arated; things are

conditioned

by other things and areinherently impermanent. Hume contended that oneevent might follow another, but we are forever unableto observe the actual tie between them. We are neverable to presume that one event will infallibly produceanother event; there is no quality that binds the causeand effect. According to Hume, events seem con-joined but never connected which is similar to theconditioned connection of things and events in Bud-dhism. Rethinking the commonly held notion of thelaws of cause and effect can bring a novel perspectiveto the delivery of nursing care.

The Quantum and the Lotus

If one wishes to explore the connections betweenWestern science and Eastern philosophy, the parallelsare well grounded in the writings of Bohr, Heisen-berg, Einstein, Pauli, Jung, Bohm, and Capra to namebut a few. As noted by Rodgers and Yen, Buddhistphilosophy describes processes that do not occur inlinear fashion. Though a thorough justification of theargument is beyond the scope of this critical response,the point is worth noting that quantum physics and

later, chaos theory, arguably have as one of their mostsalient characteristics the principle of nonlinearity.This nonlinearity transcends both philosophy and sci-ence, both the metaphysical and the observable ele-ments of the universe. In their book,

The Quantum

and the Lotus

, molecular biologist, Matthieu Ricard,and astrophysicist, Trinh Thuan, contemplate the con-nections between the two streams of thought of Bud-dhism and Western science and how the two arecomplementary in helping us to develop a more holis-tic epistemology and ontology. I believe widespreadacceptance of an approach of this kind is overdue inthe mainstream of nursing.

Conclusion

I do agree with Rodgers and Yen that a look at thephilosophy of Buddhism is very relevant for nursingin moving beyond scientific ethnocentrism. In anattempt to further the science of nursing, nurses oftenreject anything that remotely challenges those limits.However, in

emptying our cups

, we must alsoacknowledge that some of the most brilliant Westernphilosophers and scientists have challenged thoseboundaries before us. For those nurses who are cou-rageous enough to argue that the worth of the pro-fession is not confined to a positivistic approachfounded on the preeminence of technological compe-tence, they may find that incorporating the wisdomand philosophy of the East can move the professionforward. Finally, in expanding the limits of whatnurses consider being within the realm of nursingscience, we might follow Kant’s lead in allowingDavid Hume to awaken us from our dogmatic slum-ber, in this instance realizing that a philosophy ofscience and a philosophy of life may coincide.