What is the disconnect between "Western" and "Eastern" philosophies? Why is Western philosophy predominately discussed here over Eastern philosophies? Is it solely because must of the people visiting this born were born in and live in Western countries?
What is it about East Asain and Middle Eastern philosophy that's unappealing to Western thinkers? Idk if Africans have philosophy, but if they do, the question also applies to them.
>Is it solely because must of the people visiting this born were born in and live in Western countries?
Not just that, no. If you went to a philosophy department in a modern Chinese university you'd probably find more people specialising in European philosophers than Chinese thinkers. Even those who specialize in Chinese philosophy will generally be doing a whole lot of thinking about it in terms of 'western' categories. I'd say philosophy as understood in the contemporary world is very largely constructed along European lines.
>the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct
>"Only after Winter comes do we know that the pine and the cypress are the last to fade."
>"He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know."
>"I know the center of the world: it is north of Yen and south of Yueh."
>"Misfortunes, at the beginning, are easily dispelled. As for those which cannot be dispelled, avoid them."
>"When torrential water tosses boulders, it is because of its momentum. When the strike of a hawk breaks the body of its prey, it is because of timing."
Eastern philosophy tends to be poetic and transcendental, while Western philosophy emphasizes convention and clarity through rigor; the two are independently marvelous, and have had some great dialogue between them (ie Schopenhauer), but it's almost impossible for Westerners to have more than a voyeur's appreciation for the Eastern traditions of thought, considering the linguistic and cultural barriers.
Oriental peoples lack creativity and individualism, thus they are a fundamentally collectivist race. The idea of freedom, so central to western civilisation, does not exist in their culture, they are by nature Statists and socialists. There is no Chinese Kant or Aristotle, the indians had no concept of the market before the british raj, left alone for a few years they regresed to socialism and collectivism
As usual, this thread is disgustingly racist and ignorant.
East Asia has had a wide spectrum of thinkers and philosophies, and all those countries readily adopted Western ideas when they saw their potential. They also arguably came to many paradigms long, long before the west did.
For example, Legalism is a lot like behaviorism. Mohism is hippieism (everyone should just love everyone, man!).
They also developed pretty much every world-changing technology (gunpowder, paper, compasses) and the West only learned about it after it migrated.
They also quickly saw the potential of Western ideas and readily adopted them, eager to experiment. Taiwan's government, for example, is a fusion of a Western republic with Confucianism influence and made some arguable improvements to the American system.
You're a tard, m8. If you want to learn about Chinese philosophy, learn about Chinese philosophy. You'll probably be impressed by it.
Confucianism is a completely secular "religion" that didn't need space fairies to be popular and yet features all the same elements that /pol/ spergs over and laments the loss of.
literally statist nonsense, it's ok by eastern standards. but thats only because the competition is just empty mystical gibberish i.e. taoism and zen. The success of China comes from Western free market innovations, but IMO its not sustainable as their society tends to regress to socialism and statism when unable to cope with crises.
the concept of 'eastern philosophy' is a politically correct product of leftist academia, seeking to undermine the foundations of western civilization i.e. Judeo-christian ethics, the free-market and Greco-roman rationality
Actually, what tends to be discussed is Eastern Mysticism, not Philosophy. This is because in the Orient, there were efforts by various mystics to turn the esoteric into the exoteric. These efforts largely succeeded.
Ironically, Western Mysticism is almost never discussed, even though it's just as deep and fascinating. This is probably because the mystical tradition in the West survived centuries without almost any changes that would make it more accessible to the layman.
I base my behavior and thinking around rational principles like logic, science, economics and the non-aggression principle instead of relying in statism, religion marxism or feminism.
>don't buy shitty pseudophilosophy
Nothing you've mentioned even remotely approaches the importance of a thinker like Kant, or even an Aquinas. If any great eastern philosophers appear, they will be firmly rooted in the Western (real) tradition.
Well, this is a little more complicated than people act like it is, so bear with me.
What we call "western" philosophy is really Greek-root philosophy, and it forms the backbone of ethical thought western culture. It was extrapolated/added onto by other cultures like the Romans and Christians, of course, but ultimately Greek in origin. Despite most people of western European descent being the descendants of pagan societies with distinct pagan philosophies, very little of those ideas still permeate western culture as they were "overwritten" by the Greco-Roman-Christian brand of thought.
"Eastern philosophy" is just a catch-all term for every philosophy that isn't Greek-root. Muslims get thrown in there, Sub-Saharan Africans, Hindus, Tao, Zen, whatever; if it wasn't practiced on the European continent, it gets called Eastern philosophy. So you can look at any of those Eastern philosophies and see that they're all incredibly different from one another, and as different from one another than they are from Western philosophy.
Western people focus mainly on Western philosophy because they're Western; it's literally as straightforward as that.
Nah, anon's pretty right. At the very least, 'eastern philosophy' usually covers the Chinese and Indian traditions, and they had at least several hundred years of independent development without interacting much at all.
Although anon seems to be oversimplifying 'western philosophy' as well, of course. I don't think you can treat the Christians simply as an ofshoot of the Greeks, because you've got very different stuff from the Middle East coming in. It's a tree with many branches, but it also has a few different roots.
This thread is hilarious. I had no idea /lit/ was still stuck in the 19th century when it came to orientalist fantasy. Or has this thread just been overrun by euphoric redditors?
West rational, East mystical. I mean, honestly the guy who said westerners have souls and easterners don't is probably the most honest from among you troglodytes.
...in fact, Wikipedia does it.
>Eastern philosophy includes the various philosophies of South and East Asia, including Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, Japanese philosophy. Sometimes Iranian/Persian philosophy can be considered as eastern philosophy. Broadly speaking the term can also sometimes include Babylonian philosophy, Jewish philosophy, and Islamic philosophy, though these may also be considered Western philosophies
Not of course that that position's a good one, just that 'eastern philosophy' can be and has been used in that incredibly broad way.
Have you ever used "0" as either an abstract concept or a concrete symbol indicating nothingness?
Then you've grappled with the philosophy from the Indian subcontinent
Have you ever read Schopenhauer or dealt with negation of the will in any way?
Then you've grappled with Buddhism
Have you ever read ANY philosophy written after the 10th century?
Then there's a good chance you've already grappled with intellectual currents that find their root in the Islamic golden age (Descartes hyperbolic doubt, Hume's account of causation and Wittgenstein/Russel's language games can all find their roots in al-Ghazali and the Ash'arites alone)
My point being that while "the west" is currently the leading socio-cultural/intellectual force the world over, it didn't get here without thousands of years of outside influence and only as a passing fad, just another ripple in the ever flowing river of Heraclitian flux that is Being.
There are 6 schools of traditional Indian philosophy - Samkhya, Nyaya and Vedanta may interest you. For the heterdox schools there is Jainism, Buddhism and Charvak (Lokayat/materialist) school.
My personal favourite is the Vedanta, and another anon has already recommended Adi Shankara and the Gita; I'd add the Upanishads. The Buddhist school can be considered a sub-school of this system.
Kek you're trying so hard
Schopenhauer himself is much more sophisticated than the Buddha, not to mention the fact that Nietzsche easily refuted every buddhist aspect of his philosophy. Western philosophy would be virtually the same without eastern shit.
Is a radical leftist who upholds absolute equality like a zealot more right wing than some guy who says maybe natural law is right?
If your knowledge of philosophy begins and ends with a superficial understanding of the continentals then you shouldn't make generalizations. Try Phil 201 next.
>If your knowledge of philosophy begins and ends with a superficial understanding of the continentals then you shouldn't make generalizations. Try Phil 201 next.
Your comment about Buddha and Schopenhauer is exactly that: superficial. It reads like a weak hail mary by one who wishes to defend pseudo philosophy.
>But Nietzsche was heavily influenced by Emerson, who was himself all about Vedanta.
lol, no. Vedanta shit was actually the weakest part of Emerson's philosophy, it is the only aspect of his work that begins with no reasoning and arrives in air. completely out of place. If you'd actually read all of his essays you'd be able to easily identify the parts that Nietzsche lifted.
>So where does that leave us?
Making vague statements about "influence" with hopes of propping up juvenile eastern platitudes, apparently
You're probably talking about the horse-shoe spectrum. I was being more concrete. That website is mainstream-right wing in most of its major opinions, except it claims an exception to religiosity.
I've already identified several of your elementary mistakes, you've apparently not even read the writers you mention.
> He's like that kid in an undergrad philosophy course who hasn't done any of the readings overcompensates by pretending to know what we're talking about anyway
Literally just memeing my accusation back to me. Unfortunately, you don't actually have anything but desperate insults to back your up, kek
You make these sweeping statements about "parts of Emerson's philosophy," saying Nietzsche refuted Buddhist philosophy (that one is especially hilarious) but you give us literally no reason to assume you know what you're talking about.
Exactly wherein Emerson is he entirely devoid of vedantic influence? And where in Nietzsche does he refute Buddhism?
These just smack of shitty high school English paper prompts.
>You make these sweeping statements about "parts of Emerson's philosophy,"
The guy I was replying to literally said Emerson was "all about" Vedanta. I'm not going to write a top tier research people for a couple of monolingual plebs who haven't even read these guys.
>saying Nietzsche refuted Buddhist philosophy
Didn't say that though. Again, you can't even demonstrate the level of literacy needed to respond to me, why should I humor you with actual effort?
>but you give us literally no reason to assume you know what you're talking about
What a stupid response coming from an idiot who obviously hasn't even read the philosophers we're discussing, as evidenced by:
>Exactly wherein Emerson is he entirely devoid of vedantic influence?
No one with a bit of learning on the subject would ever ask this. In fact, Emerson was accused of having plagiarized 90% of his work from French philosophers.
>And where in Nietzsche does he refute Buddhism?
He doesn't, skeptical hedonism cannot be refuted by syllogism, but Nietzsche does argue against it. You actually think Nietzsche would be a buddhist? kek
>These just smack of shitty high school English paper prompts.
This just smacks of the kind of cliche insults hurled around by desperate imbeciles who don't even have basic knowledge about these thinkers or their influences. Seriously, "le schopenhauer was heavily buddhist xD" you people sound like you've just read Wikipedia articles
So much ad hominem.
You salty m8?
If you're interested in any of this stuff you should check out Versluis' American Transcendentalism and Asian Religions. It has really good treatment of Emerson and vedanta.
Also American Nietzsche is a fantastic reception history of his stuff (lots about how Emerson influenced him).
Because the relationship between Schopenhauer and Buddhism is self evident if you know anything about either of them.
Because explaining that would be akin to explaining (to use your own favourite continental as an example) why will-to-power is relevant to Nietzsche's philosophy, because we're working under the assumption that we're discussing this with philosophers/philosophy enthusiasts and not with a Phil101 class.
You're being pedantic about other people's explanations when the entirety of your argument lies here >>7600370 where you make the baseless claim that Schopenhauer is more "sophisticated" (holy spooks) than the Buddha (notice you're not denying the immense influence it had on his philosophy), then making the baseless claim that Nietzsche easily refuted every aspect of that influence and then, the crux of it all, you deny the influence of all of Eastern philosophy on the West. You're admitting to your own ignorance of not only the great medieval Islamic philosophers but literally any school of thought that wasn't conceived within arbitrary geo-political lines you've chosen to champion.
You're a raging pseud who shoehorned themselves into a conversation they never had any right to contribute to.
Never said a thing about this, kek how low can you get? You've done nothing but ignore my post, assert without evidence, and regurgitate the same weak insults. I usually don't go in for cliches, but you clearly are one, this is one of the most obvious cases of projection I've ever seen.
Everything I said is self evident, see how easy that is?
Eastern philosophies generally follow a pattern of utmost respect for something...
Confucianism for elders and people in positions of power, the family basically.
This is not a fun way to live life.
Transcendentalism and Realism are generally easier to get into because they encourage you to live your life however you want. Basically, they're not as depressing to most people.
to be very simplistic here is how i would define the difference:
western: a near total separation between science and spirituality. people have their beliefs, but they are also (on paper) objective about the world and science. the main concern with new buildings and inventions is whether they can be practical or save the most money.
eastern: not necessarily anti-scientific, but more of a "everything is part of something else" mentality, "the oneness of all things" that seems great importance and spirituality in minor things like trees or rivers. more of a focus on being "one" with the universe than western philosophy