causal factors of philosophy

When one studies ancient philosophy one realizes that all the subject material at hand is coming from very particular localities, I find this very peculiar. Why is it for instance that philosophy flourished in ancient Europe, but not North America? Why is it that India was rich in philosophy, but not Australia? Why is it that philosophy sprung to life in north Africa, but not south Africa? The question I am asking in a nutshell is this, what are the causal factors that lead to the development of philosopohy in some societies, but not others?

a reply to: satsanga

The spirit of the people, or zeitgeist. Simply put, it is caused by whatever the culture values. If a culture sees value in philosophy and the people who use it, they will use it. You could try to factor in figureheads who oppose philosophy as having a part in it, but I think that will still play into the spirit of the people.

If you want some first class conjecture, I think it is due to the way people see themselves. A culture who is more attuned with the spirit will see themselves as a part of the world and will wonder after their place in the world amoungst the spirits. If a culture sees themselves as separate from the world, they will worship their own minds, and wonder after it. If a culture doesn't care to see anything about themselves, you get consumerism. lol idk

a reply to: satsanga

I would say that philosophy has flourished all over the world.
What are your criteria for calling the worldviews of, for example, ancient India philosophy but you would not call the worldviews of the aboriginees in Australia philosophy?
What is philosophy?
Maybe the real question is: why have some philosophies been dominant over others that have been set aside as superstition or even have been forgotten?

a reply to: satsanga

It could just be cultural transmission, ancient people got around, and those areas are close.

a reply to: satsanga

i tired of ancient philosophers very quickly and couldn't not put their books down physically but intellectually i would not put them down and understood what they would talk for hours about had nothing to do with my life or the modern world

a reply to: satsanga

One observation to be made would be philosophy flourished where there was a written language. Maybe that was needed before man could sit around philosophizing on the meanings of what was written to be recorded yet again then reinterpreted.

Otherwise you just have a bunch of people sitting around the fire BSing each other until an agreement is made or the subject is dropped. That is my take on it.

a reply to: satsanga

I think that written language plays a very important part. The Bhagavad Gita of India is estimated to have been written in 1924 BCE (www.crystalinks.com...)


The Australian Aborigine whilst not having a "written language" still exhibit a philosophy based around the concept of the unity of land and the people.

from www.australianhumanitiesreview.org...

On Logic:

Aboriginal logic is very different to Western logic. Western logic rests on the division between the self and the not-self, the external and the internal. This means that it is the viewpoint of the human individual that is taken to be the window between the external world of fact and the internal world of beliefs. Within the terms of such a division, and the 'viewpoint' which it produces, things can only ever appear as either true or false if they are to appear to 'be' at all; this is the law of the Excluded Middle.

Aboriginal logic maintains that there is no division between the observing mind and anything else: there is no 'external world' to inhabit. There are distinctions between the physical and the spiritual, but these aspects of existence continually interpenetrate each other. All perspectives are thus valid and reasonable: there is no one way or meaning of life. There is never a barrier between the mind and the Creative; the whole repertoire of what is possible continually presents or is expressed as an infinite range of Dreamings. What is possible is the transformative dynamic of growth.

I think the part I bolded above is beautiful, there is no division between the creator, the mind, and the Land.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I would tend to agree with ArieBombaries statement of 12 Dec 2014 that philosophy is prevalent wherever there is a society and ancestral memories/language to be shared amongst its members.

I noticed from satsangas other threads that they dont hang around too long after creating a thread...hmm

a reply to: satsanga

In the book "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant (a best seller in 1926), Durant says that the Greeks, as mariner travelers, observed many religions from an impartial, disinterested perspective, and so became skeptical of all religion.

Also, since the Greek culture and civilization was decentralized, Greece never had an official imperial religion, like every other ancient civilization had.

Greek philosophy was the first attempt by man, that we have a record of, to explain reality without constant divine or magical causation.

Concerning the beginning of logic,

Socrates advised precision in definition, a good start to induction.

Plato held that a true result is non-contradictory. A=A or "A cannot be both A and not A" , the first rule of deduction.