Eastern vs. Western philosophy

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Eastern philosophy is vastly superior to western philosophy. It regards everything as one single spectrum, whereas the western tenancy is to fractal everything into numerous categories and subcategories resulting in an isolated study that's blind to the whole, and inevitably breeds the type of nihilistic, relativistic empiricists that plague this board. Western philosophy is also a crude, plagiarised version of superior eastern thought that doesn't even see it's flawed approach:

-Hume's bundle theory = Buddhist anatta.
-Kant's theory of knowledge = Buddhist perception theory.
-Schopenhaur's will = buddhist desire
-Derrida's deconstructionism = buddhist madhyamaka's
-Godel = buddhist indra's net
-Hegel = buddhist emptiness




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Well I don't know about all the superior stuff but I do like the way a true Buddhist respects all living things. Kinda like the movie Avatar without the white floaty things. But as in anything once learned scholars get hold of an idea the most beautiful thought can be bastardized to their own ends.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
So you follow Eastern philosophy??
Funny, because for someone who claims to support the vastly better philosophy, your post is mostly negative.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I essentially agree to the statements of the OP.
I must add that many Eastern philosophies, as Alan W. Watts pointed out, developed in a vastly different context, and thus their words must be interpreted first in their probable cultural context, not just simply transpose them to a modern Western concept.

One key example: the "whole world is your mind" type of concepts, sort of misused in many New Age credos.
In Buddhism or Hinduism, they are not supposed to be cosmological descriptions taken literally.
Since classical German philosophy, the French rationalism of Descartes and Voltaire, etc. were developed when the all-powerful medieval church was dethroned as a supreme defining authority over the natural world, and the natural sciences - based on rigorous, methodical observation - as well as cosmologies were developing (while Western man was busy conquering half the world), we tend to take these "all is mind" concepts literally, as cosmological descriptions.

That is erroneous. They are meant to be teaching tools in India, Tibet and China. When disciples reach a certain stage of development, they are ready to try on various philosophical points "as if they were true" to their experience of life - like "all is mind." It is designed to trigger a certain type of transformation.

We do not literally mean that all the galaxies sprung out of the imagination from, let's say, John Doe.

Anyway, in Buddhism since the time of Nágárjuna (who defined the Middle Way epistemologically, or madhyamaka), no verbal statements are taken as absolutes, neither their opposites, nor both or neither etc... (Whatever remains after this verbal juggernaut is the "middle way" of thinking).

However, I must point out that the Western way of thinking produced many scientific and technological discoveries, medicines, cosmological and universal descriptions, linguistics, conspiracy theories and alternative explanations of historical dynamisms etc. Political philosophy produced democracy, checks and balances, etc. (some had important antecedents such as the Great Iroquois Confederacy apart from the obvious Greek roots).

I am personally looking forward to a real synthesis between East and West.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
To the OP

In your own words, can you concisely describe what you mean by philosophy?

Comparing the writings and thoughts of a selected number of Western philosophers against Buddhist teaching and thinking is silly. There are many Western philosophers – significantly more than you care to list. Indeed, there is more to Eastern philosophy than Buddhism.

Regards



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheNHK
 


Plague this board eh? It sounds like you've been scorned a time or two. I expect that's why you return under a different name. I apologize if it was me.

One thing I like about Western over Eastern philosophy is the use of the trivium—logic, grammar and rhetoric. Eastern philosophy has a religious base (taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism), and therefore avoid such paths to knowledge.

But I can see why'd you'd subscribe to Eastern philosophy—it's easier.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheNHK

It regards everything as one single spectrum...


But don't you see? A crude philosophy is a necessary part of that spectrum. The Tao expresses itself as pairs of complementary opposites... in this case a pair of philosophies. One crude and one polished.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Different culture, different philosophy. If the West does have a philosophy that is for philosophy is about life.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TheNHK
 


Perhaps a balance should be sought.
A philosophy that combines both.
This East and West thing reminds me...
Of the attributes of the left and right brain hemispheres.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
This is a fascinating BBC documentary called:
Jesus Was A Buddhist Monk.
youtu.be...



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by TheNHK
 


Plague this board eh? It sounds like you've been scorned a time or two. I expect that's why you return under a different name. I apologize if it was me.

One thing I like about Western over Eastern philosophy is the use of the trivium—logic, grammar and rhetoric. Eastern philosophy has a religious base (taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism), and therefore avoid such paths to knowledge.

But I can see why'd you'd subscribe to Eastern philosophy—it's easier.

No, it is not.
Sankhya or Buddhist epistemology is as difficult as Wittgenstein.
In fact it takes a similar mind to try to take it in.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
All cultures and people around the world have an invaluable contribution to philosophical thought. There is only relation and relationship in this physical reality, so it is of great hinderance to ignore the contributions of either Eastern or Western thought.

A combination of East and West, such as found in Hellenized Philosophy, is optimal for understanding the collective human experience.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TheNHK
 

I think Peter Kingsley puts in best in this video:


Personally we need Western Philosophy, as its mostly Head based, and strong on Logic/Reason. While it lacks intuition and creates a large number of Atheism, it is still responsible for creating the Engineers & Scientists responsible for making the bridges, cars, tech, infrastructure etc.

East is based on Heart Mind, Enlightenment, Intuition, Zen, Being.

We need a balance between the 2



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
From my perspective, Western religion teaches rules ("thou shalt not...") while Eastern religion actually gives a PHILOSOPHY. It actually tries to EXPLAIN how things work and HOW one should be living instead of just giving rules without explaining anything...

The only one who did such a thing was Jesus, and that is if you actually BELIEVE his philosophy that God is love and when you live in love you live in God and God in you (John 4:16). But most Christians does not really see things as this simple so the Philosophy is thrown away for the rules (thou shalt nots....)





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join