Thread: East or West...

Originally posted by Asher

personally, i find that western philosophy is (rightly) being overcome by science, which often makes the seemingly rational objectiveness of western philosophy pale in comparison. i would even suggest that science is the purest form of western philosophy, which is superior to all other systems of thought as far as describing, classifying, catergorizing, and generally making sense of the EXTERNAL world.

whereas the eastern philosphical systems still seem superior as far as being the purest method for making sense of the INTERNAL world (particularly buddhism).

i'd have to agree with this. lately i've been exploring more of the eastern philosophies because i've suddenly become disillusioned with almost everything from the west--i know it's the best policy to be open-minded, but i'm having difficulty not finding the day-to-day life of the average westerner incredibly shallow. it seems like here we try to run away from death and misery by inundating ourselves with inebriating chemicals, useless posessions and sexual obsession--all things i used to enjoy to a great degree....but now, i seem to have noticed that true happiness comes from within, and no number of expensive cars or big bank accounts is going to keep me from wanting more and more and more. also, i seem to always end up doing something really stupid when i'm wasted. here we practice the art of distraction, and in the east the practice the art of acceptance.

I think spritually the east is richer. Materially however, the west is richer.

The west invented the car, the east meditation.

They both have good and bad parts. But for philosopy, and religion, that is way more mixed together in the east, I have to go for the east. Eastern religions are more about bettering yourself. While western religions are more about god, making god happy.

In a lot of ways, Eastern cultures prize material goods just as much or more than we do.

For example, over here, it's customary to brag about how great of a deal you got on a car or a watch or whatever. In many cultures in the East, that would be a great way to embarrass yourself. It's common for them to talk about how much they paid for their car or watch.

While Easter philosophy is all fine and dandy, it doesn't reflect the customs of the culture quick as much as we like to think.

I think the days of clear lines between east and west are over. Cultures continually influence each other.

I can watch Hindi and Urdu programming on my TV, plus Russian, Cantonese, Italian, etc.

Internet helps as does cheaper airfares.

The Japanese have amazing technology, have they passed the materialism of the West?

Is Christianity western, how about Islam, or Judaism? They all started in the same place. When the Moors were in Spain were they western?

All the fashionable people doing the newest version of Yoga, are they eastern?

Just as I enjoy trying different restaurants, I like reading different philosophies, and seeing different movies. Hopefully my worldview is expanded somewhat.

It's always good to get one more viewpoint under your belt. Though, I never really thought people tended to favor western philosophers over the eastern kind. By what examples do you mean? Like early century politicians like Tom Jefferson or Ben Franklin? My favorite philosophers were definately the older ones, like socrates, who remains my favorite. And he is not a western philosopher!

by west i meant the tradition starting with the pre-socratics and including the big three of western philosphy- socrates, plato, aristotle, running all the way through existentialism and all the rest.

socrates would actually be labeled the father of western philosophy by some. by west it is meant any philosophy rooted in greco-roman thought. whereas with east-indian, tibetan, chinese, etc..

Originally posted by wombing
by west i meant the tradition starting with the pre-socratics and including the big three of western philosphy- socrates, plato, aristotle, running all the way through existentialism and all the rest.

*socrates would actually be labeled the father of western philosophy by some. by west it is *meant any philosophy rooted in greco-roman thought. whereas with east-indian, tibetan, chinese, etc..

Hey Wombing, have you read Plato?

In The Republic he rates democracy one step above dicatorship, but prefers an elite philosopher king ruler. In the same book reincarnation is discussed.

In the Phaedo, Socrates has a daemon, or spirit guide.

I don't think these ideas are bedrocks of western philosophy. More emphasis seems to be given to the Empiricists.

Neo-platonism has many common elements with both hinduism and sufism. But in the west Christianity opposed personal spiritual experience as a challenge to its authority.. And the extreme rationalism of Western philosophy could be seen as a subsequent reaction to suffocating dogma of the Church.

i've read most of his dialogues, and the republic has been sitting on my shelf for months now...i just can't get into it (particularly because i thus far don't think much of the philospher king concept, or 'noble lies' for that matter)

certainly platonic thought (in which i include socrates as it is seems impossible to separate the two) has some common elements with the east, particularly neo-platonism. and though i've barely scratched the surface of aristotle, even he has more thought tinged with eastern ideas than i expected.

I don't think these ideas are bedrocks of western philosophy. More emphasis seems to be given to the Empiricists. [/b]

certainly. i was simply saying that IMO, on the whole, those three philosphers were the bedrock of western philosophy. and that only certain portions of their thought were incorporated into western philosophy (aristotlean logic perhaps being the most important), and are primarily associated with them by westerners. and these elements are certainly not eastern.

i find the concurrent developments of early forms of christianity to be particularly relevant. the gnostics/arians were heavily influenced by the neoplatonists, and much of the time it is hard to separate the two (and subsequently the gnostic/neo-platonist tradition from the eastern concepts which spawned it).

this easternish philosophy was too much for the catholic church and the west to stomach, and was stamped out. aristotle was eventually cemented as the foundation of western philosophy by the angelic doctor, and coddled by the catholic enterprise.

and eventually the empiricists revolted against this resultant philosophical system.

to me gnosticism/neo-platonism (along with the orphic-pythagorean tradition which spawned n.platonism) never really had a solid place in western philosophy. origen and plontinus seem the closest the west got to accepting certain 'eastern' concepts.

to me neplatonism distilled the eastern concepts found in early greek thought, and ended up staying in the east. whereas the remainder of their thought incorporated in western philosphy included only watered down eastern thought (and indeed even reincarnation was soon removed)

the empiricists reacted against even this watered down version of anything eastern.

i think socrates and the eastern elements of plato got filtered back into the east through the gnostic/neoplatonic tradition, while the more 'logical' aristotle was most assuredly the bedrock of western philosophy, including the empiricists.

*shrugs* western philosophy has always been more of a hobby than a passion for me though, so i could have a grossly inaccurate interpetation of its philosophical development.

Both, ...and then some!

East & West!

North. Scandinavian countries rock <3

Probably the most interesting philosophy for you is the one you come up with. I enjoy ready philosophy from others, but my absolute favorite thing to do in this field of thought is to journal and experiment with my own ideas about the world, and just play around with them. Origininality can't be surpassed.

If you come from an anthropological point of view, it'd be a little easier to see things from an unbiased and non judgemental point of view, and is thus easier to study different philosophies and religion at the same time, rather than if you came into the field with a frame of mind that's already devoted to one single philosophy. This would cloud, or rather, narrow your thinking greatly.