Western Philosophy vs Eastern Philosophy

[BIXX]

As many of us should know, western culture is primarily based on Greek culture. I am specifically referring to philosophy. I am asking for a pretty big idea here: what were Greek philosophers and their contributions to philosophy, and what are the ignored, eastern philosophies?

[Skyhilist]

A lot of eastern medicine I think is ignored in the Western world. Often because when the studies are done, something is shown to be a placebo. I say, so what? If some type of medicine helps someone because they think it's going to help them, why discourage that? I mean it's better than them not getting any help at all right? Who cares if it was a psychological reaction rather than a chemical one?

Also, acupuncture has shown to be at least to some extent not even a placebo with Western science. Even with that, Western science seeking to understand the world still is hesitant to recommend it because it's not fully understood how exactly it works yet. So many Western doctors might overlook it or be reluctant sometimes.

Another prominent eastern philosophy is Taoism. One of the biggest aspects of this is being in touch with nature in order to live more harmoniously. I think given the state of our planet this approach can make plenty of sense so long as one isn't blindly adhering to some dogma (which many Taoists, like followers of anything are) - yet this approach is also largely ignored in the West.

[Sabot Cat]

Accepting the classifications of West/East for convenience at the moment, I think one of the things that the West ignores about Eastern philosophy is its more secular contributions; this is so the New Agers can have their "exotic" woo-woo and so that European influence can be seen as a "civilizing" influence. I'll focus on some of the most historically notable more or less secular philosophies in China and India.

One of my favorites is Mohism because in addition to proclaiming the importance of universal love or impartial care, Mozi noted the so-called "Leibniz's Law" far before the time of the Enlightenment:

"Our Master Mozi said, “Now the blind say, ‘What's bright is white, and what's dark is black.’ Even the clear-sighted have no basis for changing this statement. But place white and black together and make a blind man select among them, and he cannot know them. So as to my saying the blind do not know white and black, it's not on the basis of their naming, it's on the basis of their selecting.”"

Mohist epistemology is incredibly interesting and relevant today, and I think Mozi should be credited for creating Pragmatism by merging epistemological justification with (ethical) consequentialism (which he deserves recognition for pioneering in of itself, far before Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism).

There is also the Agriculturalists, who were political philosophers that favored self-sufficient, egalitarian communities with fixed prices and no division of labor. Many points of their program are surprisingly modern for an Axial Age philosophical school, although some of the more flawed aspects of it can be easily gleaned in retrospect.

However, not everyone in the philosophical scene were egalitarian and in favor of impartial care. The Yangists were ethical egoists, who believed people should act in there own self-interest. They were akin to Objectivists in that anything that was done in spite of one's interests is considered unethical, and they were criticized for being selfish as well by competing philosophers.

Moving away from Chinese philosophers and turning our attention to India, one shouldn't neglect Cārvāka. They were true skeptics, denying all methods of justifying truth in their era, along with popular metaphysical notions like the afterlife, mind-body dualism, deities and other disembodied spirits. They were one of the first ones to raise Munchhausen trilemma in the mouths of their critics, and they acted as a countervailing force against the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism.

I've pretty much only scratched the surface here, but I hope I helped in expanding your entry points for learning more about Eastern philosophy. :)

[BIXX]

Both of you have posted incredibly awesome things for me to look into, thank you.

Do you have any suggested reading?

[Sabot Cat]

Both of you have posted incredibly awesome things for me to look into, thank you.

Do you have any suggested reading?

Not a problem! ^_^

I recommend studying Mohism in particular through this helpful introduction (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohism/), and then by reading Mozi's extensive bibliography as it is: (http://ctext.org/mozi).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

A lot of eastern medicine is ignored because it's bogus. There are like unlimited critiques one could make about western medicine, but one thing is for sure, if a procedure can be shown to reliably work, it will be comodified and sold as modern medicine. If doctors are hesitant to recommend acupuncture, its because it doesn't fucking work. If it did, they would have acupuncture wards in hospitals because that's money walking out the door to a competitor otherwise. Instead, they know that person will be back for normal treatment in the end, or they'll be dead.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

A lot of eastern medicine I think is ignored in the Western world. Often because when the studies are done, something is shown to be a placebo. I say, so what? If some type of medicine helps someone because they think it's going to help them, why discourage that? I mean it's better than them not getting any help at all right? Who cares if it was a psychological reaction rather than a chemical one?

Also, acupuncture has shown to be at least to some extent not even a placebo with Western science. Even with that, Western science seeking to understand the world still is hesitant to recommend it because it's not fully understood how exactly it works yet. So many Western doctors might overlook it or be reluctant sometimes.

Another prominent eastern philosophy is Taoism. One of the biggest aspects of this is being in touch with nature in order to live more harmoniously. I think given the state of our planet this approach can make plenty of sense so long as one isn't blindly adhering to some dogma (which many Taoists, like followers of anything are) - yet this approach is also largely ignored in the West.

Holy shit.

[Dodo]

As many of us should know, western culture is primarily based on Greek culture. I am specifically referring to philosophy. I am asking for a pretty big idea here: what were Greek philosophers and their contributions to philosophy, and what are the ignored, eastern philosophies?

You should also be careful with the seperation of west and east. What is west and what is west is not very clear and "independent" of each other. As much as west was made by east, east was made by west.
"West" starts with Greek culture because -western scholars" of enlightenment based it on them, and they created a romantic identity for "west" or being "European". What is even the justification for geographic term Europe when its just an extension of what we call Asia?
There is no mention of what Greek society is or how much it borrowed from "east" if we are to believe this seperation.

[BIXX]

Well, I'm primarily basing the dichotomy of the idea that our culture became what it did largely because the Greeks defeated the Persians in (insert old name of war here), as otherwise we likely would have seen a much different culture arise (I am not saying this is a good thing, just that it I believe the world would be far different had the outcome of that war been different).

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

Please tell us more about how bourgeois capitalist post-industrial revolution culture is based on the culture of ancient greek pre-industrial slave-owning aristocracies OP.

[Dodo]

Well, I'm primarily basing the dichotomy of the idea that our culture became what it did largely because the Greeks defeated the Persians in (insert old name of war here), as otherwise we likely would have seen a much different culture arise (I am not saying this is a good thing, just that it I believe the world would be far different had the outcome of that war been different).

That is what I am talking about. The world would have been very different in any change in history. And like you said, we can not really say its "bad" or "good", its just history.
But giving all the credit to ancient Greece is a bit of a mis-calculated, simplistic approach.
What if they were defeated by Persians? What happened to Greek states that were under Persian control throughout Anatolia? Were they less progressive? Or how about the oppressive kingdom structures and slavery in some Greek states.

I kind know what you are trying to say, I am not exactly counter-arguing it. But west-east distinction has to be said in a context in a clear way.
It is anti-dialectical to see these independent of each other, which you could do of course :).

When you talk of west-greece, what do you do with Egypt, Mesopotamian civilazations that created the Greek society? Where do you put them on a scale of west to east? Or India, Central Asia and China which interacted with each other all the way to Middle East when Europe was full of primitive tribes warring with each other?
How about the medittrenean civilazations, Carthage?
Was this "Greek culture" a static concept, a set of pre-determined social norms? Was it universal...etcetc

I just think we should not simplify these in an un-dialectical, seperate entities. It is a totality indeed from how I see it.

[BIXX]

You're correct, they do influence each other, however there were still differences. I mean, you can say that the US and Mexico influence each other (they certainly do, producing many syntheses which are actually fascinating) but you can easily state differences between the culture in the US and the culture in Mexico. This is the way I see the East/West dichotomy as being acceptable- by acknowledging they affected one another, but realizing they are still separate.

But yeah, that's my explanation of how to properly utilize an East-West "dichotomy" (I do not believe they are dichotomous, but I couldn't think of better word; maybe "distinction"?)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There are valuable ideas in all sorts of philosophical systems - even some which are reactionary in many aspects. For instance, politically speaking Confucian thought is a feudal ideology but their account of moral psychology and development has compelling features.

It's important to remember though that these systems tend to be very diverse. For instance, some Buddhists were sexist and excluded women while others were inclusive to women. Some Hindu schools of thought criticized the casteism of mainstream Hinduism. Getting beyond these systems of belief as monolithic is the first step to grasping them.

Also, Red Rose brought up the example of some philosophies which ended up getting abandoned over the course of history. A study of Mohist thought would be interesting - not out of a desire to adopt the ideology wholeheartedly but to see what we can learn from it, and to learn about the kinds of debates being had in pre-Imperial China.


You're correct, they do influence each other, however there were still differences. I mean, you can say that the US and Mexico influence each other (they certainly do, producing many syntheses which are actually fascinating) but you can easily state differences between the culture in the US and the culture in Mexico. This is the way I see the East/West dichotomy as being acceptable- by acknowledging they affected one another, but realizing they are still separate.

But yeah, that's my explanation of how to properly utilize an East-West "dichotomy" (I do not believe they are dichotomous, but I couldn't think of better word; maybe "distinction"?)

For there to be differences between two things we need to be able to identify them as discrete and distinct things first. There really are no borders when it comes to philosophy. IMO philosophers tend to like to view their systems of thought as bound to a fundamentally superior cultural perspective, probably for their own psychological reasons in part and also in part to make it more palatable.

[Rafiq]

We are Marxists, we violently oppose "eastern philosophy", our entire mode of thinking is intrinsically western in every regard. Eastern philosophy is garbage, it is spiritualist dribble, more often than not within a modern context absolutely reactionary in nature. It reflects a much more backward form of social relations than capitalism. You want to talk of European chauvinism, realize that in countries oppressed by European colonists, it is "Eastern philosophy" and the traditional cultural customs that their toadies so desperately attempted to reinforce upon them, anti-colonialists were always the first to introduce western ideas to their people. Look here how users speak of acceptance of Eastern philosophy, they do this only through an inherently western thought, it is only through the basis of 'western philosophy' that you get the universalism we Communists hold so dear.

[Sabot Cat]

We are Marxists, we violently oppose "eastern philosophy", our entire mode of thinking is intrinsically western in every regard. Eastern philosophy is garbage, it is spiritualist dribble, more often than not within a modern context absolutely reactionary in nature. It reflects a much more backward form of social relations than capitalism. You want to talk of European chauvinism, realize that in countries oppressed by European colonists, it is "Eastern philosophy" and the traditional cultural customs that their toadies so desperately attempted to reinforce upon them, anti-colonialists were always the first to introduce western ideas to their people. Look here how users speak of acceptance of Eastern philosophy, they do this only through an inherently western thought, it is only through the basis of 'western philosophy' that you get the universalism we Communists hold so dear.

This is nonsense. "The West" didn't invent skeptical, rational and secular philosophies, nor did they invent cultural pluralism. "Eastern philosophy" isn't a coherent whole or ideology, it's a broad term for many systems of thought which may or not be spiritual. Believing the notion of the West as a civilizing, rationalizing force in opposition to "primitive" belief systems instead of seeing it as the most corrosive and destructive expression of capitalism (imperialism), is buying into the belief that lent itself as a foundation for this reactionary ideology in the first place.

[Sea]

A lot of eastern medicine I think is ignored in the Western world. Often because when the studies are done, something is shown to be a placebo. I say, so what? If some type of medicine helps someone because they think it's going to help them, why discourage that? I mean it's better than them not getting any help at all right? Who cares if it was a psychological reaction rather than a chemical one?Because, unless the disease itself is all in the head, the person goes untreated, and this can end up killing the patient.

Essentially you're asking: "What's wrong with medicine that doesn't treat the disease?"

Do you feel stupid yet?

Medicines and treatments get recognized worldwide based on their effectiveness, not based on their supposed position in the East-West false dichotomy.

[La Comédie Noire]

Please tell us more about how bourgeois capitalist post-industrial revolution culture is based on the culture of ancient greek pre-industrial slave-owning aristocracies OP.


Vulgar Marxism at its finest.

[consuming negativity]

There are valuable ideas in all sorts of philosophical systems - even some which are reactionary in many aspects. For instance, politically speaking Confucian thought is a feudal ideology but their account of moral psychology and development has compelling features.

It's important to remember though that these systems tend to be very diverse. For instance, some Buddhists were sexist and excluded women while others were inclusive to women. Some Hindu schools of thought criticized the casteism of mainstream Hinduism. Getting beyond these systems of belief as monolithic is the first step to grasping them.

Also, Red Rose brought up the example of some philosophies which ended up getting abandoned over the course of history. A study of Mohist thought would be interesting - not out of a desire to adopt the ideology wholeheartedly but to see what we can learn from it, and to learn about the kinds of debates being had in pre-Imperial China.



For there to be differences between two things we need to be able to identify them as discrete and distinct things first. There really are no borders when it comes to philosophy. IMO philosophers tend to like to view their systems of thought as bound to a fundamentally superior cultural perspective, probably for their own psychological reasons in part and also in part to make it more palatable.

On the topic of Hinduism, it is such a diverse group of philosophical and cultural practices within itself that it can hardly even be considered a single religion. 4,000 years of philosophy building on top of itself in and of itself is impressive, but to see the differentiations and then to see their interaction with socialism and the radical left is fascinating to me. There are some extremely insightful leftists and persons with left-wing/radical thought within the Hindu tradition that often get overlooked, and I think that's a shame.

I am admittedly very ignorant on the subject of the Maoists in India and their interactions with other groups, but I think that paying attention to their interpretations of Marx and other philosophers could reap some fantastic rewards. Particularly since it seems they're gaining momentum as we speak. But, again, the topic of socialist/communist thought in India is something that interests me far more than something that I have a good knowledge of.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What about Central Philosophy? That doesn't even come up on wikipedia!


Would the beliefs of the Church of the East be considered 'Eastern Philosophy'? I mean, they've been around in China, Persia and India earlier than the time Christianity got big in Europe. The 'East-West' distinction is such a silly false-dichotomy, acting as if the cultures of these regions were completely and utterly isolated from one another, and that the massive lands that lay within the expanse between the two, such as Mesopotamia, Arabia, Persia, the Caucasus, Siberia and Turkestan, did not exist.