Is 'Western Philosophy' just a misleading term for 'Philosophy'?
Yes, I think so.
I mean, what does 'Western' philosophy mean? Does it mean philosophy 'as practiced' in the west? But that's just 'philosophy'. There's nothing 'western' about it. It is just the practice of using reasoned argument to find out about reality. So it can't mean that, as the word 'Western' is doing no work.
Does it denote a worldview that has been arrived at by Western philosophers? Well, there isn't one, as anyone who has read the canon knows. The big name philosophers who fell out of vaginas located in western countries do not agree in their conclusions about the nature of reality. So anyone using the term in that way is simply evincing ignorance, surely?
Does it denote the entire collection of worldviews that have been held by philosophers who fell out of vaginas in western countries? Well, in that case it is not a helpful term at all, given that those worldviews are very different and the only thing they all have in common is that those who arrived at them did so by using philosophy.
Or does it - and I think this is increasingly the case - function to express contempt at the very exercise of using reason to find out about the world? There are some who find reasoned argument oppressive, because reason only permits there to be one true view, and thus if one undertakes to use reasoned argument to find out about the world, one is almost certain to discover that many of one's preexisting views about the world are false. Practitioners of philosophy - proper philosophy - are therefore imperialist oppressors, who are trying to colonize others at a conceptual level with their western reason. The 'west' has previously practiced physical colonization, and all 'western' philosophy represents is the attempt to extend the colonization to the realm of ideas.
I mean, what does 'Western' philosophy mean? Does it mean philosophy 'as practiced' in the west? But that's just 'philosophy'. There's nothing 'western' about it. It is just the practice of using reasoned argument to find out about reality. So it can't mean that, as the word 'Western' is doing no work.
Does it denote a worldview that has been arrived at by Western philosophers? Well, there isn't one, as anyone who has read the canon knows. The big name philosophers who fell out of vaginas located in western countries do not agree in their conclusions about the nature of reality. So anyone using the term in that way is simply evincing ignorance, surely?
Does it denote the entire collection of worldviews that have been held by philosophers who fell out of vaginas in western countries? Well, in that case it is not a helpful term at all, given that those worldviews are very different and the only thing they all have in common is that those who arrived at them did so by using philosophy.
Or does it - and I think this is increasingly the case - function to express contempt at the very exercise of using reason to find out about the world? There are some who find reasoned argument oppressive, because reason only permits there to be one true view, and thus if one undertakes to use reasoned argument to find out about the world, one is almost certain to discover that many of one's preexisting views about the world are false. Practitioners of philosophy - proper philosophy - are therefore imperialist oppressors, who are trying to colonize others at a conceptual level with their western reason. The 'west' has previously practiced physical colonization, and all 'western' philosophy represents is the attempt to extend the colonization to the realm of ideas.
Comments (245)
Quoting Bartricks
Right so here we go again.
You give weight to the thoughts of big name philosophers on account on them being good reasoners. For the same reason you give weight to expertise in the field as it is indicative of good reasoning. At the same time you must agree that most of them are wrong since there is only one true view (laughably, you probably think yours qualifies here).
Again, consistency is not your forte is it.
Unless maybe reasoned argument permits any number of views depending on the starting premises? That’s how reasoning works in case you didn’t know. It applies rules to premises. And the premises themselves can be different leading to different views. So no, reason doesn’t lead to the one true view, as there will always be starting premises that can’t be reasoned for if you dig back long enough.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
No mention of you anywhere (except here, hope you don’t mind, oh and there)
It’s a bit like saying “What does ‘patriarchal system’ mean? That’s just the system, there’s nothing patriarchal about it”. The word appears to do no work when you have no awareness external to it.
If you think the only distinction of ‘Western philosophy’ is the use of reason, then it would seem you have little to no understanding of Eastern philosophy at all. Just opinion. Take a look at “Specific Features of Chinese Logic: Analogies and the Problem of Structural Relations in Confucian and Mohist Discourses” by Jana S Rosker (2012). At the very least it should highlight that the logic underlying Eastern philosophies is far from lacking in reason, even if you don’t necessarily agree with the reasoning as such.
If a view is true, it is not also false.
Thus, if there are two or more theories about one and the same subject matter at least one of them is false.
Thus, there is only one true theory of everything.
As @Possibility pointed out, in the context of a global culture, it distinguishes the European philosophical tradition, commencing with Greek Philosophy, from Chinese, Indian, and other cultures who have corresponding activities that can be reasonably designated 'philosophy', even if that is not a word that is native to their cultures.
What's 'western' about it is, as you say, that it's "philosophy as practiced in the west". Whatever you believe is "just philosophy" would, like (just) mathematics, be practiced in every civilization more or less the same way. However, philosophy, like other arts, is not used more or less the same way or for the same purposes in every civilization. E.g. dharma & dao are quite different concepts from ethos & logos which imply different applications, or practices, and values (unless, of course, you're historically, philologically & culturally ignorant of the contextual uses of either pair of terms); thus, disputes over comparative translations still persist.
Quoting Bartricks
So, if a photon is a wave, it is not also a particle? :roll:
Stop the presses – BREAKING NEWS:
NEWTONIAN PHYSICS STOPS WORKING BECAUSE EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS WORKS TOO! :scream:
So, while I think it’s important to recognise the difference from an historical perspective, I also think that labelling a philosophy as ‘Eastern’ or ‘Western’ is purely a relational term, useful for comparative philosophy - which, incidentally, is not a reductive practice that simply ‘uses reason to find out what is true’.
Truth and falsity are determined by checking if the conclusion follows from the premises. People don’t always agree on the premises.
“True” is not an adjective that’s applied to views in vacuum.
If you think it is then tell me, what’s the “true view” in regards to the best ice cream flavor?
I think this goes to the heart of the matter. It's the historical narrative that we use to define our tradition that makes us view things like this. And usually that accepted narrative, "The Greeks - the Renaissance thinkers - the Enlightenment philosophers - etc" simply doesn't recall the role of any other traditions. Anything outside that is seen as unimportant.
If a view is true, is it also false? Yes or no? Does it change if you go to China or India?
A riveting argument, as usual.
Far simpler not bother with any of your contemptuous verbiage.
So no, it's not just "philosophy" it's a large portion of it.
When I read philosophy articles, I typically don't notice who the author is. I read the content. I don't look or think about the author. I think I speak for most philosophers when I say that. After all, that's how the peer review system works. Articles are assessed on their own merits and authors have to avoid saying anything that would allow a reviewer to identify them. So articles stand alone and who wrote them is entirely irrelevant - which is good, no?
So again, am I reading Chinese philosophy when I read Peter Tsu's workonmoral particularism, or is Chinese philosophy something else? If so, what?
What about when I read St Augustine - am i doing African philosophy? If not, why not?
Whether someone is a philosopher depends on what they are doing, not on where they come from.
If they're not arguing something, they're not philosophers. So, Descartes is. Lao Tzu isn't. Peter Tsu is. Buddha isn't. And so on.
If you prefer that, sure. I personally like to think of philosophy in a broad manner. This makes me include novelists and musicians as providing provocative philosophical material, yet they're not called philosophers.
Quoting Bartricks
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The designation of "philosophy" can be misleading, I think.
Lao Tzu is not arguing? What about early Wittgenstein? Those look more like statements rather than arguments.
True, Descartes was a philosopher, but he was very much interested in math and physiology. Then again, Newton was a philosopher too.
It's only by the mid 19th century that the distinction between scientists and philosophers became more apparent. Around the time Whewell coined the term "scientist", the distinction was not yet clear. Descartes, Hume or Kant could not have told you is they were a philosopher or a scientist.
Views aren't true. It's not that simple. Statements are true in light of certain premises. In light of different premises they can be false.
Again, tell me what the "true view" is regarding the best ice cream flavor. Why can't you simply produce one? You should be able to use reasoning alone to deduce the best ice cream flavor no?
That or there is not one true view in regards to every subject matter.
And no, musicians and poets and artists are not, qua those activities, philosophers. Don't be silly.
That makes no sense. Everyone in the world is a philosopher then.
I never said musicians and artists are philosophers, I said that they offer "provocative philosophical material". Quite different.
Yes, Eastern and Western philosophy did have some crossovers. The idea of the transmigration of souls may have reached Greece from India (this is not totally clear), and the original intellect/world dualism of the Greeks is close enough to what has survived in Hindu thought (as opposed to subjective/objectives dualism), that we can suppose a link.
That said, Hindu philosophers, and those further East, do not quote and continually refer back to Plato for centuries. Western Philosphers do. Indeed, the issues brought up by the pre-Socratics, Plato, and Aristotle reoccur , mentioned by name, over and over throughout the development of Western thought. These references and conversations don't occured in Eastern thought. They had their own key ideas that recurred and spread throughout India and East Asia.
The impact of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is also central to Western thought, while Buddhist thought (and through it Hindu) suffused Eastern Philosophy.
It's probably more useful to talk of Western thought due to the recognized cannon and continual dialogue between current thinkers and old ones. "Western thought" doesn't overlap with current conceptions of the West, since it includes Muslim scholars who lived in Central Asia. It's all about the grounding in the same arguments, going back to Ancient Greece (further really, Plato's Theory of Forms shows up in Memphite Theology in Ancient Egypt centuries before he formalized it).
Eastern Philosophy is much trickier to define. The common thread is influence going from India and out into East Asia. There was, of course, influence in the other direction, but not as strong. Indian thought remained more isolated from Chinese thought that Western and Eastern European thought. So it's less useful to think of Eastern Philosophy as its own tradition, but it certainly reflects a different set of traditions.
The analogy I heard from a professor is that it is more useful to think of Eastern Philosophy as conferences at three hotels, one in India, one in China, and one smaller on in Japan. Attendees sometimes travel between the hotels and give speech's explaining new ideas they learned, but they are still different conferences. Western philosophy is more like one big conference. Aquinas and the scholastics read and comment directly in Maimonides and Avicenna at length, there isn't a separation.
Another distinction I've heard is that Eastern Philosophy tends to be more practical, talking about how to live. "Practical" as in, it tells you how you should practice.
The criteria for these delineations are not as simple as 'where someone was born'. You would also object to the continental/analytic distinction I suppose? How about genres of music? There are only sounds afterall, so it doesn't make sense to talk of genres. ;)
There’s really no need to be rude. I wasn’t arguing, you were - it just wasn’t a particularly effective one. I was entering into a discussion. But that’s not how you do philosophy, is it?
Quoting Bartricks
No, I don’t think his work should be referred to as ‘Chinese philosophy’, unless perhaps he refers to it that way himself - in which case I’d assume he’s differentiating his approach from what he would consider to be a ‘Western’ or ‘Indian’ foundation of thought. I don’t think it’s about where you were born, and I don’t think it’s a useful label outside of historical discussions comparing philosophical traditions or approaches. It certainly has nothing to do with his name or nationality.
Quoting Bartricks
Not in my book. As far as I’m aware there were three main culturally differentiated approaches or traditions in developing philosophy: Aristotlean or Western philosophy, Chinese and Indian. These labels refer to their foundations in thinking approaches and language structure, not to any permanent regional divide. From memory, St Augustine’s philosophy has a pretty standard ‘Aristotlean’ approach.
Do you think that we may have got to a point in Western thinking where many are starting to look beyond, to other ideas, especially to those within Eastern traditions? Western philosophy owes so much to the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm. However, after the shift to the new physics and systems approach to life, such as that described by Fritjof Capra, a different picture may be emerging.
Also, even on the this site, which is of course only a forum, but many people have read a fair amount, it does seem that some are going beyond Western ideas. I think that the reason for this is because so many individuals see some of the approaches within Western philosophy as being rather flat, and rather inadequate, for offering enough scope and depth for contemplation of the biggest questions.
Certainly since the heyday of English & German Idealism, especially Schopenhauer, comparative philosophy – Western 'borrowings' from Eastern traditions – have been going on.
Yeah, no doubt. In my mind I charitably try to define & classify the prevailing "paradigms" (I like that word) of thought this way:
Western – Platonic-Aristotlean-Kalamic/Thomistic (ancient-to-medieval) & Cartesian-Hobbesian-Kantian (modern); thus, "enlightenment" in the West tends to be 'transcendental' (i.e. escape from eternity (i.e. fate) ... re: The Question).
Eastern – Hindu-Buddhist-Jain (Vedic) & Confucian-Daoist-Buddhist (Qin); thus, "enlightenment" in the East tends to be 'transcendent' (i.e. escape from time ... re: The Horizon).
Of course within each tradition there are counter-traditions ('left-hand ways') and in the last centuries of colonialism & globalism there have been, and continues to be, a great deal of cross-fertilization/contamination aka "comparative studies". Parasitical on this 'occidental-oriental' yin & yang (so to speak) has been the huckstering motley horde of Theosophers, Hermeticists, Perennialists, New Agers, Transpersonalists, New Physicists et al with their (pseudo-religious, pseudo-scientific) versions of "The Answer".
Btw, 'holism' & 'systems-thinking' have always been naturalistic (contra 'idealistic') currents of thought in both traditons, just as 'esoterica', or mysticial reveries & exercises, have always belonged to the idealistic (or spiritualist) paths, again, both East and West. There's overlap (such as the historically recent distinctions of 'philosophy & science' in the West and 'philosophy & religion' in the East) but incommensurable priorites & practices as well.
Yes, I do agree that there are certain amounts of overlap, and it may be a bit of an oversimplification to see the two perspective as being polarised, especially as there are so many different traditions and thinkers. It does seem that ideas of cross -fertilisation are emerging in so many thread at the moment, in the thread on mysticism, the one I created on mysteries and the one on esotericism. It seems like a general undercurrent on the site at present. In Western philosophy these ideas have often been cast outside.
I think that theosophy is a particularly interesting one, mainly because it challenged Western metaphysical ideas. Even though it has always been outside of most philosophical debate, it is interesting in the way that the Theosophical society had a purpose of trying to find links between the ideas of Christianity, Eastern philosophy, as well as the search for scientific knowledge. However, even though theosophy has not been respected highly within academic circles, I think that its influence cannot be ignored, mainly in the whole development of 'New Age', or 'Mind, body and spirit' movement within Western society.
This along with the ideas of Jung, Capra's 'The Tao of Physics', the Gnostic Gospels and many alternative thinkers have been so influential on a cultural level generally. On some level, they have been a challenge to philosophy, as well as some of the more traditional ideas within Christianity, and even some of the more standard models of science.
Well, taken out of their cultural contexts, I don't think "New Age ideas" belong to or in Eastern philosophies either. Cultural appropriation and syncretism are very facile, IMO, producing not much more than (fashionable) cosmic lollipops. I'm all for eclecticism, but not exotica-for-exotica's-sake. I've read quite a few posts where you and some others mention "looking for answers" through philosophy or mysticism, and I don't believe these endeavors contain or lead to "answers". That's why I suggest the distinct goals of the question & the horizon in their respective traditions, oversimplistic and overgeneralized though they may be, which seem correct to me in light of the histories scholarship and extant primary sources.
Why, Jack, do you think there are "answers" (to questions about "ultimate reality") that one can "seek" out and find? And what changes in your life do you expect to happen when you find "the answers"? And if the "seeking" is "perennial", doesn't that mean that the seeking itself is the only answer – "the path is the destination" – just like the ouroborous or a dog chasing its own tail?
Sorry if I'm coming across as an asshole but, like drug abuse and fundie religion, too many bright minds are blinkered by all these "New Age" "alternative ideas" which aren't new – same old woo-of-the gaps perennially repackaged – and aren't viable alternatives to intelligibly reflective inquiries & practices. I suppose my problem is – yeah, I cop to it being My Problem – with the lack of rigor and lack of a deep bite I've always found in the sort of esoteric literature you often mention or others quote from mistaking its obscurity for profundity or sacred writ. That's a jaw-full, I know, but all I'm asking, Jack, is wtf am I still missing after four decades of philosophical study discussion & reflection (as well as significant hallucinogenic/entheogenic experience) whereby I too have, as you say, "cast [a]side" these "alternative, New Age, ideas" (just like I'd done with otherworldly superstitions & most p0m0 sophistry)? I'm no shaman or sage, just a fool struggling daily through my recovery from foolery via simple living, musical juju & some dialectics. What does your third eye see when you read me between my li(n)es, friend? :smirk:
Right and even the ability to do this kind of perennial move is a modern phenomenon, aided by the advance of tech/Internet and increasing globalisation. Are we to assume that the mystics and truthseekers of antiquity were shitouttaluck because they didn't have the capacity to do this perennial aggregation of insights? No, before perennialism, mystics looked inward - rather than far and wide - and this seemed to be enough to produce a variety of enlightened beings... If you buy into those stories anyway.
I agree that the 'new age' ideas are not equatable with the Eastern philosophy traditions. Yes, it is a good question why I keep looking for 'answers'. I think it is just the way I am really, but I do have a sense of humour about it all, especially about how I once had a tutor who told me that he thought that I should start a religion...
And yes, I would of course reject the continental analytic distinction. What use is it? If someone says they specialize in continental philosophy then I think that they are not a philosopher at all but just someone who specializes in saying nothing eloquently (and thus they belong in and English department, not philosophy).
So, can we agree then that to qualify as doing 'Eastern' philosophy or what have you, it's important that you 'not' be using reason to find out what's true?
And if you do indeed mean 'using reason to find out what's true', then what on earth do you mean by 'going beyond' it? Do you mean just making stuff up? Do you mean waiting until someone says some sounds that make you feel all mystical and important and then just believing what they say because you like feeling mystical and important? Is that 'going beyond'? Why not just read proper philosophy while drunk - it'll induce the same feelings. Is that going beyond?
Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true.
It can be used and abused. But that's the basic idea.
The b.s. artists who like to talk vaguely of 'other philosophical traditions' are not interested in using reason to find out what's true. They are interested in striking the right pose. They are posers. Empty kettles.
Quoting Bartricks
Give one example of a truth arrived at by pure reason.
I do think that your idea of reasoning as philosophy works in many ways and it is likely that the use of reason has been important to human beings of all cultural traditions. However, I am not convinced that rationality is the only means of knowledge, but it became central to the philosophy of the enlightenment.
In thinking of the whole spectrum of knowing, Jung's model of the four functions can also be considered. These are: reason, sensation, feeling and intuition. Jung suggests that most people have a dominant function, and usually one or more which are barely developed at all. He sees the ideal as being able to make use of all four functions. Could it be that many Western thinkers have developed rational explanations, but with some lack of attention to the other three forms of experience?
The conclusion of this argument is true if the premises are:
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore p and q.
And so on.
But you miss the point spectacularly. Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find the truth. That doesn't presuppose that we ready know what's true, but that we don't.
It's like me saying that mountaineering is the practice of trying to climb mountains and you replying 'name me a mountain that has been successfully climbed'
How do you determine whether a proposition is true? How were the logical forms discovered? How do you know the law of noncontradiction holds for everything in reality? Have you tested everything in reality? The answers to those questions leads outside the realm of reasoning, towards observation of empirical facts. Hence, philosophy is not based on reason alone.
Your last paragraph is way off and hardly worth a response.
Quoting Bartricks
So Lao Tzu makes no arguments? Did Socrates give arguments or was it Plato?
The point, as I see it, is that it's not clear what should be called philosophy and what should not be called philosophy. Case in point would be Newton and Kant. Both were scientists and philosophers.
If you tell me there's nothing of philosophical relevance in novels or music, then what you think of philosophy must be quite narrow.
I mean, what does 'Chicago' Blues mean? Does it mean Blues 'as practiced' in Chicago? But that's just 'Blues'. There's nothing 'Chicago' about it. It is just the practice of using a thirds, fifths or sevenths to make music. So it can't mean that, as the word 'Chicago' is doing no work.
Does it denote the entire collection of recordings that have been made by Blues musicians who fell out of vaginas in Chicago? Well, in that case it is not a helpful term at all, given that those are very different and the only thing they all have in common is that those who recorded them did so by using thirds, fifths or sevenths.
Or does it - and I think this is increasingly the case - function to express contempt at the very exercise of using a thirds, fifths or sevenths to make music? There are some who find thirds, fifths or sevenths oppressive, because thirds, fifths or sevenths only permit there to be one true Blues, and thus if one undertakes to use thirds, fifths or sevenths to make music, one is almost certain to discover that many of one's preexisting views about making music are false. Practitioners of Blues - proper Blues - are therefore imperialist oppressors, who are trying to colonize others at a conceptual level with their Chicago music. 'Chicago' has previously practiced musical colonisation, and all 'Chicago' music represents is the attempt to extend the colonisation to the realm of Jazz.
Or is this just a bunch of hooey.
Me: mountaineering is the practice of trying to climb mountains. Eastern mountaineering is either mountaineering in the east or, if it does not involve trying to climb any mountains, it is just a misleading name for something that isn't mountaineering.
You: name me some mountains that have been successfully climbed.
Me: Everest. K2. Lots and lots.
You: how do you determine if a mountain has been climbed? Your last answer didn't deserve a reply, because I didn't understand its relevance and if I don't understand something it doesn't deserve a reply because i'm 8.
Both Socrates and Plato made arguments.
Do I have an unduly narrow concept of bakery if I don't consider music a form of it?
Here's another equally inept one: what's Chicago pizza? Is it just a pizza that's in Chicago? No. Is it a pizza in which the tomato sauce is on top of the cheese?
Er, yes. That's what it is.
Now what is Eastern philosophy? Tell me Banno. Is it bullshit, perhaps? That is, 'not philosophy at all, but an excuse to talk crap under the banner of doing philosophy while refusing to clarify what one is talking about and rejecting all rational scrutiny as forms of oppression'? Coz that's my working definition.
Not in a while. Though some here would give you many very detailed arguments.
Just open the book, read any page. Tell me those aren't arguments. In fact, they seem to me to be practically identical with Wittgenstein's mysticism in the Tractatus.
Of course, if you think the "Tao" is a bad idea or something which makes no sense, then it won't be of any use to you.
But the same can be said about Heidegger when he uses the word "being" in Being and Time.
Well, if you don't consider music to have philosophical aspects, then you can say that aesthetics is not a part of philosophy, nor is the perception of sound, much less are you able to say why we consider some noise to be just that, noise, and why in other situations noise is perceived by us as music.
So yes, leaving the arts out of philosophy would be a mistake.
No, but it is important that you not define philosophy so narrowly. There is no ‘qualification’ required. It’s a comparative term, not a classification. Mere adjectives that you’re using to try and dismiss the practice of exploring the human faculties of reason, imagination and feeling to determine a model of truth - without necessarily defining or stating WHAT is true - as NOT philosophy.
Just wait until you encounter a truly numinous event and your dreams are haunted. Then you'll wish you had some Jung-fu....
[img]https://i.ibb.co/r7PyXv3/1619126073938.png
[/img]
Like a broken cuckoo, lil D-K, even you're right a couple of times a day. :up:
What makes you think I haven't already had at least one "truly numinous event" or that my dreams don't "haunt" me?
:victory:
Where's Peter? Oh, he's gone down the philosophy.
Broken pipe? Phone a philosopher.
I'm hungry and want something spicy. I know, I'll order a couple of philosophers.
See?
Yep.
:up: :up: :up:
Here's some philosophy for the forum to mull on:
Lalalala. Doobidoo. Woof woof woof.
[quote=Tzara]
To put out a manifesto you must want: ABC
to fulminate against 1, 2, 3
to fly into a rage and sharpen your wings to conquer and disseminate little abcs and big abcs, to
sign, shout, swear, to organize prose into a form of absolute and irrefutable evidence, to prove
your non plus ultra and maintain that novelty resembles life just as the latest-appearance of
some whore proves the essence of God. His existence was previously proved by the
accordion, the landscape, the wheedling word. To impose your ABC is a natural thing—
hence deplorable. Everybody does it in the form of crystalbluffmadonna, monetary system,
pharmaceutical product, or a bare leg advertising the ardent sterile spring. The love of
novelty is the cross of sympathy, demonstrates a naive je m'enfoutisme, it is a transitory,
positive sign without a cause.
[/quote]
http://writing.upenn.edu/library/Tzara_Dada-Manifesto_1918.pdf
Saying that Western philosophy just is philosophy-in-general is misleading and perhaps arrogant or self-flattering. If you are just making the point (a good one) that philosophy is ideally an expression of universal rationality (for/of all humans), that's different.
I think it is b.s.
There are eastern philosophers, of course.
But they don't actually qualify as doing eastern philosophy, because they use reason to pursue the truth.
So what is it?
Once again, to be clear: philosophy is using reason to find out what's true. Nothing arrogant about it. It's humble. Why? Because you undertake to listen to reason not yourself.
What's 'eastern' philosophy? Is it anything that sounds a bit mystical and vague?
Nothing. I just found a thread to shoehorn that in because I found the idea of being haunted by Hume on a nightly basis both surreal and funny.
Me: plumbing isn't baking.
You: why can't a plumber bake a cake? Are you saying plumbers can't bake?
Me: Christ almighty!
I'm no expert on the Eastern stuff but I've dabbled and read some stuff I liked and respected. I found them to be universal. Eastern thought has been part of Western thought for a long time. Consider Schopenhauer for instance.
[quote=link]
Schopenhauer held a profound respect for Indian philosophy;[96] although he loved Hindu texts, he was more interested in Buddhism,[97] which he came to regard as the best religion.[94] However, his studies on Hindu and Buddhist texts were constrained by the lack of adequate literature,[98] and the latter were mostly restricted to Early Buddhism. He also claimed that he formulated most of his ideas independently,[91] and only later realized the similarities with Buddhism.[99]
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Education
I don't have a clue what you mean by eastern philosophy. And I think you don't either
Even that's a little prejudicial in favor of armchair science, though, in favor of disembodied thought, mere talking, as if we weren't perhaps primarily skillful social animals. I say: don't assume some radical discontinuity between speech skill and other skills. It's an abstraction, good for some things and bad for others.
Don't use reason because we are social animals? Er, what?
Here's another example.
[quote=link]
The Ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho accompanied Alexander the Great in his eastern campaigns, spending about 18 months in India. Pyrrho subsequently returned to Greece and founded Pyrrhonism, a philosophy with substantial similarities with Buddhism. The Greek biographer Diogenes Laërtius explained that Pyrrho's equanimity and detachment from the world were acquired in India.[120] Pyrrho was directly influenced by Buddhism in developing his philosophy, which is based on Pyrrho's interpretation of the Buddhist three marks of existence.[121] According to Edward Conze, Pyrrhonism can be compared to Buddhist philosophy, especially the Indian Madhyamika school.[122] The Pyrrhonists' goal of ataraxia (the state of being untroubled) is a soteriological goal similar to nirvana. The Pyrrhonists promoted suspending judgm ient (epoché) about dogma (beliefs about non-evident matters) as the way to reach ataraxia. This is similar to the Buddha's refusal to answer certain metaphysical questions which he saw as non-conductive to the path of Buddhist practice and Nagarjuna's "relinquishing of all views (drsti)". Adrian Kuzminski argues for direct influence between these two systems of thought. In Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism[123] According to Kuzminski, both philosophies argue against assenting to any dogmatic assertions about an ultimate metaphysical reality behind our sense impressions as a tactic to reach tranquility and both also make use of logical arguments against other philosophies in order to expose their contradictions.[123]
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy
both philosophies argue against assenting to any dogmatic assertions about an ultimate metaphysical reality behind our sense impressions as a tactic to reach tranquility and both also make use of logical arguments against other philosophies in order to expose their contradictions.
This is a sophisticated expression of critical thinking, not unlike something in a very 'Western' Carnap.
Dude, I'm linking you to public examples. A critical thinker might prefer that to some anonymous claim on a forum. I'm not making an inference but simply drawing your attention to common knowledge. As far as that kind of philosophy goes (I'm something like a pragmatist/skeptic), if you really want my take on it, you can examine some of my old comments.
Most of the time people focus on the link between scepticism and the east but scepticism also is linked to (pre-socratic) Greek philosophy; Pyrrho is linked to democritan philosophy through Metrodorus of Chios and Anaxarchus of Abdera.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrodorus_of_Chios
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaxarchus
Cool links. I like Democritus, Epicurus, Epictetus, Pyrrho, others. I don't know enough to argue for which influence is stronger. For me the main thing would be whether it's basically the same way of thinking, whether it's universal. I suspect it is, but I am cautious speaking about the Eastern stuff. I've found what I looked at to be universal, but that's a personal judgment.
:up:
Same here. :smile:
I don't know either but I think its somewhat of a disservice to both Democritus and Pyrrho to only focus on the eastern link. Sure, we know the magi and gymnosophists played a part in influencing Pyrrho, but I don't think Anaxarchus should be neglected. I thought scepticism was mainly influenced by eastern thought for the longest time too, so it came as quitte the shock when I found out about the whole Democritan thing. Besides, it's fun to talk about obscure ancient philosophers. :wink:
Anaxarchus is new to me. I wish more of his work had been saved. IMO, the thinkers we're talking about had very 'modern'/sophisticated views, as in we haven't essentially come that far.
I suspect that all the fundamental gut-level worldview self-role options were already there.
Did they have their version of Dada back then?
[quote=Tzara]
I am speaking of a paper flower for the buttonholes of the gentlemen who frequent the ball of masked life, the kitchen of grace, white cousins lithe or fat.
[/quote]
http://writing.upenn.edu/library/Tzara_Dada-Manifesto_1918.pdf
No, it’s what you think it means. Narrowly useful is not always accurate - just ask Copernicus. I offered a broader definition.
No. You asked a question and I answered it from my limited understanding of Augustine. Not to mention that I haven’t seen the distinction ‘African philosophy’ used before - do you have an example of its use?
I offered my understanding of what might be meant by ‘Chinese philosophy’, which you rudely dismissed without so much as a discussion. If you’re not going to follow any of the links offered here to understand for yourself what those who use the terms ‘Chinese philosophy’ or ‘Eastern philosophy’ mean by it, then nothing we say is going to have any impact. But that’s no real surprise.
Allow me to revise my definition: Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth. Perhaps if you can accept this definition, then I would agree that it’s all just philosophy. Reason is only imagination and judgement. It understands nothing about truth.
Eastern philosophy would then be one of the words we could use to refer to that activity - the activity of 'not' using reason but just making shit up or talking nonsense. Yes?
'Western' philosophy means 'using reason to find the truth' (hence why Augustine is a western philosopher and not an 'African' philosopher) and any other region that precedes the word philosophy means 'bullshitting'.
Yes. I agree. It's just that philosophy doesn't actually mean bullshitting. It is the practice of using reason to find the truth. And Western philosophy and philosophy turn out to be synonymous. Glad we agree.
So, for instance, many of our beliefs are not inferred. I believe I am sat on a toilet 'doing a banno' because I apoear to be. But I have not inferred this, I just believe it and the belief was caused by how things appear. That belief is justified even though it was not a product of reasoning, because the mechanism of acquisition- being caused to believe x by an appearance of x- is approved of by reason.
But let's say you believe x because your people have a long tradition of believing it, or because you think believing it will make you happy. Well, even if the belief is true those do not seem like methods approved of by reason - they do not provide epistemic reason to believe in the truth of the beliefs in question. Thus, that's not knowledge.
Anyway, philosophy is not about having true beliefs. Just random guessing can, if one is lucky, give one true beliefs. Yet random guessing is not philosophy. It's not even about having knowledge, for one can know things without having done philosophy. Philosophy is about using reason to find out what's true.
Making music is not to be doing philosophy.
Murdering and burgling is not detective work, eventhough detectives investigate murders and burglings.
Yes. And I never said music was philosophy nor novels. But that they can provide good material for philosophy would be strange to deny.
There was a Japanese intellectual movement called the Kyoto School, ‘a group of 20th century Japanese thinkers who developed original philosophies by creatively drawing on the intellectual and spiritual traditions of East Asia, those of Mah?y?na Buddhism in particular, as well as on the methods and content of Western philosophy.‘ Highlights include Masao Abe Zen and Western Thought and extensive writing on Heidegger by Nishida (including comparisons of the conception of time in Heidegger and founder of the S?t? Zen school, Eihei Dogen.)
SEP entry here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kyoto-school/
I think the sometimes maligned theosophical society helped foster a kind of philosophical globalism. Under the banner ‘no religion higher than truth’ they engaged for decades in cross-cultural and comparative studies in philosophy and spiritual traditions.
D T Suzuki, who’s wife was a prominent theosophist, also wrote comparative studies which were both religious and philosophical e.g. his Mysticism Christian and Buddhist.
No, not right. Philosophy is not just about statements of what’s true. Pronouncing what is true is only a narrow perspective of truth, even when informed by reason.
Quoting Bartricks
Again, no. Your dichotomous thinking is getting in the way. It doesn’t come down to whether or not they’re using reason, nor whether or not their statements are true. Eastern philosophy doesn’t refer to the activity, but the approach - one that recognises reason as insufficient.
Quoting Bartricks
No. ‘Western’ philosophy again refers to the approach, not the activity. I think that the tradition of ‘Western’ philosophy is to give primacy to reason. And you still haven’t shown me where you got the label ‘African philosophy’ from. Sounds like you’re ‘making shit up’, but I’m happy to be proven ignorant on this.
Quoting Bartricks
No, we don’t agree. Not even close. But then, I’m not surprised to see you ignore or dismiss anything that doesn’t fit with your narrow worldview.
Quoting Bartricks
Reason is the interaction of imagination and judgement - so no, the imagination’s role is essential to that of reason. We cannot make any appeal to reason without it. But we are no closer to a reliable model of truth without understanding how we fit in: how we get our information, where the gaps are in our awareness and how we compensate for this lack. Reason can’t tell us this. Without understanding, we are not doing philosophy, but just describing how we think things ought to be.
Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find the truth.
Music isn't. Making it isn't. Listening to it isn't.
Nor is novel writing or reading. Nor is going for a walk in the hills. Yet all of these things may both inspire and be inspired by philosophy. But they're not themselves philosophy. Obviously.
The point is they weren't doing 'Eastern' philosophy, just philosophy
Agree?
Ah that's rich, the smugly insipid calling the kettle "confused". :lol:
180 Proof: "And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning I will have shat myself"
Anyway, rather than try and insult me, why not give your ham walnut a workout and try and say something philosophical about the op.
Good. That was the point.
Here's a two-fer, lil D-K, from p.1:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/525583
Say what you mean in English.
Here's what I think: either someone argues something, or they're a b.s artist who loves themselves more than evidence.
I will demonstrate this shortly
Many might think you already have.
I love how reliably like clockwork you always prove how completely D-K you genuinely are (which is why you project so fuckin' much), lil troll. What will we do when finally the forum gods ban you? :rofl:
I said you're view of philosophy of presenting or giving arguments to be too narrow. And it makes sense to speak of different traditions: Eastern vs Western, Analytic or Continental or Pragmatism.
All I was getting at is that music and literature seem to me to offer plenty of philosophical material, not that they are philosophy in themselves, of course not.
You think my arguments are shite, right? Okay, fine. But what expertise do you have? Because that's really important in determining who is manifesting the Dunning-Kruger effect, right?
Would you agree, for instance, that if I am an expert and you are not, then the fact you think virtualy everything - heck, everything - I say is shite, indeed just 'trolling'- would be good evidence that you are the one manifesting the effect?
I am talking about philosophy. Not what inspires philosophers. But philosophy.
Asfm for your first, it doesn't make sense to draw those distinctions and you saying otherwise is question begging in this context. Argue a case. That is, address the OP, rather than just insist it is false.
More than it being false, it's unhelpful.
Call it whatever you like.
There is not a single definition of philosophy and if you insist that Eastern philosophy isn't really philosophy, well that's your problem.
Because of the way you deal with criticism.
But it it not just I who think your replies inadequate.
Go back and reflect on the replies you have received. What agreement have you garner? And what have you said to those who disagree with you?
Why have you been subject to such animosity?
You think the numbers count? You think that if 10 people with no expertise whatsoever think a highly qualified person is talking shite, then it is the highly qualified person who is most likely manifesting the effect and not the 10 thickies?!? That doesn't sound very clever. Sounds thick.
Anyway, go away Banno, you've nothing philosophical to contribute, just bile.
Quoting 180 Proof
Your doctor: hmm, I think your arm is fractured in 3 places.
You: But 10 of my workmates down at domino's pizza say it isn't broken, it's just gone a bit wobbly. So there, you gobshite!!! In your face!! You're wrong. It's wobbly, not broken. You ought to be struck off! If my arm wasn't so wobbly I'd strike you myself.
Go back and reflect on the replies you have received. Have you learned anything?
No, it's about whether we have any cause to believe your expertise. Everything about the way you've acted since you started posting has indicated that you're not an expert. The very fact that you're trolling an internet forum with your messianic drivel rather than publishing it has indicated that you're not an expert.
So we're at a place where we've good cause to disbelieve your claims.
What agreement did you garner from your posts here? What did you learn? Which criticisms do you accept?
What have you done here?
Why have you been subject to such animosity?
The topic is not 'me'. You are the one obsessed with me. The topic is expressed in the OP. Address it or go away.
You keep blabbering about this but have provided no proof of your own expertise.
And you said that no experts have ever looked at your argument. I'd assume if you were an expert you would be discussing these things with colleagues.
And you said that you "don't need to learn teaching to teach at a university" which is plain false.
And your posts are trash.
So all we have is 3 pieces of evidence pointing at you not knowing what you're talking about. Having no expertise.
What exactly have you done? What have you published? What have you taught? Where have you taught?
I would bet money the answer is: Nothing, Nothing, Nothing, Nowhere. If you could easily dismiss these claims, you would. But you won't. Because you can't.
Quoting Bartricks
No but if literally everyone on the site (way more than 10) disagrees with you then you're likely talking shite yes.
And again, it is not only I who thinks you demonstrate no clear ability in rational thinking.
Quoting Banno
As for what I said about teacher training - no, it's not 'plain false', it's 'true'. (You teach in a university do you? Or were you being confidently wrong about a matter you know nothing about? Hmmm). University lecturers learn to teach on the job. Ask one. They do not have to have a formal teaching qualification (they might be made to attend some tedious and pointless lecture about teaching - as I was at my first appointment - but that's it). I am one. I do not have a teaching qualification. None of my colleagues do either. So again, stop being confident about matters you know nothing about.
And as for your charming comment "all of your posts are trash", all I can say is: Dunning and Kruger. I feel the same way about yours. The difference is that's an expert's judgement of a fool, not a fool's judgement of an expert .
Anyway, all this is by the by. I mean, you're not going to believe that you are the one demonstrating the Dunning kruger effect. And it doesn't matter - if you just stuck to trying to argue something I wouldn't mention it.
I have my competence. It involves years of study, teaching at universities and schools, reading and writing, and discussion. I can recognise the learning in those here who use analytic skills, who cite other works in support of their contentions, who expound and expand their understanding, who enjoy being shown were they may have gone astray, who build a case, make a stand, demonstrate competence.
Such things are painfully absent in your writing.
What counts as a professional philosopher?
I suspect that no matter one's credentials, disagreeing with you would automatically disqualify them in your eyes. But let's take it one step at a time. What counts as a professional philosopher?
Not that I know. But then again, not much is known about him. Back then it was common for intellectuals or "cultured" people to know about everything. So he could've been familiar with the physics of his day.
Back then there wasn't a distinction between science and philosophy. That only began in the mid-19th century...
When people know there topic, the conversation will remain on the topic, the exposition will carry itself to new and interesting places.
Otherwise the conversation will inevitably come back to personalities. As Batricks threads inevitably do.
Quoting Bartricks
If they don’t have any friends I can see that but all my University teachers discussed their work all the time. Especially the daring and crazy ideas.
Quoting Bartricks
That’s called “requiring a teaching qualification”. Or else they wouldn’t be made to take the lecture.
Quoting Bartricks
Prove you’re an expert. You’ve given us no reason to believe you are and plenty to believe you aren’t. Where and what do you teach exactly?
Quoting Bartricks
Neither. That’s not what dunning Kruger is.
Dunning Kruger is people being very confident in their knowledge when they don’t have much of it. That does not mean that they can’t recognize experts. It means that they will be very confident in their judgements of experts despite not being qualified to make the judgement (they will be very confident in what they think be it that the “expert” is an idiot or genius). Dunning and Kruger does not predict that people think experts are idiots. It predicts that everyone calls themselves an expert even when their not (such as your case).
If an actual expert came on and made an argument you’d expect some people to agree and others to disagree. What the dunning Kruger effect predicts is that everyone will be very committed to their camp. It does not predict the number of people in each camp. That depends on what the alleged expert says. And considering you’re spouting nonsense, everyone has gone to the disagreement camp.
But leave it to you not to understand the dunning Kruger effect while using it as an insult every other line.
Quoting Bartricks
Bullshit. You’re a DK connoisseur. You’re always the one that starts with the insults. The reason you’re getting so much animosity is that any time someone genuinely wants to talk to you you insult them.
And you still haven’t responded to my objection to the OP. What’s the “true view” in regards to the best ice cream flavor? You said there is a true view in regards to every subject matter no? So, provide the true view in regards to the best ice cream flavor. Or at least some way we can start to get there.
Or you can admit there isn’t one....
Perhaps the ‘expertise’ being demonstrated here is in trading insults. It’s all a pot-and-kettle affair to me. There isn’t much expertise currently being demonstrated in relation to the topic - not for at least 24hrs and a page and half of responses, anyway. An example of exercising imagination and judgement without understanding...
A selection of OPs from this poster.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Bolds added.
Engage at your peril. You're likely to be told you're wrong and stupid.
Oh, I’m okay with being ‘wrong’ and ‘stupid’. Sticks and stones and all that. It just seemed like a waste of time and energy, which could have been spent actually discussing the topic. But I’m inclined to think the aim of the OP wasn’t really to discuss the topic, but to proclaim primacy of reason, which he seems to think is ‘doing philosophy’.
It might be worth considering African Philosophy as a contrasting example to Western and Eastern philosophy. I commented before that the difference between Eastern and Western philosophy was... Quoting BannoStyle and method here being contrasted with content.
I'll claim no competence in African Philosophy, although it is a term I've heard and read of for a few years. The SEP article, as usual, provides an authoritative overview.
The article makes it clear that the first problem for African philosophy is its own identity. There is no tradition that might be used to identify what is and what is not African philosophy, in the way there is for Western, Buddhist, Taoist, or Islamic philosophy. So we are in the curious position of being able to watch the construction of a tradition, gleaned from the themes of cultural diversity, geographic proximity, struggle, and diaspora.
For the purposes of this thread, the developing Africa philosophy highlights the poverty of the view that philosophy is in essence rational enquiry, somehow sequestered from the cultures in which it takes place.
One can either say "that ain't philosophy" and close one's mind, or watch on in anticipation of interesting things to come.
Thank you! I’ve been asking about ‘African Philosophy’, which was mentioned and then rapidly dismissed based on one example, without so much as a reference to where the term came from. For all I know, he’d made it up.
I will read the SEP article and get back to you.
I agree that the difference between Western and Eastern philosophy is more about tradition, in contrast with content (for the most part) in Africana philosophy. What seems most unique is articulate thinking about personhood, freedom and truth under circumstances of denying, oppressing or rebuilding these aspects of their existence.
Quoting Banno
I agree with this, too. I think an apparent primacy of reason is successfully challenged by Chinese, Indian and African philosophising, in different ways, as insufficient for a universal model of truth.
Yes! So worth keeping one eye on developments in that area.
And do you agree that this puts the lie to the notion that philosophy is somehow outside of wider social considerations? Philosophy is not positioned by rationality, whatever that is; nor by traditions, but acts of volition, as on the part of these folk self-consciously building an archetype.
The picture of philosophy that @Bartricks is working with can be seen as monolithic, stereotypical, and homogenous. In a word, boring.
In other parts of the world, the word Philosophy has never existed. It was always Religion or Rules of How one should live based on their religions and political ideologies. Then they have wrongly called them Philosophy. Their interest is not about how to argue, analyse and know the world, God, freedom, self identity etc critically like the many Western philosophical tradition. Their purpose was how to live for the regime or their Religious principles or their Gods or get enlightenment or saved from this material worldly problems, just like Western Religions and Mysticism are about.
When you say Philosophy or Western Philosophy, it is vastly wide term of 2500 years of History of Philosophy. And there are many different types and schools of methods and ideas and topics they have been working on.
Outside of Western Philosophy, it would be wrong to term the other parts of the world's Religion or Political Ethics or Mysticism as Philosophy. Because they are simply Religion or Politics or Mysticism, which are not strictly Philosophy as such.
Sorry for my bad English. I am not a native English speaker, but I read Philosophy in English time to time.
So I;d say 'Western philosophy' may be defined as the refusal to study the whole of philosophy. Heidegger defines it as a philosophy without the notion of 'Unity', which to me seems spot on. .
There’s something wrong with this picture.
I recognise that use of the word ‘philosophy’ developed out of the Aristotlean or ‘Western’ tradition. But its etymology suggests a ‘love of wisdom’, without qualification as to what ‘wisdom’ might be, or what practice might be employed in ‘loving’ it. So a broader application of the term than how we argue, analyse and know the world is well within the original field to which it refers.
Your argument is a bit like saying it would be wrong to term Aboriginal peoples’ response to death as ‘grief’, because the word never existed in the country for 40,000 years. Plus their response is not the same as the years of French and English tradition, from which the word originated. So we have wrongly called it grief.
Yes - this is similar to the point I was making earlier:
Quoting Possibility
But we are not talking about purely Etymology here. We are talking about the origin as well the traditions, the contents and also methodology in Western Philosophy. Without these contents, the subject Philosophy will become empty and has to start from scratch.
According to your argument, even a guy who believes that if he sees a black cat in the morning, then it will be an unlucky day, should be called a Philosophy.
If you are talking in terms of any academic tradition and methodologies and historical aspects of Philosophy, I feel that we have to limit the scope of the subject.
And yet your argument is supported by the original use of the word. Sounds like etymology to me. You can’t have it both ways. And I think it’s narrow-minded to assume that no one else could have formed a tradition or methodology worthy of the term, when it’s evident that Chinese intellectuals prior to the Han dynasty developed a study of language and logic in relation to dao, parallel with the development of Western tradition, and without needing to ‘name’ it (a reductionist methodology they referred to as ming). Or that only content considered relevant in a particular historical or cultural experience is pertinent to a universal notion of truth. The subject of philosophy is far from empty without Western tradition.
Quoting Corvus
Not that it should be, but that it can be.
Quoting Corvus
Not to the point that you dismiss the diversity of tradition, content and methodology relevant to developing a universal model of truth. The development of Africana philosophy demonstrates that a model of truth limited to purely academic sources of tradition, content and methodology excludes a entire history of unique human experience.
It is egotistical to think Western linear logic is the only possible logic. It is not.
A typical Chinese logic or philosophical system / methodology goes like this.
"When you call Tao, Tao, it is not already Tao." I think it is a famous saying by LaoZu or some influencing master of Chinese Religion. (Philosopher)
That is not logic in the same level of logic from Western traditional philosophy. In the Chinese teachings, one has to read that, and meditate for a while, and come to some enlightenment or understanding in his own head, rather than relying on human sensory perception and material existence validation for the perception or knowledge.
I mean, if you go to these LaoZu masters, and ask "Can you validate the external world and existence of God?", and they will simply say "Well mate keep meditating until it comes to your own head." or just rubbish the question, what on earth are you asking to validate the non sense, when you must keep meditating and learn the teachings of the masters."
In contrast, a typical Western Philosophical tradition could be well sensed from David Hume, when he said "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
In the face of that, we have the widespread and long-standing convention of talking of Eastern and Western philosophy, to which has been added various other geographically based divisions.
These terms are useful; moreover, they are used.
Perhaps you are pissing upwind.
Yes, that sounds correct to me. It is an abuse of language to refer to such practices - that is, the practice of just describing a worldview uncritically - as 'philosophy'. It suggests some kind of equivalence between those who do that - those who just describe - and those who follow evidence.
What on earth are you on about?
This argument is valid, no?
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore P and Q
Does it matter where I am? If I'm in China right now, is it not valid?
Someone who thinks this argument is valid:
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R
is an idiot, correct?
Or do they have a different 'logic' and their view is as good as anyone else's? If they reasoned that way in an essay, should I give them an A, or fail them? It's fail them, yes? Or should I not be doing that. When someone reasons like a total spanner, should I give them an A? Should I give everyone an A?
[quote=link]
The Master said, "Yu, shall I teach you what knowledge is? When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it;-this is knowledge."
Tsze-kung asked what constituted the superior man. The Master said, "He acts before he speaks, and afterwards speaks according to his actions."
The Master said, "The superior man is catholic and not partisan. The mean man is partisan and not catholic."
The Master said, "Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous."
The Master said, "It is virtuous manners which constitute the excellence of a neighborhood. If a man in selecting a residence does not fix on one where such prevail, how can he be wise?"
The Master said, "Those who are without virtue cannot abide long either in a condition of poverty and hardship, or in a condition of enjoyment. The virtuous rest in virtue; the wise desire virtue."
The Master said, "When we see men of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves."
The Master said, "The reason why the ancients did not readily give utterance to their words, was that they feared lest their actions should not come up to them."
[/quote]
http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.1.1.html
The Buddha's epistemology has been compared to empiricism, in the sense that it was based on experience of the world through the senses.[39][40] The Buddha taught that empirical observation through the six sense fields (ayatanas) was the proper way of verifying any knowledge claims. Some suttas go further, stating that "the All", or everything that exists (sabbam), are these six sense spheres (SN 35.23, Sabba Sutta)[41] and that anyone who attempts to describe another "All" will be unable to do so because "it lies beyond range".[42] This sutta seems to indicate that for the Buddha, things in themselves or noumena, are beyond our epistemological reach (avisaya).[43][opinion]
Furthermore, in the Kalama Sutta the Buddha tells a group of confused villagers that the only proper reason for one's beliefs is verification in one's own personal experience (and the experience of the wise) and denies any verification which stems from personal authority, sacred tradition (anussava) or any kind of rationalism which constructs metaphysical theories (takka).[44] In the Tevijja Sutta (DN 13), the Buddha rejects the personal authority of Brahmins because none of them can prove they have had personal experience of Brahman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy
Utilizing the Buddha's theory of "dependent arising" (pratitya-samutpada), Nagarjuna demonstrated the futility of [...] metaphysical speculations. His method of dealing with such metaphysics is referred to as "middle way" (madhyama pratipad). It is the middle way that avoided the substantialism of the Sarvastivadins as well as the nominalism of the Sautrantikas.
In the M?lamadhyamakak?rik?, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti)."[/quote]
N?g?rjuna's major thematic focus is the concept of ??nyat? (translated into English as "emptiness") which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly an?tman "not-self" and prat?tyasamutp?da "dependent origination", to refute the metaphysics of some of his contemporaries. For N?g?rjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena (dhammas) are without any svabh?va, literally "own-being", "self-nature", or "inherent existence" and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabh?va circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being.
N?g?rjuna means by real any entity which has a nature of its own (svabh?va), which is not produced by causes (akrtaka), which is not dependent on anything else (paratra nirapeksha).[50]
To say that all things are 'empty' is to deny any kind of ontological foundation; therefore N?g?rjuna's view is often seen as a kind of ontological anti-foundationalism[53] or a metaphysical anti-realism.[54]
While some (Murti, 1955) have interpreted this by positing N?g?rjuna as a neo-Kantian and thus making ultimate truth a metaphysical noumenon or an "ineffable ultimate that transcends the capacities of discursive reason",[60] others such as Mark Siderits and Jay L. Garfield have argued that N?g?rjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth" (Siderits) and that N?g?rjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths.[60] Hence according to Garfield:
Suppose that we take a conventional entity, such as a table. We analyze it to demonstrate its emptiness, finding that there is no table apart from its parts […]. So we conclude that it is empty. But now let us analyze that emptiness […]. What do we find? Nothing at all but the table’s lack of inherent existence. […]. To see the table as empty […] is to see the table as conventional, as dependent.[61]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna
You can call anything under the Sun, Philosophy. It is up to you. But would it be wise, or meaningful?
If you are even half awake, you would want to limit the scope of Philosophy. After all large part of Philosophical tradition and methodology is about limiting and defining.
And you seem having symptomatic habit of falling back into personal attacks while debating philosophical topics.
I don't believe I was pissing upwind at all. I was just expressing what I was thinking on the topic. If you don't agree with someone, then just say so in clear and to the point, and why, if you believe it is worthwhile doing so. Nothing more or less. That is what is philosophical discussions are about.
Well, let's take a look at SEP:
Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and Western
Science and Chinese Philosophy
African Ethics
Latinx Philosophy
Latin American Philosophy
Japanese Philosophy
Tibetan Epistemology and Philosophy of Language
That was just a few minutes work. Seems there are folk who think it wise and meaningful to look outside the Western cannon.
I know a friend of mine saying he has his unique view of his own life, and he calls it Philosophy of Dog Crap.
You realize you've just dismissed philosophy. You find philosophy boring. B.S. is much more interesting to you. For that, after all, is all you deal in, right?
Real philosophers aren't trying to be clever, or have an interesting discussion: they're trying to close discussion down. You don't see that, do you? Because you're not a real philosopher. If there is overwhelming evidence that theory X is true, then there's nothing further to discuss.
Cool. So since you have everything figured out from indubitable first premises with pristine logic maybe close discussion down and don’t post again :wink:?
Well, to be more precise, it’s not the same type of logic as Western traditional philosophy, but it does nevertheless correspond to a model of truth - and one that is arguably more accurate than anything traditional Western philosophy could hope to wrestle into an assertion. But I’m not saying you shouldn’t keep trying. Drastically simplified, I think Chinese philosophy highlights the practical flaws in Western logic, and Africana philosophy highlights the missing experiential content in Western philosophical discussion.
no no never said that. you are getting into personal level again. always you seem to be targeting arguments or statement from others into the speaker himself in blaming or accusing tone, rather than keep on going with the topic itself.
Just gave you an example, how anything can be called a philosophy, but not all of them are strictly speaking, "Philosophy" under the scope of the Western Philosophical Tradition.
So which "model of truth" do you use in order to decide that an Eastern "model of truth" "is ... more accurate than" a Western "model of truth"?
I don't think my argument is drastic simplification. Even in Western Philosophies, each school have tried to re-define what Philosophy is, or must be. For instance, in Kant, Philosophy is mainly to limit human knowledge and understanding. In 20th century, Existential philosophers, their definition of Philosophy is, defining what human existence is. They are not concerned much with the problem of validating external world or proving existence of God, but they have been focusing on human, life and freedom.
In Analytical Philosophy, nothing is really philosophy unless it is to do with verifying and clarifying meanings of linguistic concepts. So, I have been talking from the main tradition of Western Philosophy, and from what I think Philosophy should be. It is not black and white or mathematical conclusion.
If anyone is starting to philosophizing, then first he / she should start with defining what philosophy is and should be. Otherwise, it tends to become an Art of Mysticism in the end. And if different school of philosophers debate about a philosophical topic, it juste tends to end with a piece of soap or comedy episode, unless they agree or understand, on what ground or definition of philosophy they are debating.
...multiple examples.
Fair point. Perhaps ‘arguably’ is the wrong word.
Quoting Corvus
Didn’t say it was, and I don’t think it is - I was admitting that MY summary which followed was a drastic simplification.
Quoting Corvus
Well, Bartricks seems adamant that it IS black and white, so unfortunately there is some forcefulness in a few responses here.
Your perspective can be described as the core tradition of Western Philosophy - I’m not arguing with you there. In light of the various alternative definitions of ‘philosophy’ that you’ve described here, would you agree that yours is a relatively narrow view, even for Western Philosophy?
Quoting Corvus
I can’t say that I agree with this, but I think I get where you’re coming from. Philosophy can descend quickly into pointless and frustrating argument when participants can’t even agree on what philosophy is. Case in point: this thread. But the main problem here was not that participants disagreed on a definition of philosophy, but that they weren’t willing to broaden their definition to accommodate the other in a discussion space. This, for me, is the whole point of doing philosophy. It’s the practical aspect as taught in schools: creating a community of ideas. It is entirely possible to have a fruitful philosophical discussion when we’re clear on where we disagree, but are willing to enter a discussion space that allows for alternative viewpoints.
What this Western tradition seems to do is push for a reduction, a limiting of human knowledge and understanding, in order to come to definitive conclusions that can be stated and recognised as universally true. This, to me, is not philosophy, not a love of wisdom, it’s a love of certainty - it’s debate.
But if we just consider the origin of the word "Philosophy", outside of the Western tradition, they did not even have a word meaning "Philosophy". They started using the word philosophy only not long ago when they heard the word Philosophy from the West. And then they named anything and everything remotely resembled things as Philosophy.
The main difference of Western tradition is the way they acquire knowledge and truths. It must come from your own reason and sensory mechanism. The other traditions knowledge and truths come from anywhere and everywhere, and in many cases, they don't ask and analyse in critical manner. They are just told to believe things or feel things, and do and follow as told. They call it wisdom and truth and knowledge.
Now this is not just big difference but they are in totally different dimension. Do you still want to call it Philosophy in academic sense? Its up to you, but to me it is illusion and self deception.
Philosophy is a unique subject where one must start from nothing, but doubt. And feel free to ask until all doubts exhaust and the certainties emerges based on logic, reason and sensory perceptions, To me, that is a genuine Philosophy. Your mileage may vary of course.
I disagree with this. I don’t think they’re either meaningless or totally different, just approaching things from a different angle. What I think is divided and separated is us.
Quoting Corvus
So, you’re saying they misappropriated the term? That they should have gotten permission from those who originally coined it? That everything in the world should stay divided and separated? Or only Philosophy?
Quoting Corvus
I’m beginning to wonder how much you’ve looked into ‘the other traditions’. What you’re describing sounds like the error we make when we see a group of people from a different ethnic group, and are unable to tell them apart from each other. ‘They all look the same’, we say. All we can see is the way they’re all alike in their difference. Once we get to know them as people, we start to see how they differ from each other, and each have their own uniqueness. Then we can start to see that they’re not so different from us, after all. There are many ways that we’re alike, and much we can learn from each other.
I agree that other traditions do glean knowledge and truth from sources that Western tradition would dismiss as ‘uncertain’, but I would argue that they have methodologies that enable them to approach these in a critical manner. They ask different questions, and in doing so discover that knowledge is not always truth and truth is not always wisdom. That our sensory mechanisms and reason are both influenced by a third player, what we name ‘desire’ ‘fear’, ‘emotion’ or ‘affect’. And that trying to simply ignore, isolate or exclude this information keeps us from completing a reliable model of truth. As does trying to control it without understanding it, or surrendering to it. There are more effective ways to complete the model, but they require physical and emotional as well as mental discipline. Stating what is true will never be sufficiently true. ‘The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao’.
They are not just told to believe things or feel things - they are instructed to imagine and to experience what lies beyond knowledge and truth, to see how reason is formed, and recognise its limitations. They call it the Way to wisdom - not wisdom itself, nor truth nor knowledge.
So, yes - I do still think this is Philosophy in an academic sense. What you call ‘illusion’ is thinking the words are all you need. And what you call ‘self-deception’ is thinking you can acquire wisdom theoretically.
Quoting Corvus
Hang on - the origin of this is Descartes...
But when one says, your idea is not philosophy, and historically your part of the world has never had a vocabulary describing Philosophy. But you can still use the word philosophy to whatever idea you feel it fits to be described as philosophy, if you want. It is up to you. But from my point of view, it is not Philosophy in strict sense. It is wrong, it is illusion and self deception on your part doing so. This is a clarification. That is not racism at all. It is just an opinion and argument.
This is a serious and typical problem when debating philosophical topics with non philosophical people. They somehow misinterpret the other party's argument, and then blow up into racism or sexism or whatever isms they want, and attack the other party personally and emotionally. I feel that it is also global effect of Internet SNS age, and should be avoided. Because it feels like that they are not into serious philosophical discussion as such, but are trying to accuse and punish others using the debates. It seems now global trend, that if you hate or disagree with someone, then just accuse him of racism, sexism or sexual harassment, and he will be taken off from the society next day. This is a serious crime itself, and should be stopped at all costs. Not good.
Well, Descartes, yes he is one of the most influencing classic Western Philosophers in history. I was not talking about a particular Western philosophy as such, but the Western Philosophical Tradition. It has had many different schools of different ideas and philosophical system in its history, so you cannot say this is What Western Philosophy is, in one sentence. But I have been talking about the evolutionary traditions which took place for 2500 years, and said this is what I think it is.
I will pick out ideas from Descartes, Hume or Kant, Hegel, Heidegger or Plato, where I agree with their points and methodology.
After all, one of the reasons we study and read History of Philosophy and the Classic Philosophers is that so we want to learn their ideas and systems, analyse, reject what we don't agree, accept what we agree, so that we could use the bits in moulding our own philosophy.
That is how it started, but it has had 2500 years of evolution. At times, there have been many Western Philosophers who were devoid of any sense of logical thinking or system based on reason time to time due to the social and historical environment and maybe personal differences maybe.
In fact during most of the medieval period, your know that Philosophy had to hide underground due to fear of the persecutions from the religious authorities in most parts of Europe. But they bounced back with the Enlightenment period of pre modern Europe, which had many important and influencing philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, Berkley, Lock, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger .... hundreds and thousands of them, name but few.
We are talking about that traditions, not a particular philosophy, which gives foundation for the accurate and meaningful definition of Philosophy.
And to me, from that tradition, Philosophy is a systematic methodology of subject which is totally based on logic and reason, which clarifies on all ideas and things in this universe. You shouldn't be afraid asking any questions when in doubt, or disagree on something and everything until it is crystal clear to all of us. And from the universal faculty we have which is called reason and logic in our mind, even a child or an old man in Tibet would understand and agree when it is critically analysed and put down with the conclusion, whatever topic or idea it was, when philosophically debated. At least that should be our attitude, although it might be challenging often than said, I believe.
I’m not the one confused. I said nothing about ‘racism’ - I spoke about opinion or argument. I asked if you agreed that yours was a narrow perspective, but you’re assuming that I’m trying to eject you from society under some heinous accusation or label. You’re defending your right to restrict what contributes to thinking about truth, by claiming some privileged label of ‘philosophy’. Yes, I am drawing clear parallels with narrow opinion and argument that might be construed as chauvinist, but you’re excluding what I’m revealing as not a ‘serious philosophical discussion’ because...what? I didn’t use the correct language? Or are you arguing with someone else... a strawman, perhaps? Go back and read what I wrote - you seem to be reading a lot more into the words than is there.
Quoting Corvus
Yes, and another reason is to understand and develop a universal model of truth. You referred to it as ‘genuine Philosophy’, not as your philosophy. You are entitled to your opinion, and to your own philosophy. I have never once disregarded this, or told you that you were wrong. But I will continue to argue that your view is narrow, even for Western Philosophical tradition. If you are going to argue for a universal model of truth, making claims to ‘genuine Philosophy’, then you can’t have it both ways. You can’t make assertions which blatantly dismiss all dissenting argument as ‘wrong’, and then put your hands up and say ‘Stop attacking, it’s just my opinion’. Either it’s one opinion of many, in which case your philosophy is as ‘wrong’ as everyone else’s, or it’s an argument for an objectively privileged label of ‘genuine Philosophy’, in which case I stand by my description of ‘narrow’.
This ‘Philosophy’ has a persona now? Or is it a particular species of thought? I’m intrigued by your reference to ‘evolution’, implying that there is something distinctly identifiable as ‘Philosophy’ that runs through the evolution of human philosophical thought. That it’s not just an account of how your own philosophy can be seen to have ‘evolved’ in an historical sense.
Quoting Corvus
You also shouldn’t be afraid of doubt, or of uncertainty - of recognising that the limitations in our capacity for knowledge does not mean that only one of us is ‘right’, but that all of us are ‘wrong’ in some way. And you shouldn’t be afraid of ‘information’ that is not as clear or certain as we would like it to be. Because truth isn’t about the clarity of the ‘information’ itself, but about the accuracy in how it is processed into thoughts, words AND actions.
Quoting Corvus
You mean utilising only the particular faculty which ‘Philosophy’ has labelled ‘reason and logic’, anyone who follows the strict methodology of ‘Philosophy’ and uses the same language will arrive at the same conclusion as ‘Philosophy’. Hmm. No surprises there. But what if this ‘Philosophy’ is inaccurate? How can you tell?
Quoting Corvus
But what is it about these ‘traditions’ that render them unquestionable? If you were taught to follow ONLY Christian traditions as foundation for the accurate and meaningful definition of ‘God’, how can you tell if your definition is accurate? Wouldn’t the same doubt apply to the philosophical traditions you follow? Wouldn’t you be expected to account for information that casts these traditions into doubt, rather than simply dismiss them as ‘wrong’? Even if it threatens the very existence of ‘God’ or ‘Philosophy’?
So, you don’t think Philosophy has anything to do with wisdom anymore? Or do you think its focus is more or less than wisdom? Not ALL wisdom, or only what can be proven? You keep referring to tradition as the foundation, based on the original application of the term, and yet the etymology is somehow inadequate. I intend to approach wisdom - where will you arrive?
And these Western Philosophers who appeared to lack a system based on reason: did they pose difficult questions and challenges that contributed to the restructuring or ‘evolution’ of Western Philosophical thinking/discussion as you see it?
I didn't advocate anything. I made clarification. Calling it chauvinism is your judgement from your own emotion. Not a fact or knowledge.
Wisdom is too abstract and relative term. I think it was meant to mean "knowledge", but it still too wide and loose. What was wisdom to you could look stupidity to others. And it changes case by case, and time to time. There is no such object called "wisdom". It is a word to describe someone's mental attitude or decision when it resulted in positive outcome for the person.
Surely that cannot be what Philosophy is. It was a textbook description of Western Philosophy in history. I advise you not to take it seriously or put your life on it. Because things have moved on.
Quoting Corvus
Oh, sure. I think you are being chauvinistic. I'm happy with that.
I think your judgement is groundless, weird and wrong. :)
Thing is, the SEP stuff I shared shows that philosophy is far broader than you would allow. All you have done is stipulate that "philosophy" ought be reserved for the Western tradition.
Yawn.
yeah, what truths or knowledge can you manage or expect to have from the simple saying "It is a love of wisdom."? So what?
But it seems you can't see that, which is a pity.
I have not been denying it. I was just saying they are different. What has to be said to get through to you, I fail to understand. You seem in perpetual negativity and denial just for sake of it.
I had already offered a broad, practical definition of philosophy that doesn’t bet everything on reason confined by tradition.
Quoting Possibility
Wisdom is an accurate model of truth. Arguably not a what, but a how. And love is the way we each increase awareness, connection and collaboration with this potentiality, and actualise this model in our interactions.
Meaningful to whom? Productive for whom? For you? So long as you ignore, isolate or exclude any challenging material, nothing can mess with your system...
Quoting Corvus
You have been denying it. You see no value in source material that doesn’t follow your strict protocol. At best, you afford them the position of being ‘wrong’.
Meaningful to whom? It depends on what one wants to achieve. If your goal is clarifying muddled ideas by others, coming to logical and clear conclusions, that is meaningful to you. If your idea is just to keep asking and arguing without purpose or destination confusing and complicating while emotionally cracking up, then it would feel meaningless and look futile.
Quoting Possibility
Clarifying and classifying is not denial. Please don't mix emotion into it.
Is that what you think I’m doing? Or is this another strawman argument? Try reading my definition again.
Quoting Corvus
Neuroscience demonstrates that affect doesn’t just go away when you refuse to acknowledge it. If you’re ignoring ‘emotion’, how can you tell when it affects your reasoning? Kant’s aesthetics demonstrates that we are unaffected only when we refrain from judgement. The moment we think, speak or act with judgement - including reason - we’re bringing affect into it. But this is likely another discussion.
Classifying is not denial. Clarifying can be. When you clarify the river water, what do you do with the sediment? Do you see value in it? Is it still part of the river water?
When we clarify, we judge a particular aspect, an idea or arrangement of ideas, to be the focus of our attention and effort. In your version of philosophy, we extract and discard the sediment. In Taoism, for instance, we allow it to settle with stillness. Both achieve the same clarity, but in Taoism you haven’t thrown out half the river in the process...
No, we don't and haven't discarded anything. What is not in the realm of reason and logic, will be in the realm of faith, or as you say emotions. I am not saying which is better than the others.
They just operate in different world, and need different methodology to work with. If your aim is to heal or educate or achieve Nirvana, you must be in that world use the appropriate way to work on them.
If your aim is to analyse people's behaviour and their psychological motives for their actions, then your must look into their emotions.
But reason is a tool to for knowledge and truths, and that is all there is to it. Of course you can decide to use it for supporting your faith or justifying your actions or decisions or controlling your emotions, yes by all means you can use it. But it would be not the be the origin of reason and logics nature or ability to able able to help you or make you doing that. The original power of reason and logic is just for your knowledge and understanding on the things, situations or ideas or whatever.
But their way of studying these subjects are different from the religion or psychology or ethics themselves.
In Western Philosophical tradition, they investigate logical correctness of the terminology, and their sayings, codes, principles etc, whether they are making sense in logical point of view. So it is critical study of the subjects rather than learning the subject themselves.
Yes, I think you have been emotionally stretching yourselves rather than engaging a debate.
It is like, I said "Tokyo is not in Europe. It is in Asia. They have different weather compared to Norway.", and
youz have been saying "Oh, you discarded us, you denied us, you are a racist. Maybe not quite racist, but a chauvinist. yawn yawn"
Get over it. Read some Hume at least, and History of Western Philosphy by Russell, before coming to the debates.
Hume said "Reason is slave of Passion." Because it tells you things, but cannot make you to act. It is Passion which does it. I or Hume couldn't have been a chauvinist or any ist, when kept saying Reason is a universal tool to tell things to you, and is slave of passion. (Hume, Enquires and Treaties of Human Nature, somewhere).
Then it has no relation to reality, and serves no practical purpose in itself. It’s all just words. The self-appointed ‘voice of Reason’, except no one can agree on what she’s saying...
Quoting Corvus
Right. So, despite what Reason might ‘tell’ you (without language, mind you), whatever you think, say and do is determined by Passion. - including everything you’ve written here. So you can’t simply bracket out ‘emotion’, no matter how logical you think you’re being. It’s in the very language you use to give voice to Reason. It’s in the choices you make to address only certain elements in what I’ve written, while ignoring others. To pay attention to only some of what Reason has to ‘tell’ you. This is why Russell tried to reduce language to mathematical formula (something I would argue Lao Tzu achieved with more success in traditional Chinese), and why Wittgenstein recognised the need for silence in the end. There is more to correct reasoning than logic.
Quoting Possibility
This time, let me ask you questions.
1. What is Philosophy in your thought?
2. What is your definition of Reality?
I’ve already answered this question here. Twice.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Corvus
Let’s start with a standard philosophical definition:
Reality: existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.
So, when I say that the investigation of logical correctness of terminology, sayings, codes, principles, etc has nothing to do with reality, I’m saying that it is subject to human decisions and conventions - namely, language.
It sounded like not Philosophy defined by philosophical view point, but from a psychology or layman. It is just too loose definition, and unclear. It does not mention anything about methodology of the subject.
"determine a model of truth"? by how?. Do you want to determine a model of truth, but deny the importance of logic and reason?
Quoting Possibility
Language alone would be insufficient. I am not sure if language alone can cover and reflect the whole picture of mental activities such as thinking, believing, imagination and judgement. Your thinking is very much limited. I feel that reality and logic and reasoning are closely related. If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, then something is wrong somewhere, and you need to find out about that.
Ignoring and denouncing the relation between logic, reason and reality sound utterly addlepated.
I am not denying that logic and reason play a part, but they have no privileged place over experience that limits the methodology, and thereby access to truth. The methodology is part of the model itself, and should account for not just the variability of experience (ie. conceptual and ethical structures), but also the variability of reasoning (ie. logic and language structures).
The use of ‘the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement’ comes from Kant.
Quoting Corvus
I agree that language is insufficient. I’m saying that any philosophy which fails to account for the limitations of language is further removed from reality than they realise. I’m saying that language structures restrict thinking, believing, imagination and judgement, and so investigating logical correctness within a particular language structure only limits these mental activities further.
If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, how far back will you go to restructure? If you employ a set methodology that gives primacy to logic and reason within a Western philosophical discourse, how can you investigate the correctness of that methodology?
I get that clinging to a logical foundation or reasonable methodology gives the illusion of certainty. But what if that’s where you’re wrong? How will you ever know?
Could you give some examples on this? I am not sure what experiences you are talking about here, and where it came from.
Quoting Possibility
They make sense, when one is reading the book "Critique of Pure Reason" with the context, but when someone is just saying it or written down out of blue without telling where it came from, then it can cause confusion. Kant has been talking about them in his grand scheme of human understanding how they all work.
But when you just say it, one will wonder, what imagination, understanding and judgement? Because they are always imagination of something, understanding of something or judement of something. How can you just talk about empty imagination, understanding and judgement without any contents or objects? It just sounded abstract and empty and meaningless.
Quoting Possibility
You keep verifying and validating. You don't restructure anything. Restructuring comes automatically after the verification and validation. Reason and logic is the tool for that exercise. But without co-relation of reason, logic and reality, your verification and validation will never be possible.
T claim Western Philosophy doesn't exist is to claim that the West doesn't exist. Or that mindsets and thought patterns are not different in multiple cultures. It might be a generalisation, yes. But the old thinkers that you so adore interacted with other philosophers, Italian philosophers with german philosophers and so on, the resulting back and forth of ideas and philosophies can be called Western Philosphy. Or in the East, Eastern Philosophy. I suppose Western Philosophy can also refer to what some might consider Christian-influenced Philosophy. Religion does form culture.
Well, that was badly worded on my part - sorry. I was trying to say that methodology is limited when a privileged place (over experience) is given to reason and logic. When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth.
Quoting Corvus
I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. And I’m not talking about any contents or objects, but the faculties themselves. This is a common error that originates with the translation of Kant’s ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft‘ into English, and the failure of many philosophers to even read this third critique. He’s not referring to the actual ‘judgement (urteils) of something’, as in CofPR, but to the faculty of judgement - not just the capacity to judge, but the pure possibility of human judgement - which influences both reason and ethics at an a priori level.
But here Kant glimpses beyond reason, and recognises free, non-judgemental harmony between the faculties of imagination and understanding as the realm of ‘genius’, wisdom, sagacity. He left the door open to a broader approach to philosophy...
Quoting Corvus
Verifying and validating against what? Against your conception of reality? Against logic or reason?
It is the structure of this co-relation that is the key: the model of truth. But where does experience fit into this? Without an understanding of how feeling affects our perception of reality, reason or logic, and how this affected perception influences attention and effort, your verification and validation will never be accurate in relation to reality. At best you have a prediction.
Experience is another abstract terminology, which is not clear. Experience, to me, is something that you have gone through in the past? It is also always about something. It has contents which is private and past. So what do you mean by privileged place over experience?
To me, experience is like memory? Or it is not even that, but it is so abstract term, I am not sure if it can be used for meaningful tool for arriving at truths. Perhaps, you could reflect or compare something with your own experience? But still you must use reason to do that. Experience sounds like just pile of personal memories of someone on something.
In Philosophy I feel that every issue we are discussing is current, and up-to-date, now issue. We can be talking about the ancient philosophies of course, but we are discussing and contemplating and investigating now. So your saying that "When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth."
I am not quite getting it again. Why do you have to filter all experience logically and filtered through reason? Could you give daily life example for that?
You have a philosophical issue to investigate, and analyse, and come to conclusion via verification or validation. And maybe sometimes, your experience on something might help in that process, if it is related to the topic, background or conclusion, then you might reflect or base on the experience in coming to the conclusion and truth. But is is not necessary step to take always.
I will consider the next part when time is permitting. Just concentrating the part by part whenever I have a chance to be back here.
I feel that "experience" is just far too loose and abstract term in defining methodology for arriving at truths from my description above.
And you cannot just pick out one school or philosopher and use his ideas and definition to define the whole Western Philosophy. As I have been saying, there have been too many divergent schools and ideas even in Western Philosophy, hence why I have been talking in terms of the tradition and prevailing attitudes of Western Philosophy. And I based my own definition from that.
Using Kant's terminology to define the whole Western Philosophy would be too narrow and wrong too to cover the whole Western Philosophy. We can only extract the common denominator from the tradition, and establish our own definition. I feel that it is more practical and constructive.
Ok, you can have your own definition on the WP, no one will tell you that you can't. But we can still debate whether yours is making sense and why mine is more sensible definition than yours.
In Kant, experience and truths is only possible, when you allow the inherent reason and sensory experience are combined. He distinguished different kind of reasons - Pure Reason (for general perception and mathematical perception), Practical Reason (for ethical and aesthetic judgements). These reasons are inborn, and universal. They are transcendental and categorical. It is the foundation for all human knowledge.
But you cannot know Ding-An-Sich, which is God, Freedom and Death and so on. These items does not provide you with the universal sensory data. You must trust them, or presume them or come to some sort of conclusion by some other means than knowledge in general.
This is something that can go on in 1000s of pages, but my idea is just from my fuzzy memory of reading Kan 10 year ago. But you get the gist, and appreciate reason is most significant foundation in Western Philosophy.
Yeah, same point again. verify and validate against what? If you read Kant, you surely would know against what by now. You have universal categorical perceptual tool in your mind called "REASON". That is what you veryfy against.
OK, there are problems with reality and appearance, and whether what you see or hear were correct etc, but that is another issue and it is about skepticism. This is I feel, a separate issue.
Still the best tool human has for the verification and validation is 'reason" and logic. If one doesn't see, or agree to this, then I have no other way to convince than tell him to meditate or pray for the truths he is after.
I want to be clear that I am not defining the whole of Western Philosophy - I am defining the practise of philosophy as I understand it. I find it amusing that you consider my approach to be too narrow simply because of the words I’ve used, yet ‘extracting the common denominator from the tradition’ and the ‘prevailing attitudes’ of Western Philosophy to define all philosophy is not narrow? It’s a bit like defining ‘humanity’ by extracting the ‘common denominator’ from patriarchal tradition and the prevailing attitudes of men.
The reference I made to Kant was to counter your suggestion that my definition was formed outside of philosophical discourse - a ‘layman’s definition’, I think were your words. Regardless of the terms, the methodology behind them marked the beginning of a shift in both common denominator and prevailing attitudes for many philosophers, opening Western philosophy up to influence from art, literature and Eastern traditions, among others, and enabling philosophers to critique the foundations of language, the structures of logic and the supposed ‘essentialism’ of experience. But I imagine these influences were considered to be diluting the ‘purity’ of an orthodox Western focus on the primacy of Reason. Perhaps these influences were tolerated only insofar as philosophers attempted to assimilate the discussion within Western philosophical discourse, concealing their ‘otherness’ lest they offend the sensibilities of purists such as yourself.
Quoting Corvus
You’re only making it clearer to me that you’re unfamiliar with his third critique. I can’t say that I’m surprised.
Quoting Corvus
Separate from philosophy?
Just a few rushed comments. I’ll try and address the rest at a later time...
I have all the books, and read them years ago light heartedly. I know what they are about roughly. I could reread them and refresh my memory, but I feel that Kant's Critique is not something that to be discussed in detail here.
Quoting Possibility
Separate from the question on what reality is.
I don't believe it is a possible task for you anyway.
Quoting Possibility
That is just my way of the defining. You have yours.
Quoting Possibility
No. Humanity is not Philosophy. I made clear that Philosophy is a very unique subject, different from all other subjects. Humanity is not even a subject. Humanity is - well it will have many definitions I am sure, but it is not a subject, art or science.
It was obvious that you intended to bring Kant into the debate just to counter the opinion on the "Layman's definition", which suddenly sounded all too abstract and unclear, because a few days ago, you have been saying that reason and logic have no place in philosophy. Without these faculties, you cannot even talk about imagination, understanding or judgement, because these mental activities are based on reason essentially and logic to some degree. It was totally conflicting argument and definition, and had no consistency whatsoever between them.
Again, I’m not denying this - my point is that this foundation does not then define what Philosophy is or should be. Philosophy that ventures beyond the capacity of reason does not cease to be philosophy. And methodologies to determine a model of truth without approaching it from (or deferring to) a Western foundation of Reason should not be excluded from the practise of philosophy.
Perhaps that's where our difference lies. To me, knowledge and truths beyond reason are in the realm of religion or psychology or whatever, but they are not philosophy. What cannot be said, sensed, talked or verified is not subject of philosophy. They are mysticism.
Yes, this is where we differ. Because if you’re going to judge the validity of a particular model of truth (ie. a religion, mysticism or philosophy), then you need to understand how its methodology differs from your own traditional ‘Western Philosophy’ model - keeping in mind that your traditional model has its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning, etc.
It just seems to me as if you’re judging the validity of other models against a methodology that is itself limited in relation to truth. Your claim that reason is the ‘best’ tool for verification and validation (ie. an illusion of certainty) is argued within a tradition that dismisses other tools as ‘not philosophy’ because they don’t follow this tradition which claims (arbitrarily) that reason is the ‘best’ tool... It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, an imaginative ‘what if’ that ‘worked’ consistently enough to be consolidated into a formidable institution - rather like Christianity, or geocentrism - and now fights for ‘survival’ by beating back all but the most ‘pure’ fundamentalism.
I agree that reason is an effective tool in determining an accurate model of truth - to a point. Arguing from reason that reason is the ‘best’ tool is simply measuring against itself. The only way to verify this claim is to find a methodology for parsing ANY and ALL models of truth: religion, mysticism, science, philosophy, subjective experience, etc. To do that, philosophy needs to include discussions of human experience beyond reason. And it needs to accept the possibility of a more accurate model of truth that destabilises human reason from its central, static position around which experience revolves. Another ‘Copernican Turn’, to borrow from Kant again.
I wouldn't treat mysticism, religion and any other non philosophical subject with the philosophical methodology. If I am interested in a mysticism (which I am not in real life), then I would just go and read up about the mysticism. I will not try to bring mysticism under philosophical methodology, unless such situation had risen for some some peculiar circumstance, which I doubt.
Quoting Possibility
Could you please explain in detail on your saying "its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning etc"? What serious problems are you talking about here?
My claim was not reason is the only and best tool, but rather, I was saying for Western Philosophical tradition rationalism has been dominating trend, and I follow the tradition.
Anyhow I feel that you are repeating yourself with the same thing, on which I have already clearly explained in the previous posts.
But you ARE treating them with your philosophical methodology by isolating and excluding them from any critical discussion of truth.
Quoting Corvus
This:
Quoting Corvus
Bracketing out skepticism from a discussion of truth or reality is just a way of avoiding uncertainty. So, we can make these assertions about reality IFF our underlying logical assumptions and the meanings we attribute to language are true about reality. That we cannot use reason alone to verify this is a serious problem with the methodology in relation to determining an accurate model of truth. But you’re not after accuracy or correctness, only an illusion of certainty. And you’re willing to ignore, isolate or exclude any human capacity to access truth beyond reason in order to retain that illusion.
Quoting Corvus
It sure sounds like it’s your claim:
Quoting Corvus
You keep oscillating between assertions of dominance and obedience to ‘tradition’.
I was drawing lines between subjects that can be dealt with reason, and subjects which is out of boundary of debate with reason. I cannot understand why you must be negative and keep saying "isolating and excluding".
Again, the same points :) you are the one self oscillating on the same points.
Topics that are out of boundary of reason should be left to the faith and mysticism, because you cannot come to concrete truths or conclusion by reasoning. So boundary has been drawn on the reason and faith. It is not isolating or excluding.
Quoting Corvus
Drawing arbitrary boundaries and lines, declaring what is in and out - please tell me how this is not isolating and excluding. There are no boundaries except those we draw in our own limited perception. I’m not expecting truth to be concrete or conclusive - that doesn’t mean it can’t be both accurate and practical.
It is not arbitrary boundaries. The boundary had been drawn since time of Kant. And that was a part of his mission in Philosophy. I thought you did read Kant's Critiques.
Drawing boundaries is not isolating and excluding, because it is saying that you go, and investigate the topics of out of the boundary of reason via faith, meditation or whatever other means that requires for you to get to the knowledge or truths you are after.
Quoting Corvus
Sure - but that doesn’t mean they’re not arbitrarily drawn in a wider context. A large part of Kant’s mission was to determine the conditions for human knowledge. He drew the line and then explored its limitations as a boundary, recognising that reason is nevertheless informed by conditions beyond reason - that phenomena in human experience cannot be bracketed out simply because they don’t conform to reasonable concepts, but point to a wider context of ideas and feeling.
Quoting Corvus
...just remember to leave it all behind at the boundary to ‘Western Philosophy’? Would you say that ‘Western Philosophy’ as you understand it, then, is not seeking a complete, accurate or practical model of truth, but ONLY what ‘Western’ language and logic can assert to be true within reason?
Without an inclusive approach to truth and its negation that traverses the boundary of reason without penalty, you’re unable see how the human faculties of imagination, judgement and understanding can be restructured to interact in a working model of truth that is accurate both within and beyond this ‘boundary of reason’.
My position here has never been that your approach is ‘wrong’, only that it is narrow. You don’t seem willing to acknowledge this.
Quoting Corvus
But you cannot prove your claim of ‘right’ or ‘proper’ without appealing to an arbitrary authority of Western ‘tradition’. Do you recognise the dogmatism here?
Just quick reply, as I have a lot to do today. Will read the rest laster when quiet.
I was not defending anything, but just noticed that your choice of the words "isolation and exclusion" was very negative. Anyone who can speak English will tell you that. It is not even in any philosophical books or schools unless you are talking about some pessimistic "Existential Philosophy" describing destitute human condition or fate, because they will all die in the end.
Denying that or saying otherwise, I would take it as pure dishonesty or you don't know how to use some basic English words.
Drawing lines on the mental faculties, or boundary of the senses and reason, is perfectly philosophical expression which had been used for long time by many famous philosophers.
You didn’t just notice it, you felt the need to mention it, and seem bothered that I’m not acknowledging the affect you believe is inherent in these terms. Why do you think that is?
[i]Isolate: 1. cause (a person or place) to be or remain alone or apart from others.
2. identify (something) and examine or deal with it separately.
Exclude: 1. deny (someone) access to a place, group, or privilege.
2. remove from consideration.[/i]
Yes, my choice of words can have negative connotations. But I think it would only bother you this much if you believe that what you’re doing is inherently good. Because you ARE identifying faith and reason and examining or dealing with them separately. And you ARE removing aspects of reality from philosophical consideration. And you have probably always seen this as something good, following in the noble tradition of famous philosophers...
Quoting Corvus
That doesn’t make it right or good or proper or even authoritative. It just makes it institutional, like the Nicene Creed. I don’t expect you to recognise this anytime soon. I think I can roughly relate to where you are, though.
It was not just your choice of the words. You kept saying due to the isolation and exclusion, I will never be able to arrive at the truths that need more than reason.
I have been saying, one arrives at the truths which are outside of boundary of reason, by other means than reason, i.e. faith, meditation or prayers, if they are wanting to or able to.
But ok, you meant to be positive, you confirmed. I will take it, your opinion was positive. Thanks.
I am not bothered at all. As I have said, I will say again. You are keep repeating yourself with the same point, which is negative and not productive for you at all. So I was just pointing out. But somehow you think that I am bothered. This is very strange.
Your argument is not consistent even in one post. One minute you say that, you were not negative, but it was positive, and you even bother to copy and paste meanings of the words from some internet site. But then you cannot help noticing it yourself, those words have negative connotations. And then you turn to negative again. It is strange circulation. My points had been put across a few days ago. There is nothing more productive to add to the main topic of the thread, but then you keep saying isolation and exclusion, and your negativity again. So I am just making my points on this situation.
I think you are not after a sound philosophical debate, but just trying to judge others points and ideas. Not productive at all.