This is a continuation(sort of) a thread in Rant. The question is, what are the differences in Western and Eastern world views and how do these differences affect seeing and understanding?
This thread will need the input of as many who can help shed light on the differences as few would claim to be an expert in either area.
So, let’s start with a basic question: What is the universe, where did it come from, and how does it function?
JT
If I may jump to the point, since the original question was rather vague:
China unified very early on, and remained unified (more-or-less), period. This means that China had the luxury of persuing intellectual academics long before Europe. However, stability can also lead to stagnation. A Scientific revolution did not occur in China (as it did in Europe) because there was a lack of physical confrontation.
Confucianism and Daoism/Buddhism are far more complete philosophies than anything that Europe can offer. However, the chaos of Europe lead to a reification of the practical. As much as a ruler ought be like the North Star, Legalists ultimately unified China.
European philosophy, on the other hand, resembles a mohist/legalist fusion for most of its existence. Strong practicality and stronger rulers with lip service being given to justice and other “christian” values. A new catapult design mattered more than a better feather-duster for your personal mirror. Eastern thinkers such as Xunzi came close . . . but fell short of defining a rational, understandable basis of the Universe.
To know in China was to know the self; to know in Europe was to understand the apple falling.
Xunzian,
Ok, you have made a distinction. What were the basic assumptions in each sphere that that led to these different views?
The Tao and Confucianism arose about the same time during the warring states period (approx 400 - 225 BCE) China was in constant chaos while Europe and the whole of the mediterranean world enjoyed stability under Pax Romana. The Tao and Confucianism came into being because of the chaos and not in a stable unified period.
JT
Not a particularly bad start, guys. I’ll be watching humbly for ages to come. Except I’m just dropping in to say that the Worrying State period is more contemporary to the City States period of Hellas, than to Pax Romana. Again, this is one of those freekish historical match-ups that draws my linkage of A.C. to A.G. I could be wrong though.
I’m very pedantic but I need to interject just for a minute. The Tao did not come about at the same time as Confuciunism but rather Taoism did. The Tao was always and always. Always has been, always will be.
A
Well, I would argue that Confucianism arose during the Zhou . . . but let’s not get into foundation myths.
However, even during the warring states period there was an ideal of the Unified China (a la Zhou) which did not exist in Europe. The ideal of Romanitas is very different from the ideal of China.
As to how these ideas came about? Well, during the Hundred Schools period, there was a flurry of intellectual activity in China. When the Han arose after the short-lived Qin dynasty as the dominant force, it chose Daoism/Confucianism as the state ideology.
There is no parallel in western culture. Instead, you have a variety of para-military groups groping for dominance. It’s like the Mohists won in China.
It has been argued that Zhu Xi is the eastern Aquinas, but I’d argue that the Han Dynasty unified Daoism/Confucianism in the same way Aquinas reconsiled Hellenism/Christianity.
I really do think in the west the Mohists won. Look at the Mohist advances in seige-craft and defence. That was part-and-parcle with their ideology since it purely exhisted during a time of ultimate upheaval. Europe existed that way for a much longer time than China.
Yes, Angel, the Tao that can be named is not the Tao. I’ll try harder to be specific. I was speaking of the codification of the written works called Tao Te Ching. Apologies to all.
To avoid further confusion, their are two (of several possible) spellings of Chinese words depending on the translation language used. Tao Te Ching (Wade-Giles) and Dao de Jing (pinyn) are acceptable spellings. Regardless the spelling scheme used, Tao and Dao are pronounced with the D sound.
JT
And while Taoism uses the Tao Te Ching as one of it’s main texts, there are many sacred texts attributed to Taoism. But this is off topic of course.
A
Xunzian,
Time of origin and chaos/stability aside, back to the original question. What were the assumptions being made in the west and the east that created the differences you suggest?
JT
Uniqor,
I’m out of here till Thursday. Get in here and help!
JT
I really hate to contend and appear the putz, but oh well.
From my discussions with Saihung, (of course I asked of the history of Taosim), he was very certain, (born Chinese, raised in a Taoist monastery), that the original pre-ritual form of Taoism was a shamanistic oral esoterica of council elders of latter nomadic tribes. (according to his monastery, the tradition dated 7200 - 8000 years ago).
Being that Confucius was most certainly an antecedent of said era, coming from “civilized” societal structures, I would assert that the argument of which came first is rather moot.
Obviously, as we have talked elsewhere, it is obvious the effects of one system on the other, which is irrefutable. Legalism still exists comfortably within the confines of the Taoist system today.
Obviously, as the humble angel pointed out, Tao is eternal and time independent, so nothing more need be said there.
The main problems that I see with the East/West contention are as follows:
Just my view from my rudimentary perceptions.
Hello F(r)iends,
(a) The universe is everything we can perceive of or conceive of which includes the physical and metaphysical, respectively. (b) It came from the Big Bang (c) it functions with a combination of rules that includes general relativity and quantum physics along with various mathematical assumptions.
As long as we are introducing one religious perspective, I’ll go ahead and introduce another. YHVH is the creator of the universe–he is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. He is the always and forever… always has and always will be.
Here’s a distiction:
It could be argued that the Wests (whatever that is) is focused on the individual. Individual rights, individual journey/destination, individual gods, individual accomplishment and well being, individual riches, et al.
It could be argued that the East (whatever that is) is often focused on the commune. The community’s rights, the community’s destination, the community’s, the community’s gods, the community’s accomplishments and well being, the community’s riches, et al. The scientific
-Thirst
Jesus JT, you can’t possibly bail on us now, brother!? I’m sure there will be a way to pluck a hole or two on hardcore Xunzian metaphysicism, but somehow I have a feeling that Mastriani is gona be a serious problem, and how can I even contemplate to resist liquidangel? I’ll be the first surroundering under her skirt the minute she lifts a finger. I’m sorry man… you’d better come back on Thursday with some real stuff here brother.
But, you see, I don’t see major differences in East/West philosophy, I merely see a difference in who won and is therefore remembered. Both have mystic traditions and coporeal traditions.
The cyclical nature of Daoism can be found in Hellenistic thought, aspects of Xunzi and Han Feizi can be found in Hobbes. Daoists and Gnostics would get along famously, heck any of the Christian dervishes. Confucius and Aristole could enjoy a nice glass of wine together and find very little to disagree about. Bushido/Chivalry have enough in common to create parallels. Karma, particularly from 14th Century Japan gets along famously with Calvinism.
However, since Europe refused to Unify time and time again, Legalism and the practical sort of philosophy coupled with mystic thought that typifies Mohism ran rampant. Sure, European Legalism (Divine right of the ruler) was founded on different metaphysics, but that’s not that big a deal.
European Mohism used the Warrior Jesus model rather than ‘spirits’, but is that significant? Charles the Hammer’s victories were (at the time) attributed to Jesus appearing on the field and kicking ass. How much do you think that castles affected the European mindset?
Heck, the constant claim of being the New Rome from Karl der Grosse to Napoleon reminds me of the Confucian desire to establish the new Zhou and each ruler believed themselves a moral paragon that would be able to achieve that goal.
It is just a matter of who said it better. The fundamental ideas are quite similar, they are merely expressed slightly differently. At least at first. Over time, greater differences evolved as their foci were different.
My good friend Xunzian, I wish to contend here.
As a student of AizuTakeda Aikijujutsu over some years, Bushido and Chivalry are distinctly different in a great many aspects.
East and West started from very different points of perspective, and thus evolved quite differently.
Eastern medicine views the body in a manner of totality, Western medicine views the body as a loosely organized assembly of pieces and parts.
Mastriani,
Naturally Bushido differs from Chivalry in a variety of important aspects, but Chivalry has more in common with Bushido than it does with John Stuart Mills. If Bushido is an orange, then Chivalry is a grapefruit and Mills is an apple.
Let's suppose Confucius, Aristole and Nagarjuna are sitting in a cafe in 1950's Europe. After a satisfying meal (vegetarian, of course. Both Aristole and Confucius didn't want to make their good friend feel uncomfortable) they decide that dessert is in order.
Aristole flags down the waitress and says, “I can’t quite decide what to order. However, since I believe in the Mean, what is your best and worst dessert?” The waitress looks at him kinda funny for a moment and replies, “Well, we have some very fine Belgian chocolate, perhaps the finest in the world . . . and we still have some peanut-butter the Americans left.” Aristole claps his hands and exclaims, “Excellent! I would like you to blend the chocolate and peanut butter!”
Confucius agrees with the sentiment, however he is somewhat skeptical – it is a new dessert after all, and not on the menu. After some cajoling (and being told that a similar dessert has existed in America for generations) he agrees that Aristole’s dessert is acceptable. Perhaps with some plum wine to compliment it, since the Master did not limit his intake of alcohol. And, yes, perhaps he and Aristole would debate the merits of creamy vs. chunky.
Nagarjuna, on the other hand simply shakes his head. “You both have it all wrong . . . I want neither peanut butter, nor chocolate in my dessert. I’ll have the creme brule.” Perhaps he would be wearing a sandal for a hat while he said it. He would also occasionally chime into the creamy vs. chunky debate to deny the existence of creamy and chunky.
As with the Western/Eastern medicine divide, I ask you: whose western medicine? A friend of mine's father was confounded for a long time by the Hispanics that would come to him complaining about various ailments (usually females complaining of chest pains). It was a basic miscommunication, because in Mexico it is common for medical doctors to act as councillors as well and treat ailments of the soul. Mideval doctors assigned a patients health to motions of the stars and the four elements. Heck, Fly Agaric was involved in a great deal of Viking religious rituals resulting in shamanistic trances, usually to drive away foul spirits.
The totality of the individual as a medical concern still exists in some corners of western medicine and at one point was quite important. The reductionist philosophy became dominant in the West, but that is a historical accident.
When viewed through modern lenses, the two philosophies seem different, but oftentimes horizontal, rather than vertical comparisons are better. Wouldn't Zhuangzi get along rather well with Thoreau? Yangming with Derida? Does Jesuit meditation not compare with Tibetian death meditiation?
I just don't view the assumptions as being that different. Just the way they were born out.
Hello all,
Back to the fray. Since the differences could easily fill a 12 volume compendium, (maybe this thread) I’m more concerned with the underlying assumptions at the moment, because the assumptions made will in large part, explain some of the differences. I offer the following, not as anything but an opportunity to ask questions or to quibble.
The single most important difference in Eastern/Western thinking is the assumptions behind what is the universe? All differences in seeing and understanding begin here.
Western Cosmology: The universe has a beginning and end, and was brought into being by a divine creator. All things function within a natural order pre-determined by that creator. All things are discoverable and can be defined by what they are and what they are not in relation to other things.
Eastern cosmology: The universe has no beginning or end, it just is. There is no creator, just creation. There are no things as ‘things’, but as processual events that come into being, mature, and return.
This is an opening statement and is by no means complete. There is much more, and many exceptions both East and West. I’m not trying to be obscure, but rather trying to avoid ‘telling it like it is’. Affirm or deny, add or subtract as you will. There are no experts here and this isn’t about knowing, but understanding.
JT
Mastriani,
How dare you try to claim the role of putz in this forum! That is my role, I assumed it the day I became a member and I’m not likely to relinquish the title any time soon. I’m am the ILP putz. period. You may, if you wish, take the role of under-study, in the unlikely scenario that I may one day ‘get it’. Until then, assume your place. 
JT
LOL, how unabashedly arrogant of me to attempt to usurp the masters position. This small one humbly bows, backing away and asking for forgiveness for the transgression.
(edited for sppeelings)
I would agree with that difference. I’d say the West’s major innovation was strict Monotheism and all the baggage (both good and bad) that comes with it.
A single entitiy leads to a strong “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude that is backed up by scripture. At least with Hindu Monotheism you end up with ‘aspects of the truth’ rather than ‘the TRUTH’. Since there is only one Truth, it needs to be discovered by smashing falsehood.