That is true. For example, Confucianism spread in China 400 years after Confucius death, because his followers convinced Emperors Wu of the Han Dynasty, who decided to implement it in the administration.
I forgot to mention Descartes, whose philosophical ideas were spreading or being oppressed in Europe countries according to the local leader’s intentions and beliefs (Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist etc).
As I pointed out, even if it was thought, it was not going to be spread publicly.
On the contrary, this is within the topic. As @greenfuse mentioned, it is a good question why some philosophical ideas work in one place and not in another.
The fundamental problem with many individuals on forums such as this is they admit that they are psychotic because they believe that they are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion).
It very difficult communicating with psychotics who are incapable of having a more balanced view of reality because of their religious beliefs.
I agree………..……..
But then again, that is about the popularity of ideas - not that people from different contexts can’t have the same idea (which you said it was the case)
In particular, some of what you wrote are not ideas about reality, but about history (human history), like Marx’s.
LOL…….(15 characters)…….you keep losing debates ghatzige.
How exactly could an ancient Egyptian of 3000 BC think as a medieval Christian or have similar ideas? Or, could a medieval Christian imagine the relativity of time as Einstein described it?
Sometimes there are “objective” reasons that we cannot think in certain ways.
As you are a self confessed psychotic who believes that everything is a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) including yourself then why should we take you seriously ghatzige?
By using their imagination, obviously. How come they are unable to imagine something another human imagined? That is a very tall statement - how could you ever back it up?
Time passing differently to different people I think is a recurring trope in old stories. So, is the difference accessory or fundamental? Well, of course in the tale of Beauty and the Beast, Beauty asked Beast to have a way to know how things at home are, and then Beast presents her with a ‘mirror’ by which she can see her home. Of course, that’s not exactly an iPhone with a security cam rig using radio waves, but you can see the fundamentals of it are the same.
Waaaaaait wait wait… thats a bit iffy.
What do you mean by imagination? Because for the most part thats just the ability to visualize internally. Even at it’s broadest its just a creative skill.
If you want to “imagine” what the world and it’s values would be 2000 years from now, that’d be very wild ride in terms of reasoning and assumptions.
Isnt it easier to say that there are issues which do not change at their core?
Such as ethics and morals? You can debate those for 10’000 years straight and everyone will (mostly) understand their concept even if they shift back and forth during the ages and across cultures.
Asking how an Egyptian could have arrived at the same overall framework of ethics a Tibetian buddhist monk did, would be a lot smaller gap in terms of understanding than asking if the egyptian could imagine living on the top of a snow covered mountain, drinking buttered tea and meditating while the chinese army goes around torching monasteries.
For the first example, by the fact that Jesus was born 3000 years after the Egyptians I mentioned.
For the second example, by the fact that the medieval Christians did not have an experiment (as Einstein and his contemporaries did) that showed constant speed of light at every direction. In fact, that was also one of the reasons Newton did not come up with Einstein’s theory in the first place.
As @Nausamedu mentioned, in ethics and morals you can argue the possibility of similar thoughts through time. But in the understanding of reality, it is a whole different matter.
Understanding of reality in terms of…. philosophy? Natural sciences? How reality functions? What it entails?
Cause you can philosophize about reality all you want, you will need more than just your imagination to know that the earth is not flat and the sky is not a blanket.
One thing I didn’t say in my response earlier was that there is a kind of threshold or synergistic point, when diverse ideas lead to practice or are already in practice. Buddhism is steeped in practice. You could say that theory is downplayed and practice is Buddhism in a way that theory in Christianity is not downplayed. (that’s overstating or making it binary, but I think there’s a truth in it). So, while a number of thinkers we do know about had very similar ideas on paper to Buddhism, we have no idea if this influenced their daily practice or for sure if they had one or it matched their Buddhist-ish thinking.
EDIT: just did an AI dive with what seems like the most likely famous thinking, Eckhart, and he does seem to have moved in a Buddhist direction in practices.
While his peers practiced Katamphatic prayer (using images, feelings, and the humanity of Christ), Eckhart pushed an Apophatic practice (stripping away all concepts).
Most friars prayed for things (grace, forgiveness, health). Eckhart taught a practice called Sunder Warumbe (Living without a “Why”). He argued that if you pray to God for a reason, you are treating God like a cow you want to milk. His “prayer” was a state of being, not a set of requests.
While colleagues focused on emotional love for Jesus, Eckhart’s primary practice was “letting go.” He claimed detachment was even higher than love because love involves a “knower” and a “beloved,” whereas detachment empties the soul so completely that the distinction between the soul and God collapses.
His colleagues maintained a strict gap between the Creator and the creature. Eckhart’s practice aimed at the “Birth of the Word in the Soul,” where the “eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.” This non-dual experience is why he is so frequently compared to Zen masters today.
I more or less agree, but you can even imagine stuff by chance alone. Now, to say people cannot come to the same concepts is baseless. Plus, how could you ever know that? You’d have to address all possible ideas (and for that you need to come up with a way to know what someone cannot think), all persons past and present (and future!), every possible time they can come up with ideas, and see that there is no overlap. And then we have the possibility of aliens 
How come? For example, let’s use stereotypes. The first thinks that one should forgive others. The other thinks the same. They think of a person born in the soltice that says that. The other too. Are you saying that they cannot come up with the exact number of angels dancing in the head of a pin? Hard but not impossible.
So, you do mean the idea that information has a speed limit. You think that only people after Einstein came up with it? And how did Einstein come up with it? Suppose there are aliens out there… if for you, then they cannot know relativity.
In short: A lot of ideas (I’d say most, but well, no way to show it) don’t depend on context. They are communicated using context (language, customs, etc)
I don’t know about the Buddhism vs Christianity thing, but Christianity is not that far off from Buddhism. If we are to restrain our attention only about the things they differ - in the things they differ, yes, they differ in all of them. Don’t confuse differences in accessory, superficial, secondary things, to differences in the bulk of it. We could say the same about Evangelicals vs Catholics in a way.
Anyway: if you are to say no two people can come up with the same idea ever - how would you go around proving it?
You are right, but that kind of stuff does not stick.
You can “by chance” have a dream of walking the streets 2000 years from now where you walk upside down and everyone having 3 tits on their back is the norm.
Then you wake up and throw that entire scene away like a fever dream because not only do you have no way to reason yourself from 2026’s norms to 4026’s, but its also completely ridiculous.
Correct, and thats why i am not claiming that.
Of course they can arrive at the same conclusions. But it has to track logically. Its causality if you will.
You cant jump from a geocentric flat-earth model to a space/time frame universe overnight, without any reason, justification or understanding.
You can arrive there. But it will take you step by step justification. Realizing that the earth is not flat, that its a celestial object, that there are many others like it, all of it is contained in something you have yet to name, etc etc etc etc.
Just to humor you: If i wanted to make that argument, then i’d have to only address all ideas which you have the ability to arrive at.
That which you cannot even hypothesize about, i can disregard.
Jesus was not a stereotype. You are way off if you think that we are talking only about love each other and angels.
No, I mean that the photons have a speed that is equal at every direction and also frame indifferent. Experiments in 1880 showed that, which was direct violation of Newton hypotheses. People after these experiments were looking for an explanation and how to correct Newton’s hypothesis, Einstein came up with an answer and new hypothesis.
At this point, I cannot decide if you are talking seriously or you are just trolling. In any case, I have no intention to continue trying to explain why medieval people were not in position to produce 20th century science, or why 3000 BC people could not come up with complex concepts, theologically and philosophically speaking, like Trinity.
Societies have evolved, philosophy has evolved, science has evolved. What will we discuss next? How the people who invented the wheel thousands of years ago could come up with developing rockets?
It may not stick, for sure, meaning: it may not be even written down. For sure! But that is something completely different than two people not being able to come up with the same idea.
You totally can change your ideas in whichever way possible. You can talk for yourself, if you will, but it doesn’t hold for others. Even tho, I trust that you are totally able to do that even if you don’t trust it.
Yeah, and which would be those? How to put a limit to imagination?
That was not what I was talking about. I said that the christian medieval person and the egyptian person were stereotypes. I’m excluding all the people of that time that are not like the stereotype.
Fair enough: no need to explain something that is baseless.
Yes, people and what people do change over time.
Rockets are cylinders with something exploding inside. There are ton of people that make DIY rockets. Not the best example. A better example would be an android app to track your bitcoin stock or something like that, but the gist of that is counting resources by using math. The secondary parts are different, for sure.
But yes, we can discuss everything! Can’t we? Now, the thing is if makes sense to presuppose a limit to imagination when we don’t have one
Are you talking about philosophy or science fiction? In this forum I am interested in the first, not the second.
Well, if you perceive it as science fiction, it very well may be for you.
I’m talking about that people can come up with the same ideas, independently of context. To avoid saying the contrary utterance in a baseless way, you need impossible evidence to back it up - so the existence of that evidence seems quite science fiction to me… but if you have that evidence, do provide it
At this point, I just note that in your perception of reality, everyone can think of everything (in philosophy, science etc.) at every time period, independent of how evolved or not his/her society is.