The following text was posted by me in another thread:
The “eastern/analytic mix” or, if it exists, a “southern/analytic mix” is always an “offset” (“offshoot”, “cutting”, “layer”, “scion”) of the western - exactly northwestern (because it is both western and northern) - analytic tradition.
The eastern border of the western culture:
There is more than just Eastern and Western thought. The written word does not equate to absolutism and in the process make every other strand of thought obsolete.
Yes, of course, and there is also more than human thought, because some other living beings have thoughts too, although only some thoughts. But all those other thoughts are not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the Occidental philosophy and the Oriental philosophy. So it is about two huge thinking systems that are probably the most dualistic ones too. There are no other thinking systems that are as huge as these two, provided that all regional or national thinking systems of both the Occident and the Orient can really be integrated in their respective superordinated thinking system.
A mixed person will have a mixed mind, and therefore a mixed thinking system… the best of both/many worlds, or just a case of c’est la vie?
Maybe or maybe not.
But: What is your point?
I for one think that the holographic universe explains why all observations are validating the same phenomenon, that it just depends on the chosen angle to observe the latter.
and this would mean that all points of views never oppose but are complementary. “versus” doesnt exist.
Why would they never oppose?
It doesn’t matter…
simply because one never knows enough. All philosophies have the same roots however. trying to separate a thought or oneself from the whole causes violence. There is an immutable unifying principle embedded in the fabric of the universe we cannot bypass nor ignore.
I cannot sympathize with Eastern philosophies which, for the most part, have remained stagnant. Poisoned with mysticism and willful ignorance…
Tell me more about these roots and the immutable unifying principle. Explain yourself.
I guess in the mind of such a person there is no versus, just is, so a comparison is nullified by the merger of the two/many mindsets.
Why are hybrid amalgamations often favourable? How does the merging of both ideological fundamentals create something ‘better’ than those fundamentals (you said ‘best’ of both worlds). It seems to me that a mixed opinion/moderate/amalgamation of any two contrastive, not necessarily polarizing, ideologies also implies an inheritance of the self-contradictions of each parent ideology. Depending on how you personally conceive of each parent ideology historically, what it stands for and how the two can coexist also produces the degree of inherited problems from each. Could you explain your reasons for your claims so my stupid mind can understand your proposal better.
The question is also, whether such oppositions (although we would have to discuss whether they are real oppositions or not) occured intentionally or not.
I think there a few things to discuss before we get into intentionality. Western philosophy has a lot more (instrumental breakthroughs in science, political progression, reasoned arguments) to show for itself, but what are the criteria which make Eastern or Western favourable over the other? In my opinion, it seems dangerous to consider similar origins as a means to reconcile the two. Amalgamating the two seems premature without reasoning both to similar depths and historical considerations. It has always been very difficult for me to see Eastern philosophies separate from religious dogmatism. Most Western philosophies (excluding Plato’s forms, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, medieval scholasticism, Dialectics) present themselves as historically isolated attempts at extensively responding to and reasoning new philosophies.
Maybe it is only a matter of individual vs. holistic philosophy and psychology, but even then, I prefer the former.
Having started with ‘Eastern’ Philosophy, I am reasonably familiar with ‘Oriental’ philosophy.
There is only one generic philosophy proper, i.e. its essence or substance. What is ‘Occidental,’ Eastern, etc. philosophies are merely the various forms in various degrees, popularity, fad-of-the-period, etc.
There is no new philosophy-proper [the substance] but only new forms of philosophy.
Thus the various forms of philosophy, i.e. ‘Occidental,’ Eastern, Academic, Analytical, realist versus anti-realists, and etc. must be aligned with and reconciled on a “taxonomic” basis to the central core, substance and essence of philosophy-proper.
Btw, Science, political progression, reasoned arguments are merely tools of philosophy and they are not philosophy per-se.
One thing that is obvious with the so-called ‘Western’ philosophy is, it is presented in a more systematic and organized manner that facilitated its communications, its spread, easier usage, and popularity.
It is wrong to link the credits of Science significantly to so-called ‘Western Philosophy’. Note Hume put a ‘spanner’ in the operations of Science from a philosophical perspective.
Whilst ‘Western Philosophy’ is more “popular”, systematic and organized, the essence of philosophy and its critical tools has existed within ‘Eastern Philosophy’ hundreds of years before the birth of the form of ‘Western Philosophy.’ In fact, the critical tools of philosophy, i.e. analysis, logic and analytical reasoned thinking are more refined within ‘Eastern Philosophy’ albeit not systematized, organized and practiced widely [because it was too advanced for the masses then and even now].
What is critical with generic philosophy-proper is the leveraging of its forms to its substance [substance] and core principles. This imperative is solidly practiced within the ‘Eastern Philosophies’.
Another possible fact is the birth of the so-called ‘Western Philosophy’ was influenced by ‘Eastern Philosophy’.
Note the work of Thomas McEvilley on how Indian Philosophy influenced the Greeks.
youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q[/youtube]
Obviously thereafter there were further improvements on both sides following later inter-changes.
What happened later with ‘Western Philosophy’ is some groups took a dogmatic turn and emphasized on the ‘Realist’ concept, i.e. reality is independent of the human conditions.
The essence of philosophy-proper holds both the ‘realist’ and ‘anti-realist’ position as valid subject to its specific conditions.
Thus ‘Occidental Philosophy versus Oriental Philosophy’ as duality/dichotomy exists only at the level of the forms of philosophy-proper. From the perspective of the essence of philosophy-proper that duality merged into unity within dynamic complementarity. The essence of philosophy-proper is represented in the Tao Model, i.e.
Yes, by far.
Yes, that is right.
Faustian, dynamic/energetic, more individual and analytic in a more scientific sense on the Western side, whereas more metaphysical in a more religious and moral way on the Eastern side, although we have to consider that the Eastern philosophy, if there is such, has at least five several cultural backgrounds: Sumerian, Egyptian, Arabian in the Near East, Indian and Chinese in the Far East.
The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science - especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend on the Non-Occidentals or the machines (=>) whether science will be continued or not.
Maybe science will “die” in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethe’s tragedy “Faust”.
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means the trend to transhuman beings.