/lit/ - Literature

Nietzsche said a lot of things.
Most of it based on MUH FEELZ and resentment.
And most of it wrong.

>>11871590
>the Indian text of the time show a philosophical depth of a Kant or a Hegel
Please tell me you don't actually believe this, OP.

>>11871601
>Nietzsche said a lot of things.
>Most of it based on MUH FEELZ and resentment.
>And most of it wrong.

Anglo Philosophy is like those gags where a guy stumbles through a house, hitting his head on things, burning his hand on the stove, falling over, etc. Except for Berkley and like Whitehead.

Also, NEETzsche was OBVIOUSLY Fi-Ne.

>>11871662
>Fi-Ne
Jung sux

>>11871677

Introverted feeling perfectly describes NEETzsche's motivation and extraverted intuition his motormouth prose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_57EUkdddVQ

>>11871788
>MBTI
try Socionics kid, also Neetzsche was Fe-Ni

>>11871631
True though.

personhood bad, abstraction good

god as father bad, god as formlessness good

me inhuman autistic calculator, me gets the best grades

>>11871811
>formlessness
lol

>>11871590
This entire post down to the photo is pasta and was posted during the summer.

>>11871611
The primary texts (e.g. the Upanishads etc) themselves contain very subtle and profound ideas but often cloaked in symbolism and metaphor but the secondary writings analyzing these texts and the schools which related to these (e.g. Vedanta/Tantra/Samkhya
/etc) in certain cases do have a similar depth to Kant and Hegel.

>>11871811
Plotinus had the exact same ideas and they've also been an extremely influential undercurrent in Christianity, and western philosophy, mysticism, esoterism etc.

>>11871590
That’s the same retard who got syphilis on purpose

>>11871814
Maybe i should have said "god as some kind of ineffable and unnameable infinite bad", but it wouldn't work so well as a caricature of OP's position.

And at any rate that pretty much *is* how Judaism and Christianity see God as well, isn't it? But the personhood of God is something that Christianity insists upon, and it's something that even heterodox Christians such as William Blake have insisted upon. He insisted that God was very much a person, and not just some ethereal being.

I'm perfectly aware that it can seem like a less sophisticated position to hold, that it can seem primitive and sentimental as opposed to the elegant and more abstract Hindu concepts OP talks about.

I think in Christianity you have both things at once, really: God as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Spirit, and at the same time God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And the mystery of the Trinity is something to ponder here as well. Christianity is very much a neatly logical, no-nonsense religion, at least as formalized by Aquinas. You don't get to ignore the principle of non-contradiction. The world is logical because God is logical. But at the heart of Christianity you have the Trinity, the mystery of the fact that God is three persons, and yet only one God.

>For me, the English were the greatest poets. Emily Dickinson, too, in America, she’s terrific. During the war here, I had had a sort of passion for Shelley, for the man, I read him a lot. Naturally, I read Keats, who is a greater poet. But also Blake. And then, I read the lesser poets. But the lesser poets in England would have been the great poets in another culture. In my opinion, the English have no philosophy, no metaphysics, because their poetry replaced metaphysics. They said everything in their poetry. Then, I got very interested in the minor poets of “the nineties,” Ernest Dowson and others. - Emil Cioran

>>11871920
>I'm perfectly aware that it can seem like a less sophisticated position to hold, that it can seem primitive and sentimental as opposed to the elegant and more abstract Hindu concepts OP talks about.
>I think in Christianity you have both things at once, really: God as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Spirit, and at the same time God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Hinduism is internally divided into people who believe in a formless divinity without attributes and people who say it has a personhood e.g. Krishna. Hinduism also has both of these as does Christianity, although in Hinduism there is a larger variety of different groups holding various degrees of interpretations of this.

>>11871900
source that he got it on purpose?

>>11872125
note that the OP was talking about the old testament though, not Aquinas' system which is a completely different sort of text produced with different motivations.

I'm not sure if the Upanishads as texts are closer to the OT or to Thomism, but my hunch tells me the latter.

I've seen this post before

>>11872169
The Upanishads are basically the NT to the OT of the older layers of the Vedas (Brahmanas, Aranyakas, the mantras etc), with the schools that focus on them like Vedanta being roughly equivalent to Thomism in their relation to the texts.

>>11871590
To attempt to categorically rank philosophers is already stupid, to do so with religious texts is next-level retarded. You can study religion for intellectual value or you can follow one dogmatically, but you can't follow a single religion intellectually.

>>11872214
I have nothing to add to this thread except that this anon is right.

>>11872214
>>11872233
>not realizing that 'religion' was a doxographical category invented in the 16th century to explain the wars of religion

it's funny when people say religion is bad as if that's some blaze of insight, and not a simple tautology. It's also funny when people extend parochial, myopic Europhone categories to radically incommensurate world literatures. But /lit/ is the mecca of autistic monophonic pseuds, so i'm not exactly preaching to the choir here. I guess go back to reading dawkins or whatever.

>>11871631
M8 even Nietzsche didn't deny that he was filled to the brim with resentment, his entire philosophy was a way to overcome that shit so that he could live with himself and somehow find meaning in his squalid, humiliating existence.

Guy was one of the most tragic figures in human history, and that would've been the case even without all the self-aggrandisement.

>>11871590
>A veritable pearl of wisdom
You're a disgusting person.

>>11872271
You misunderstand. I do not devalue dogmatic religion or the philosophical value of religion. But nobody reads only one philosopher. Following one religion is done for other, equally valid reasons that aren't directly compatible with intellectual study. No devout follower of a religion has the correct frame of reference to compare it to other religions and to draw the philosophical parallels that sober reflection and study would bring them to. Which is just as well, and doesn't even slightly devalue devotion to one's religion.

We spend alot of time talking about India, why, I've seen so many mindfulness books lately!

>>11872274
Perhaps believable if his entire philosophy wasn't built around resentment.

>>11871590
Daily reminder

>>11871590
There is a lot of good everyday philosophy from Indian people though

>>11871590
The Old Testament is fine but the perfect and full realization of “Desert Trilogy” philosophy is obviously Christ, so you should be starting there rather than anywhere else. Where in Indian thought is there anything to compare with the Sermon on the Mount? Or even just the “consider the lilies” passage?
And as an aside, Genesis 1 happens to be so pregnant with goings-on that I’m strongly tempted to write a few lengthy posts to rid you of the notion that “lol it’s just a creator creating xD so simple.” But I’m actually writing my book at the moment.

>>11872616
>The Parable of the Hidden Poo

if India is so far advance spiritually, how come they still have a primitive caste system

>>11872995
Because if you don't have a spiritual elect guiding the larger society than you end up with things like protestantism. The caste system is actually very advanced in that it recognizes the fundamental differences between various groups of people and that it's best to assign people roles in life that they are best suited to. Plato himself would agree with the concept as practiced by the Hindus and it's the closet any society has come to his Republic in that the Brahmins are basically the spiritual and philosophical elite and guide the larger society in proper conduct. Democratic egalitarianism is actually a rather primitive practice which relies on the superstition of equality.

>>11872966
The Bhagavad Gita is better than the Sermon on the Mount

>>11873050
Can you share any good passages?

>>11871590
>caring what a syphilitic kraut thinks
Why do people do this?

>>11873045

1/2

I was a sort of wayward Hindu myself for a decade (to be more accurate, a devotee of Kali : being one, though it makes you belong to Hindu India in some way, makes you belong to it like a New Orleans voodoo practitioner belongs to Christian America, that is say looked upon as a representative of the spiritual archenemy), I was already 100% agreeing with all what you say about India right from the start and now I agree 700%.

Hindu Brahmins are just a plainly evil bunch, what they call their religion is pure witchcraft. Actually, what you imagine about Haitian Black magicians thanks to Hollywood does apply to Hindu Brahmins : they wend their way in any organized society -through malevolent magic alone. Hinduism doesn’t exist as such – it is more a religious culture than a religion, but more than 80% of people classified as Hindus are practitioners of the Vaishnava (more vulgarly known under the name of the cult of Rama and Krishna) religion, considering all beings as mere appearances of just one supreme one, Vishnu (about 10% are of the Shivaite current, which is the more interesting part of Hindu culture most Westerners love to enthuse about but is considered malefic by other Hindus, the other 10% being the devotees of more “backward” animistic cults).

To me, Vishnu, as defined by Sanskrit scholars, is the Indian name for Lucifer. Vishnu is supposed to be the supreme maintainer of the worlds, and the way he maintains the world is through deception. Vishnu is best conceived of as the supreme banker of the Universe, the lender of karmic good points you have to earn back through hard life until you win the right to nonexistence.

>>11873045

2/2

Vishnu has a female consort, Lakshmi, which is nothing but money. Money is venerated indeed as the supreme female deity herself, no matter the dirty way it is earned (actually the dirtier the better), and banknotes have to be kissed before being deposited on Lakshmi’s altar by all worthy pious shopkeepers.

The Universe is ruled by three principles – deception, rage, and obscurantism in decreasing order of hierarchy, and the more exclusively you devote yourself to deception by renouncing pleasure (all pleasure leads downward into obscurity according to that view: it is the most puritanical culture in the whole world to the point where only the Protestant Englishmen could understand it somewhat and manage it among the European colonists who tried to access that subcontinent) and to revolt against the order of things, the higher you climb in the hierarchy of beings.

There is no place for divine grace within that system, only for good and bad karmic points you earn and spend. There is no divine free gift – you have to earn your way upwards by your own effort alone, and you must never help anyone suffering, as all suffering is rightly deserved. What is given to you by Vishnu is lent, not freely given, and you must pay back with interest. It hence comes to no surprise that such a country is the paradise of all Western Banksters devising the best future for humanity in the long run.

Read the rest at: [4chan won't let me link the blog, so here's the post title: Hinduism: The Ugly Truth about a Major World Religion]

Not trying to pick a fight, just some ~food for thought~

t. addicted to blogs guy

>>11873059
I don't know what you would consider to be good and I also don't know how familiar you are with the Sanskrit words used. I'd rather not have to post passages and then have to spoonfeed you the added definitions you need to understand them. If you are curious enough you can order a version with commentary online. It's similar to the Sermon on that it involves the Divine giving guidance, explaining the truth, showing the way and so on but in my opinion it does so in a more profound way.

Here are some passages with more of the Sanskrit words translated compared to other translations, from chapter 5

>Surely wisdom is like the sun, revealing the supreme truth to those whose ignorance is dispelled by the wisdom of the Self. Meditating on the Divine, having faith in the Divine, concentrating on the Divine and losing themselves in the Divine, their sins dissolved in wisdom, they go whence there is no return. Sages look equally upon all, whether he be a minister of learning and humility, or an infidel, or whether it be a cow, an elephant or a dog.
>Even in this world they conquer their earth-life whose minds, fixed on the Supreme, remain always balanced; for the Supreme has neither blemish nor bias. He who knows and lives in the Absolute remains unmoved and unperturbed; he is not elated by pleasure or depressed by pain. He finds happiness in his own Self, and enjoys eternal bliss, whose heart does not yearn for the contacts of earth and whose Self is one with the Everlasting.
>The joys that spring from external associations bring pain; they have their beginning and their endings. The wise man does not rejoice in them. He who, before he leaves his body, learns to surmount the promptings of desire and anger is a saint and is happy. He who is happy within his Self and has found Its peace, and in whom the inner light shines, that sage attains Eternal Bliss and becomes the Spirit Itself. Sages whose sins have been washed away, whose sense of separateness has vanished, who have subdued themselves, and seek only the welfare of all, come to the Eternal Spirit. Saints who know their Selves, who control their minds, and feel neither desire nor anger, find Eternal Bliss everywhere.

Like Christ, the Gita affirms the sanctity and dignity of all beings, stresses the love of the Lord for all beings, and teaches that one can become united with the Lord, but teaches a more direct and meaningful way of doing this than eating biscuits and thinking about the afterlife.

>>11871590
stop shilling this thread

>>11873097
Thanks for sharing!

>>11873069
>>11873077
That reads like a gross distortion of Hinduism, it's hard to tell whether the person who wrote is an Indian or not or was raised Hindu or not. The fact that they described themselves as an ex-devotee of Kali makes me more inclined to think they were just never taught about the meaning of the things they talk about like how somehow who was raised Hindu would be taught about it. It is true that a certain amount of Hindu's themselves don't always have the greatest understanding of it but that reads like a westerner who got into it because it seemed exotic and then grew disillusioned and left it despite never understanding it well to begin with. Very few educated Hindus from India would describe it that way.

>Hindu Brahmins are just a plainly evil bunch, what they call their religion is pure witchcraft.... Haitan Black magicians etc
Brahmins are essentially just priests and religious leaders as found in almost every organized religion (including Christianity) and like most religions they have certain rituals and ceremonies they carry out and oversee, note that the writer of your piece never elaborates or gives any examples of what's bad or evil or witchcraft.

>Hinduism doesn’t exist as such – it is more a religious culture than a religion,
It's true that it's a religious culture but the common reverence for and unity in basing themselves more or less on the Vedic texts and Upanishads means that Hinduism can fairly be described as a religion, albeit a diverse one, even sects which don't center themselves on the Vedic texts revere texts which development and elaborate on themes gotten from the Vedic texts.

>religion, considering all beings as mere appearances of just one supreme one,
which is what the foundational texts of Hinduism say

>(about 10% are of the Shivaite current, ... about but is considered malefic by other Hindus, the other 10% being the devotees of more “backward” animistic cults).
The author is greatly exaggerating hostility towards Shiva or other gods by the majority of Hindus, they take a far less exclusionary attitude than other religions and people who belong to a sect which venerates one deity as the supreme being regularly pay respects to other deities and consider them as part of that supreme being.

>Vishnu has a female consort, Lakshmi, which is nothing but money
Lakshmi is just part of a female trinity along with Parvati and Saraswati who collectively represent the more earthly subjects like fertility, love, art, music etc. Hindus have a huge amount of deities which correspond to almost every sphere of activity, it's not unusual in any way that there should be one corresponding to wealth which is seen as a good thing in virtually every culture worldwide except when you are actively try to be a holy man etc. The importance of Lakshmi is very minor compared to Vishnu, Shiva etc.

>>11873077
>The Universe is ruled by three principles – deception, rage, and obscurantism in decreasing order of hierarchy,
This has nothing to do with Hinduism unless he is trying to describe the 3 gunas elaborated by Samkhya and adopted by other schools such as Vedanta, these have little correspondence with the 3 adjectives he gives. That's the best guess I have for what he was trying to describe and he gets it completely wrong anyway.

>and the more exclusively you devote yourself to deception by renouncing pleasure and to revolt against the order of things, the higher you climb in the hierarchy of beings.
First, renouncing things is not seen as the best path by everyone, but the Vishishtadvaita (and other schools) which are the theological basis of some of the most popular sects holds that devotion to God is more important than renunciation. Secondly, it's ridiculous that he equates renouncing pleasure with self-deception because almost every single major religion and philosophical thinker/system in the history of mankind has held that one's mind/soul is more pure and can think more clearer when one is not clouded by lust, pleasure and hedonism. He equating deception with renouncing pleasure goes against 99% of the history of recorded human thought.

>There is no place for divine grace within that system, only for good and bad karmic points you earn and spend. There is no divine free gift – you have to earn your way upwards by your own effort alone, and you must never help anyone suffering, as all suffering is rightly deserved.
Also, completely wrong, many of the Vishu and Krishna-based sects which he describes as being among the most popular incorporate the ideas of divine grace and being helped by Krishna etc into their teachings

>What is given to you by Vishnu is lent, not freely given, and you must pay back with interest.
not sure where he got that from, it's not at all a common understanding

>>11872339
/lit/ is an Indo-European board

>>11871856
>the exact same ideas
That's an exaggeration and you know it

>>11873634
THIS
those among us who are TRULY literate prerve the PROTO INDO EUROPEAN tradition

>>11873659
there is only ONE entity that exists==all things are the same THING, all ideas are the same THING

>>11873659
Neoplatonism and Advaita Vedanta are nearly indentical to one another and with regard to the two examples that poster gave they are in complete agreement with one another

>>11873669
this too

>>11873729
don't encourage him.
>>11873669


All things are not the same thing, the idea of Brahman and Atman are beyond forms, those are the realms of essence.

>>11873729
don't encourage him.
>>11873669


All things are not the same thing, the idea of Brahman and Atman are beyond forms, those ideas take in realms of essence.

>>11871799
Ni-Fi with trash Te I'd say.

>>11871590
Kek. Dearth of rigor, mindless aphoristic obscurantism? Yeah, Indian "philosophy" is great. Can I too spew specious, substanceless metaphysical claims with an unwarranted allure?

To be quite fair -- and indeed quite exacting semantically -- Indian "philosophy" is not *philosophy*; it's nothing more than superstitious barbarism, a kind of mystic mumbo-jumbo. It's *philosophically* worthless.

>>11871590
>Nietzsche once claimed
Yep, that'll be enough of that.

>>11874902
>Indians are the obscurantists

o am i laffin

>>11874930
The meme is ‘o i am laffin’

>>11874902
Not all of Indian philosophy is mystical, Indian thinkers developed extensive epistemological theories for example, it's just that people usually find the mystical stuff more interesting and so it gets more exposure

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-india/

>>11874933
>tfw I memed wrong

>>11871590
>Rwanda has produced more philosophical talent than England

Sure, Neetchee, sure.

>>11874930
Post-Kantian idealism is a nightmarish farce, you daft clod -- this isn't the point however. The argument that Indian "philosophy" is utter shit doesn't tacitly preclude talentless German eels from gnawing at the fallopian tubes of Western philosophy.

>>11874967
The point was that one can equally accuse western and eastern thought of being obscurantist. You never gave any examples of why any particular one aspect of eastern thought is worse. 'specious, substanceless metaphysical claims' and 'mystic mumbo-jumbo' applies equally to a large portion of western philosophy and the remaining portion is stuff largely to do with logic, naturalism, epistemology, etc which the Indians and other easterners mostly had equivalent schools of anyways.

>>11874982
Indian "philosophy" is not philosophy, you cum-gargling sodomite. Philosophy in the tradition of the Greeks provided a rigorous, well-reasoned grounding which had been lacking in Indian scholarship for the centuries that preceded it. This is a fact; Indian *philosophy* isn't philosophy.

I agree that some Western thought is obscurantist. My argument is that Indian thought is *mindless*, "obscurantist*, and most importantly: not philosophy.

Also,
>anyways
Are you a 12-year-old playing counter strike?

> not taking the Indo-Asian Beige pill of the organic universe theory
Profound

>>11875002
It's funny that you say that because there was extensive influence from Indians on Greek philosophy, both in the aftermath of Alexander's excursion to India and then for hundreds of years afterwards as Greeks and Indians traveled back and forth. In certain cases, notably Neoplatonism among others the Indians preempted the Greeks by realizing the same ideas as them hundreds of years earlier than them, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad preempted Parmenidies by some 300 years etc. Greeks were generally ecstatic about whatever Indian ideas they came into contact with and there were entire Indo-Greek kingdoms populated by a Greek ruling class which adopted (Indian) Buddhism. Lastly, whatever you imagine as ''philosophy" in most cases had an equivalent in India they had schools of everything from strict empiricism to atheism, materialism, naturalism, atomism, determinism and so on, it's just that they were not as popular as the philosophical/metaphysical ideas which were taught through religious teachings. I can already tell you're stuck in the teenage-tier 'our team vs their team' mindset so I won't waste time with you anymore but just some food for thought.

>>11875097
> Indo-Greek kingdoms populated by a Greek ruling class which adopted (Indian) Buddhism
Fascinating. Would make an interesting setting for a movie and some books.

I think Hinduism uses negative terms in regard to the Phenomenon, in that Truth is ultimately not contingent on any one Phenomenon, their totality, infinity, combination and emergence thereof, etc. But it is not so by negation of the Phenomenal, it is so by plenitude that ever contains the Phenomenal in any and all of its potentiality and actuality. This is also the insight of Plato, Plotinus, Jesus, etc.

>>11875097
yeah sure, uhhuh. what ever you say pal

>>11873734
>>11873735
there is ONLY GOD
any perceptions to the contrary are ILLUSION

>>11875009
>that image
Cool Zen uncle wins again.

>>11875128
Two books that touch upon that subject are Greek Buddha by Beckwith and The Greeks in Bactria and Indian by Tarn

>>11873069
>>11873077
This doesn't sound like hinduism in the slightest. Where did you get your information from? I'll pick on only two very wrong points you made.

>about 10% are of the Shivaite current, which is the more interesting part of Hindu culture most Westerners love to enthuse about but is considered malefic by other Hindus
Shiva worship is totally mainstream, especially in the south where Shaiva Siddhanta is a major sect.

>the more exclusively you devote yourself to deception by renouncing pleasure
This is wrong in about every way it could be. Renouncers explicitly reject deception and untruth and deny themselves in order to lose false desires and achieve closer union with God. The Kali worship you're talking about is influenced by tantra which is explicitly about the divine pleasure experienced when communioning with God.

>>11872339
Hinduism and Buddhism are not about being mindful. They're about being mindless.

>>11875002
So most pre-socratics aren't philosophers? Indian materialism is a lot more philosophical than Heraclitus etc.

>>11876694
Ironically enough it requires mindfullness to remain mindless. Mindfullness doesn't necessarily involve an active mind despite what the word suggests. It's more of a 'being in the moment' or 'being in the there' not dissimilar to Heideggars Dasein. It can really be used and applied to any context involving someone remaining focused on something although in this case mindfullness is what allows one to remain fully in the moment without any mental oscillations in a state of 'mindlessness' because without that any unexpected stimuli will set off a cascade of thought. Hindu texts in addition to speaking of proper knowledge regarding the ultimate reality also frequently mention 'never losing sight of', 'never forgetting', 'the aspirant always remaining focused on/absorbed in' etc which all have to do with mindfulness.

>>11875737
That's typically the case although there are certain schools of Hindu thought which speak of one-all encompassing absolute without in any way negating or denying the phenomenol world, e.g. Kashmir Shaivism and Shuddhadvaita Vedanta

>>11871601
Post one thing he was wrong about.

>>11871590
>not realizing that the Bible was made for the NPCs of 2000 years ago
>not realizing to look at the knowledge passed on by the elite jews christians and muslims to see what spirituality is like in monotheism and compare it to indian texts
Based Nietzsche and OP fail us again

>>11876801
>resentment
>power
>truth
>Greece
>tragedy
>Socrates
>Christianity
>ubermensch
Probably easier to list the things he was right about.

>>11877100
Damn, Nietzsche BTFO!

>>11872966
>But I’m actually writing my book at the moment.
get out

>>11877100
elaborate

>>11878015
you can't make me
oddly enough I am also writing my book at this moment

>>11878056
what's it about

>>11875097
good post, ty

>>11878078
It's a commentary on the Book of Mormon

>>11878141
from what perspective

>lol I poop on the floor
>hello sexy woman I fuk u
Wow so profound

>>11871590
Stop posting this autism

>>11878562
>I fuck little boys in their ass

wow so profound

>>11878385
mine lol
More of a literary perspective than a doctrinal/theological.

>>11871828
He's still right, even today.

>>11873097
>a more direct and meaningful way of doing this than eating biscuits
Excuse me, but my grandma makes some damn good biscuits. I'd say they bring me closer to god.

>>11875002
>you cum-gargling sodomite
DEVASTATING argumentation

Allow me to quote from Ashtavakra Gita, the finest text ever written.

You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, unfathomable awareness, unperturbable: so hold to nothing but consciousness. 1.17

Recognise that the apparent is unreal, while the unmanifest is abiding. Through this initiation into truth you will escape falling into unreality again. 1.18

Just as a mirror exists everywhere both within and apart from its reflected images, so the Supreme Lord exists everywhere within and apart from this body. 1.19

Just as one and the same all-pervading space exists within and without a jar, so the eternal, everlasting God exists in the totality of things. 1.20

>>11875097
>>11876702
>>11875097
Indeed there was extensive Indian influence on the development of Greek thought. The Pre-Socratics, most notably Pythagoras and Parmenides, were influenced by reincarnation and a myriad of other key facets of early Indian thought. Evidence of contact and certainly influence of one on the other are well-recorded.
And while I appreciate the history lesson, it's nothing less than a strawman. You sound like a historian and you should probably stay a historian. A philosopher can be influenced by a mystic in much the same way as a musician can be influenced by a poet. One need not be a philosopher to influence the philosophy of another; we can look to Schopenhauer as a more modern example, having been influenced by Indian thought in his conception of Will.
The point -- which you’ve not definitively addressed with details, as you’ve done with historical, yet irrelevant, examples – is that Indian *philosophy* is not philosophy. When Empedocles speaks of limbless fields roaming early Earth is he delineating a Darwinian conception of evolution? When Thales speaks of “Gods in all things” is he outlining a panpsychistic framework? Much of early philosophy was riddled with fragments that lacked consistency and – undoubtedly – rigor.
What distinguishes Western philosophy from Indian thought is the manner in which inference, induction, and logic are handled. We do not find a sophisticated Aristotelian formal logic or set theory in Indian thought – in fact, many contemporary names in experimental philosophy and the psychology of philosophy are highlighting key differences in the underlying assumptions of Western and Eastern philosophy. The skepticism of the Indian materialists was a direct attack on the superstitions of their predecessors – with many alarming instances of name-calling. In no Indian school of thought is a clearly-defined notion of induction presented in much the same way as it was <i>shown</i> and accomplished in Greek philosophy. In much the same way as Ghalib opposed Ibn Sina in “The Incoherence of the Philosophers,” the Indian materialists spitefully opposed the writings of their predecessors. There was no thoroughly-developed system of thought as was the case with the Pre-Socratics, who through a system of trial-and-error attempted to determine the substance of our world. From water in Thales to air in Anaximenes and then a metaphysical apeiron in Anaximander we begin our ascent into the Greeks on a high note. This culminates into the abstract yet well-articulated Platonic and Aristotelian systems – a height never fully developed by any Indian school.

>>11875097
>>11879790
>>11879790
Continued....

In many ways, Indian thought has always been a solution to the question “How ought one live life?” rather than the question “What is the world all about?” *Philosophy* in Indian thought has never been divorced from religion or mysticism or spirtuality. There is no *philosophy* in Indian thought in much the same way as ecclesiastes isn’t a comprehensive existentialist tome.

>>11875002
>https://sites.google.com/site/persuasionpast/home/krishna-and-arjuna-speak-of-war-in-the-bhagavad-gita
>There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future.

>>11877100
You think he's wrong on all these accounts because you're a moralist.