/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4247281]

Do you think western philosophy is superior to other philosophical traditions?

[Anonymous No.4247284]

>>4247281
Fuck no

[Anonymous No.4247291]

Yes,I think the Western Tradition is much better than other traditions.

[Anonymous No.4247295]

>do you think our truth is better than their truth

Relative truth is a contradiction in terms. The truth is the truth.

So the real question is, "Has western philosophy been more successful than other philosophical projects?"

The answer is, broadly speaking, yes. I'm sorry if I've upset anyone's political sentiments.

[Anonymous No.4247306]

Jah, insofar as Wittgenstein is Occidental.

[Anonymous No.4247436]

>>4247295
>So the real question is, "Has western philosophy been more successful than other philosophical projects?"

Whities actually think this way. "Success," the factor for good philosophy? My God, Socrates is spinning in his grave.

[Anonymous No.4247440]

>>4247284
Oh jesus you made this thread so you can shove in our faces your shitty chinese firosofi?

Get over yourself chink, east philosophy is shit

[Anonymous No.4247444]

Actively seeking the truth tier
>Western philosophy prior to the mid-20th century
>Islamic Middle Age philosophy

Truth possibly intuited but then buried under barbarism and only furtively glimpsed by Westerners thousands of years later tier
>Ancient Indian philosophy

The truth glimpsed by a collective unconscious that isn't equipped to care about it tier
>Daoism
>Any Chinese-inspired metaphysics lifting from Daoism

Why don't I just jerk off in the mud? tier
>Western philosophy after the mid-20th century
>Buddhism

[Anonymous No.4247457]

>>4247440
>Eastern civilizations all develop AND incorporate their philosophies into their lives
>Western civilizations keep "philosophy" in the academia and ridicule everyone, without exception, that isn't buying extraneous, poorly made shit, selling their minds and bodies for the most asinine pleasures, and ruining every aspect of the world they need to live.

Your HURITUGE is shit

[Anonymous No.4247463]

I still don't see how the ancient Greeks are some Western thing. The ancient world was different. Egyptians are more shaped by ancient Greece than Englishmen.

And I believe Chinese philosphy to be the best.

[Anonymous No.4247469]

>>4247295
>"Has western philosophy been more successful than other philosophical projects?"

This is patently false. After 2500 years Western philosophy is no closer to any form of knowledge of truth on any subject whatsoever. All we do have is a large, specialized vocabulary for talking about philosophy itself.

[Anonymous No.4247485]

>>4247463
This superior gentleman has perceived the true meaning.

[Anonymous No.4247501]

>>4247457
>>Eastern civilizations all develop AND incorporate their philosophies into their lives

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Historically, Chinese and Indian philosophical traditions have been developed and discussed by small, intellectual groups of society, shi and brahmin while normal people were farming, working and worshipping gods. Today? Please.

[Anonymous No.4247507]

>>4247463
How about democracy, the discipline and tradition of philosophy, mathematics, etc.

gtfo chink

[Anonymous No.4247511]

>>4247444
A much simpler solution: truth doesn't exist. It's a man-made concept which has little to do with the actual universe. Santa doesn't exist either. Western philosophy after the mid 20th century is best philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4247515]

>>4247501
You described all of the West

[Anonymous No.4247524]

>>4247457
>what is stoicism
>why are there 0.1 confuscians and 100m Christians in China

[Anonymous No.4247526]

>>4247463
By god, are you dense? The greeks are the *foundation* of Western philosophy as they directly influence the Romans, who established a continental empire, which morphed into the papacy, which was attacked by the renaissance, scientific revolution, enlightenement all sparked by Plutarch's rediscovery of Cicero

comprehende gringo?

[Anonymous No.4247568]

>>4247507

No to all those, the "West" has only existed for 200 years. You will be forgotten as quickly as you cam up. And oh, North Africa is more Roman than you. They had consule states and popes during the Roman Empire. You are just a bastard child of the ancients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Bi_Suan_Jing

[Anonymous No.4247570]

>>4247526

The Roman Emprie was Southern Europe and Northern Africa. And a little Middle East. Your ancestors where Celts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab

[Anonymous No.4247574]

>>4247570
>one soldier emperor has an ambiguous nickname
>ARABS RULED THE WORLD

Why do people resort to this

[Anonymous No.4247576]

Yes. Aristotle alone is worth more than Eastern Philosophy in its entirety.

[Anonymous No.4247577]

>>4247568
Yeah no, the reason they have it now it is because of philosophers digging up Greek philosophy.
fuck off uneducated chink

[Anonymous No.4247579]

>>4247568
>implying America's eternal legacy won't end up being lovers loving and haters hating

You trying to pee in my Coke, sifu?

[Anonymous No.4247852]

>>4247444
>Why don't I just jerk off in the mud? tier
>Buddhism
Something's wrong here, that's like the opposite of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.4247865]

>>4247852
>why don't I jerk off into spiritual enlightenment and surpass the self and find the orgasmic cum all

boom, buddhism is a nut shell

[« 零 » !vAFhebe0D6!!cLIbuDbY2e6 No.4247894]

>"The famous flutings on the famous columns--what are they there for? To hide the joints in wood--when columns were made of wood, only these aren’t, they’re marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wood. Wooden beams, the way they had to be laid when people began to build wooden shacks. Your Greeks took marble and they made copies of their wooden structures out of it, because others had done it that way. Then your masters of the Renaissance came along and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Now here we are, making copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Why?"

[Anonymous No.4247972]

>>4247577
You are actually this mad.

And your arguments are unsubstantiated.

[Anonymous No.4247975]

Eastern is far ahead of Western, not even weaboo.

[Anonymous No.4247996]

>>4247975
Why?

[Anonymous No.4247999]

>>4247972
Can't East and West just get along?

[Anonymous No.4248000]

What's the Eastern equivalent to Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.4248006]

>>4248000
Nietzhoa

[Anonymous No.4248008]

>dat eurocentrism

Here things took quite a particular path and all our current concepts (with which we read everything around us) such as philosophy religion science ethics etc are the product of this path. So, when we try to apply them to people who "took other path" we always have difficulties and simply come to the conclusion that they are worse or better but always in function of our fixed point of reference.

Just try this: try to get into a single one of this aspects in other "tradition" the same specialized way we do it here, and you'll soon find yourself "forced" into apparently unrelated topics belonging to other aspects which, for us, have nothing to do with the initial aspect but that in this case are (logically) necessary to it.

For instance, I started checking hindu philosophy and, in order to advance in it, I ended reading medicine (Ayurveda) and food combinations; all this is "mixed" into one single thing for which we have no defined concept, at least not like "philosophy" or "science": I'd call it just a way of life or a way of existence.

So, we are not the rule, we are actually the exception cause we divided the human in different random aspects, each developed independently and now we cant put them back together.

[Anonymous No.4248035]

>>4248008
Femanon detected, disregarding post, privilege not checked

[Anonymous No.4248040]

>>4248008
>So, we are not the rule, we are actually the exception cause we divided the human in different random aspects, each developed independently and now we cant put them back together.
It's also worth noting that we have heart transplants and rockets and they drink out of a corpse filled sewer because the holy water is beneficial.

Aside from that, why would you say we can't put things back together? Which aspects of Western learning are incompatible with each other?

[Anonymous No.4248061]

>ITT: White people unconsciously assuming they are the default

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4248082]

>>4248035
We don't care.

[Anonymous No.4248083]

>>4248061
Not the default, just the best.

[Anonymous No.4248086]

>>4248040
It's also worth noting that we have been bathing for thousands of years and they dance with snakes and pray for touchdowns at handegg games.

[Anonymous No.4248087]

>>4248082
Evidently you do.

[Anonymous No.4248112]

>>4248086
>trying to equate the west with america

Nice try.

[Anonymous No.4248134]

yes. modernity and all its substantive implications only emerged in the west.

[Anonymous No.4248151]

>>4248040
Right, I saw that one coming. Precisely because science took its own path it developed as it did, but due to this success we tend to apply its method in other areas where it has nothing to do and so that blocks us, the worst thing being that we are unaware of this.

Anyway, I'm not for or against science, I'm just against thinking it is good (or bad) in itself. Cause yeah, we might have advanced medicine, but we have also certain diseases as a consequence of our lifestyle. If we have big solutions it is because we have big problems that were never meant to be there. We pay a very high price for our machines, cause a really developed civilization is not one with a single, even if highly, advanced of those aspects, but one in which every aspect works in harmony with the rest to form a fluid whole in which its members can live.

Let me give you a little image (in the next post):

(!/2)

[Anonymous No.4248158]

>>4248151


Say we are both given a bike with no pedals, and are told to use it. Now, say I focus on improving all the parts already there, the wheels chain etc and ignore the pedals, while you just go buy some cheap pedals to put on the default bike. So, I end with a titanium bike with a steel chain and Good Year wheels but with no pedals, while you just have an ugly cheap bike: when the moment comes you are the only one who will be able to use it cause all my improvements are useless if my bike is not complete.

So, our science and technology are like the pedal-less bike, they might be incredibly advanced, but they lack the rest of the bike so they cant be used and thus are useless, while other people are like the cheap bike, they might not have such a development but they can however advance with their complete bike.

So, when you "note" those things, you are like the guy with the incomplete superbike who is showing and telling everyone how special are his parts expecting it to work just because of this, while the rest of the people is just in silence using their bike to do their stuff.

(2/2)

[Anonymous No.4248170]

>>4248134
>modernity and all its substantive implications only emerged in the west.
Confirmed for worst

[Anonymous No.4248188]

>>4248134
>dat illuminati sign

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4248212]

>>4247281
ofc

but that's only because the West's philosophers (and all schools of intellectuals) are equivalent to all other civilization's mystics

[Anonymous No.4248224]

>>4248158
>So, our science and technology are like the pedal-less bike, they might be incredibly advanced, but they lack the rest of the bike so they cant be used and thus are useless, while other people are like the cheap bike, they might not have such a development but they can however advance with their complete bike.

You're comparing a method and a tool to people.

This analogy is completely borked

[Anonymous No.4248245]

>>4248212
>equivalent

yeah sure

[Anonymous No.4248250]

>>4248158
>>4248151
This is some of the most pretentious, pseudo intellectual garbage I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.4248258]

>>4248151
>>4248158
But why would you say the Western way is flawed specifically? As far as I can tell, we're doing better than everybody else and they're only doing well as far as they mimic us.

[Anonymous No.4248294]

>>4248258
>we're doing better than everybody else
The "success" of global capitalism has nothing to do with philosophy, nor is it success, unless we take a pure sociopathic, might-is-right view of what success is.

[Anonymous No.4248311]

>>4248224
Im not comparing them to the people but to what the people DO, to what they MAKE to live, their "tool" for existing so to speak. Plus, what do you mean by "people", if not precisely what a group DOES. What we do and the justifications we give to it is what defines a us (or any group of people), and not some characteristic or essential feature.

>>4248258
>better
>mimic

Well yeah, better from our perspective and taking as a point of reference our goals, but those are not human general goals, just ours. And who is miming us? The third world follows us cause we imposed on them our goals so thats all they know. When putting two radically different cultures side by side theres no place for value judgments or comparisons, just for conversion and persuasion.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4248329]

>>4247281
I'm not qualified to make even an educated guess. My biases do tend towards western philosophy being the more weighty and active, but I do hope you all aren't mixing that middle eastern philosophy strain that's infected the west for the past 2000 some years.

Not reading the thread. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.4248328]

>philosophy
>success
>Implying that there can be one objectively better than another
>not realizing that it depends on the intrinsic cash value of the philosophy to the individual

Have you even Pragmatism?

[Anonymous No.4248351]

>>4248294
It has everything to do with philosophy and the Western view on people's place in the universe, just like the stagnated Chinese empire had a lot to do with with theirs and just like a lot of the problems in India have a lot to do with their impractical world-view.

But just for the record, you would just as gladly live in pre-colonial India as in the modern West? After all, that rusty old bike worked just fine according to you.

[Anonymous No.4248364]

>>4248311
>Well yeah, better from our perspective and taking as a point of reference our goals, but those are not human general goals, just ours. And who is miming us? The third world follows us cause we imposed on them our goals so thats all they know. When putting two radically different cultures side by side theres no place for value judgments or comparisons, just for conversion and persuasion.
Pretty sure they're adapting Western medicinal and agricultural methods for other reasons than cultural indoctrination.

The holistic quality and neatly fittingtogetherness of the Hindu culture, science and medicine doesn't outweigh the practical benefits of the Western approach and everyone knows it.

[Anonymous No.4248366]

>>4248351
Well, as you know, there's no real point to even replying since you've already made my positions for me. I have to admit that this curious function certainly makes Western, capitalist "thought" quite superior to the other rabble.

[Anonymous No.4248368]

>>4248329
Why do you hate Christianity so much, buttercups?

[Anonymous No.4248410]

>>4247463
This. I always laugh when people make reference to ancient greeks as "us".

>>4247526
Claiming heritage is not automatically being a legitimate heir. I'm sure a Buddhist or Hindu monk would be recognized as closer by a Greek than a modern or contemporary academic.

[Anonymous No.4248456]

>>4248410
That's all very well, but the ancient Greeks plus what followed upon them in the West is clearly what OP was referring to.

[Anonymous No.4249338]

>>4248368
because she's an ugly lesbian

[Anonymous No.4249368]

>>4247511
Kill yourself. I argue that the world will still exist after you do it. And that the truth is that no one will care about your death.

[Anonymous No.4249373]

>>4247568
>The West has only existed for 200 years
Muh modern relativism

What is this revisionist bullshit.

A cultural definition of Europe as the lands of Latin Christendom coalesced in the 8th century, signifying the new cultural condominium created through the confluence of Germanic traditions and Christian-Latin culture, defined partly in contrast with Byzantium and Islam, and limited to northern Iberia, the British Isles, France, Christianized western Germany, the Alpine regions and northern and central Italy.[13] The concept is one of the lasting legacies of the Carolingian Renaissance: "Europa" often figures in the letters of Charlemagne's court scholar, Alcuin.[14] This division—as much cultural as geographical—was used until the Late Middle Ages, when it was challenged by the Age of Discovery.[15][16][why?] The problem of redefining Europe was finally resolved in 1730 when, instead of waterways, the Swedish geographer and cartographer von Strahlenberg proposed the Ural Mountains as the most significant eastern boundary, a suggestion that found favour in Russia and throughout Europe.[17]

[Anonymous No.4249383]

>>4248410
That's weird because the greek have culturally always seen themselves as Euorpean.

>The use of the term "Europe" has developed gradually throughout history.[8][9] In antiquity, the Greek historian Herodotus mentioned that the world had been divided by unknown persons into three parts, Europe, Asia, and Libya (Africa), with the Nile and the River Phasis forming their boundaries—though he also states that some considered the River Don, rather than the Phasis, as the boundary between Europe and Asia.

Their culture, lands and people was later usurped by Alexander The Great (who also was Greek), he brought greek culture to the east, but it never really took hold.

However, that happened in Euope with the Romans and also later with the Renaissance.

We are the greeks because we are the only ones who relate to their philosophy. East had their choice and fucked up.

[Anonymous No.4249389]

>>4248410
It is as you have never read anything about the greeks.

There are shared similarities, but greeks were violent and belived in change through force.

Eastern philosophy is usually much more focused on transcending reality through inner peace of mind.

Just google the brazen bull to get a picture of the greek world.

[Anonymous No.4249390]

>>4247501

wolololololol developed and discussed by the intellectual elite? obviously you fuckwit, who else creates philosophy?

it obviously trickled down to the peasants fairly quickly.

"historically"... you know nothing. look up Confucianism and Daoism and Buddhism and all that shit they are godless religions whose foundations are rooted in everyday practice of certain virtues

you obviously know nothing its sad

[Anonymous No.4249392]

>>4247511
Thanks to the Nitch, one might add.

[Anonymous No.4249401]

ITT: People with a half-assed knowledge of one philosophical tradition and even less of any others try to scream superior the loudest.

Welcome to /lit/.

Protip - both truth and beauty is in the detail.

[Anonymous No.4249403]

>>4249390
>it obviously trickled down to the peasants fairly quickly.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, yeah because he posted his list of philosophic ideals on buzzfeeds "40 reasons why you should find your inner self" and it got picked up as a trend on twitter and spread on facebook like wild-fire.

How many of those peasants could read? Where should they have read it? Or was is just from person to person, then how are you sure it's meaning remained intact?

Face it, you know nothing about history.

[Anonymous No.4249408]

>>4249401
>feeling superior while spouting nonsensical platitudes

Welcome to Tumblr

[Anonymous No.4249414]

>>4249403
>be dalit
>some philosophy trickles down
>it trickles right in front of me
>if I touch it I will be killed because I'm too impure to touch things they have touched

[Anonymous No.4249420]

>>4249390

Come on. At least try to sound like know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.4249429]

>>4249390
Buddhism is not Godless.

[Anonymous No.4249453]

>>4249408

It just gets tiring after a while. Is it too much to ask that someone tries to get an informed opinion about both sides of something before feeling they need to assert what is "superior"? In philosophy of all things.

[Anonymous No.4249479]

>>4249453
Have you ever met someone with an "informed opinion" about Eastern Philosophy? Trust me, you'd prefer the dilettantes.

[Anonymous No.4249478]

>>4249453
OP literally asked about superiority. This thread is about that. If you want a comparative phil no judgement no offense sorry thread, go make one.

[Anonymous No.4249526]

To be honest, Western Philosophy is philosophy. "Eastern Philosophy" is more of a practice or technique than a philosophy, even when there are similarities.

[Anonymous No.4249640]

The only philosopher worth caring about is Confucius.

[Anonymous No.4249644]

>>4249640
romney go to bed

[Anonymous No.4249654]

there are other philosophical traditions?

and im not just being facetious here, certainly, there were ancient philosophers in the west, india, and china, the axial age.

but since then? precious little.

[Anonymous No.4249680]

>>4247281
West pioneered and remains the main body of analytic philosophy.

Whatever the score was in the past, West > Others from the enlightenment onwards.

I guess it also is the leader in Continental philosophy, but I wouldn't accord as much value to that personally.

[Anonymous No.4249688]

>>4249680
>not caring about values and narrative

[Anonymous No.4249692]

>>4249526
>>4249654
ITT: Ideology

[Anonymous No.4249699]

>>4249680
>Enlightenment

Yes, that worked out super for everyone involved, namely those Others you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.4249709]

>>4249699
Are you talking about imperialism? How does that affect the quantity or quality of the West's philosophy?

It would be funny if you were giving Principia Mathematica the finger because it didn't stop the world wars though.

[Anonymous No.4249727]

>>4249709


silly, obviously he means the universalist, equalitarian, democratic precepts of the enlightenment as the worst things to come out of the enlightenment.

for example, just look at what democracy has done in 4 decades to africa (and is doing now to the middle east).

[Anonymous No.4249729]

>>4249709
Philosophy has started more wars than it has ended.

[Anonymous No.4249742]

>>4249729
>implying wars are bad

Were you to rest your palm in this lap, you'd shiver at the intense throbbing at the mere mention of bloodshed.

[Anonymous No.4249755]

>>4249729
>War is bad. I know what is good or bad for all of mankind. I know this because I eschew all philosophy.

Wise words from a gay nerd

[Anonymous No.4249787]

>>4249727
>I dislike egalitarianism and political representation.

Are you one of those Nietzschean knuckle-draggers? Prefer tyrants and slavery because it more finely sifts the strong from the weak?

>>4249729
Raises an interesting point. Though. If we are going to rank the value of philosophy by region, should we factor in the moral effects of the thoughts? For example Marxism leading to some real stepped in some slimy wet dog shit historical moments. And how culpable are the philosophers for such dog shit.

Probably not much.

[Anonymous No.4249788]

>>4249742
>>4249755
That is not what I implied, you dofuses.

[Anonymous No.4249796]

>>4249755
>I am honestly going to assert that war in abstract being good is equally plausible to it being bad

You fucking destroyed him bro.

[Anonymous No.4249806]

>>4249742
>mentioning murder makes me sexually aroused
wow so poetry many badass much impress

[Anonymous No.4249807]

>>4249742
>>4249755
pussies that cry at NASCAR events during the prayer and national anthem and ironically lament they can't give their lives for their cuntry do to obesity.

[Anonymous No.4249810]

>>4249787
Well, I think we should look at the number of societal changes a philosophy has induced, and war is definitely a form of "change".

[Anonymous No.4249811]

>>4249796
>Some propositions are more "plausible" than others, regardless of their actual veracity or falsehood. This quality is decided by my intuition.

[Anonymous No.4249812]

>>4249807
>ironically lament over white trash on a literature board yet fail to write gramatically

We are going meta

[Anonymous No.4249827]

>>4249812
>gramatically

[Anonymous No.4249834]

>>4247281
Yes, I have been studing eastern philosophy through the works of DT suzuki among other about-to-cross-the-stream monks and its just a bunch of chinks slapping the fuck out of each other and negations, maybe its time i read Confucius

[Anonymous No.4249837]

>>4249827
@4249812
#recktdatbitch
#holyshit
#odayum

[Anonymous No.4249840]

>>4249811
>War, in general being good is equally plausible to it being bad
Spare me your moral nihilism. Conventionally extreme suffering isn't desirable, and to suggest it is, is absurd.

>I can't deal with people who assert some things are more plausible than others based on intuition
I guess you don't like philosophy much huh.

[Anonymous No.4250218]

someone kill these fucking chinks

[Anonymous No.4250233]

>>4247281
Western philosophy is the ONLY philosophical tradition. There are other systems of thought, but only those which descend from the Greeks can properly be termed 'philosophy.'

[Anonymous No.4250238]

>>4249840
>Spare me your moral nihilism. Conventionally extreme suffering isn't desirable, and to suggest it is, is absurd.
If isn't, if you allow yourself to think a bit before you get all emotional.

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250278]

>superior

Really they're incommensurable and spawning from fundamentally different epistemic ground. Thus a kind of picking sides, ultimately relies on your own prior epistemic wiring.
Western thinking is very reductionistic, whereas Eastern is holistic.
Show for example, as Stephen Stich did, a picture of an bunch of fish underwater to an audience of Westerners and an audience of Easterner's and ask them what they see.
You will invariably get the same answers:
Westerners will say "there was a shark, and some algae and some other fish and a squid" whereas Easterners will say "it was an aquarium, or an underwater scene"
simplistic example aside, you'll find that the reductionist way of thinking conditions the entire collective conscilussness of a peoples, Westerners are primarily "individuals", secondly "fathers sons or daughters", thirdly "citizens of a country", etc. Whereas Asians define themselves within a cohesive unit of a greater machine, their identity is literally shaped and dominated by their external relationships, thus they are "citizens, family members, friends, Humans" first and then "individuals" last.
The holistic epistemic framework responsible for this phenomenon is the one also responsible for their philosophy. Eastern philosophy seeks to merge the person into the environment, with enlightenment requiring a complete dissolution of the ego and almost lack of differentiation between oneself and the environment. Western philosophy is geared towards the involuted rhythms of parts, individuals, and egos. We seek to impose our token natures into the world, we work from the inside-->out, whereas Easterners work from the outside-->in.

So really there can't be an external standard for judging the two and determining which is superior, because each contemplating subject is working from within their relative epistemic ground and will ultimately impose their own mechanism.
For example: I'm a westerner and think that Eastern Philosophy is a bunch of deluded self-denying bullshit. The day i revert to eastern philosophy is the day i'm penniless and left to fuck off into the wilderness to copulate with wild animals and live off poisonous mushrooms.

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250286]

>>4250278

which is why we have things like the gettier problem, which is the considered the single most important debate in Western epistemology, being laughed at by Eastern Academics

[Anonymous No.4250289]

>>4250278
Wrong

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250291]

>>4250289

devastating objection faggot, eat a dick

[Anonymous No.4250294]

>>4250278
>>4250286
>>4250291

Stan.
Where the fuck you been?

[Anonymous No.4250300]

>>4250286
Why do they laugh? How do they conceive a solution? Source?

[sathanas !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250308]

>>4250294

running gear, downtown lawfirms, mining the depths of the godhead, masturbating, making transcendent objects into nothingness

[sathanas !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250317]

>>4250300

Basically they don't see it as a problem at all. They see the mechanism for the arrival to "knowledge" as being trivial and inconsequential, merely the fact that Smith was "right" counts...they don't even care for the Platonic JTB standard, which the Gettier problem assumes.

[sathanas !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250319]

>>4250300

Read Stich

[Anonymous No.4250322]

>>4250278
This would explain why, when Asian sages get to the down right dirty bottom of it all, call it emptiness or nothingness or nirvana or whatever and when the Maximator stumbles upon it goes "this is me, innit?"

[Anonymous No.4250324]

What does "Western" mean WRT philosophy?

If it means some sort of continuation of the Greek philosophical tradition, then "Western philosophy" encompasses Islamic philosophy, which was also influenced profoundly by knowledge from Persia, India, and other places situated squarely in the "East."

The philosophical tradition associated with Latin Christendom and its children cannot be separated from its Islamic influences, which cannot be separated from their Greek and Persian influences, etc. etc.

Global intellectual exchange has been going on for far too long for us to be able to delimit philosophical traditions geographically and rank them

Dumb thread

[Anonymous No.4250332]

>>4250317
Hah. Thanks for the interesting perspective. Justification isn't necessary for knowledge eh, just correctness?

It seems a misuse of the word knowledge to say that you know something if you took a wild guess and by chance it happened to be right, but I'm sure there's more to it than that.

In terms of Eastern, are we talking about the Far East, India or the Middle East?

[Anonymous No.4250340]

>>4250324
>If it means some sort of continuation of the Greek philosophical tradition, then "Western philosophy" encompasses Islamic philosophy, which was also influenced profoundly by knowledge from Persia, India, and other places situated squarely in the "East."

Also a number Greek thinkers, esp. Plotinus who became influential in Christendom and Islam, were influenced directly by Persian or other "Eastern" thought.

[sathanas !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250353]

>>4250322

I can definitely see why you'd say that goats.
though max stops one stage short, after dissolving most of his ego he's left with the unique one, which is ultimately a spook, the purest form of spookiness actually, and probably the most powerful individualist entity of all.
His is more of the final endpoint of reductionism rather than the final endpoint of a holistic model.

[Anonymous No.4250354]

>>4247444
I don't even know what the hell happened mid 20th century. It is like we live in a whole other world.

[Anonymous No.4250352]

>>4250324
animashuuun

[Anonymous No.4250356]

>>4250324
Is being inspired by, and adapting from the same as being equivalent to though?

We know Schopenhauer, Kant and Nietzsche etc were influenced by the Orient, but does that mean we can't call them Western, and note the differences between traditions.

[Anonymous No.4250365]

>>4247579
That image.
Reading John Locke felt like torture.
>It is more or less 1000 ways to say fuck off

[sathanas !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250385]

>>4250332
It's more involved than "taking a wild guess" but yeah ultimately you're right, whatever method Smith used to arrive at his belief is irrelevant when the end product, or the bigger picture, remains unchanged.

>In terms of Eastern

Far East particularly, though India also falls within a very similar model.

[Anonymous No.4250415]

NOPE.

[Anonymous No.4250441]

>>4250353
A lot of the time Stirner seems to enter the unspooked side of things when he goes "What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." but even when he enters that 'ultimate reality' (for lack of less sloppy words) I agree that he does remain intuitively selfist, if not so much ontologically as ethically.

After all, when both the Easterners and Stirner go beyond the self/non-self dichotomy and even if you were willing to say that their theoretical conclusion is identical, the Easterners attach a sort of harmonious mode of conduct to it where Stirner's approach is going happily outlaw disregarding as in pic related. You could say both sides of the medallion are equally spooked, since Eastern philosophy tends to attach a collective approach to a non-dualist conclusion as much as Maximum Forehead attaches an individualist one.

[Anonymous No.4250450]

>>4250324
Wow, categorisations are not absolute. Stop the thread!

[Anonymous No.4250493]

>>4250324
It's all the same and that is totally why we have similar political structures, cultural beliefs and religions.

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250494]

>>4250441

yeah ace definitely equally spooked. im convinced unspooking requires nothing short of death. it's just that god emperor magnus maximus is starting from a reductionist episteme, thus it is through a meticulous dissection of each parts of his ego (and the Egos as living organisms of their own sans corporeal structure) that he arrives at the unique one, which is why i say that his is the ultimate end point of reductionism, the raw and imminently self serving "pure ego" establishes an ultimate individuality before all.
Whereas Eastern holism, as you hinted at yourself, morphs all egos into a monistic entity, existence absorbs all egos into itself. Outside--->in. spurdo instead works from the inside, and cuts off each part which he does not see as "his own". The end product might very well be, at least practically speaking, identical... in each case you're left neck deep in nihilism. We're merely talking epistemic methodology at this point.

just like pure egoism (nihilism) is the ultimate end point of reductionsm, eastern enlightenment (nihilism) is the end point of holism, with prior stages being absorptions of the individual by the nation, culture, family, etc.
The difference is in the process.

[Anonymous No.4250506]

>>4250441
>>4250494

What the fuck are you guys talking about maximums and maximus I don't get the reference

[Anonymous No.4250513]

>>4250506

[Anonymous No.4250538]

>>4250494
>yeah ace definitely equally spooked. im convinced unspooking requires nothing short of death.
This whole thing such a swamp of shite when you have an honest look at it in a moment of clarity. That's why I'm flirting with Freddy again since if I can't do without I might as well have an extreme spook makeover and assemble a custom collection. Which probably won't last either so life becomes a perpetual spook shuffle.

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.4250593]

yall if you make the unspooking the end rather than the means (to You Know What) you're bound to get caught up in oh GOD a spook oh GOD A SPOOK oh GOD watch out but it doesn't fucking matter if youre spooked or not at all you fucks the 'unique one' doesn't chain you up like fixed ideas (do you guys even remember why spooks are bad??) and even if it did you can just stop thinking about it so chill out

[Anonymous No.4250597]

>>4250593
have you seen begotten?

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.4250603]

>>4250597
some of it, why?

[Anonymous No.4250606]

>>4250593
ebalorate on your personal u no wat cousin zeke

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250607]

>>4250538

>spook shuffle

dinnae stress yirsel too much ken, ye cannae jist start pillin spooks ootay yir fuckin arse eh, goat tae find the one which suits ye..mibe maximum stirnihilism is what yir body craves but.

one day i see mahsell squeezed ootay baphomet's cunt right the fuck intae the firey fuckin lakes of fuck-all-hermeneutics

till then i'll freddy my neech three fuckin times a day

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.4250620]

>>4250606
liberation for the individual

[Anonymous No.4250626]

>>4250603
seemed like it might be up your street and it might bore you enough to read the goddamn book

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250628]

>>4250593

sit the fuck down my evil son and let me tell you a story,

your very existence is permanently wrapped up with chains in god's eternal sex dungeon. no exit.

d.n.

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250639]

>>4250620

ah but to be so le young und naive

money man, you know we got mad love for trax spurdo...you just have to put things in perspective

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250648]

>>4250639

an imposition of myself into the world, as le godperson hellboss cyanide christ, which is the ultimate kind of individualist triumph (and liberation) ultimately requires my demonic possession (as le final uberspook)

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250653]

>>4250648

think based david hume/nietzschean compatibilism

[Anonymous No.4250654]

>>4250648
what teh fuck am i reading

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.4250667]

>>4250628
see but i don't give a shit it isn't rape if im into it and
>>4250639
>naive
no (maybe ) but its just that stirner is that and only that (to me) a guidebook to liberation from fixed ideas (not the
>>4250648
>ultimate kind of individualist triumph (and liberation)
) i dont think that at all and i couldn't give a shit about triumphant imposition "i am the god shitting ubermensch" its like beating the high score in frogger and unplugging it at death "woo hoo" ambition

i just want to have a good time for a while and im enthusiastic as shit about that so, like, bite it you stan

[Anonymous No.4250672]

>>4250607
It's not very stressful any more really, I'm so at home in the void that I know where the bathroom is. Not so much teenage Burzum but more of a Heraclitan godchild playing with legos kind of sitcheashion. Fritz has good spooks though, have yet to come across better ones (except for Schopenhauer when you've got the flu or a minging hangover likes).

[sherman tank !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250676]

>>4250654
no everyday ye coupon beads rest upon a transrational metabard of nexistence aye?

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4250690]

>>4250667

don't get snappy with me fuck boy, i'll end you

i was merely trying to guide my only son.
is that too much to ask?

>>4250672
I think you'll be just fine goats. anyway, im off tae fuck,
later dude

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.4250700]

>>4250690
haha we're cool, see you around

[Anonymous No.4250732]

Eastern philosophy has nice metapysics and a lot of allegorical philosophical works, the Tao Te Ching being notable in sounding similar to the fragments of Parmeneides or Heraclitus.
Western philosophy is more rigorous in it's rationality but that is not it's real strength rather it is the study of phenomena in relation to man and as a consequence his ultimate purpose in regards to freedom , most eastern philosophies have a pre determined cosmology and thusly consider this question mostly answered.
It is not a question of what is better than the other, both can be life denying and both can be life affirming (for different reasons). Cultural criticism in the form of comparing civilizations is very poor and in the end pointless without the study of actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4250755]

>>4247570
I bet you masturbate to your copy of Black Athena, don't you?

[Anonymous No.4250808]

>>4250732
Whose translation of the Tao Te Ching is that?

[Anonymous No.4250814]

i like tao lin, so eastern i guess??

[Anonymous No.4250845]

>>4250814
Jokes aside, Tao Lin is quite the Schopenhauerian.

[Anonymous No.4250852]

there's western philosophy and eastern religion.

[Anonymous No.4253201]

bum[

[Anonymous No.4253203]

>>4250852
western philosophy has become a religion

[Anonymous No.4253249]

>>4253203
ebalorait

[Anonymous No.4253250]

>>4247281
no.

/thread

[Anonymous No.4253252]

>>4253250
eleboray

[Anonymous No.4253285]

>>4247281
yeah, cause we winning bitch.

[Anonymous No.4254302]

>>4248061
>making this about race

Don't you have a privilege rally to go to?

[Anonymous No.4254304]

If you conclude otherwise you are a retarded faggot baby. Based on sheer volume, variety, and complexity, philosophy out of geographical Europe dominates the philosophy from other regions.

[Anonymous No.4254317]

>>4247281
I wish I knew. Obviously Western philosophy courses will have a Western bias, but I never realised how bad it actually was. My university just canned the only subject on Eastern philosophy for next year, so students really have to go out of their way to get exposure to it.

[Anonymous No.4254327]

>>4254317
Yes it's because they are trying to surpess eastern philosophy... or could it be because they had one course only, one teacher with little expertize or perhaps that one teacher quit, perhaps not enoughs students took the course so it was a financial loss, it doesn't meet the government criteria.

There are thousands of reasons as to why courses are cancelled. Bias is usually not one of them.

[Anonymous No.4254361]

>>4247469
>After 2500 years Western philosophy is no closer to any form of knowledge of truth on any subject whatsoever.
C-c-citation needed

[Anonymous No.4254362]

>>4254327
Yeah, I understand that the reason for cancellation was not because there is some conspiracy to hide it. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a systemic issue. One teacher with little expertize? Only one teacher who wasn't rehired? Not enough students taking the course? If there wasn't a bias against it in universities, I'd imagine there would be a lot more lecturers and students willing to teach or take the course.

[Anonymous No.4254370]

>>4248151
>Cause yeah, we might have advanced medicine, but we have also certain diseases as a consequence of our lifestyle.
Cool. You enjoy smallpox and I'll take elevated cholesterol.
>If we have big solutions it is because we have big problems that were never meant to be there.
>We were never meant to be more than spear chucking rapists on the savannah

[Anonymous No.4254371]

>>4248158
>Having science means there is something fundamentally incomplete about your society
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.4254373]

>>4254371
Science is the notion of flawed knowledge, and that everything can be and will eventually be disproven. Thus all knowledge needs to be constantly re-evaluated and critcised.

That is a product of western philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4254375]

>>4254304
>volume, variety, and complexity

slap.gif

please dont ever post again.

[Anonymous No.4254376]

>>4254375
>implying any of those can be disputed

[Anonymous No.4254382]

>>4249390
Taoists have a pantheon.

[Anonymous No.4254385]

>>4254373
That seems less a product of modern science and more of open inquiry in general.

>Re-evaluating knowledge means a gaping absence of something necessary in society
Again, what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.4254399]

>>4254373

That's a pretty negative view of science. I look at it as a process of refinement, like honing the edge of a sword.

[Anonymous No.4254404]

>>4254382
Taoism isn't really a useful term, honestly. I'd divide Taoism into:

A) Its original metaphysical-ethical discourse in the Eastern Zhou period, which is poorly attested and heavily stereotyped by subsequent philosophers and historians. Because our view of it is imperfect, it's hard to delineate exactly what is or is not Taoism; certain Taoists are assigned to the "Legalist" school by post hoc historical narrativization, for example, and some REALLY defy categorisation, even to modern experts.

B) The later integration of these elements into the wider "Confucian" and "Neo-Confucian" philosophical systems (more like nebulous discourses, really) of Medieval China. You'll get various narratives about this as well, for example the one where Neo-Confucianism intentionally pays lip service to Taoist metaphysics for the sake of having an axiomatic metaphysical foundation, thereby shutting up metaphysicians who otherwise disliked Confucianism, and halting Buddhism's seduction of metaphysically inclined literati. Poetic, but still a narrative. This division would also include later (and modern) Taoist spinoffs that try to make use of its primeval metaphysics, usually with mixed results because the fucking Eastern Zhou literary-philosophical tradition was so goddamn obscurantist.

C) Taoism as a cultural practice. Basically a folk religion that extrapolated a few random elements of philosophical Taoism into some customs like pseudophilosophical cosmology, and finding herbal/homeopathic avenues to immortality.

A and B have NOTHING to do with C. Even less than complicated Christian or Islamic theosophy/theology has to do with the average person's faith. A and B could easily be the writings and exegesis of a single Western philosopher (compare with Aristotle's treatment over the millennia), while C is more like an animistic folk religion.

The real problem is that, as above, A and B, and especially A, are so unbelievably fucking opaque and obscurantist that they are difficult to study. The result is that Medieval Chinese philosophy has to be considered as a cultural complex rather than a philosophical discourse (contrast with the Early Modern West), modern Chinese commentary is so opaque and insular as to be nonexistent, and Western scholarship moves at a glacial pace; most of the best books on Eastern Zhou Taoism are a generation or two old. The latter is the best, at least for Westerners, but it's also contentious and badly divided, and even the top scholars seem to drift into esotericism in their writing sometimes.

The end result is the same as with Vedic philosophy. You can sort of see, out of the corner of your eye, a core of potentially brilliant "secular" metaphysics lurking behind the cloud of bullshit. But the cloud might as well be Jupiter and the core a baseball at this point, with Western scholars a few 1970s scientific satellites in orbit.

[Anonymous No.4254422]

>>4254404
Thank you for the clearly knowledgeable post.

Why is it that A) the founding texts is so difficult to study? Is there a good deal of lost material, or is it merely the manner in which it is written? Does translation and cultural divide contribute to this?

Why is modern Chinese commentary so exclusive? Has Eastern philosophy not undergone the analytic transformation that the West has?

I find it amusing that someone who seems well read on the subject would describe the philosophy of Taoism as a possible core of brilliance in blurry fog of shit. It seems to agree with what others have said in the thread about Eastern philosophy not really being reconcilable with the Western notions of it. Apples and Lychee berries. Thanks for the contribution all the same.

[Anonymous No.4254445]

>>4247295
>philosophy centuries ago
>Things are like this, and we shall base our thinking on these conclusions

>philosophy now
>H-how do you know anything exists, it's all pointless, implying any logic makes sense, implying logic

I can't handle new philosophy, I think I'll just stop at Nietzsche or something.

[Anonymous No.4254450]

>>4254445
I think you're misrepresenting modern philosophy pal

[Anonymous No.4254459]

>>4254445
>philosophy now
>H-how do you know anything exists, it's all pointless, implying any logic makes sense, implying logic
But that's wrong, shithead, how about you actually read modern philosophers instead of getting your knowledge from /lit and wikipedia articles?

[Anonymous No.4254465]

>>4254450
>>4254459
I just know that when I read guys like Heidegger I really think this is some advance form of trolling. There are much more worthwhile fields to study nowadays, philosophy doesn't mean shit anymore to anyone but the academia.

But I suppose my interest is more how philosophy in the past affected cultures and beliefs so I don't give a shit about analytic stuff.

[Anonymous No.4254470]

>>4254465
What you should realise is that Heidegger hasn't been at the forefront of philosophy for a long time. Modern phenomenology is actually pretty fascinating as it deals a lot with the impact of technology on lives. Also, if you actually read any of the phenomenologists/existentialists it's not as depressing as pop-culture makes it seem. The way Sartre discusses nothingness, for example, can be interpreted in a pretty positive manner.

Point is, actually read the shit before you try and criticize it

[Anonymous No.4254472]

>>4254465

this guy, no respect for true wisdom

[Anonymous No.4254475]

>>4254445
>I can't handle new philosophy, I think I'll just stop at Nietzsche or something.

Antique - Scholastic philosophy is the best. Read the Platonists, the Stoics, the Scholastics. The Platonists/Aristotleans actually cared about thinking and logic, the Stoics actually cared about living, and the Scholastics actually cared about both. They state in very clear terms that they care about these things. The moderns start with vague propositions and end up drawing vaguer conclusions.

[Anonymous No.4254487]

>>4254470
>. Modern phenomenology is actually pretty fascinating as it deals a lot with the impact of technology on lives. Also, if you actually read any of the phenomenologists/existentialists it's not as depressing as pop-culture makes it seem. The way Sartre discusses nothingness, for example, can be interpreted in a pretty positive manner.

The problem with Modern philosophy is that it always tries to pass itself of as "modern", i.e. new. Did you know that Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was said by St. Augustine more than a thousand years beforehand? Stirner says a lot of things that were said in different terms thousands of years ago by Laozi. Kierkegaard and Sartre say things that are said in much clearer terms by St. Aquinas.
I don't think Modern philosophy "deals a lot with the impact of technology on lives" that much. It likes to talk about it itself as though it had said something about it. Like it will bring up about how "alienating" Modern technology is, but their descriptions of what "alienation" amounts to are descriptions that you can find in ancient philosophers as much as modern.

[Anonymous No.4254517]

>>4254487
I think we're stuck in the 20th century here, I should have clarified that by 'modern' I mean 'last 30 years or so'.

If you can, read an article called 'being-towards-death in the digital age', it applied Heideggarian concepts to social media. An example of contemporary phenomenology.

Metaphysics is also doing well, it's been dealt with a fair bit since it was developed in the 80s but modal realism has some pretty interesting ideas in it. Modality generally is pretty fascinating, as is the philosophy of logic and the developments in that.

As always, ethics is an ever-changing field. Read some Singer if you haven't already, that's modern ethics.

Sure, they might build and borrow ideas from thousands of years ago, but they develop and apply it in a relevant context for this day and age, which, again, is not a new idea. Good luck finding a purely original thought anywhere.

[Anonymous No.4254527]

>>4254517
>. Good luck finding a purely original thought anywhere.

Yeah, as Goethe said
>All intelligent thoughts have already been thought; what is necessary is only to try to think them again.
However, the one advantage I think that the old philosophers undoubtedly have over the modern is that they were better writers.
You might say that the moderns make up for this because their philosophy has more application to our daily lives today, but honestly reading modern philosophy just increases my discontent and spite towards the modern world, whereas when I read Plato, Cicero, Plutarch, Augustine, etc., I notice improvements in my self.

[Anonymous No.4254540]

>>4254527
>the one advantage I think that the old philosophers undoubtedly have over the modern is that they were better writers

I agree, I love it when philosophy reads like poetry, and I think thats one of the reasons why Nietzsche did so well. He pretty much said 'fuck it' to the regular way of doing things and wrote some awesome prose. I actually did feel self-affirmed reading him, but it's no better than a glorified self-help book.

If you want to read something enlightening that is well written, you're right, modern philosophy is not the place. But if you're wanting to treat it as a legitimate academic discourse you're going to have to foray into it eventually.

It's like trying to understand physics but, stopping at Newton's understanding of gravity without going into relativity. It's a lot harder to grasp the latter, but it's necessary if you want to keep up with what's being done now.

[Anonymous No.4255408]

Yes. When I was younger I actually thought the east has deeper thoughts but I was an idiot of course. From the 1600s on western philosophy made huge jumps. Partially that's because it was no longer mixed up with mythology or religion.