/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4254720]

Is all of eastern philosophy like this hunk of shit?

[Anonymous No.4254762]

>>4254720

Yes. Eastern philosophy is a fucking joke, no rigor, senseless, unreasonable. There's actually plenty of experimental psychology and psycho-philosophy that makes the preposterous metaphilosophical claim that it's due to fundamental differences in the very nuanced ways they look at some really stupid shit, like organization of thoughts or the "way" in which you read a specific statement.

As an example, suppose you're given the meaningless statement (by meaningless I mean a statement that lacks a truth value due to having multiple interpretations): "The number of planets is necessarily greater than 7." You may recognize this as Quine famous statement on modal de re necessity. Notice how it can be interpreted de re as the number of planets, 9, is greater than 7, of 9 > 7. In this case, the statement would be true; however, suppose you consider the de dicto reading: There does not exist a course of events where the number of planets is greater than 7, and this is clearly wrong. What many of these experimental philosophers are arguing is that the interpretation we take when given certain statements such as the one above is one of these nuanced differences between eastern and western culture and contribute to their vastly different thought systems.

[Anonymous No.4254776]

>>4254762

The reason I still think Eastern philosophy is bullshit is because logic being a priori shouldn't care about these fundamental differences, because if done properly one can note a good argument from a bad. The problem is, in logic, we're not looking at just a de re reading or just a de dicto reading, we're looking at every possible reading of a given statement within the confines of what is <i> reasonable </i>. So in making the statement that eastern and western philosophers have very nuanced approaches to interpretations, we're talking about possible interpretations, and by possible we mean "reasonable" and by reasonable we mean "logical." Clearly, they have a sense of what is logical by choosing a <i> possible </i> choice. The entire basis of the experiment is pretty silly, and may have been empty psychologisms all along.

There's nothing very reasonable about Eastern philosophy. It acts more as a therapeutic remedy to life than an explanation of the meaning of life. Too many unwarranted claims, too little rigor.

Hope this helps!

[Anonymous No.4254812]

>>4254776
Pro-tip, look up Buddhist Logic. They came up with Blanche's logical hexagon centuries before Aristotle thought up his Square of opposition.

Other pro-tip. Get over yourself. .

[Anonymous No.4254864]

>>4254762
You're judging eastern thought by completely western types of thinking. This is very silly.

[Anonymous No.4254873]

>>4254812
>a faggot buddhist claiming that, ACTUALLY, his orientalist fantasy superhero invented something before the west did it!!

But this has never happened before!

[Anonymous No.4254888]

>It acts more as a therapeutic remedy to life than an explanation of the meaning of life.

I've heard someone, somewhere, call philosophy not the plan or directions for life, but rather as the balm for life.

[Anonymous No.4254954]

Read something with actual grounding in life like Hagakure. It's far more interesting and while not-so applicable today, is concerned with things on this earth.

"Enlightenment" is a crock of shit peddled by the cool kids who never shut up about it and certainly never reach it.

[Anonymous No.4254959]

>>4254864
Why?

It's like like 1+1 doesn't equal the same in Europe as it does in Asia.

Logic is logic.

[Anonymous No.4254975]

I don't consider eastern philosophy to be actual philosophy, a lot of it is related to gods and mystical shit (like the nirvana), which is contrary to philosophy

[Anonymous No.4254984]

>>4254720


no, pic related.

[Anonymous No.4255002]

the taoteching is a fucking great read though

[Anonymous No.4255030]

>>4254864

I've just explained, by presenting a study that makes the exact claim you've made, that this idea is foolish. Reading comprehension is very important, btw. Judging the standards of eastern thought is reasonable if logical reasoning and critical thinking are shared facets of both cultures.

>>4254888

Philosophy is neither. It's a systematic and analytical means of clarifying language and our thinking about the world. Maybe philosophy being a therapy or a plan is a necessary condition of philosophical speculation (or simply a direct result of such speculation in some cases), but it is not a sufficient one, this is for sure.

>>4254812

An intensive examination of Buddhist logic was another key aspect of these studies. As it turns out, Buddhist logic is exactly the same as western logic with some caveats and extensions. And as I'm sure you know, there are plenty of deviant logical systems in western logic as well. If Buddhist logic is sound (which, I can't be certain about as I've never looked into it), then it proves my point that logic is a facet of both western and eastern cultures anyway. Your claim is essentially justifying my point. There is a formal logical system that claims that 1 != 1 in certain cases - proposed by a British logician named Haack. Within the confines of this system, it is sound. The point remains: logic is a key feature of both cultures.

Interestingly enough, and the point to take from all of this, is that Buddhist logic exists independently of Buddhism. The two do not justify one another. Buddhist logic derives from Indian logic and was never a means of justifying Buddhism as a philosophical school of thought. The name looks relevant though, I suppose. In fact, Buddhism precedes Buddhist logic.

[Anonymous No.4255040]

>>4255030
>1 != 1
>proposed by [...] Haack

Coincidence?

[Anonymous No.4255047]

The I Ching might be not be able to tell the future but it's amazing in terms of telling you what you think on a subconscious level. I'm saying the randomness of the oracle in combination with the oracle texts and you trying to interpret the meaning works.

[Anonymous No.4257362]

>>4255030
I believe anon was taking issue with your massive generalisation that 'eastern philosophy' is bullshit because it's not logical.

[Anonymous No.4257367]

>>4255002
Agreed. I also much enjoyed the Tibetan book of the dead, at least the half or two thirds of the book not associated with the actual practice of what to do before you die, but what Tibetan Buddhism is based on. Also read a book, I forget the name, on meditation practices. Very good in the context of how to properly meditate and perform bare consciousness exercises

[Anonymous No.4258704]

>>4254762
>no rigor, senseless, unreasonable

>he thinks rigor sense and reason are universal

hows the XVI century going?

[Anonymous No.4258726]

Nah, try Daoism if you want chinese, or Hinduism (and its non-orthodox lines) if you're looking for a similar yet very different development of a philosophical tradition. It is by far superior.

[Anonymous No.4258755]

>>4257367
What do they do before death?

[Anonymous No.4258784]

>>4254720
The fact that you guys think the I Ching is "eastern philosophy" shows how totally ignorant you are. This book is prehistoric, predating Confucius and Taoism by half a millennium at the least.

[Anonymous No.4258832]

>>4258784
The fact tat you expect people here to know what they are talking about just shows how totally naive and stupid you are.

[Anonymous No.4258866]

>>4258784
Eastern philosophy is philosophy of the East. The I Ching is a work of philosophy at its core and it originated in the East, this makes it Eastern philosophy. Just because it doesn't fit into the predominant philosophical tradition associated with the East doesn't mean it isn't Eastern philosophy.

>>4258832

Hey, that may be true of you, but some of the people on this board do know what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4258899]

>>4255030
Youre saying nothing of value, and you say it in the worst way possible.

You will persuade no one, and prove nothing.

[Anonymous No.4258981]

>>4258784
'Eastern' is a geographical term. The yi jing being very old doesn't mean it's not 'eastern', and I suspect the translation in the OP includes more recent sections alongside the oldest ones. I'd agree that the term 'eastern philosophy' is a pretty silly generalisation, but for other reasons.

[Anonymous No.4259009]

>>4258866
>he comes here for serious discussion

lel