Share
View previous topicGo downView next topic
avatar
Admin
Messages : 605
Date d'inscription : 2007-10-20
View user profilehttp://secondlife.1fr1.net

Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:58 pm
It is proven with my personal experience that there's a big gap between the East and the West perspective mehehe... This gap is not only expressed by the pacific and atlantic oceans, but also from the historical progression on each side.

Let's take a look into the details in this gap and debate on the following:
Who has a better view of the world?
What is the direction of Earth progression as an entire global civilization?

Come on, come on~ mehehe... *43*

_________________
avatar
Messages : 232
Date d'inscription : 2007-11-17
View user profile

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:51 am
Who has a better view of the world?
No one, except me.


What is the direction of Earth progression as an entire global civilization?
It's doomed. The sun will explode and we'll die regardless of your man-named cardinal location.
avatar
Messages : 108
Date d'inscription : 2007-10-25
View user profile

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:54 am
That's so lame, incomparable to the response to what you asked evil-mashimaro to answer http://secondlife.1fr1.net/t153-the-ultimate-order#1406
avatar
Messages : 232
Date d'inscription : 2007-11-17
View user profile

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:08 am
I have my own essay to elaborate my point of view. 

Who has a better view of the world?
Everything is relative, so of course, to me I'm the only right who's right!

What is the direction of Earth progression as an entire global civilization?
The sun will explode and it is self-evident. Expiration date is not excluded to the human species. There's no direction in Earth progression, just endless cycles.
avatar
Messages : 108
Date d'inscription : 2007-10-25
View user profile

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:14 am
You're just using some of the things that evil-mashimaro said. Suspect
avatar
Messages : 232
Date d'inscription : 2007-11-17
View user profile

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:15 am
Well, what do you have to share?
avatar
Messages : 108
Date d'inscription : 2007-10-25
View user profile

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:24 am
Here's a book that I recently read in class about Western philosophy and how Western philosophers think. It's called "Zeno and the Tortoise: How to Think like a Philosopher" by Nicholas Fearn. I think some key points from this book can be useful for this post.

Zeno and the Tortoise - Key Points:

Thales (636 BC, Miletus), first reductionnist philosopher and first Western philosopher, proposed that all things are made of water.

Pythagoras (485 BC, Thrace), father of relativism, arguably the most celebrated sophist of all, proposed that "man is the measure of all things".

Zeno (490 BC, Elea) is first philosopher to employ reductio ad absurdum to prove that reality was composed of unchanging oneness.

Socrates (469 BC, Alopece) developed of the Socratic method to unveil the absolute truth of a matter.

Plato (428 BC, Athens), Socrates’ student, argued that perceptions of things are analogous to ideal knowledge in high realms.

Aristotle (384 BC, Stagira), Plato’s student, explained that there are 4 causes of things: material, formal, efficient and final; and the final for human is eudaimonia (happiness).

Lucretius (94 BC) determined that the universe was infinite using his thought experiment.

Ockham (1285), argued that the simplest explanation should be preferred.

Bacon (1561, London) promoted induction through his argument that careful observation of nature and its way will restore to man a mastery of nature.

Descartes (1596, France),was part of the Enlightenment movement that encouraged the agnostics, used the method of doubt to concluded that the only truth is cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am).

Hume (1711, Edinburgh) condemned all knowledge without abstract or experimental reasoning to the flames.  

Reid (1710, Kincardine) defended common-sense (even without abstract or experimental reasoning) as it keeps our mind sane.

Rousseau (1712, Geneva) claimed in his fiction “The Social Contract” that human exchanged their natural rights to bogus civic rights, which created all the unhappiness.

Kant (1724, Prussia) wished to strike new path between rationalism and empiricism, and argued that essence of things remains unknowable to human and pure knowledge is pure human knowledge (because of language and perception).

Bentham (1748, London), first utilitarian, took a hedonistic definition of utility and argued that morality is to maximize pleasure for the greatest number of people.

Hegel (1770, Stuttgart) had intuition on the oneness of the universe and argued that all progress is achieved through conflicts of opposite (synthesis of thesis and antithesis).

Neitzsche (1844, German) proposed that all truth that we have discovered or wrote are products of our desire to take power and decision, creating an existential nihilistic view that is faithful to the Will of Power.

Wittgenstein (1889, Vienna) argued that philosophy is limited by language, and developed the picture theory, saying the meaning of something always lies outside of that thing.

Popper (1902, Vienna), nicknamed by his student “totalitarian liberal”, saw that theories that stand the risk of being falsified persist.

Ryle (1900, Brighton) saw that things like the mind is phenomenon that emerged from a complex organization with some pattern.

Turing (1912, London) argued that consciousness is the manipulation/computation of symbol in a meaningful way to oneself.

Dawkins (1941, Kenya) argued that ideas, similar to genes, are memes infecting our mind like virus.

Derrida (1930, Algiers) developed deconstruction which is reading a text while being attentive to words and concepts that may not deliver their intended meaning.
avatar
Messages : 261
Date d'inscription : 2007-10-25
View user profile

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:47 am
Western philosophy is primarily shaped by their historical progression from caesaropapism to the battle between empiricism and rationalism and finally to existentialism, idealism and pragmatism. First dictated by the bible, people went more or less on a trial and error approach to re-explain truth with all the hatred, disgust and fear from the religious past kept in mind.

Eastern philosophy was shaped in ancient time. Those classics take form in four major movements: Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism and they still co-exist in harmony. Modern philosophy is more political oriented, and triggered by colonisation and globalization. Often, they are a synthesis of native and foreign components.

The main difference is therefore this: Jesus, as a sage, screwed up in his teaching, hence causing so much hatred and suffering attached to religion that the East has never witnessed.
avatar
Messages : 232
Date d'inscription : 2007-11-17
View user profile

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

on Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:04 pm
I think Neitzsche has the right mindset, that is we all want to control other people's thinking. The Greek dude were just trying to show off their intelligence by blabbing about their views on the world:

Thales: water is essence of everything.
Pythagoras: men is the measure of everything.
Zeno: change is an illusion.
Socrates: your view is probably morally wrong and you'll see it when I ask you a question that'll screw you up.
Plato: everything was a corrupted copy of an ideal template in heaven.
Aristotle: everything strive to reach an end goal.

And then Jesus came and blabbed about his God.

Then we see, for a millennia, people were suppressed by Jesus and his fellow men's power.

Then people heard enough of their sht and start blab on their own now.

Descartes: I think therefore everything exists.
Hume: things that doesn't sound scientific to me doesn't make sense to everyone.
Reid: my mind cannot take it, therefore it doesn't make sense.
Rousseau: I am unhappy about our state, therefore everyone is unhappy.
Kant: I cannot explain what I mean, so don't try to understand it.
Bentham: life is about maximizing pleasure.
Hegel: I dreamed that everything is one, this is my theory on why that can happen.
Neitzsche: I want power, so you want power.
etc....: I also want power, and so ...
Sponsored content

Re: Western v.s. Eastern Philosophy [debate]

View previous topicBack to topView next topic
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum