Cool links. — j0e

:up:

I like Democritus, Epicurus, Epictetus, Pyrrho, others.

Same here. :smile:

I don't know enough to argue for which influence is stronger. For me the main thing would be whether it's basically the same way of thinking, whether it's universal. I suspect it is, but I am cautious speaking about the Eastern stuff.

I don't know either but I think its somewhat of a disservice to both Democritus and Pyrrho to only focus on the eastern link. Sure, we know the magi and gymnosophists played a part in influencing Pyrrho, but I don't think Anaxarchus should be neglected. I thought scepticism was mainly influenced by eastern thought for the longest time too, so it came as quitte the shock when I found out about the whole Democritan thing. Besides, it's fun to talk about obscure ancient philosophers. :wink:

Anaxarchus is new to me. I wish more of his work had been saved. IMO, the thinkers we're talking about had very 'modern'/sophisticated views, as in we haven't essentially come that far.
I suspect that all the fundamental gut-level worldview self-role options were already there.
Did they have their version of Dada back then?

I am speaking of a paper flower for the buttonholes of the gentlemen who frequent the ball of masked life, the kitchen of grace, white cousins lithe or fat. — Tzara

http://writing.upenn.edu/library/Tzara_Dada-Manifesto_1918.pdf

It's not a narrow definition. It's what the word means. It usefully distinguishes one activity - using reason to find out what's true - from others. — Bartricks

No, it’s what you think it means. Narrowly useful is not always accurate - just ask Copernicus. I offered a broader definition.

And I still don't have the faintest idea what Eastern, or Chinese, or African philosophy is. All I know from you is that Augustine - an undisputed giant of philosophy who was also undisputablyAfrican - isn't anything to do with African philosophy. Kinda ridiculous, no? — Bartricks

No. You asked a question and I answered it from my limited understanding of Augustine. Not to mention that I haven’t seen the distinction ‘African philosophy’ used before - do you have an example of its use?

I offered my understanding of what might be meant by ‘Chinese philosophy’, which you rudely dismissed without so much as a discussion. If you’re not going to follow any of the links offered here to understand for yourself what those who use the terms ‘Chinese philosophy’ or ‘Eastern philosophy’ mean by it, then nothing we say is going to have any impact. But that’s no real surprise.

Allow me to revise my definition: Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth. Perhaps if you can accept this definition, then I would agree that it’s all just philosophy. Reason is only imagination and judgement. It understands nothing about truth.

"Lil D-K" Barftrix gets off trolling because, apparently, that's what "Cosmic Sages" like him do – waste everyone else's time. All of this turd's threads are just flypaper.

So again, just to be clear - some people who are not using reason to find out what's true (so just making shit up and pronouncing it) are nevertheless doing philosophy, right?

Eastern philosophy would then be one of the words we could use to refer to that activity - the activity of 'not' using reason but just making shit up or talking nonsense. Yes?

'Western' philosophy means 'using reason to find the truth' (hence why Augustine is a western philosopher and not an 'African' philosopher) and any other region that precedes the word philosophy means 'bullshitting'.

Yes. I agree. It's just that philosophy doesn't actually mean bullshitting. It is the practice of using reason to find the truth. And Western philosophy and philosophy turn out to be synonymous. Glad we agree.

Your definition of philosophy seems equivalent to mine insofar as you accept that it is about seeking the truth about a matter. But you have said 'using the imagination'. Yes, but the imagination's role is secondary to that of reason. We cannot make something the case by just imagining it to be so. But we can use our imagination to engage in thought experiments to which our reason can be applied. But until or unless we make some appeal to reason we are not doing philosophy, but just describing our thoughts or imaginings.

I think you are confused. To 'know' something one's belief does not just have to be true, but also acquired in the right manner - that is, a manner approved of by reason. You do not have to have arrived at it by reasoning, but the manner does have to have been approved of by reason.

So, for instance, many of our beliefs are not inferred. I believe I am sat on a toilet 'doing a banno' because I apoear to be. But I have not inferred this, I just believe it and the belief was caused by how things appear. That belief is justified even though it was not a product of reasoning, because the mechanism of acquisition- being caused to believe x by an appearance of x- is approved of by reason.

But let's say you believe x because your people have a long tradition of believing it, or because you think believing it will make you happy. Well, even if the belief is true those do not seem like methods approved of by reason - they do not provide epistemic reason to believe in the truth of the beliefs in question. Thus, that's not knowledge.

Anyway, philosophy is not about having true beliefs. Just random guessing can, if one is lucky, give one true beliefs. Yet random guessing is not philosophy. It's not even about having knowledge, for one can know things without having done philosophy. Philosophy is about using reason to find out what's true.

Aesthetics is part of philosophy. But it doesn't involve making music or painting pictures but rather using reason to try and discern if there is anything all beautiful things have in common apart from being beautiful; whT beauty itself is, or more broadly what aesthetic reasons are. Those are philosophical questions.

Making music is not to be doing philosophy.

Murdering and burgling is not detective work, eventhough detectives investigate murders and burglings.

Yes. And I never said music was philosophy nor novels. But that they can provide good material for philosophy would be strange to deny.

On the broad topic this thread is about, I am curious: are there contemporary people in “non-Western” countries doing philosophy that is connected to the stuff done in “Western” countries, or vice versa? Basically: are the boundaries between regional philosophical traditions breaking down in the modern global world, or are they still there as much as they’ve ever been?

Like the difference between analytic and continental philosophy, although expressed in geographical terms, the difference is more one of style and method - perhaps tradition is the best word. So there are philosophers from the Eastern traditions practicing in Western universities - doubtless too few - and there are philosophers from the Western tradition practicing in the East.

Basically: are the boundaries between regional philosophical traditions breaking down in the modern global world, or are they still there as much as they’ve ever been? — Pfhorrest

There was a Japanese intellectual movement called the Kyoto School, ‘a group of 20th century Japanese thinkers who developed original philosophies by creatively drawing on the intellectual and spiritual traditions of East Asia, those of Mahāyāna Buddhism in particular, as well as on the methods and content of Western philosophy.‘ Highlights include Masao Abe Zen and Western Thought and extensive writing on Heidegger by Nishida (including comparisons of the conception of time in Heidegger and founder of the Sōtō Zen school, Eihei Dogen.)

SEP entry here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kyoto-school/

I think the sometimes maligned theosophical society helped foster a kind of philosophical globalism. Under the banner ‘no religion higher than truth’ they engaged for decades in cross-cultural and comparative studies in philosophy and spiritual traditions.

D T Suzuki, who’s wife was a prominent theosophist, also wrote comparative studies which were both religious and philosophical e.g. his Mysticism Christian and Buddhist.

So again, just to be clear - some people who are not using reason to find out what's true (so just making shit up and pronouncing it) are nevertheless doing philosophy, right? — Bartricks

No, not right. Philosophy is not just about statements of what’s true. Pronouncing what is true is only a narrow perspective of truth, even when informed by reason.

Eastern philosophy would then be one of the words we could use to refer to that activity - the activity of 'not' using reason but just making shit up or talking nonsense. Yes? — Bartricks

Again, no. Your dichotomous thinking is getting in the way. It doesn’t come down to whether or not they’re using reason, nor whether or not their statements are true. Eastern philosophy doesn’t refer to the activity, but the approach - one that recognises reason as insufficient.

'Western' philosophy means 'using reason to find the truth' (hence why Augustine is a western philosopher and not an 'African' philosopher) and any other region that precedes the word philosophy means 'bullshitting'. — Bartricks

No. ‘Western’ philosophy again refers to the approach, not the activity. I think that the tradition of ‘Western’ philosophy is to give primacy to reason. And you still haven’t shown me where you got the label ‘African philosophy’ from. Sounds like you’re ‘making shit up’, but I’m happy to be proven ignorant on this.

Yes. I agree. It's just that philosophy doesn't actually mean bullshitting. It is the practice of using reason to find the truth. And Western philosophy and philosophy turn out to be synonymous. Glad we agree. — Bartricks

No, we don’t agree. Not even close. But then, I’m not surprised to see you ignore or dismiss anything that doesn’t fit with your narrow worldview.

Your definition of philosophy seems equivalent to mine insofar as you accept that it is about seeking the truth about a matter. But you have said 'using the imagination'. Yes, but the imagination's role is secondary to that of reason. We cannot make something the case by just imagining it to be so. But we can use our imagination to engage in thought experiments to which our reason can be applied. But until or unless we make some appeal to reason we are not doing philosophy, but just describing our thoughts or imaginings. — Bartricks

Reason is the interaction of imagination and judgement - so no, the imagination’s role is essential to that of reason. We cannot make any appeal to reason without it. But we are no closer to a reliable model of truth without understanding how we fit in: how we get our information, where the gaps are in our awareness and how we compensate for this lack. Reason can’t tell us this. Without understanding, we are not doing philosophy, but just describing how we think things ought to be.

And I didn't deny it. Straw man.
Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find the truth.
Music isn't. Making it isn't. Listening to it isn't.
Nor is novel writing or reading. Nor is going for a walk in the hills. Yet all of these things may both inspire and be inspired by philosophy. But they're not themselves philosophy. Obviously.

In what sense, for an example, would you dismiss Mencius, Xunzi, and Mozi as not doing philosophy? A lot of the issues they argued about would be recognized in Western philosophy.

I wouldn't if they were doing philosophy. Why do you think I would? Were they arguing for the truth of certain propositions? Then they were doing philosophy. If not, not.
The point is they weren't doing 'Eastern' philosophy, just philosophy

Agree?

↪Jack Cummins I think you are confused. — Bartricks

Ah that's rich, the smugly insipid calling the kettle "confused". :lol:

Even your insults don't make sense.

Of course they don't, lil D-K ...

"Mr 180 Proof, you are drunk sir"
180 Proof: "And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning I will have shat myself"

Anyway, rather than try and insult me, why not give your ham walnut a workout and try and say something philosophical about the op.

Good. That was the point.

What point? Are you contradicting anything I have said in the oP?

Anyway, rather than try and insult me, why not give your ham walnut a workout and try and say something philosophical about the op. — Bartricks

Here's a two-fer, lil D-K, from p.1:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/525583

B.S

Say what you mean in English.

Here's what I think: either someone argues something, or they're a b.s artist who loves themselves more than evidence.

I will demonstrate this shortly

Here's what I think: either someone argues something, or they're a b.s artist who loves themselves more than evidence.

I will demonstrate this shortly — Bartricks

Many might think you already have.

↪180 Proof B.S — Bartricks

I love how reliably like clockwork you always prove how completely D-K you genuinely are (which is why you project so fuckin' much), lil troll. What will we do when finally the forum gods ban you? :rofl:

I said you're view of philosophy of presenting or giving arguments to be too narrow. And it makes sense to speak of different traditions: Eastern vs Western, Analytic or Continental or Pragmatism.

All I was getting at is that music and literature seem to me to offer plenty of philosophical material, not that they are philosophy in themselves, of course not.

Why do you think I am manifesting the Dunning Kruger effect?

You think my arguments are shite, right? Okay, fine. But what expertise do you have? Because that's really important in determining who is manifesting the Dunning-Kruger effect, right?

Would you agree, for instance, that if I am an expert and you are not, then the fact you think virtualy everything - heck, everything - I say is shite, indeed just 'trolling'- would be good evidence that you are the one manifesting the effect?

Your point in the second paragraph is an instance of the straw man fallacy. I never argued otherwise. So why do you keep making a point 'as if'it contradicts something I argued? Loads of philosophers gained inspiration from going for walks. That doesn't mean walking is philosophy or that philosophy is a kind of walking.
I am talking about philosophy. Not what inspires philosophers. But philosophy.

Asfm for your first, it doesn't make sense to draw those distinctions and you saying otherwise is question begging in this context. Argue a case. That is, address the OP, rather than just insist it is false.