Perhaps the ‘expertise’ being demonstrated here is in trading insults. — Possibility

A selection of OPs from this poster.

There are some who find reasoned argument oppressive, because reason only permits there to be one true view... — Bartricks

contemporary metaethics seems to be dominated by three main kinds of theory: naturalism, non-naturalism and expressivism. Each one is very stupid. I mean, just obviously false.... — Bartricks

most contemporary metaethicists reject divine command theory. But they are very stupid... — Bartricks

There are many - and almost invariably they lack any expertise in philosophy - who think that a famous experiment performed by Benjamin Libet somehow disproves that we have free will. Unsurprisingly, they're wrong. — Bartricks

Bolds added.

Engage at your peril. You're likely to be told you're wrong and stupid.

Engage at your peril. You're likely to be told you're wrong and stupid. — Wayfarer

Oh, I’m okay with being ‘wrong’ and ‘stupid’. Sticks and stones and all that. It just seemed like a waste of time and energy, which could have been spent actually discussing the topic. But I’m inclined to think the aim of the OP wasn’t really to discuss the topic, but to proclaim primacy of reason, which he seems to think is ‘doing philosophy’.

Well, you are right, the animosity generated here detracts from what little profit there might be in the topic.

It might be worth considering African Philosophy as a contrasting example to Western and Eastern philosophy. I commented before that the difference between Eastern and Western philosophy was...

...one of style and method - perhaps tradition is the best word. — Banno

Style and method here being contrasted with content.

I'll claim no competence in African Philosophy, although it is a term I've heard and read of for a few years. The SEP article, as usual, provides an authoritative overview.

The article makes it clear that the first problem for African philosophy is its own identity. There is no tradition that might be used to identify what is and what is not African philosophy, in the way there is for Western, Buddhist, Taoist, or Islamic philosophy. So we are in the curious position of being able to watch the construction of a tradition, gleaned from the themes of cultural diversity, geographic proximity, struggle, and diaspora.

For the purposes of this thread, the developing Africa philosophy highlights the poverty of the view that philosophy is in essence rational enquiry, somehow sequestered from the cultures in which it takes place.

One can either say "that ain't philosophy" and close one's mind, or watch on in anticipation of interesting things to come.

I'll claim no competence in African Philosophy, although it is a term I've heard and read of for a few years. The SEP article, as usual, provides an authoritative overview.

The article makes it clear that the first problem for African philosophy is its own identity. There is no tradition that might be used to identify what is and what is not African philosophy, in the way there is for Western, Buddhist, Taoist, or Islamic philosophy. So we are in the curious position of being able to watch the construction of a tradition, gleaned from the themes of cultural diversity, geographic proximity, struggle, and diaspora.

For the purposes of this thread, the developing Africa philosophy highlights the poverty of the view that philosophy is in essence rational enquiry, somehow sequestered from the cultures in which it takes place.

One can either say "that ain't philosophy" and close one's mind, or watch on in anticipation of interesting things to come. — Banno

Thank you! I’ve been asking about ‘African Philosophy’, which was mentioned and then rapidly dismissed based on one example, without so much as a reference to where the term came from. For all I know, he’d made it up.

I will read the SEP article and get back to you.

It might be worth considering African Philosophy as a contrasting example to Western and Eastern philosophy. I commented before that the difference between Eastern and Western philosophy was...
...one of style and method - perhaps tradition is the best word.
— Banno
Style and method here being contrasted with content. — Banno

I agree that the difference between Western and Eastern philosophy is more about tradition, in contrast with content (for the most part) in Africana philosophy. What seems most unique is articulate thinking about personhood, freedom and truth under circumstances of denying, oppressing or rebuilding these aspects of their existence.

For the purposes of this thread, the developing Africa philosophy highlights the poverty of the view that philosophy is in essence rational enquiry, somehow sequestered from the cultures in which it takes place. — Banno

I agree with this, too. I think an apparent primacy of reason is successfully challenged by Chinese, Indian and African philosophising, in different ways, as insufficient for a universal model of truth.

What seems most unique is articulate thinking about personhood, freedom and truth under circumstances of denying, oppressing or rebuilding these aspects of their existence. — Possibility

Yes! So worth keeping one eye on developments in that area.

And do you agree that this puts the lie to the notion that philosophy is somehow outside of wider social considerations? Philosophy is not positioned by rationality, whatever that is; nor by traditions, but acts of volition, as on the part of these folk self-consciously building an archetype.

The picture of philosophy that @Bartricks is working with can be seen as monolithic, stereotypical, and homogenous. In a word, boring.

The word Philosophy originated from the ancient Greeks, and it has 2500 years of tradition. In there, there are many schools and fields of different Philosophies and philosophers. So, it depends which philosophical school or fields one is talking about.

In other parts of the world, the word Philosophy has never existed. It was always Religion or Rules of How one should live based on their religions and political ideologies. Then they have wrongly called them Philosophy. Their interest is not about how to argue, analyse and know the world, God, freedom, self identity etc critically like the many Western philosophical tradition. Their purpose was how to live for the regime or their Religious principles or their Gods or get enlightenment or saved from this material worldly problems, just like Western Religions and Mysticism are about.

When you say Philosophy or Western Philosophy, it is vastly wide term of 2500 years of History of Philosophy. And there are many different types and schools of methods and ideas and topics they have been working on.

Outside of Western Philosophy, it would be wrong to term the other parts of the world's Religion or Political Ethics or Mysticism as Philosophy. Because they are simply Religion or Politics or Mysticism, which are not strictly Philosophy as such.

Sorry for my bad English. I am not a native English speaker, but I read Philosophy in English time to time.

Western philosophy is a woolly phrase, but it may be characterised by the endorsement of dualism and the rejection of mysticism. This has nothing to with geography, but there is a correlation with Western Christianity, which long ago banished and declared heretical the esoteric or gnostic reading of the scriptures. Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' clearly demonstrates this characteristic.

So I;d say 'Western philosophy' may be defined as the refusal to study the whole of philosophy. Heidegger defines it as a philosophy without the notion of 'Unity', which to me seems spot on. .

The word Philosophy originated from the ancient Greeks, and it has 2500 years of tradition. In there, there are many schools and fields of different Philosophies and philosophers. So, it depends which philosophical school or fields one is talking about.

In other parts of the world, the word Philosophy has never existed. It was always Religion or Rules of How one should live based on their religions and political ideologies. Then they have wrongly called them Philosophy. Their interest is not about how to argue, analyse and know the world, God, freedom, self identity etc critically like the many Western philosophical tradition. Their purpose was how to live for the regime or their Religious principles or their Gods or get enlightenment or saved from this material worldly problems, just like Western Religions and Mysticism are about.

When you say Philosophy or Western Philosophy, it is vastly wide term of 2500 years of History of Philosophy. And there are many different types and schools of methods and ideas and topics they have been working on.

Outside of Western Philosophy, it would be wrong to term the other parts of the world's Religion or Political Ethics or Mysticism as Philosophy. Because they are simply Religion or Politics or Mysticism, which are not strictly Philosophy as such. — Corvus

There’s something wrong with this picture.

I recognise that use of the word ‘philosophy’ developed out of the Aristotlean or ‘Western’ tradition. But its etymology suggests a ‘love of wisdom’, without qualification as to what ‘wisdom’ might be, or what practice might be employed in ‘loving’ it. So a broader application of the term than how we argue, analyse and know the world is well within the original field to which it refers.

Your argument is a bit like saying it would be wrong to term Aboriginal peoples’ response to death as ‘grief’, because the word never existed in the country for 40,000 years. Plus their response is not the same as the years of French and English tradition, from which the word originated. So we have wrongly called it grief.

And do you agree that this puts the lie to the notion that philosophy is somehow outside of wider social considerations? Philosophy is not positioned by rationality, whatever that is; nor by traditions, but acts of volition, as on the part of these folk self-consciously building an archetype. — Banno

Yes - this is similar to the point I was making earlier:

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. — Possibility

There’s something wrong with this picture.

I recognise that use of the word ‘philosophy’ developed out of the Aristotlean or ‘Western’ tradition. But its etymology suggests a ‘love of wisdom’, without qualification as to what ‘wisdom’ might be, or what practice might be employed in ‘loving’ it. So a broader application of the term than how we argue, analyse and know the world is well within the original field to which it refers.

Your argument is a bit like saying it would be wrong to term Aboriginal peoples’ response to death as ‘grief’, because the word never existed in the country for 40,000 years. Plus their response is not the same as the years of French and English tradition, from which the word originated. So we have wrongly called it grief. — Possibility

But we are not talking about purely Etymology here. We are talking about the origin as well the traditions, the contents and also methodology in Western Philosophy. Without these contents, the subject Philosophy will become empty and has to start from scratch.

According to your argument, even a guy who believes that if he sees a black cat in the morning, then it will be an unlucky day, should be called a Philosophy.

If you are talking in terms of any academic tradition and methodologies and historical aspects of Philosophy, I feel that we have to limit the scope of the subject.

But we are not talking about purely Etymology here. We are talking about the origin as well the traditions, the contents and also methodology in Western Philosophy. Without these contents, the subject Philosophy will become empty and has to start from scratch. — Corvus

And yet your argument is supported by the original use of the word. Sounds like etymology to me. You can’t have it both ways. And I think it’s narrow-minded to assume that no one else could have formed a tradition or methodology worthy of the term, when it’s evident that Chinese intellectuals prior to the Han dynasty developed a study of language and logic in relation to dao, parallel with the development of Western tradition, and without needing to ‘name’ it (a reductionist methodology they referred to as ming). Or that only content considered relevant in a particular historical or cultural experience is pertinent to a universal notion of truth. The subject of philosophy is far from empty without Western tradition.

According to your argument, even a guy who believes that if he sees a black cat in the morning, then it will be an unlucky day, should be called a Philosophy. — Corvus

Not that it should be, but that it can be.

If you are talking in terms of any academic tradition and methodologies and historical aspects of Philosophy, I feel that we have to limit the scope of the subject. — Corvus

Not to the point that you dismiss the diversity of tradition, content and methodology relevant to developing a universal model of truth. The development of Africana philosophy demonstrates that a model of truth limited to purely academic sources of tradition, content and methodology excludes a entire history of unique human experience.

Our clash with China is basic east and west differences. Our clash with Russia could be the same, as it is argued they are oriental, not western. In India, it is understood when we speak of one thing we also speak of its opposite.

It is egotistical to think Western linear logic is the only possible logic. It is not.

I am not trying to dismiss anything or being egotistic (it doesn't benefit me in whatever manner or fashion in any possible fantasies and imagination by the suggesters), but just saying that they are in different level or dimension.
A typical Chinese logic or philosophical system / methodology goes like this.

"When you call Tao, Tao, it is not already Tao." I think it is a famous saying by LaoZu or some influencing master of Chinese Religion. (Philosopher)

That is not logic in the same level of logic from Western traditional philosophy. In the Chinese teachings, one has to read that, and meditate for a while, and come to some enlightenment or understanding in his own head, rather than relying on human sensory perception and material existence validation for the perception or knowledge.

I mean, if you go to these LaoZu masters, and ask "Can you validate the external world and existence of God?", and they will simply say "Well mate keep meditating until it comes to your own head." or just rubbish the question, what on earth are you asking to validate the non sense, when you must keep meditating and learn the teachings of the masters."

In contrast, a typical Western Philosophical tradition could be well sensed from David Hume, when he said "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

So Eastern and Western philosophical traditions differ. I agree. All you have done is stipulate that "philosophy" ought be reserved for the Western tradition; you haven't given any cogent explanation for such chauvinism.

In the face of that, we have the widespread and long-standing convention of talking of Eastern and Western philosophy, to which has been added various other geographically based divisions.

These terms are useful; moreover, they are used.

Perhaps you are pissing upwind.

In other parts of the world, the word Philosophy has never existed. It was always Religion or Rules of How one should live based on their religions and political ideologies. Then they have wrongly called them Philosophy. Their interest is not about how to argue, analyse and know the world, God, freedom, self identity etc critically like the many Western philosophical tradition. Their purpose was how to live for the regime or their Religious principles or their Gods or get enlightenment or saved from this material worldly problems, just like Western Religions and Mysticism are about. — Corvus

Yes, that sounds correct to me. It is an abuse of language to refer to such practices - that is, the practice of just describing a worldview uncritically - as 'philosophy'. It suggests some kind of equivalence between those who do that - those who just describe - and those who follow evidence.

It is egotistical to think Western linear logic is the only possible logic. It is not. — Athena

What on earth are you on about?

This argument is valid, no?

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore P and Q

Does it matter where I am? If I'm in China right now, is it not valid?

Someone who thinks this argument is valid:

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore R

is an idiot, correct?

Or do they have a different 'logic' and their view is as good as anyone else's? If they reasoned that way in an essay, should I give them an A, or fail them? It's fail them, yes? Or should I not be doing that. When someone reasons like a total spanner, should I give them an A? Should I give everyone an A?

.

The Master said, "Yu, shall I teach you what knowledge is? When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it;-this is knowledge."

Tsze-kung asked what constituted the superior man. The Master said, "He acts before he speaks, and afterwards speaks according to his actions."

The Master said, "The superior man is catholic and not partisan. The mean man is partisan and not catholic."

The Master said, "Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous."

The Master said, "It is virtuous manners which constitute the excellence of a neighborhood. If a man in selecting a residence does not fix on one where such prevail, how can he be wise?"

The Master said, "Those who are without virtue cannot abide long either in a condition of poverty and hardship, or in a condition of enjoyment. The virtuous rest in virtue; the wise desire virtue."

The Master said, "When we see men of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves."

The Master said, "The reason why the ancients did not readily give utterance to their words, was that they feared lest their actions should not come up to them."
— link

http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.1.1.html

Here's quoted stuff, evidence against the 'lack of reason' in non-Western foolosophy.


The Buddha's epistemology has been compared to empiricism, in the sense that it was based on experience of the world through the senses.[39][40] The Buddha taught that empirical observation through the six sense fields (ayatanas) was the proper way of verifying any knowledge claims. Some suttas go further, stating that "the All", or everything that exists (sabbam), are these six sense spheres (SN 35.23, Sabba Sutta)[41] and that anyone who attempts to describe another "All" will be unable to do so because "it lies beyond range".[42] This sutta seems to indicate that for the Buddha, things in themselves or noumena, are beyond our epistemological reach (avisaya).[43][opinion]

Furthermore, in the Kalama Sutta the Buddha tells a group of confused villagers that the only proper reason for one's beliefs is verification in one's own personal experience (and the experience of the wise) and denies any verification which stems from personal authority, sacred tradition (anussava) or any kind of rationalism which constructs metaphysical theories (takka).[44] In the Tevijja Sutta (DN 13), the Buddha rejects the personal authority of Brahmins because none of them can prove they have had personal experience of Brahman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy



Utilizing the Buddha's theory of "dependent arising" (pratitya-samutpada), Nagarjuna demonstrated the futility of [...] metaphysical speculations. His method of dealing with such metaphysics is referred to as "middle way" (madhyama pratipad). It is the middle way that avoided the substantialism of the Sarvastivadins as well as the nominalism of the Sautrantikas.

In the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti)."[/quote]

Nāgārjuna's major thematic focus is the concept of śūnyatā (translated into English as "emptiness") which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anātman "not-self" and pratītyasamutpāda "dependent origination", to refute the metaphysics of some of his contemporaries. For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena (dhammas) are without any svabhāva, literally "own-being", "self-nature", or "inherent existence" and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being.

Nāgārjuna means by real any entity which has a nature of its own (svabhāva), which is not produced by causes (akrtaka), which is not dependent on anything else (paratra nirapeksha).[50]

To say that all things are 'empty' is to deny any kind of ontological foundation; therefore Nāgārjuna's view is often seen as a kind of ontological anti-foundationalism[53] or a metaphysical anti-realism.[54]

While some (Murti, 1955) have interpreted this by positing Nāgārjuna as a neo-Kantian and thus making ultimate truth a metaphysical noumenon or an "ineffable ultimate that transcends the capacities of discursive reason",[60] others such as Mark Siderits and Jay L. Garfield have argued that Nāgārjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth" (Siderits) and that Nāgārjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths.[60] Hence according to Garfield:

Suppose that we take a conventional entity, such as a table. We analyze it to demonstrate its emptiness, finding that there is no table apart from its parts […]. So we conclude that it is empty. But now let us analyze that emptiness […]. What do we find? Nothing at all but the table’s lack of inherent existence. […]. To see the table as empty […] is to see the table as conventional, as dependent.[61]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna

In the face of that, we have the widespread and long-standing convention of talking of Eastern and Western philosophy, to which has been added various other geographically based divisions.

These terms are useful; moreover, they are used.

Perhaps you are pissing upwind. — Banno

You can call anything under the Sun, Philosophy. It is up to you. But would it be wise, or meaningful?

If you are even half awake, you would want to limit the scope of Philosophy. After all large part of Philosophical tradition and methodology is about limiting and defining.

And you seem having symptomatic habit of falling back into personal attacks while debating philosophical topics.

I don't believe I was pissing upwind at all. I was just expressing what I was thinking on the topic. If you don't agree with someone, then just say so in clear and to the point, and why, if you believe it is worthwhile doing so. Nothing more or less. That is what is philosophical discussions are about.

But would it be wise, or meaningful? — Corvus

Well, let's take a look at SEP:


Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and Western

Science and Chinese Philosophy

African Ethics

Latinx Philosophy

Latin American Philosophy

Japanese Philosophy

Tibetan Epistemology and Philosophy of Language

That was just a few minutes work. Seems there are folk who think it wise and meaningful to look outside the Western cannon.

As I said, you can call whatever, as Philosophy. But from the Western Academic Philosophical point of view, I feel that they are just type of mysticism.

I know a friend of mine saying he has his unique view of his own life, and he calls it Philosophy of Dog Crap.

Well, the point was roughly that SEP is a bit of a paragon of philosophical thought, yet it includes various articles specifically about non-Western philosophy, hence perhaps a perspective more representative of the "Western Academic Philosophical point of view" would happily include non-Western philosophy.

My friend is a car mechanic, and I don't take him seriously for his alleged DC philosophical system. In fact, I think he just talks whole load of bs. To him, it is the best philosophy in history. I don't even know what it is about.

The picture of philosophy that Bartricks is working with can be seen as monolithic, stereotypical, and homogenous. In a word, boring. — Banno

You realize you've just dismissed philosophy. You find philosophy boring. B.S. is much more interesting to you. For that, after all, is all you deal in, right?

Real philosophers aren't trying to be clever, or have an interesting discussion: they're trying to close discussion down. You don't see that, do you? Because you're not a real philosopher. If there is overwhelming evidence that theory X is true, then there's nothing further to discuss.

Real philosophers aren't trying to be clever, or have an interesting discussion: they're trying to close discussion down. — Bartricks

Cool. So since you have everything figured out from indubitable first premises with pristine logic maybe close discussion down and don’t post again :wink:?

:wink:

so your argument is that you friend the car mechanic has a shit philosophy, and hence we ought not consider Eastern thought as philosophy.

That is not logic in the same level of logic from Western traditional philosophy. In the Chinese teachings, one has to read that, and meditate for a while, and come to some enlightenment or understanding in his own head, rather than relying on human sensory perception and material existence validation for the perception or knowledge. — Corvus

Well, to be more precise, it’s not the same type of logic as Western traditional philosophy, but it does nevertheless correspond to a model of truth - and one that is arguably more accurate than anything traditional Western philosophy could hope to wrestle into an assertion. But I’m not saying you shouldn’t keep trying. Drastically simplified, I think Chinese philosophy highlights the practical flaws in Western logic, and Africana philosophy highlights the missing experiential content in Western philosophical discussion.

so your argument is that you friend the car mechanic has a shit philosophy, and hence we ought not consider Eastern thought as philosophy. — Banno

no no never said that. you are getting into personal level again. always you seem to be targeting arguments or statement from others into the speaker himself in blaming or accusing tone, rather than keep on going with the topic itself.

Just gave you an example, how anything can be called a philosophy, but not all of them are strictly speaking, "Philosophy" under the scope of the Western Philosophical Tradition.