You would agree with me, then, that it is rather silly to talk of western philosophy as if it is something. We should just talk of 'philosophy' and pay no heed to where the philosopher happened to be born. — Bartricks

The criteria for these delineations are not as simple as 'where someone was born'. You would also object to the continental/analytic distinction I suppose? How about genres of music? There are only sounds afterall, so it doesn't make sense to talk of genres. ;)

oh, did you argue something? I didn't detect an argument. Just b.s. — Bartricks

There’s really no need to be rude. I wasn’t arguing, you were - it just wasn’t a particularly effective one. I was entering into a discussion. But that’s not how you do philosophy, is it?

I still haven't heard an answer to my question - there's a prominent proponent of moral particularism who is Chinese. I am familiar with his work. Does his work qualify as Chinese philosophy?
When I read philosophy articles, I typically don't notice who the author is. I read the content. I don't look or think about the author. I think I speak for most philosophers when I say that. After all, that's how the peer review system works. Articles are assessed on their own merits and authors have to avoid saying anything that would allow a reviewer to identify them. So articles stand alone and who wrote them is entirely irrelevant - which is good, no?

So again, am I reading Chinese philosophy when I read Peter Tsu's workonmoral particularism, or is Chinese philosophy something else? If so, what? — Bartricks

No, I don’t think his work should be referred to as ‘Chinese philosophy’, unless perhaps he refers to it that way himself - in which case I’d assume he’s differentiating his approach from what he would consider to be a ‘Western’ or ‘Indian’ foundation of thought. I don’t think it’s about where you were born, and I don’t think it’s a useful label outside of historical discussions comparing philosophical traditions or approaches. It certainly has nothing to do with his name or nationality.

What about when I read St Augustine - am i doing African philosophy? If not, why not? — Bartricks

Not in my book. As far as I’m aware there were three main culturally differentiated approaches or traditions in developing philosophy: Aristotlean or Western philosophy, Chinese and Indian. These labels refer to their foundations in thinking approaches and language structure, not to any permanent regional divide. From memory, St Augustine’s philosophy has a pretty standard ‘Aristotlean’ approach.

Do you think that we may have got to a point in Western thinking where many are starting to look beyond, to other ideas, especially to those within Eastern traditions? Western philosophy owes so much to the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm. However, after the shift to the new physics and systems approach to life, such as that described by Fritjof Capra, a different picture may be emerging.

Also, even on the this site, which is of course only a forum, but many people have read a fair amount, it does seem that some are going beyond Western ideas. I think that the reason for this is because so many individuals see some of the approaches within Western philosophy as being rather flat, and rather inadequate, for offering enough scope and depth for contemplation of the biggest questions.

Do you think that we may have got to a point in Western thinking where many are starting to look beyond, to other ideas, especially to those within Eastern traditions? — Jack Cummins

Certainly since the heyday of English & German Idealism, especially Schopenhauer, comparative philosophy – Western 'borrowings' from Eastern traditions – have been going on.

Western philosophy owes so much to the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm.

Yeah, no doubt. In my mind I charitably try to define & classify the prevailing "paradigms" (I like that word) of thought this way:

Western – Platonic-Aristotlean-Kalamic/Thomistic (ancient-to-medieval) & Cartesian-Hobbesian-Kantian (modern); thus, "enlightenment" in the West tends to be 'transcendental' (i.e. escape from eternity (i.e. fate) ... re: The Question).

Eastern – Hindu-Buddhist-Jain (Vedic) & Confucian-Daoist-Buddhist (Qin); thus, "enlightenment" in the East tends to be 'transcendent' (i.e. escape from time ... re: The Horizon).

Of course within each tradition there are counter-traditions ('left-hand ways') and in the last centuries of colonialism & globalism there have been, and continues to be, a great deal of cross-fertilization/contamination aka "comparative studies". Parasitical on this 'occidental-oriental' yin & yang (so to speak) has been the huckstering motley horde of Theosophers, Hermeticists, Perennialists, New Agers, Transpersonalists, New Physicists et al with their (pseudo-religious, pseudo-scientific) versions of "The Answer".

Btw, 'holism' & 'systems-thinking' have always been naturalistic (contra 'idealistic') currents of thought in both traditons, just as 'esoterica', or mysticial reveries & exercises, have always belonged to the idealistic (or spiritualist) paths, again, both East and West. There's overlap (such as the historically recent distinctions of 'philosophy & science' in the West and 'philosophy & religion' in the East) but incommensurable priorites & practices as well.

Yes, I do agree that there are certain amounts of overlap, and it may be a bit of an oversimplification to see the two perspective as being polarised, especially as there are so many different traditions and thinkers. It does seem that ideas of cross -fertilisation are emerging in so many thread at the moment, in the thread on mysticism, the one I created on mysteries and the one on esotericism. It seems like a general undercurrent on the site at present. In Western philosophy these ideas have often been cast outside.

I think that theosophy is a particularly interesting one, mainly because it challenged Western metaphysical ideas. Even though it has always been outside of most philosophical debate, it is interesting in the way that the Theosophical society had a purpose of trying to find links between the ideas of Christianity, Eastern philosophy, as well as the search for scientific knowledge. However, even though theosophy has not been respected highly within academic circles, I think that its influence cannot be ignored, mainly in the whole development of 'New Age', or 'Mind, body and spirit' movement within Western society.

This along with the ideas of Jung, Capra's 'The Tao of Physics', the Gnostic Gospels and many alternative thinkers have been so influential on a cultural level generally. On some level, they have been a challenge to philosophy, as well as some of the more traditional ideas within Christianity, and even some of the more standard models of science.

In Western philosophy these ideas have often been cast outside. — Jack Cummins

Well, taken out of their cultural contexts, I don't think "New Age ideas" belong to or in Eastern philosophies either. Cultural appropriation and syncretism are very facile, IMO, producing not much more than (fashionable) cosmic lollipops. I'm all for eclecticism, but not exotica-for-exotica's-sake. I've read quite a few posts where you and some others mention "looking for answers" through philosophy or mysticism, and I don't believe these endeavors contain or lead to "answers". That's why I suggest the distinct goals of the question & the horizon in their respective traditions, oversimplistic and overgeneralized though they may be, which seem correct to me in light of the histories scholarship and extant primary sources.

Why, Jack, do you think there are "answers" (to questions about "ultimate reality") that one can "seek" out and find? And what changes in your life do you expect to happen when you find "the answers"? And if the "seeking" is "perennial", doesn't that mean that the seeking itself is the only answer – "the path is the destination" – just like the ouroborous or a dog chasing its own tail?

Sorry if I'm coming across as an asshole but, like drug abuse and fundie religion, too many bright minds are blinkered by all these "New Age" "alternative ideas" which aren't new – same old woo-of-the gaps perennially repackaged – and aren't viable alternatives to intelligibly reflective inquiries & practices. I suppose my problem is – yeah, I cop to it being My Problem – with the lack of rigor and lack of a deep bite I've always found in the sort of esoteric literature you often mention or others quote from mistaking its obscurity for profundity or sacred writ. That's a jaw-full, I know, but all I'm asking, Jack, is wtf am I still missing after four decades of philosophical study discussion & reflection (as well as significant hallucinogenic/entheogenic experience) whereby I too have, as you say, "cast [a]side" these "alternative, New Age, ideas" (just like I'd done with otherworldly superstitions & most p0m0 sophistry)? I'm no shaman or sage, just a fool struggling daily through my recovery from foolery via simple living, musical juju & some dialectics. What does your third eye see when you read me between my li(n)es, friend? :smirk:

And if the "seeking" is "perennial", doesn't that mean that the seeking itself is the only answer – "the path is the destination" – just like the ouroborous or a dog chasing its own tail? — 180 Proof

Right and even the ability to do this kind of perennial move is a modern phenomenon, aided by the advance of tech/Internet and increasing globalisation. Are we to assume that the mystics and truthseekers of antiquity were shitouttaluck because they didn't have the capacity to do this perennial aggregation of insights? No, before perennialism, mystics looked inward - rather than far and wide - and this seemed to be enough to produce a variety of enlightened beings... If you buy into those stories anyway.

I agree that the 'new age' ideas are not equatable with the Eastern philosophy traditions. Yes, it is a good question why I keep looking for 'answers'. I think it is just the way I am really, but I do have a sense of humour about it all, especially about how I once had a tutor who told me that he thought that I should start a religion...

What do you mean? There are differentafeas of philosophy - normative ethics, metaethics epistemology, aesthetics and so on. And lots of different positions within each area. All consistent with philosophy being the practice of using reason to find the truth.

And yes, I would of course reject the continental analytic distinction. What use is it? If someone says they specialize in continental philosophy then I think that they are not a philosopher at all but just someone who specializes in saying nothing eloquently (and thus they belong in and English department, not philosophy).

Curiouser and curiouser. So once more, what's Western philosophy, then? I have said what I think it is: it's just philosophy and the word western is redundant. You seem to confirm that, for you agree that Peter Tsu is not doing Chinese philosophy despite the fact he's Chinese and a philosopher, and that St Augustine wasn't doing African philosophy despite the fact he was African and a philosopher. Now I'd say it's because Peter Tsu and St Augustine are actual philosophers - they both use reasoned argument to seek the truth rather than using b.s to impress the ignorant.

So, can we agree then that to qualify as doing 'Eastern' philosophy or what have you, it's important that you 'not' be using reason to find out what's true?

No, I obviously do not agree with that. What do you mean by Western philosophy? Do you mean 'using reason to find out what's true'? That is, do you just mean 'philosophy'? Or what? I mean, that was the question. So what are you talking about??

And if you do indeed mean 'using reason to find out what's true', then what on earth do you mean by 'going beyond' it? Do you mean just making stuff up? Do you mean waiting until someone says some sounds that make you feel all mystical and important and then just believing what they say because you like feeling mystical and important? Is that 'going beyond'? Why not just read proper philosophy while drunk - it'll induce the same feelings. Is that going beyond?

Philosophy is just love of wisdom in the most abstract sense. To disqualify a whole tradition - continental - because it doesn't fit your narrow perspective, is simply a show of phobosophy.

Poor old St Augustine. He is one of the giants of philosophy whose influence has been gargantuan. And he was African. Yet according to the self appointed b.s artists who decide these things, he wasn't doing 'African philosophy'. Odd. Was he not African enough? No, can't be that - he was African and proud of it. Was he not philosophical enough? Can't be that either. Vast output, constantly changing his views in light of further reflection. Was it that he wasn't full of shit? Hmmm.

That's not a quote from me. That's you.

Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true.

It can be used and abused. But that's the basic idea.

The b.s. artists who like to talk vaguely of 'other philosophical traditions' are not interested in using reason to find out what's true. They are interested in striking the right pose. They are posers. Empty kettles.

Fixed my post.

Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true. — Bartricks

Give one example of a truth arrived at by pure reason.

I do think that your idea of reasoning as philosophy works in many ways and it is likely that the use of reason has been important to human beings of all cultural traditions. However, I am not convinced that rationality is the only means of knowledge, but it became central to the philosophy of the enlightenment.

In thinking of the whole spectrum of knowing, Jung's model of the four functions can also be considered. These are: reason, sensation, feeling and intuition. Jung suggests that most people have a dominant function, and usually one or more which are barely developed at all. He sees the ideal as being able to make use of all four functions. Could it be that many Western thinkers have developed rational explanations, but with some lack of attention to the other three forms of experience?

no true proposition is also false.

The conclusion of this argument is true if the premises are:

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

And so on.

But you miss the point spectacularly. Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find the truth. That doesn't presuppose that we ready know what's true, but that we don't.

It's like me saying that mountaineering is the practice of trying to climb mountains and you replying 'name me a mountain that has been successfully climbed'

Well it's good to know that all the universities and all the professionals and amateurs are wrong in thinking about Eastern philosophy as a tradition that is different from the Western one.

They don't- some think like me. Why not just reflect on the op and see if you agree rather than appealing to authority

no true proposition is also false.

The conclusion of this argument is true if the premises are:

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

And so on.

But you miss the point spectacularly. Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find the truth. That doesn't presuppose that we ready know what's true, but that we don't.

It's like me saying that mountaineering is the practice of trying to climb mountains and you replying 'name me a mountain that has been successfully climbed' — Bartricks

How do you determine whether a proposition is true? How were the logical forms discovered? How do you know the law of noncontradiction holds for everything in reality? Have you tested everything in reality? The answers to those questions leads outside the realm of reasoning, towards observation of empirical facts. Hence, philosophy is not based on reason alone.

Your last paragraph is way off and hardly worth a response.

I have thought deeply on the topic. I even put my chin on the back of my hand and pondered. Which leads me to what you told me:

If they're not making an argument, then they're not philosophers. — Bartricks

So Lao Tzu makes no arguments? Did Socrates give arguments or was it Plato?

The point, as I see it, is that it's not clear what should be called philosophy and what should not be called philosophy. Case in point would be Newton and Kant. Both were scientists and philosophers.

If you tell me there's nothing of philosophical relevance in novels or music, then what you think of philosophy must be quite narrow.

Is 'Chicago Blues' just a misleading term for 'Blues'?

I mean, what does 'Chicago' Blues mean? Does it mean Blues 'as practiced' in Chicago? But that's just 'Blues'. There's nothing 'Chicago' about it. It is just the practice of using a thirds, fifths or sevenths to make music. So it can't mean that, as the word 'Chicago' is doing no work.

Does it denote the entire collection of recordings that have been made by Blues musicians who fell out of vaginas in Chicago? Well, in that case it is not a helpful term at all, given that those are very different and the only thing they all have in common is that those who recorded them did so by using thirds, fifths or sevenths.

Or does it - and I think this is increasingly the case - function to express contempt at the very exercise of using a thirds, fifths or sevenths to make music? There are some who find thirds, fifths or sevenths oppressive, because thirds, fifths or sevenths only permit there to be one true Blues, and thus if one undertakes to use thirds, fifths or sevenths to make music, one is almost certain to discover that many of one's preexisting views about making music are false. Practitioners of Blues - proper Blues - are therefore imperialist oppressors, who are trying to colonize others at a conceptual level with their Chicago music. 'Chicago' has previously practiced musical colonisation, and all 'Chicago' music represents is the attempt to extend the colonisation to the realm of Jazz.


Or is this just a bunch of hooey.

This is our exchange:
Me: mountaineering is the practice of trying to climb mountains. Eastern mountaineering is either mountaineering in the east or, if it does not involve trying to climb any mountains, it is just a misleading name for something that isn't mountaineering.

You: name me some mountains that have been successfully climbed.

Me: Everest. K2. Lots and lots.

You: how do you determine if a mountain has been climbed? Your last answer didn't deserve a reply, because I didn't understand its relevance and if I don't understand something it doesn't deserve a reply because i'm 8.

Have you read Lao Tzu? Give me one of his arguments.

Both Socrates and Plato made arguments.

Do I have an unduly narrow concept of bakery if I don't consider music a form of it?

You said what Chicago blues denotes and then said 'it can't mean that'. So, you know, great example!
Here's another equally inept one: what's Chicago pizza? Is it just a pizza that's in Chicago? No. Is it a pizza in which the tomato sauce is on top of the cheese?
Er, yes. That's what it is.
Now what is Eastern philosophy? Tell me Banno. Is it bullshit, perhaps? That is, 'not philosophy at all, but an excuse to talk crap under the banner of doing philosophy while refusing to clarify what one is talking about and rejecting all rational scrutiny as forms of oppression'? Coz that's my working definition.

Tedious. Stop focusing on me and address the Blues

I did. Stop trying to be me. You don't have the substance or wit. That one was focused on you. See?

No, you are a derailer who prefers to address me than anything in the Blues. So, try again without- without - expressing your view about me. See if you can.

Are you 6? Pathetic. Argue something or go away, stalker.

Have you read Lao Tzu? Give me one of his arguments.

Both Socrates and Plato made arguments.

Do I have an unduly narrow concept of bakery if I don't consider music a form of it? — Bartricks

Not in a while. Though some here would give you many very detailed arguments.

Just open the book, read any page. Tell me those aren't arguments. In fact, they seem to me to be practically identical with Wittgenstein's mysticism in the Tractatus.

Of course, if you think the "Tao" is a bad idea or something which makes no sense, then it won't be of any use to you.

But the same can be said about Heidegger when he uses the word "being" in Being and Time.

Well, if you don't consider music to have philosophical aspects, then you can say that aesthetics is not a part of philosophy, nor is the perception of sound, much less are you able to say why we consider some noise to be just that, noise, and why in other situations noise is perceived by us as music.

So yes, leaving the arts out of philosophy would be a mistake.