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
oh, did you argue something? I didn't detect an argument. Just b.s. — Bartricks
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
What about when I read St Augustine - am i doing African philosophy? If not, why not? — Bartricks
Certainly since the heyday of English & German Idealism, especially Schopenhauer, comparative philosophy – Western 'borrowings' from Eastern traditions – have been going on.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
Yeah, no doubt. In my mind I charitably try to define & classify the prevailing "paradigms" (I like that word) of thought this way:Western philosophy owes so much to the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm.
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.In Western philosophy these ideas have often been cast outside. — Jack Cummins
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
Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true. — Bartricks
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
If they're not making an argument, then they're not philosophers. — Bartricks
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.