... a model of truth - and one that is arguably more accurate than anything traditional Western philosophy could hope to wrestle into an assertion. — Possibility

So which "model of truth" do you use in order to decide that an Eastern "model of truth" "is ... more accurate than" a Western "model of truth"?

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. — Possibility

I don't think my argument is drastic simplification. Even in Western Philosophies, each school have tried to re-define what Philosophy is, or must be. For instance, in Kant, Philosophy is mainly to limit human knowledge and understanding. In 20th century, Existential philosophers, their definition of Philosophy is, defining what human existence is. They are not concerned much with the problem of validating external world or proving existence of God, but they have been focusing on human, life and freedom.
In Analytical Philosophy, nothing is really philosophy unless it is to do with verifying and clarifying meanings of linguistic concepts. So, I have been talking from the main tradition of Western Philosophy, and from what I think Philosophy should be. It is not black and white or mathematical conclusion.

If anyone is starting to philosophizing, then first he / she should start with defining what philosophy is and should be. Otherwise, it tends to become an Art of Mysticism in the end. And if different school of philosophers debate about a philosophical topic, it juste tends to end with a piece of soap or comedy episode, unless they agree or understand, on what ground or definition of philosophy they are debating.

But see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/527587

...multiple examples.

... a model of truth - and one that is arguably more accurate than anything traditional Western philosophy could hope to wrestle into an assertion.
— Possibility
So which "model of truth" do you use in order to decide that an Eastern "model of truth" "is ... more accurate than" a Western "model of truth"? — 180 Proof

Fair point. Perhaps ‘arguably’ is the wrong word.

I don't think my argument is drastic simplification. — Corvus

Didn’t say it was, and I don’t think it is - I was admitting that MY summary which followed was a drastic simplification.

Even in Western Philosophies, each school have tried to re-define what Philosophy is, or must be. For instance, in Kant, Philosophy is mainly to limit human knowledge and understanding. In 20th century, Existential philosophers, their definition of Philosophy is, defining what human existence is. They are not concerned much with the problem of validating external world or proving existence of God, but they have been focusing on human, life and freedom.
In Analytical Philosophy, nothing is really philosophy unless it is to do with verifying and clarifying meanings of linguistic concepts. So, I have been talking from the main tradition of Western Philosophy, and from what I think Philosophy should be. It is not black and white or mathematical conclusion. — Corvus

Well, Bartricks seems adamant that it IS black and white, so unfortunately there is some forcefulness in a few responses here.

Your perspective can be described as the core tradition of Western Philosophy - I’m not arguing with you there. In light of the various alternative definitions of ‘philosophy’ that you’ve described here, would you agree that yours is a relatively narrow view, even for Western Philosophy?

If anyone is starting to philosophizing, then first he / she should start with defining what philosophy is and should be. Otherwise, it tends to become an Art of Mysticism in the end. And if different school of philosophers debate about a philosophical topic, it juste tends to end with a piece of soap or comedy episode, unless they agree or understand, on what ground or definition of philosophy they are debating. — Corvus

I can’t say that I agree with this, but I think I get where you’re coming from. Philosophy can descend quickly into pointless and frustrating argument when participants can’t even agree on what philosophy is. Case in point: this thread. But the main problem here was not that participants disagreed on a definition of philosophy, but that they weren’t willing to broaden their definition to accommodate the other in a discussion space. This, for me, is the whole point of doing philosophy. It’s the practical aspect as taught in schools: creating a community of ideas. It is entirely possible to have a fruitful philosophical discussion when we’re clear on where we disagree, but are willing to enter a discussion space that allows for alternative viewpoints.

What this Western tradition seems to do is push for a reduction, a limiting of human knowledge and understanding, in order to come to definitive conclusions that can be stated and recognised as universally true. This, to me, is not philosophy, not a love of wisdom, it’s a love of certainty - it’s debate.

Yes, I would agree with you. From Oriental or Chinese Philosophical tradition, the Western Philosophical Traditions and Methodologies and the Ideas, by and large might looked upon not making sense or meaningless. This is natural, because they have totally different goals, methodologies and ideas on their system. So Philosophy of the World is much divided and separated.

But if we just consider the origin of the word "Philosophy", outside of the Western tradition, they did not even have a word meaning "Philosophy". They started using the word philosophy only not long ago when they heard the word Philosophy from the West. And then they named anything and everything remotely resembled things as Philosophy.

The main difference of Western tradition is the way they acquire knowledge and truths. It must come from your own reason and sensory mechanism. The other traditions knowledge and truths come from anywhere and everywhere, and in many cases, they don't ask and analyse in critical manner. They are just told to believe things or feel things, and do and follow as told. They call it wisdom and truth and knowledge.

Now this is not just big difference but they are in totally different dimension. Do you still want to call it Philosophy in academic sense? Its up to you, but to me it is illusion and self deception.

Philosophy is a unique subject where one must start from nothing, but doubt. And feel free to ask until all doubts exhaust and the certainties emerges based on logic, reason and sensory perceptions, To me, that is a genuine Philosophy. Your mileage may vary of course.

From Oriental or Chinese Philosophical tradition, the Western Philosophical Traditions and Methodologies and the Ideas, by and large might looked upon not making sense or meaningless. This is natural, because they have totally different goals, methodologies and ideas on their system. So Philosophy of the World is much divided and separated. — Corvus

I disagree with this. I don’t think they’re either meaningless or totally different, just approaching things from a different angle. What I think is divided and separated is us.

But if we just consider the origin of the word "Philosophy", outside of the Western tradition, they did not even have a word meaning "Philosophy". They started using the word philosophy only not long ago when they heard the word Philosophy from the West. And then they named anything and everything remotely resembled things as Philosophy. — Corvus

So, you’re saying they misappropriated the term? That they should have gotten permission from those who originally coined it? That everything in the world should stay divided and separated? Or only Philosophy?

The main difference of Western tradition is the way they acquire knowledge and truths. It must come from your own reason and sensory mechanism. The other traditions knowledge and truths come from anywhere and everywhere, and in many cases, they don't ask and analyse in critical manner. They are just told to believe things or feel things, and do and follow as told. They call it wisdom and truth and knowledge.

Now this is not just big difference but they are in totally different dimension. Do you still want to call it Philosophy in academic sense? Its up to you, but to me it is illusion and self deception. — Corvus

I’m beginning to wonder how much you’ve looked into ‘the other traditions’. What you’re describing sounds like the error we make when we see a group of people from a different ethnic group, and are unable to tell them apart from each other. ‘They all look the same’, we say. All we can see is the way they’re all alike in their difference. Once we get to know them as people, we start to see how they differ from each other, and each have their own uniqueness. Then we can start to see that they’re not so different from us, after all. There are many ways that we’re alike, and much we can learn from each other.

I agree that other traditions do glean knowledge and truth from sources that Western tradition would dismiss as ‘uncertain’, but I would argue that they have methodologies that enable them to approach these in a critical manner. They ask different questions, and in doing so discover that knowledge is not always truth and truth is not always wisdom. That our sensory mechanisms and reason are both influenced by a third player, what we name ‘desire’ ‘fear’, ‘emotion’ or ‘affect’. And that trying to simply ignore, isolate or exclude this information keeps us from completing a reliable model of truth. As does trying to control it without understanding it, or surrendering to it. There are more effective ways to complete the model, but they require physical and emotional as well as mental discipline. Stating what is true will never be sufficiently true. ‘The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao’.

They are not just told to believe things or feel things - they are instructed to imagine and to experience what lies beyond knowledge and truth, to see how reason is formed, and recognise its limitations. They call it the Way to wisdom - not wisdom itself, nor truth nor knowledge.

So, yes - I do still think this is Philosophy in an academic sense. What you call ‘illusion’ is thinking the words are all you need. And what you call ‘self-deception’ is thinking you can acquire wisdom theoretically.

Philosophy is a unique subject where one must start from nothing, but doubt. And feel free to ask until all doubts exhaust and the certainties emerges based on logic, reason and sensory perceptions, To me, that is a genuine Philosophy. Your mileage may vary of course. — Corvus

Hang on - the origin of this is Descartes...

You seem to have been deeply confused between racism and clarification. If one says, ok your idea is not philosophy, and you don't have philosophy as such, therefore you are inferior and you should not be sitting in the same train as us, or you have no right to vote, then this is racism.

But when one says, your idea is not philosophy, and historically your part of the world has never had a vocabulary describing Philosophy. But you can still use the word philosophy to whatever idea you feel it fits to be described as philosophy, if you want. It is up to you. But from my point of view, it is not Philosophy in strict sense. It is wrong, it is illusion and self deception on your part doing so. This is a clarification. That is not racism at all. It is just an opinion and argument.

This is a serious and typical problem when debating philosophical topics with non philosophical people. They somehow misinterpret the other party's argument, and then blow up into racism or sexism or whatever isms they want, and attack the other party personally and emotionally. I feel that it is also global effect of Internet SNS age, and should be avoided. Because it feels like that they are not into serious philosophical discussion as such, but are trying to accuse and punish others using the debates. It seems now global trend, that if you hate or disagree with someone, then just accuse him of racism, sexism or sexual harassment, and he will be taken off from the society next day. This is a serious crime itself, and should be stopped at all costs. Not good.

Well, Descartes, yes he is one of the most influencing classic Western Philosophers in history. I was not talking about a particular Western philosophy as such, but the Western Philosophical Tradition. It has had many different schools of different ideas and philosophical system in its history, so you cannot say this is What Western Philosophy is, in one sentence. But I have been talking about the evolutionary traditions which took place for 2500 years, and said this is what I think it is.
I will pick out ideas from Descartes, Hume or Kant, Hegel, Heidegger or Plato, where I agree with their points and methodology.

After all, one of the reasons we study and read History of Philosophy and the Classic Philosophers is that so we want to learn their ideas and systems, analyse, reject what we don't agree, accept what we agree, so that we could use the bits in moulding our own philosophy.

And ok, you mentioned "Philosophy means Love of Wisdom." Well, that was 2500 years ago, and it is really Etymological definition. If you want to stick to that, then be my guest. Where will you arrived with that?

That is how it started, but it has had 2500 years of evolution. At times, there have been many Western Philosophers who were devoid of any sense of logical thinking or system based on reason time to time due to the social and historical environment and maybe personal differences maybe.

In fact during most of the medieval period, your know that Philosophy had to hide underground due to fear of the persecutions from the religious authorities in most parts of Europe. But they bounced back with the Enlightenment period of pre modern Europe, which had many important and influencing philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, Berkley, Lock, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger .... hundreds and thousands of them, name but few.

We are talking about that traditions, not a particular philosophy, which gives foundation for the accurate and meaningful definition of Philosophy.

And to me, from that tradition, Philosophy is a systematic methodology of subject which is totally based on logic and reason, which clarifies on all ideas and things in this universe. You shouldn't be afraid asking any questions when in doubt, or disagree on something and everything until it is crystal clear to all of us. And from the universal faculty we have which is called reason and logic in our mind, even a child or an old man in Tibet would understand and agree when it is critically analysed and put down with the conclusion, whatever topic or idea it was, when philosophically debated. At least that should be our attitude, although it might be challenging often than said, I believe.

Yeah, racism is a bit strong. Chauvinism would be a better noun for what you advocate.

You seem to have been deeply confused between racism and clarification. If one says, ok your idea is not philosophy, and you don't have philosophy as such, therefore you are inferior and you should not be sitting in the same train as us, or you have no right to vote, then this is racism.

But when one says, your idea is not philosophy, and historically your part of the world has never had a vocabulary describing Philosophy. But you can still use the word philosophy to whatever idea you feel it fits to be described as philosophy, if you want. It is up to you. But from my point of view, it is not Philosophy in strict sense. It is wrong, it is illusion and self deception on your part doing so. This is a clarification. That is not racism at all. It is just an opinion and argument.

This is a serious and typical problem when debating philosophical topics with non philosophical people. They somehow misinterpret the other party's argument, and then blow up into racism or sexism or whatever isms they want, and attack the other party personally and emotionally. I feel that it is also global effect of Internet SNS age, and should be avoided. Because it feels like that they are not into serious philosophical discussion as such, but are trying to accuse and punish others using the debates. It seems now global trend, that if you hate or disagree with someone, then just accuse him of racism, sexism or sexual harassment, and he will be taken off from the society next day. This is a serious crime itself, and should be stopped at all costs. Not good. — Corvus

I’m not the one confused. I said nothing about ‘racism’ - I spoke about opinion or argument. I asked if you agreed that yours was a narrow perspective, but you’re assuming that I’m trying to eject you from society under some heinous accusation or label. You’re defending your right to restrict what contributes to thinking about truth, by claiming some privileged label of ‘philosophy’. Yes, I am drawing clear parallels with narrow opinion and argument that might be construed as chauvinist, but you’re excluding what I’m revealing as not a ‘serious philosophical discussion’ because...what? I didn’t use the correct language? Or are you arguing with someone else... a strawman, perhaps? Go back and read what I wrote - you seem to be reading a lot more into the words than is there.

Well, Descartes, yes he is one of the most influencing classic Western Philosophers in history. I was not talking about a particular Western philosophy as such, but the Western Philosophical Tradition. It has had many different schools of different ideas and philosophical system in its history, so you cannot say this is What Western Philosophy is, in one sentence. But I have been talking about the evolutionary traditions which took place for 2500 years, and said this is what I think it is.
I will pick out ideas from Descartes, Hume or Kant, Hegel, Heidegger or Plato, where I agree with their points and methodology.

After all, one of the reasons we study and read History of Philosophy and the Classic Philosophers is that so we want to learn their ideas and systems, analyse, reject what we don't agree, accept what we agree, so that we could use the bits in moulding our own philosophy. — Corvus

Yes, and another reason is to understand and develop a universal model of truth. You referred to it as ‘genuine Philosophy’, not as your philosophy. You are entitled to your opinion, and to your own philosophy. I have never once disregarded this, or told you that you were wrong. But I will continue to argue that your view is narrow, even for Western Philosophical tradition. If you are going to argue for a universal model of truth, making claims to ‘genuine Philosophy’, then you can’t have it both ways. You can’t make assertions which blatantly dismiss all dissenting argument as ‘wrong’, and then put your hands up and say ‘Stop attacking, it’s just my opinion’. Either it’s one opinion of many, in which case your philosophy is as ‘wrong’ as everyone else’s, or it’s an argument for an objectively privileged label of ‘genuine Philosophy’, in which case I stand by my description of ‘narrow’.

In the end philosophy is philosophy but people are also part of they’re culture.

In fact during most of the medieval period, your know that Philosophy had to hide underground due to fear of the persecutions from the religious authorities in most parts of Europe. But they bounced back with the Enlightenment period of pre modern Europe, which had many important and influencing philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, Berkley, Lock, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger .... hundreds and thousands of them, name but few. — Corvus

This ‘Philosophy’ has a persona now? Or is it a particular species of thought? I’m intrigued by your reference to ‘evolution’, implying that there is something distinctly identifiable as ‘Philosophy’ that runs through the evolution of human philosophical thought. That it’s not just an account of how your own philosophy can be seen to have ‘evolved’ in an historical sense.

You shouldn't be afraid asking any questions when in doubt, or disagree on something and everything until it is crystal clear to all of us. — Corvus

You also shouldn’t be afraid of doubt, or of uncertainty - of recognising that the limitations in our capacity for knowledge does not mean that only one of us is ‘right’, but that all of us are ‘wrong’ in some way. And you shouldn’t be afraid of ‘information’ that is not as clear or certain as we would like it to be. Because truth isn’t about the clarity of the ‘information’ itself, but about the accuracy in how it is processed into thoughts, words AND actions.

And from the universal faculty we have which is called reason and logic in our mind, even a child or an old man in Tibet would understand and agree when it is critically analysed and put down with the conclusion, whatever topic or idea it was, when philosophically debated. At least that should be our attitude, although it might be challenging often than said, I believe. — Corvus

You mean utilising only the particular faculty which ‘Philosophy’ has labelled ‘reason and logic’, anyone who follows the strict methodology of ‘Philosophy’ and uses the same language will arrive at the same conclusion as ‘Philosophy’. Hmm. No surprises there. But what if this ‘Philosophy’ is inaccurate? How can you tell?

We are talking about that traditions, not a particular philosophy, which gives foundation for the accurate and meaningful definition of Philosophy. — Corvus

But what is it about these ‘traditions’ that render them unquestionable? If you were taught to follow ONLY Christian traditions as foundation for the accurate and meaningful definition of ‘God’, how can you tell if your definition is accurate? Wouldn’t the same doubt apply to the philosophical traditions you follow? Wouldn’t you be expected to account for information that casts these traditions into doubt, rather than simply dismiss them as ‘wrong’? Even if it threatens the very existence of ‘God’ or ‘Philosophy’?

And ok, you mentioned "Philosophy means Love of Wisdom." Well, that was 2500 years ago, and it is really Etymological definition. If you want to stick to that, then be my guest. Where will you arrived with that?

That is how it started, but it has had 2500 years of evolution. At times, there have been many Western Philosophers who were devoid of any sense of logical thinking or system based on reason time to time due to the social and historical environment and maybe personal differences maybe. — Corvus

So, you don’t think Philosophy has anything to do with wisdom anymore? Or do you think its focus is more or less than wisdom? Not ALL wisdom, or only what can be proven? You keep referring to tradition as the foundation, based on the original application of the term, and yet the etymology is somehow inadequate. I intend to approach wisdom - where will you arrive?

And these Western Philosophers who appeared to lack a system based on reason: did they pose difficult questions and challenges that contributed to the restructuring or ‘evolution’ of Western Philosophical thinking/discussion as you see it?

Yeah, racism is a bit strong. Chauvinism would be a better noun for what you advocate. — Banno

I didn't advocate anything. I made clarification. Calling it chauvinism is your judgement from your own emotion. Not a fact or knowledge.

So, you don’t think Philosophy has anything to do with wisdom anymore? Or do you think its focus is more or less than wisdom? Not ALL wisdom, or only what can be proven? — Possibility

Wisdom is too abstract and relative term. I think it was meant to mean "knowledge", but it still too wide and loose. What was wisdom to you could look stupidity to others. And it changes case by case, and time to time. There is no such object called "wisdom". It is a word to describe someone's mental attitude or decision when it resulted in positive outcome for the person.
Surely that cannot be what Philosophy is. It was a textbook description of Western Philosophy in history. I advise you not to take it seriously or put your life on it. Because things have moved on.

Calling it chauvinism is your judgement — Corvus

Oh, sure. I think you are being chauvinistic. I'm happy with that.

Oh, sure. I think you are being chauvinistic. I'm happy with that. — Banno

I think your judgement is groundless, weird and wrong. :)

Good for you.

Thing is, the SEP stuff I shared shows that philosophy is far broader than you would allow. All you have done is stipulate that "philosophy" ought be reserved for the Western tradition.

Yawn.

I intend to approach wisdom - where will you arrive? — Possibility

yeah, what truths or knowledge can you manage or expect to have from the simple saying "It is a love of wisdom."? So what?

I feel, it is better to have narrower and stricter definition of Philosophy, if we purport to arrive somewhere more meaningful and productive conclusions from the system, ideas or debates.

Others have noticed that the vast landscapes of human history, experience and culture provides unexpected perspectives, differing connotations, and - surprises. These are valuable both as source material to compare or contrast with existing thought, and in their own right.

But it seems you can't see that, which is a pity.

Others have noticed that the vast landscapes of human history, experience and culture provides unexpected perspectives, differing connotations, and - surprises. These are valuable both as source material to compare or contrast with existing thought, and in their own right.

But it seems you can't see that, which is a pity. — Banno

I have not been denying it. I was just saying they are different. What has to be said to get through to you, I fail to understand. You seem in perpetual negativity and denial just for sake of it.

Whatever.

cheer up

Life ain't that bad. :)

yeah, what truths or knowledge can you manage or expect to have from the simple saying "It is a love of wisdom."? So what? — Corvus

I had already offered a broad, practical definition of philosophy that doesn’t bet everything on reason confined by tradition.

Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth. — Possibility

Wisdom is an accurate model of truth. Arguably not a what, but a how. And love is the way we each increase awareness, connection and collaboration with this potentiality, and actualise this model in our interactions.

I feel, it is better to have narrower and stricter definition of Philosophy, if we purport to arrive somewhere more meaningful and productive conclusions from the system, ideas or debates. — Corvus

Meaningful to whom? Productive for whom? For you? So long as you ignore, isolate or exclude any challenging material, nothing can mess with your system...

Others have noticed that the vast landscapes of human history, experience and culture provides unexpected perspectives, differing connotations, and - surprises. These are valuable both as source material to compare or contrast with existing thought, and in their own right.

But it seems you can't see that, which is a pity.
— Banno

I have not been denying it. I was just saying they are different. What has to be said to get through to you, I fail to understand. You seem in perpetual negativity and denial just for sake of it. — Corvus

You have been denying it. You see no value in source material that doesn’t follow your strict protocol. At best, you afford them the position of being ‘wrong’.

Meaningful to whom? Productive for whom? For you? So long as you ignore, isolate or exclude any challenging material, nothing can mess with your system... — Possibility

Meaningful to whom? It depends on what one wants to achieve. If your goal is clarifying muddled ideas by others, coming to logical and clear conclusions, that is meaningful to you. If your idea is just to keep asking and arguing without purpose or destination confusing and complicating while emotionally cracking up, then it would feel meaningless and look futile.

You have been denying it. You see no value in source material that doesn’t follow your strict protocol. At best, you afford them the position of being ‘wrong — Possibility

Clarifying and classifying is not denial. Please don't mix emotion into it.

Meaningful to whom? It depends on what one wants to achieve. If your goal is clarifying muddled ideas by others, coming to logical and clear conclusions, that is meaningful to you. If your idea is just to keep asking and arguing without purpose or destination confusing and complicating while emotionally cracking up, then it would feel meaningless and look futile. — Corvus

Is that what you think I’m doing? Or is this another strawman argument? Try reading my definition again.

Clarifying and classifying is not denial. Please don't mix emotion into it. — Corvus

Neuroscience demonstrates that affect doesn’t just go away when you refuse to acknowledge it. If you’re ignoring ‘emotion’, how can you tell when it affects your reasoning? Kant’s aesthetics demonstrates that we are unaffected only when we refrain from judgement. The moment we think, speak or act with judgement - including reason - we’re bringing affect into it. But this is likely another discussion.

Classifying is not denial. Clarifying can be. When you clarify the river water, what do you do with the sediment? Do you see value in it? Is it still part of the river water?

When we clarify, we judge a particular aspect, an idea or arrangement of ideas, to be the focus of our attention and effort. In your version of philosophy, we extract and discard the sediment. In Taoism, for instance, we allow it to settle with stillness. Both achieve the same clarity, but in Taoism you haven’t thrown out half the river in the process...

Both achieve the same clarity, but in Taoism you haven’t thrown out half the river in the process... — Possibility

No, we don't and haven't discarded anything. What is not in the realm of reason and logic, will be in the realm of faith, or as you say emotions. I am not saying which is better than the others.
They just operate in different world, and need different methodology to work with. If your aim is to heal or educate or achieve Nirvana, you must be in that world use the appropriate way to work on them.
If your aim is to analyse people's behaviour and their psychological motives for their actions, then your must look into their emotions.

But reason is a tool to for knowledge and truths, and that is all there is to it. Of course you can decide to use it for supporting your faith or justifying your actions or decisions or controlling your emotions, yes by all means you can use it. But it would be not the be the origin of reason and logics nature or ability to able able to help you or make you doing that. The original power of reason and logic is just for your knowledge and understanding on the things, situations or ideas or whatever.