Is western philosophy simply based on scientific knowledge? Is is only about scientific or Academia knowledge? Why is it called western? Because it has its roots in ancient Greece where western democracy has its roots?

Is western philosophy more abstract? Trying to catch life in scientific terms? — VincePee

In my thread I discuss Eastern philosophy, specifically Buddhism if you want to have look. I contrast it with Christianity.
In answer to your question not all western philosophy is based on science. Some of the great western philosophers, like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, were scientists, but other very famous thinkers were not scientific at all. There have been notable crirics of modern science among thinkers. Nietszche and The Frankfurt school of philosophers were very scathing about science. They saw it as viewing the human being and human life from a very reductionist, narrow and dehumanizing perspective.
Eastern philosophy on the whole has been more closely intertwined with spirituality. There's a less sharp division between religion and philosophy in Eastern thought. Buddhism for example is both a philosophy AND a religion. And some people, including myself only take the Philosophical component and reject the religious part.
You're right it's called Western philosophy because it has its roots in Ancient Greece. It is also a label to distinguish it from Indian and Chinese philosophy which is collectively known as Eastern philosophy. Throughout much of history they were two very separate traditions, even nowadays many western academics are largely ignorant of Eastern philosophy which in my opinion is a pity. Maybe it's to do with Eurocentrism.

Thanks for the reply. A "philosopher" that springs to my mind is Feyerabend. He is very critical on science insofar it makes claims of possessing an ultimate truth. In "Science in a Free Society" he argues it is one view amongst other realities.

I'm no scholar of these things but western philosophy, certainly over the last millennia or two seems shaped by the good-versus-evil, right-wrong world view of the abrahamic religions and has also become over the last few hundred years very academic and abstruse. I think this is why people are often more drawn to eastern philosophy, it is grounded, practical, readily comprehensible and offers a more balanced/less dogmatic world view

I think this is why people are often more drawn to eastern philosophy, it is grounded, practical, readily comprehensible and offers a more balanced/less dogmatic world view — TheVeryIdea

You might be no scholar but that's exactly what makes your view clear. What has kept your vision clear! :smile:

I'm pretty sure every principle of eastern philosophy is also considered and/or represented somewhere along the line of greek philosophy. Maybe I'll write up a detailed comparison if I find the time but it's going to be a long write because I literally mean every principle.

A glaringly obvious example, just to illustrate this, is Stoicism - it's basically Buddhism without Buddhist terminology.

Both Greek and Eastern philosophical schools had this touch of being scientific. They relied on what they observed in the natural world and put up various theories of how it all worked. Their texts are full of intelligent discourse and dialogue. The Upanishads themselves proclaim to be scientific: This is not speculation but verifiable, an established method. Follow the method and you will get the result.

The big shift between east and west really did come with the Abrahamic religions. It shows in the scriptures as well. The Bible is hardly philosophical in nature, it reads like an ancient epic instead. Gilgamesh comes to mind. Some history muddled together with fantastical stories of gods and men.

The only reason I see that the Tanakh is revered at all is tribalism. The God of the hebrew bible is scarily brutal and vengeful, favouring the Israelites over all of his other creation and promoting them, only them, as the children of god. Historically, I think this might have been propaganda at it's finest, used for unity among the tribes.

I suspect that Jesus himself was a philosopher of sort. He went a fair bit in that stoic/buddhistic direction. Either way his preaching led to many improvements. A more merciful god that accepts everyone. Without them, I doubt the Abrahamic religions would be as widespread as they are today.

I'd say the Quran also had a more philosophical touch than the Tanakh. But in the end I feel like all of those books, being compilations of various texts, suffer from not being selective enough in what to conclude. The wisdom they have to offer is often overshadowed by dogma and doctrine.

He is very critical on science insofar it makes claims of possessing an ultimate truth — VincePee

Scientists nowadays don't generally regard their theories as absolute truth, like Newton did but just the best theory that is available at the moment. You should study Karl Popper. This area is known as the philosophy of science which has become a major field since the 20th century

You should study Karl Popper. — Ross

Sir Popper lives in an imaginary world A normal scientist sees his theory as true. Not as a surreal stepping stone to a next surreal theory, by falsifying it.

I mean the attitude of scientists. As if they address the one and inly reality.

I mean the attitude of scientists. As if they address the one and inly reality. — VincePee

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you regarding Popper. He is regarded as one of the most important philosophers of science in the 20th century and his ideas have changed the view of scientific theory.
I didn't know Popper had the title Sir. I must check if you're correct on Google.

You're right he does have the title Sir. What do you mean by the attitude of scientists

He is regarded as one of the most important philosophers of science in the 20th century and his ideas have changed the view of scientific theory. — Ross

Not by me! I'm sorry to say... He's a failed scientist trying to make science conform to his pity view. But no hard feelings. Let him be...

What do you mean by the attitude of scientists — Ross

I mean the attitude that their reality is the one and only. Other realities are considered as subjective myths while their (and mine) is a myth as well.

Is western philosophy simply based on scientific knowledge? — VincePee

No.

Is [it] only about scientific or Academia knowledge?

No.

Why is it called western?

It's Euro-centric (mostly from Greco-Roman sources) and Europe was/is the western backwater of Asia.

Because it has its roots in ancient Greece where western democracy has its roots?

Okay.

Is western philosophy more abstract?

Perhaps in some ways but not in others.

Trying to catch life in scientific terms?

No.

Is western philosophy simply based on scientific knowledge?
— VincePee
No. — 180 Proof

Do you refer to the science philosophies, the philosophies of life, the philosophical dreamcastles of the so-called great minds in philosophy (Hegel, Kant, Schoppenhauer, Kierkegaard, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Nietzsche, van Fraassen, Radder, Hacking, etc.), western monotheistic religeous philosophies, or what?

I am interested in the area of Western philosophy and other alternatives, especially Eastern philosophy, ranging from Taoism and perspective such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

Jim Morrison of the Doors suggested that the 'West is the best'. I think that it is worth considering whether the underlying perspective of Western metaphysics is the most useful, for considering how we understand reality, including the mind and body problem. I believe that the systemic thinking of Eastern traditions allows for more fluidity and less concrete interpretation of experiences.

I didn't "refer" to anything. I replied to your (not terribly clear or precise) questions.

"Terribly" clear? What does that mean?

Jim Morrison of the Doors suggested that the 'West is the best' — Jack Cummins

I think he meant California.

I think that it is worth considering whether the underlying perspective of Western metaphysics is the most useful ... — Jack Cummins

Which system of "western metaphysics" is that, and from which era? Presocratic, Hellenistic, Roman, Scholastic, Islamic, ...?

I wonder if Jim Morrison was a bit vague in his question of the ' West is the best' and I imagine that he drew upon the ideas of Nietzsche. One aspect which I wonder about is the nature of generalisations and whether the opposition between Western and other philosophies is really as in opposition as it may appear on the surface, or whether it is comprised of varied aspects of diversity of thought, because it opens up so many controversial areas of thought. I think we have to wonder and contemplate all of the different eras, which could be a minefield in it's own right.

Ol' Jimbo was singing about L.A. (i.e. "Where the little grrls in their Hollywood bungalows ... and that's for the people / who like to go down slow ... Motel, money, murder, madness ..."), IMO, and not about philosophy per se. And I've never felt there was any more of an "opposition" between Western & Eastern philosophies than there is between, for instance, liquors like whiskey & saki. Drink up – it's always later than you think! seems to me a 'good philosophy' anywhere, anytime, at sunrise or sunset. "Let's change the mood from glad to sadness" :death: :flower:

Drink up – it's always later than you think! seems to me a 'good philosophy' anywhere, anytime, at sunrise or sunset. "Let's change the mood from glad to sadness" :death: :flower: — 180 Proof

And after, let's change it back again. To feel even better than ever. Let life run freely. Let's play! :heart:

What's the difference between western philosophies and non-western ones?

That's easy: western philosophies are located where the sun sets down, while eastern ones are mainly to be found where the sun rises... :-)

I think this is why people are often more drawn to eastern philosophy, it is grounded, practical, readily comprehensible and offers a more balanced/less dogmatic world view — TheVeryIdea

Is western philosophy more abstract? Trying to catch life in scientific terms? — VincePee

To both of you, I will say that even Eastern Philosophy can be scientific, I will talk about Hinduism. The Hinduism that originated in the Indus Valley Civilization was a lot more spiritual and about worshipping idols but by the Early Vedic Period(1500-1000 BC) the myths had a more scientific basis.
The most well known are the 10 avatars of Vishnu(Dashavatara) mentioned in the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is among the trinity of Brabham(creator), Vishnu(Preserver) and Shive(Destroyer). Whenever Evil starts to Triumph Good Vishnu is born into this world and Good triumphs evil, Vishnu has been reborn 9 times and 1 avatar is yet to come. What is interesting are his 10 avatars.
1 Matsya (fish)
2 Kurma (turtle, tortoise)
3 Varaha (boar)
4 Narasimha (man-lion)
5 Vamana (dwarf-god)
6 Parashurama (Brahman warrior)
7 Rama
8 Krishna
9 Buddha
10 Kalki (prophesied 10th avatar who ends the Kali Yuga)

The interesting part is the forms of the avatar, fish-turtule-boar-manlion-dwarf-human...
This represents the evolution of life as it started from the oceans as unicellular and then to fish, reptiles amphibians, mammals. Yes it is not perfect but they did notice it and recorded it.

Vedic Maths is also not very spiritual and I can say with experience, it is just shortcut taht are so good that it seems like magic. One of the formulas of vedic maths is the square of numbers that end in 5.
If the number is a5 then its square is a(a+1)25.
You probably didn't understand that so here's an example: 55^2 = (5*6)25=3025.
I hope that clears it.
Now here's how it works-
Let no.= a5
then, expanded form= 10a+5
Square= (10a+5)^2=100a^2+100a+25=100a(a+1)+25
Since the last 2 digits of 100a(a+1) will always be 00 therefore we can just multiply a&a+1 and stick 25 at the end.

Lets not forget, it was India who invented 0 specifically Aryabhata.
India also made incredible astronomical calculations.
Rigveda divided its year into 360 day(12months of 30 days) and every 5 years, there were 2 intercalary months that sure that it aligned with the solar cycle.
In the 1st century CE, while Greeks were realizing that Earth might be a sphere. Indian Astronomers were trying to calculate the circumference of Earth.
It is written in the Upanishads, I think, that Mars is red.