I don’t think I was ignoring anyone. What gave you that idea?

Because you do not respond to replies addressed to you
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742163

Western Classical Philosophy v Eastern Mystery Traditions — David S

For me, the difference between western and eastern philosophies is the focus. Western philosophies generally focus on reason, eastern on experience and awareness. To me, it feels like western philosophies focus on one small aspect of our reality while philosophical Taoism and other similar religions and philosophies try to encompass everything. I find Taoism much more satisfying than other approaches. As far as western philosophies go, you can probably call me a pragmatist. Taoism is the most pragmatic way of knowing the world I can think of.

I'm for making things up as I go, and happy to steal the odd idea from wherever if it looks like that idea can help. — Tom Storm

And that's what I call "pragmatism" - whatever works.

Agreed. But we have to consider the fact that we in the West have interpreted Tao Te Ching or Confucianism according to our "culture". I mean, those translated works are adjusted to the Western world criteria.
Probably if we read it in the original version/language we would get confused because we wouldn't understand it — javi2541997

I think we've had this discussion before. I disagree. In my understanding, the Tao Te Ching is about the experience Lao Tzu is trying to help us encounter, not what he wants us to understand. The experience speaks for itself in whatever language you understand.

Firstly apologies. I was not so familiar with the site and replying directly to a commented post. Thanks for your carefully considered reply.

We can agree the approaches are indeed different.

It’s odd you say the question is biased. I guess phrasing it as meaning and purpose of life. I was just trying to use one question or area to start the conversation. I agree there are different ways to look at it. Agree too that the Eastern way of thinking would not really think in terms of purpose meaning of life. It’s my view that there is an over focus on this in the western way of thinking in 21st C. You could take mindfulness as an example. It’s arguable that the East v West has a different way of thinking about some fundamental things.

Time is one. The western leaning can be very short term. The East tend to thing for longer term. I possibly argue this makes for better strategic thinking and planning. We have the East to thank for the Art of War and The Book of five rings. I am born in the West but from a young age had a certain interest in the Far East. In part from exposure to programs like the Water Margin and Monkey.

But quite a lot to do with Bruce Lee and David Carradine of Kung Fu fame. I am sure you know that the idea originated from Lee but they wanted an American actor. Carradine in reality I think was a better choice. But to finish thanks for your reply and insight. I assume you favour the Eastern over the Western. That is my leaning too. I have an interest in martial arts and internal styles in particular Tai Chi which has its own classics and principles and seeks to develop both health and spiritual developments.

Water Margin and Monkey.

But quite a lot to do with Bruce Lee and David Carradine of Kung Fu fame — David S

I'm not intending to be provocative, but I've got to ask, do you think you might be holding a romanticized, Western notion of 'orientalism' rather than an authentic cultural awareness? Westerners often seem to love to fetishize the Eastern and cherry pick partial truths because these seem more palatable or intriguing than the dull Christianity of their upbringing and the dominant culture.

Why aim for "harmony"? — 180 Proof
@Gnomon
Good question, mon ami! As far as I can tell, there's no escaping harmony. Let's say we have disharmony - this with harmony is again harmony; iterate this to ∞ if you wish and/but you'll always end up harmony. It's amazing this yin-yang concept - if you oppose it, you endorse it! :cool: — Agent Smith

Try to convince the Ukrainians that peace & harmony is inevitable. To the contrary, Philosophers of East & West have argued mostly for bottom-up happiness & harmony. For example, Confucius vainly tried to convince the rulers of his culture that the common people would meekly follow a virtuous lord, but would rebel against a vicious leader. Presumably, if individuals are happy, then the collective should be happy, and society should be harmonious & prosperous. But, political leaders of all times & places have tended to concern themselves primarily with harmony at the top, among their peers, leaving the hoi polloi to their own devices. Hypothetically, If Putin is happy, then everybody who counts (oligarchs) will be happy, and national harmony will reign. :joke: irony

Similarly, the Epicurean notion of harmony was focused mainly on stability at the top of society. Assuming that if the rich & powerful were happy, the whole society should be harmonious -- as far as they (the cream of society) were concerned . But the Platonists & Idealists envisioned a more homogeneous happiness. The Epicurean worldview could be narrowly pragmatic, because it was primarily a view from the top of society. Hence, their self-centered ideal was personal Happiness, instead of general Harmony. Yet most Eastern & Western philosophers have concluded that you can't have personal Happiness without public Harmony. Of course, you are the best judge of what makes you happy, but, as a social being, you also have the innate ability (Empathy) to predict what will make other beings happy, so they will work together as a team, instead of a disorganized mob of MEs.

You could also summarize that the Epicureans tended to be Materialistic Reductionists, whereas the Platonists were Idealistic & Holistic. A similar top-down perspective seems to be the crux of Ayn Rand's argument for "The Virtue of Selfishness" She labeled that attitude as Objectivism, because what matters most is your own empirical experience of happiness. Her anti-socialist arguments were similar to Adam Smith's apology for Capitalism. He turned the socialist hierarchy of concerns upside-down, with the optimistic notion that a rising tide lifts all boats. The implication is that if I'm free to pursue my own happiness, then everybody else should be happy. Unfortunately, people at the bottom of the economic & political hierarchy may not see that theory as realistic. Anyway, idealistic generalizing philosophers have typically had little influence on political & economic leaders. Which may be why social harmony has always seemed to be anything but inevitable. :cool:

PS__This post is not about politics or economics, so don't get hung-up on Socialist vs Capitalist arguments. General harmony may be best approximated by meeting in the middle : not either/or, but both Idealism and Realism. Yin/Yang is a dynamic balance -- a dialectic -- always on the tipping point.

The Virtue of Selfishness :
Rand acknowledged in the book's introduction that the term 'selfishness' was not typically used to describe virtuous behavior, but insisted that her usage was consistent with a more precise meaning of the term as simply "concern with one's own interests". The equation of selfishness with evil, Rand said, had caused "the arrested moral development of mankind" and needed to be rejected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness

"Harmony, on the other hand, is more comprehensive. It includes happiness but also transcends it. It’s about expressing the many different aspects of our nature in balanced and adaptive ways. It’s about honoring our diverse and competing needs and values".
https://thinkgrowprosper.com/blog/harmony

Why is Spinoza an Epicurean?
Spinoza is pointedly silent about his philosophical allegiances. The only time he lets his guard down is in a letter to Boxel from September 1674 in which he positions himself in the epicurean camp (Ep. 56). Given this, it is surprising that in the multitude of Spinozas in the reception of his work an epicurean Spinoza is nowhere to be found – with a few exceptions that I discuss in the next section. I argue that Spinoza is an epicurean because he stages a dialectic between authority and utility.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv136c4cr

Firstly apologies. I was not so familiar with the site and replying directly to a commented post. Thanks for your carefully considered reply. — David S

You are welcome. I understand now that you are not notified via email about "Mentions" to you.

It’s odd you say the question is biased. I guess phrasing it as meaning and purpose of life. — David S

No, it's not that. As I said, it's "the mystery of the purpose of living". This refers only to Western philosophy. There's no such mystery in the Eastern philosophy.

Agree too that the Eastern way of thinking would not really think in terms of purpose meaning of life. — David S

Right. But then why do you ask. "Which system do you believe ‘pierces the veil’ better in understanding the mystery of the purpose of living?" if you agree that the Eastern system does not think about this subject?

The western leaning can be very short term. The East tend to thing for longer term. — David S

Exactly.

Carradine in reality I think was a better choice — David S

Certainly. Carradine was perfect for that role. Although I think this because I was used to. A lot of actrs could play that role. But have a difficulty imagining Lee in that role.

thanks for your reply and insight. — David S

You are welcome.

I assume you favour the Eastern over the Western — David S

You got it! :smile:

That is my leaning too. — David S

Glad to know about this. I don't think we are many! :smile:

develop both health and spiritual developments. — David S

I wish you both.

Tom, I don’t believe so but accept the argument that you cannot possibly understand the Eastern philosophy unless you have submerged yourself or of course are brought up with the language and heritage. I made the references for some context and background. But in same way each individual can find his own experience of what different cultures or experience ignites in them. Taoist writing does make you think in a different way. I guess I don’t get hung up on a romantic notion but the best way is to try and practice what you take from your understanding of the teaching. There is a lot to be said for learning from a teacher and yes that would be ideal. But like us all we live with our current status with family and responsibilities.

From my perspective I have taken an interest in both Western mysticism and ceremonial magic with a study of the Tarot and it’s relationship to the Tree of Life. At the same time exploring the I Ching as a system of injury. An interesting parallel between the two systems of divination. Symbology rules.

Personally I do not worry about what may be missing or interpreted incorrectly but in the reading I do appreciate the skills of the translator. I think the ‘voice’ of the original author can still be heard.

I don’t believe so but accept the argument that you cannot possibly understand the Eastern philosophy unless you have submerged yourself or of course are brought up with the language and heritage. — David S

I think Lao Tzu disagrees with you:

On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).
When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei). — Tao Te Ching, from Verse 18 - Ellen Marie Chen Translation

Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge (chih),
People will be profited (li) a hundredfold. — Tao Te Ching, from Verse 19 - Ellen Marie Chen Translation

One who knows (chih) does not accumulate knowledge,
One who accumulates knowledge (po) does not know. — Tao Te Ching, from Verse 81 - Ellen Marie Chen Translation