Why didn't Eastern Philosophy develop alongside culture like Western philosophy...

No, there was just a "great" leap forward.

Really? When did the Eastern ideas of Confucianism stop being relevant to the Chinese mindset? What about the Kyoto school and their heavy reliance on the Zen tradition mixed with western ideas to form a wholly different school of thought? What about the way in which Indian ideas influenced Western thinkers like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche?
You seem very confused.

Yeah, I don't get how you can take eastern philosophy seriously haha.

>Greek philosophy was influenced by the Africans and Asians
No.

Egypt, man

And Persia

>It just seems like some monks came up with some interesting ideas that went no where ever.
lol wym bro their ideas lead to the cessation of suffering

Ok, that's technically correct but, tbf, I think we all know the implications that the words "Africans" and "Asians" carry in the modern discourse. Those words aren't frequently associated with afro-asiatic and indo-aryan peoples of ancient Persia and ancient Egypt and to a lay-person have the ability to harmfully misinform.

>being wrong and stupid and gay :/

>you're technically right but your terms would only confuse a layman
>a layman like meeeee

Ideas of greatness, something that surpasses what came before is been done and happens, the greeks and whites are a great example of this, not everything is correlated when regarding culture.

>who is the Nietzsche to Plato of the Upanishads
The Buddha

Shit thread desu

lmao this.
If you really want to know the difference between western and eastern philosophy just look at Descartes.

Western brainlets
>I think, there I am

Based Eastern Chads
>I think, therefore I think

can you derive an ought from an is? Hume said no, what do you think?

Ok, call me dumb, sure, but wouldn't it still be better to use the terms Persian and Egyptian to avoid confusion and potentially spreading we wuz kangs shit?

Yes, we should pretend Egypt is not in Africa, lest our negroes hear of this and become unruly

No, We should make it clear that Egypt was not Black so that people don't try to distort history for political reasons.

>people don't try to distort history for political reasons.
Like pretending Egypt wasn't black?

There is overwhelming evidence that the vast majority the people of Ancient Egypt were "Semitic looking" Caucasoid people. Egypt was a multi-racial nation throughout several parts of it's history and black people did exist in (especially Southern) Egypt for long periods of time but to say that Egypt was Black because of this is equally as absurd as to say Egypt was White because of the Ptolemaic period. It's an abuse of history for a political goal.

>Not practicing Christian bhakti

Sorry to be a historylet, but can you explain to me how Egypt and Persia influenced the Greeks? Was it through Pythagoras or something? What aspects affected my man Plato?

Western society worked a lot of philosophy and religion into the law itself. Eastern philosophy mostly revolved around the church and people who enjoy churches usually prefer repetition

One drop rule m8. They'd be raced as black in modern USA.

Plato was a black man

No, they wouldn't. They would've looked like Arabs.
Only self-hating White people believe in the one drop rule so they can use it to gain oppression points.

>They would've looked like Arabs
Arabs are black tho

Attached: Oman_5.jpg (495x612, 64K)

>Doesn’t know Neo-Confucianism.
>Doesn’t realize that no Chinese people could figure the Tao either, so every few generations it was interpreted entirely differently.

While after Buddhism there aren’t any Christianity-tier shocks, China never destroys its old books, so you basically have what would’ve happened in the West if Justinian didn’t destroy the philosophical schools.

It did develop a street shitting culture

The idea that there even is such a thing as eastern philosophy is an overly charitable deceptive meme, imo.

Real philosophy only happened in two hotspot points of ancient Greece and 1600-1970 Western Europe. True philosophy is a mixture of the scientific method, critical thinking, and semi-spirituality. If the ancient Greeks weren't their particular weird culture blend that allowed things like rhetoric schools and Pythagorean cults we might never have had formalized philosophy. Not that philosophy isn't natural to all careful thinking humans. That's why "eastern philosophy" exists. But it never developed into a recognized discipline of itself. People at the time in the east didn't know what they were doing. We only backwardly recognize the good bits of what they were doing can count as philosophy.

>China never destroys its old books
They've actually done that multiple times throughout their history.

Egyptians are related to bronze age eastern Mediterranean and Anatolian populations not Arabs.
No one autistically applies the one-drop rule outside of brainlet niggers and white supremacists.

Dats rite

Attached: 1546316207270.jpg (478x350, 30K)

But they would've looked more like Arabs than Black people. Also, I've never seen anyone use the one drop rule unironically other than straight White SJWs trying to use it to say that they aren't White.

>eastern Mediterranean
That would still be arab unless you think the levant people arent real arabs.

You rang?

Attached: nicholas nassim taleb.jpg (192x262, 7K)

they wouldn't have looked like Arabs, no one who is not retarded thinks that Egyptians were niggers
before the Arabization of the eastern Med, no it would not have looked like that at all.

Thats a fuckin arab if i've ever seen one.

Arab is a cultural term, not a real biological one. You speak Arabic, you're an Arab. Unless you're talking exclusively about Bedouins from Arabia. Or assume, wrongly, that those people physically replaced everyone in the middle-east completely.

its just a general metropolitan fellah pheno, its not necessarily Arab or anything else he is pure MENA mutt made of many different conquered races and resentful towards all of them.

>unironically wewuzzing in a blue board

>not have looked like that at all.
I've seen greeks and italians that look like arabs. You're trying to tell me that these people are a completely different race?

Arabs are a different subrace of caucasoid, and your face blindness and low spatial reasoning isn't a problem for whether or not Arabs are not Egyptians.

nah, the east is "thoughts, therefore thoughts"

the original natives of egypt are called copts

Over the centuries they were invaded by arabs, persians, romans, etc

Attached: egypt race.gif (1024x407, 87K)

Well-said. The Descartian dictum is still an embarassment, though.

Arab to me is synonymous with middle eastern. The same way white is synonymous with europe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts

The Copts (Coptic: ⲚⲓⲢⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ̀ⲛ̀Ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓ̀ⲁⲛⲟⲥ, translit. NiRemenkīmi enKhristianos; Arabic: أقباط, Aqbāt) are an ethnoreligious group indigenous to Northeast Africa who primarily inhabit the area of modern Egypt, where they are the largest Christian denomination in the country. Copts are also the largest Christian denomination in Sudan and Libya. Historically, they spoke the Coptic language, a direct descendant of the Demotic Egyptian that was spoken in late antiquity.

Attached: egypt-races.gif (714x499, 30K)

yeah like I said, your being a brainlet doesn't really mean anything to me nor the question of the racial type that the Egyptians should be classified as

We

I have strong feeling you're some kind of mid easterner who doesnt like being called an arab.

Can anyone here actually read works in Chinese or any other Asian language, or are all of you just going to continue posting about shit you probably have no grasp of?

well are turks arabs? are kurds?

The fucking turks ruled over the middle east for centuries.

I'm no expert but I'm decently familiar with devanagari

Ive called a turk an arab before same with persians. I usually confuse persians for pakis though. In high school we used to call an iranian kid bollywood

The middle east is lined with various remnants of the pagan past, like they yazidi. Before the muslims ruined everything.

Arabs are the worst part of the middle east

On another note, the point of western philosophy is to make arguments. I believe ther is that quote that the whole of philosophy is just foot notes to socrates

>worst of the middle east
Its the kurds and its no even close
>t. iraq war veteran

I can read Chinese, Japanese, Sanskrit, and Tibetan. I find threads like this pretty hilarious.

>point of western philosophy is to make arguments
that's rhetoric you platolet

are you handicapped? in the head?

Attached: abae9342aced45445b34a004bcd20e85--the-ritual-ukraine.jpg (236x315, 18K)

If true, that's incredible. Care to share why you learnt them all, for what purpose?

I call bullshit... but what's your favorite text from any of those languages?

I think partly because there is no deadline in eastern philosophy. This removes it from being relatable to the current times.

Confuscianism et al has infinite future, infinite past.

Buddhism and Hinduism have periodical apocalypse, but ones every billion kalpas, each kalpa being a bajillion earth years. Add reincarnatiin and universe rebirth to that, effectively negates any thought of a finish line or end-of-lease. Nothing i do today will impact the outcome of the universal cycle.

Western idea, going by christianity, has a definite (but unknown) expiry date, which might be Tomorrow. So theres theological urgency to do as much good as you can as efficiently as you can, be it to make war, educate, heal, invent, write.

Another factor why eastern religion didnt keep pace with tech, was the way the religious orders are formatted.

Western monks keep plantations, make wine, candles, copy scripture; eastern monks rely on alms, no DIY selfsufficiency encoded in monk precepts.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.[1][2][3][4][5] The logical form of an argument in a natural language can be represented in a symbolic formal language, and independently of natural language formally defined "arguments" can be made in math and computer science.

Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments.[6] Deductive arguments can be valid or sound: in a valid argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premisses is false and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premisses necessitate a true conclusion. Inductive arguments, by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength: the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability.[7] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[8] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.[9]

how does intentional action fit into an eastern worldview?

I'm doing a PhD in buddhology. These languages are pretty standard in the field I'm in. You need Japanese to read contemporary scholarship, whatever field your in, and you either need Sanskrit or Pali. I specialize in Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism, so I need both. My favorite classical Chinese text is actually Zhuangzi, it's just so much fun. In Japanese reading Kukai is kind of ridiculous, a lot like reading Virgil in Latin from what I understand, so that was a real journey. My Sanskrit is relatively basic, so the only text I've read front to back is the Bhagavad Gita, which is actually quite simple, but really really beautiful and Sanskrit is just such an elegantly structured language. I'm currently learning a regional variant of Sanskrit called Gandhari, so Ive been going through the Rhinoceros sutra in that and it's been really fun. And Tibetan hands down Longchenpa. Peak Longchenpa is the Choying mdzod. He's just unmatched.

Can you give any tips and book recommendations to someone hoping to learn Sanskrit?

Attached: Loading-Fox.gif (331x257, 42K)

Is the Choying mdzod of Longchenpa translated in English as the Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena? I was reading a copy of it I downloaded online the other day and was enjoying it a lot.

amazon.com/Precious-Treasury-Basic-Space-Phenomena/dp/1881847322

are there any good introductory texts for Tibetan Buddhism? Big fan of esoteric stuff

In English I mean

Thomas Egenes' two volume Introduction to Sanskrit is one of the best intro to language texts I've ever had the pleasure of using. By the end of the second volume you'll be reading short passages out of the Bhagavad Gita. It helps if you've studied Greek and/or Latin first though. The'y're like simplified versions of Sanskrit.

yeah that's the one. Longchenpa is widely regarded as one of the finest classical Tibetan stylists, and his treasury of basic space is his most beautiful work. Richard Barron is doing the world a great service by translating Longchenpa's seven treasuries.

If you're historically inclined I would say check out Sam Van Schaik's Tibet: A History, a really excellent, readable history of Tibet in the context of Central and East Asian geopolitics. I think Don Lopez has done an introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. Lopez's stuff is really good, anything by him is worth reading. His work is the antidote to threads like this that uncritically parrot 19th century orientalist stereotypes. Also see John Powers' book, I think it's just called Intro to Tibetan Buddhism.

I do not know Greek or Latin. I am still inspired to learn Sanskrit however. How many hours a day do you think would be good practice?

Attached: 1245961451983.jpg (491x361, 43K)

Cheers

Attached: 453.jpg (427x535, 123K)

I'm not sure. I had already spent a few years studying Greek in uni before I started into Sanskrit, so I was familiar with the basic grammatical structures and so forth. Just take it easy and don't burn yourself out. It's more important to study every day (even if its just for 15 mintues) than it is to marathon study, although that's good too. Everyone has a different style.

Thanks for the tip. I'll look over the book tonight and come up with a study plan. I too am interested in Buddhism, and no little of Mahayana Buddhism, although I would love to learn more. Learning Sanskrit would aid and inspire me in these endeavors. Thank you for the help again user. You wouldn't happen to have any book recommendations on Mahayana Buddhism and it's development would you?

The origins of Mahayana are still a great mystery. You could see The Grandeur of Gandhara for a history of the region out of which Mahayana spread via the Kushan Empire. Also see Richard Salomon's new book, The Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhara. For the Chinese importation of Buddhism, Jungnok Park's How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China is fascinating. Then Adamek's Mystique of Transmission on early Chan.

Most intro to Sanskrit books focus on classical Sanskrit, which is the language of the Upanishads and then the Gita, but Buddhist literature in Sanskrit is written in a later version called Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Studying classical is still the way to get to Buddhist literature, but that's just a little differentiation to be aware of. It's a good goal to work toward being able to read Nagarjuna, and then later Shantideva in Sanskrit.

Mahayana is just such a massive field, containing everything from Tantra to Buddhist mathematics, from Iran to Japan. It's good to get a feel for all the areas in between.

Thank you for the help friend. I have much to learn and study now.

Attached: file.png (224x224, 47K)

The west is Descartes and then a whole bunch of people either agreeing or disagreeing, elaborating, refuting, etc.

The east is ....

bliss

Most of the major eastern doctrines are studies of how to reach ineffable and unlimited bliss; most of the arguments recorded in classic texts between the various eastern sects over subtleties of doctrine were themselves conducted in a blissful and detached manner by people already in a state of supreme contentedness and tranquility, all the great philosophical debates in the east amount to heavenly shitposting by people who had already attained everything.

So true philosophy is just disconnected sophistry? Got it.

What a wonderful description, user. Seriously. As someone whose tasted those states myself, and understands why they made terms like Sat-Chit-Ananda, this is a really sweet manner of describing Eastern philosophy. Though I don't personally have anything against the West.

Western Philosophy or Western Religion?

Because when we discuss the East the lines get smudged on the difference between Western philosophy and Religion.

*ahem

"happiness isnt real, its a fleeting feeling that comes and goes and can never be attained"

"also fuck niggers and fuck jannies"

Attached: Schopenhauer.jpg (300x358, 15K)

Schop would've benefited from Buddhism the most, what with how miserable he seemed. He deserved to experience the blissful states it offers to practitioners. Would've been absolutely based if he could've somehow been the bridge for Eastern and Western philosophy, from thereon creating a permanent dialogue between the two.

Imagine this portrait but with Buddhist robes. How based would that be.

He actually did read buhddist and hindu texts.

His philosophy prescribes acceptance of the reality of suffering and self denial of desire through asceticism and contemplation.

He is basically the western buhdda

>basically the western buddha

Please stop posting you mongloid

Because Hinduism pre brahmism was basically just Bronze Age paganism, and Buddhism and brahism/shaktism preach detachment from the world. The guys who had time to think were taught to shun all worldly concerns to a level that makes the catholic clergy look like drunken sex fiends.