What were the accomplishments of eastern philosophy? I study a lot of western philosophy but I have almost zero knowledge of eastern philosophy. What were the main areas of study in eastern philosophy?
Humanism was here.
Confucius is gay.
>>281812
Daoism is heavily focused on environmentalism and nature. Also puts emphasis on moderation and balance.
>>281812
You could do worse than reading Needham on China.
>>281812
Confucius say:
Prominence in robe mean fun time with lady friend.
It's kind of inane wisdom mixed with stories about balance, no inherent evil and no inherent good
Kind of basic but also good
>>281812
Confucianism helped to stabilize China, made it a whole unity nation, assimilated the steppe invaders like Mongols or Qings, but its conservative and rigid draw back the scientific revolution, make China a delicious prey for Western powers.
>>281892
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_in_China
>>281892
Their logic was attempted from a different angle than ours
More analogies than mathematics
I remember reading about the political suppression of logic in ancient china as a tool.
I don't know too much about it but as a guess I'd say probably nothing of huge value.
>>281874
There was inherent good and evil. Mencius postulated that man is inherently good.
You have a lot of confucius influence in east Asia which is why Asians are generally more about social harmony and cohesion rather than the individual. Even if most don't directly adhere to the philosophy now, the cultures were guided by it.
Buddhism is honestly pretty based. It's interesting because it has interesting ideas but they are completely separate from the western tradition. Though some of them might actually exist in western philosophy to a less focused extent (Epicureanism, the Ship of Theseus as an analog for impermanence),
Don't know about the rest of that shit though.
>>281892
Not really, no. Reason/Logos is a Greek invention.
>>281892
Adi Shankara did some good work with problems of induction. Sort of a bridge between Zeno and Hume.
>>281965
Buddhism seems more similar to Stoic ethics.
>>281965
Buddhism is literally stoicism
>>284471
>An Indian who never heard of Zeno or Hume and of whom neither Zeno nor Hume ever heard of is a bridge between three cultures separated by vast gulfs of space and time
>>281812
What were the accomplishments of Western philosophy?
>>284485
>>284480
Stoicism is closest to Daoism.
Both posit a universal flow. Happiness is achieved by following this flow.
The closest thing there is to Buddhism in western philosophy is, well, Buddhism (The first group to convert en masse were Greeks), but that was a long time ago, so the closest "European" Western philosophy would be Epicureanism. Epicurus didn't go as far as the Buddha ("Suffering is everywhere and everything is impermanent, so suffer the least" vs "aim to actively get out of the cycle of suffering").
>>284502
>It is impossible that someone else in a different culture might be working on the same sorts of problems.
>All Problems of Induction can only grow in the cool climate of Scotland, aged in barrels for at least 3 years, smoked with Peat.
>>284504
lol
Why not just read some?
You could get through the Tao Te Ching and the Analects in a couple of hours, they are very short books. Also, they are very easy to read, very beautiful, deceptively simple sentences and aphorisms. Those are the main two, sort of the Plato and Aristotle of Chinese thought.
Then get into Mencius, and all the others.
One of the joy of Chinese philosophy is not having to plough through hundreds of pages of densely written Hegel or Kant.
>>284546
>It's even possible to call these 'the same sorts of problems' without spending years studying the linguistic, intellectual, social, and economic contexts within which these philosophers wrote
>If a Scot writes about the problem of induction, he must be directly connected to Zeno through Adi Shankara
>>284595
>If a Scot writes about the problem of induction, he must be directly connected to Zeno through Adi Shankara
that's not what he implied at all...
>>284622
>>284471
>Adi Shankara did some good work with problems of induction. Sort of a bridge between Zeno and Hume.
>Sort of
Yeah, maybe that isn't the same as 'directly connected,' but it's a vague relation all the same and it would probably be unhelpful to try to unify their thoughts on the problem of induction. It would lead to an oversimplification of the actual discourses of the philosophers in question for the purposes of advancing a vague argument about essentially irrelevant, if not nonexistent, connections between Big Philosophical Names.
>>284635
>probably be unhelpful to try to unify their thoughts on the problem of induction.
>probably
You're guessing.
>>284646
There are circumstances when it would be useful, but to simply say "Zeno, Hume, and Shankara are all saying the same thing about the same thing" and then explaining what that single idea is will do nothing but reduce the nuances of their individual discourses. If you're writing about the problem of induction in general and want to bring in these three people's views on it, then that makes sense. However, I'm skeptical about people claiming that thinkers on various sides of the planet from highly varied cultures in various states of economic and scientific development are as one with regards to their thoughts on the problem of induction.
>>284678
>the same thing
Or even similar things about the same thing. Even if they aren't all expressing the same opinion, it might not be helpful to use Shankara's work to illuminate what Zeno thought.
