Is eastern philosophy more practical in terms of everyday life than western philosophy? Seems like the western approach only works in terms of government but not on an individual level.
>>8527
quick answer: yes, it is desu
>>8527
Not really.
I don't feel like typing it all out, but there is a risk of becoming a Marquis de Sade if you abandon the ethics in favour of some Post-Modern nonsense like Post-Anarchism or Nietzsche's transvaluation of ideals. This risk increases if you believe cessation of bodily processes ends rebirth.
In hindsight, I'd argue Schopenhauer was a pretty good Western Dharmic practitioner.
>>8527
generally but ancient greek philosophy is applicable to day-to-day life and that is definitely western but that's because the ancient greek idea of philosophy was 'how do you best live your life' instead of logic-chopping analytical bullshit that began in the enlightenment.
>>10115
Not all Greek philosophy constituted Lebensphilosophie.
>>8527
>eastern philosophy
Naruto taught me to believe in myself
One Piece taught me to love the journey, not the prize
Fairy Tail taught me the importance of nakama (friends)
Bleach taught me to never give up
Dragonball Z taught me to constantly seek improvement
Sailor Moon taught me how to do transformation sequences
>Western philosophy
tv taught me to be a violent sociopath/psychopath and to act out my sexual desires for members of the same sex (gay)
>>10115
>'how do you best live your life'
Seems pretty asian to me. I believe buddhism was never really indended to be a religion but more like a tool that had to be discarded once it filled it's purpose. The whole pulling the arrow thing before asking the why question.
>>8527
>but not on an individual level.
Exactly
Pic related
Eastern philosophy is for the layman, Western philosophy is for the aristocracy. There are good and bad attributes of both.
>>8527
Western can be on an individual level, you just aren't looking in the right places. For the record, yes, the philosophy of the West primarily focuses on government and how that government is good for the people.
Gallahad and the concept of "True Christian Knight" or chivalry comes to mind for individual focus in Western philosophy. Makes yourself better by virtues.
Eastern philosophy focuses on ethereal enlightenment, which is to say, not the search for knowledge like the West, but instead the "waiting for knowledge". You wait, it comes to you, which is what makes it very popular in the West nowadays
Source: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought
>>10115
Seems like western philosophy entered a level of diminishing returns. It's very sophisticated but the average person doesn't have connection anymore, or just misunderstands whatever he's been exposed to. Philosophy is dead when it comes down to ordinary men. Not saying those aren philosophising but actually philosophy has basically no impact on their thought process.
Philosophy doesn't necessarily have to involve practical applications to be considered "important". Is cultivating knowledge not important? Plato defined philosophy as the "love of wisdom". Is wisdom for wisdom's sake something that should be frowned upon?
>>11096
Of course it's important but if it's value can't be utilized because it's overly cryptic it's of no use for the common man. You need to be able to understand it and apply it.
I'm not sure if the time you need to invest to become a philosopher is ultimately worth it. I mean if you need 30 years of consistent study to gain benefits regarding everyday life, it's kinda wasted time.
>>10696
I don't know much about Eastern philosophy but I was about to say that Western philosophy is pretty bourgeois. Philosophy is seen as a joke because of how disconnected it is from everyday life, and "how do I optimize my decision-making process" seems like a good foundation for philosophy that's much closer to "real life".
>>11773
>"how do I optimize my decision-making process"
Wasn't that the original intent of the enlightenment movement? What went wrong?
>>8527
Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that what they promote -- downplaying the ego and spending a great deal of time meditating, that's fair and well.
No in the sense that here, in western civilization, we do not have the time to be sitting idly in meditation all day.
>>12004
>No in the sense that here, in western civilization, we do not have the time to be sitting idly in meditation all day.
Nah, I don't believe it. Maybe not all day but we've got plenty of time. If we didn't we wouldn't be talking here. Everybody watches bullshit on the television or does some other stuff they just do to zoom out or something.
If western society has time to study Nietzsche it should have time to study meditation.
>>12004
Some parts of Western Philosophy encourage all day meditation. Specifically, Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to always be in constant prayer with Jesus, who will come "like a thief at night". Those in constant prayer have nothing to fear, because they are in the light
> For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night...But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief... Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober...But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation...Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing.
>>8527
Aristotle is better but I still hold eastern in high regard.
Enlightenment philosophy is quite bad though.
>>12564
Prayer is just another word for meditation. At least, I think. Though the means (talking to God vs achieving stillness in the present moment) are different.
>>12630
It can be one form of meditation I suppose. If you just repeat a couple of sentences it's not very different from chanting a mantra. The pure earth (?) sect of zen buddhism basically just says namu amida butsu over and over again until the words become meaningless and you can listen to them. It's promoting a disconnection from your own thoughts I guess.
I've got another question. Is a philosopher who's unhappy a good philosopher or worth listening too?
>>11939
I actually don't know much of anything about the Enlightenment, but I think virtue ethics are probably a major factor. People work to keep their souls clean or to make up for their sins, even if they aren't religious.
e.g. Lots of "SPOOKY SCARY SKELETONS" are currently taking this approach but their movements were originally focused on consequentialism and the idea that being cruel or opposed to their movement didn't make you a bad person. I'm not sure how they got so sidetracked, and I actually think studying them could be really fascinating
I could just be looking to blame everything on virtue ethics lately, though (and I'm not sure I'd be wrong)
>>12930
Kant said Enlightenment is the way out of the self caused immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use your own mind without the help of others. Something like that. I only know the german words. Anyhow he continues to talk about how priests, teachers, doctors, etc were exploiting those who do not think for themselves and leave them in the darkness.
It's very practical in it's origin.
>>12863
Nothing about the definition of philosophy necessarily requires a feeling of happiness or contentedness.
But if it did I would ask this counter question. Did Robin William's entire career of bringing people joy and laughter become invalid when he was overcome with depression and killed himself? Just because you failed to live up to your own advice or ideals doesn't mean they're automatically worthless for someone else.
>>10110
> there is a risk of becoming a Marquis de Sade
It's not a risk, it's an opportunity
>>13336
Hard to say. If the goal of philosophy was merly finding the truth I don't think a good philosopher needs to make you happy, if the goal is inner peace I think a good philosopher should lead by good example. In that case I assume the advise of someone who his unhappy isn't worth listening to because he himself is unable to apply his teachings to his own life.
Robin Williams wasn't a philosopher but a comedian, and considering he made people laugh he was a good one. Not sure if I'd listen to his life advice though.
>>12072
Algebra
>>13681
I would say that everyone is worth listening to, but the question is whether you should follow their words more diligently because they appear to be happy. Kind of seems like judging a book by its cover. If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is completely content with life thanks to their philosophy then maybe, but even then I've seen some people claim to be happy with some pretty shit philosophy. Had a fat bastard of a neighbor who sat around unemployed, and said that a lot of other people may need more out of life, but as long as he had a place to sit and a TV to watch he was happy as a motherfucker. And he seemed it, but that doesn't mean I'm about to quit my job and prop my feet up somewhere.
