How wrong am i if i say western philosophy strips man from nature and eastern philosophy encourage man to live with nature? Wrong or absolutely wrong or Absurd ?
Nope, that’s a variant of the Noble Savage trope and it’s rooted in racism. Now you know!
Seems not about racism. More attempt to sort classic philosophies. Even if trope-like, might still be accurate. Worth considering.
To me, Western Philosophy seems to be more about the outer world/self, whereas Eastern is about the inner world/self
I would like to elaborate on my intention to post the question.I don’t have least bit knowledge on philosophy as a body of knowledge. My only sources are some videos on Youtube talking about different philosophical concept.I am not intend to accumulate knowledge in Philosophy. My problem is that at the moment i am developing a new communist theory.When i tried to learn why earlier communist attempt such as soviet union,china,india,cuba had failed ,what i understand is that they tried to change the world a bit fast.To make revolution fast the communists attempted radical methods which the world were not ready to accept.This is where i can see the influence of western philosophy on maxist-lennist ideology.The result oriented analysis,individualism of leaders such as lenin,stalin,mao,cetralisation of power are some of western ideas that i can see in marxist-leninist theories.
Further, i define nature as a fundamental tendency of things.and i think the fundamental tendency of our world is based on coexistence,harmony and collective interest.In my opinion,western philosophy ignore the reality or try to see through outsider lens.i don’t have a problem with that.but it leads to conflicts at least sometimes.These conflicts are resolved through power dynamics.which i think is unsustainable.
My ultimate aim is to establish a conflict free society.and i think it possible only through establishment of communist society. So,would i be less wrong if i proceed with my new communist theory with eastern philosophical which try to make change standing along with nature than western philosophy?
Could you elaborate? I sense depth, yet need more clarity.
My interpretation of OP’s sentiment:
Western philosophy somewhat centers around the concept of Man as the intersection of the Rising Ape and Falling Angel. Through reason we can elevate ourselves above our base nature to become something More: more rational, more perfect, more in-line-with-the-divine.
Eastern philosophy somewhat centers around the concept of fundamental oneness. Through understanding we can reconcile ourselves with our base nature to become harmonious with our environment.
In short, Western transcendence comes from breaking free from our incidental conditions, and Eastern transcendence comes from acceptance of our initial conditions.
I believe this is something of an oversimplification, but I don’t think the “Noble Savage” interpretation is exclusively correct. There do seem to be methodological distinctions between Eastern and Western models of Enlightenment.
Consider Naturalism, Darwinism, Absurdism in the West. More than transcendence? Eastern philosophy: perhaps transcendence from nature through inner focus, not just acceptance.
wrong, western philosophy is often based on dichotomies - something is either this or that, but it is more of an analytical tool (I am not nature despite that I am a part of nature). Eastern philosophies are often mystic, though there is western mysticism - that some aspects of existence are incomprehensible on a rational basis and therefore dichotomies are illusory. But such a perspective does not inherently make people better stewards of the environment - in fact they might conclude that their every action is “natural” by definition.
My two cents, but you’re right. Only objection is… What is a man. And what is the place of other being when tradition is only constructed against one and only identity expression/gender
A miserable little pile of secrets
