26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganWhat is this exact "Indian thinking" that you are talking about? And who are the Indian philosophers that in your opinion offered inferior systems and false theories of reality based on the shunyata concept?
Ouch I nearly let you get away with this.
Indian philosophy was able to persist and realize its potential - the idea of Zero is one of its glories but it did lose impetus and disappear into itself. Its strength I think was in its psychology which remains valid and valuable. Greek philosophy did not wither - it was actively destroyed as state policy t ...[text shortened]... apacity for understanding the World than Western science based solidly on its Greek foundations.
😵
26 May 10
Thinking out aloud ... Why do so many people with a Eurocentric cast of thought find Greek thought familiar, even if they don't speak a word of Attic Greek, but consider Indian thought dubious and lacking in philosophic rigour? Both traditions are largely available only in translation; neither can be accessed directly, unless you have the sort of divine insight that Martin Heidegger thought he had.
26 May 10
Originally posted by AgergI am not troubled by the idea that there may be no afterlife. why would you make such a sweeping generalization of all theists? To despise the life I was given in favor of a spirit life in the hereafter is to blaspheme life itself. Just because I happen to believe in an afterlife does not mean I do not hold my life in low regard.
They feed on excrement and decaying matter; they don't tend to live for much longer than a month; we humans (for whom their presence is a threat to our health) try to cut short this short lifetime with rolled up newspapers and fly spray. They have no appreciation for culture, arts, inquiry, material (or 'spiritual'😉 pleasures, to this end they have horrible ey ...[text shortened]... eneral we get a much fairer bite of the cherry so to speak than other unfortunate life forms)
26 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCopernicus was ok partly because of living so far from the Vatican's control but mainly for two reasons - nobody read him was one, but a lot of people welcomed his more accurate calculations for purposes of casting better horoscopes, which even the popes used. So he was mainly noticed and appreciated as someone with a clever technique for calculating the positions of planets.
I don't think Reason ever entirely disappeared from the West, I wouldn't call Bede irrational, would you? But Aristotle denied the void as well as infinity and the Thomists followed him in his. Before Copernicus, Aristotle's walnut-universe reigned conceptually supreme. The reason: it placed mankind at the centre of the cosmos. Not until zero -- science!
You know the Zen expression, there is no buddha? Well, there's no Zen either.
Before Newton (maybe Galileo or maybe not) nobody was right because nobody understood why they might be right. Good guess or clever hypothesis is not enough. I am not trying to argue that the Greeks were right. Nobody does.
Science rested as Newton said on the shoulders of giants. Newton's predecessors were not irrational. Even Newton was an alchemist. Some of those giants were Indian.
Greek maths did stop developing once the Roman soldier killed Archimedes. That was not due to any weakness in its mathematics. It was due to the active suppression of Greek thought and all Rational debate by the Christian Empire and its successors.
The success of that suppression should strike fear into those imagining our achievements are safe from the new theocratic forces at work today.
26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganIt was due to the active suppression of Greek thought and all Rational debate by the Christian Empire and its successors.
Copernicus was ok partly because of living so far from the Vatican's control but mainly for two reasons - nobody read him was one, but a lot of people welcomed his more accurate calculations for purposes of casting better horoscopes, which even the popes used. So he was mainly noticed and appreciated as someone with a clever technique for calculating the po ...[text shortened]... r into those imagining our achievements are safe from the new theocratic forces at work today.
Unfair characterization. One must consider what formed the basis for commonly-held reality to properly frame their contemporary struggles. Just as now, deviation then was met with strong resistance. Is anyone in power to be fully trusted, ever?
26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganArchimedes was brilliant but he still relied on geometry and lacked zero. Whether he or another Greek would have come up with zero and place values had the Romans spared him is arguably arguable.
Greek maths did stop developing once the Roman soldier killed Archimedes. That was not due to any weakness in its mathematics. It was due to the active suppression of Greek thought and all Rational debate by the Christian Empire and its successors.
You maintain that the lack of zero in Greek mathematics was not a weakness?
26 May 10
Originally posted by black beetleKeeping this simple (for my sake) science and Western thought has exploded on the World since Newton, expressed in many cultural forms. An example is the way the West fights wars, much to the dismay of others, which has been traced back to the Greek Hopolites.
What is this exact "Indian thinking" that you are talking about? And who are the Indian philosophers that in your opinion offered inferior systems and false theories of reality based on the shunyata concept?
😵
India seems to have entered a period of fragmentation and weakness which the Europeans exploited. China fell apart internally before it was pulled to pieces. Japan was an interesting case - it chose to embrace western methods as an explicit strategy to survive against the West. Islam is more complex but the Ottoman Empire became sterile and the modern Islamic world is struggling to emerge from similar conditions.
There is a powerful force working through Western culture and science. Not everyone likes it or welcomes it. So what? Question is how to live with it.
26 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBecause they are not well versed on the systems of the Ancient Greek naturalism, because they ignore the interaction between the Ionian and the Indian philosophers, because they do not have a clue about Greco-Buddhism, because they cannot trace and recognize properly the Indian origins of the Platonic doctrine, because they never studied in depth neither the main Greek nor the main Indian philosophers...
Thinking out aloud ... Why do so many people with a Eurocentric cast of thought find Greek thought familiar, even if they don't speak a word of Attic Greek, but consider Indian thought dubious and lacking in philosophic rigour? Both traditions are largely available only in translation; neither can be accessed directly, unless you have the sort of divine insight that Martin Heidegger thought he had.
😵
26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganI cannot see how this quote of yours is answering my two simple questions:
Keeping this simple (for my sake) science and Western thought has exploded on the World since Newton, expressed in many cultural forms. An example is the way the West fights wars, much to the dismay of others, which has been traced back to the Greek Hopolites.
India seems to have entered a period of fragmentation and weakness which the Europeans explo ...[text shortened]... ure and science. Not everyone likes it or welcomes it. So what? Question is how to live with it.
What is this exact "Indian thinking" that you are talking about? And who are the Indian philosophers that in your opinion offered inferior systems and false theories of reality based on the shunyata concept?
😵
26 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleWell I am one of those who have read little enough; but I don't any feel any closer to the ancient Greeks than the ancient Indians just because I am 'Western'. In fact there is an enormous myth sitting in that word 'Western', for reasons you have touched on.
Because they are not well versed on the systems of the Ancient Greek naturalism, because they ignore the interaction between the Ionian and the Indian philosophers, because they do not have a clue about Greco-Buddhism, because they cannot trace and recognize properly the Indian origins of the Platonic doctrine, because they never studied in depth neither the main Greek nor the main Indian philosophers...
😵
I am eagerly awaiting this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Wisdom-Middle-Way/dp/0195093364
If finnegan also buys it we can have a study group ...
26 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageExcellent, Nagarjuna is deep😵
Well I am one of those who have read little enough; but I don't any feel any closer to the ancient Greeks than the ancient Indians just because I am 'Western'. In fact there is an enormous myth sitting in that word 'Western', for reasons you have touched on.
I am eagerly awaiting this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Wisdom-Middle-Way/dp/0195093364
If finnegan also buys it we can have a study group ...
26 May 10
Originally posted by black beetleThe text is freely available on the Internet in various translations, but Garfield's edition attracts me because of its apparatus for translating Nargajuna into the context of analytical philosophy. Thus he is treated as a philosopher and not an inscrutable mystic.
Excellent, Nagarjuna is deep😵
26 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageToday he is not inscrutable for he follows a clear "0 or 1" approach in order to establish his amazing "0/1" concept; unfortunately Nagarjuna remained unconceivable for centuries dew to the lack of the proper scientific back up, due to false translations and due to a major lack of understanding of his holistic view.
The text is freely available on the Internet in various translations, but Garfield's edition attracts me because of its apparatus for translating Nargajuna into the context of analytical philosophy. Thus he is treated as a philosopher and not an inscrutable mystic.
You will notice that his sharp line of immediate reasoning is impossible to be debunked and that it is backed up by main scientific facts and evidence of our era. Back then Nagarjuna, in the beginning a Brahmin, adopted shunyata by means of meditation -and solely afterwards he brought up his own conceptualized blocks of thought, which where considered also empty and thus they were not a pole of attachment😵
26 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOK. Ordered at a modest price from the Book Depository. Amazon I avoid when I can. There will of course be an intermission before it arrives and gets tackled.
Well I am one of those who have read little enough; but I don't any feel any closer to the ancient Greeks than the ancient Indians just because I am 'Western'. In fact there is an enormous myth sitting in that word 'Western', for reasons you have touched on.
I am eagerly awaiting this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Wisdom-Middle-Way/dp/0195093364
If finnegan also buys it we can have a study group ...
26 May 10
Originally posted by black beetleThere is a limit to how well versed us mortals can be - look at my French Defence! Each new line I learn becomes foolishness and I turn to the masters to find another. So I do not have any expertise to debate Indian philosophy. But I never said it was poor or weak. I have looked into Buddhism quite a lot and related topics a bit. I am attracted to many things.
I cannot see how this quote of yours is answering my two simple questions:
What is this exact "Indian thinking" that you are talking about? And who are the Indian philosophers that in your opinion offered inferior systems and false theories of reality based on the shunyata concept?
😵
However, philosophy has to be lived to have value. I am especially committed to Western / Greek values. They are often ugly and dangerous. But my priorities are set out on my profile: I wish to avoid being deceived.
Looking at the way "Western" thinking has confronted and smothered alternatives, there is a definite historical sense that many excellent cultures (The Indian and the Chinese notably) have been utterly vulnerable to Western intrusion. The Chinese for example have been consistently unable to devise a workable philosophy that can handle the challenges of its own society let alone the intrusions of the West. That does not mean they lack value and indeed, they may in future build upon western foundations to reach a better synthesis. But I am skeptical here.
Whatever our future, it will have to entail either absorbing and synthesizing the different strands of human thought, or alternatively constructing and defending boundaries. By definition, the former implies looking for "secular" or non ideological principles that are acceptable across cultures and in that respect the future - if we are to establish and protect a shared, common humanity - has to have a basis in Reason.