Why doesn't anyone take Eastern philosophy seriously? Their theories are just as thorough and rigorous as ours...

Always thought it was the difficulty of translating complex ideas between disparate languages. It's very niche, I'm intrigued but don't know where to begin.

Plus more conventional Western takes on Oriental spirituality carry negative connotations due to bullshitters putting forward their own uninformed takes on buddhism, yoga, mindfulness etc. Must put a lot of people off.

Wonder how many people here have even heard of Xunzi or Han Feizi

no bro no one ever heard of the most mainstream chinese writers u fucking pseud

秋雨?

>Why doesn't anyone take Eastern philosophy seriously?
Because it's not philosophy. For instance the Chinese word for "philosophy" is: 哲學 when it should be something like: 愛好智慧. 學 is a signifier for imitation for crying out loud. In दर्शन you still have religious connotations of "seeing" a revealed truth, so you have a "vision" of science in दर्शनशास्त्र, it falls upon you as opposed to be a seemingly endless search on your part. Had the East had a philosophy it should have been able to originate comparable wealth of medical and scientific advances, but beyond the occasional anticipation of an invention or two, it was stuck in the repetition of models: you always begin with an unexamined, unquestioned wisdom literature-tier collection of cool ethical and/or metaphysical sayings that is assumed to be an immortal, unchanging truth, be it the Analects, Dàodéjīng, or the interpretation of every goddamned thing through the Upaniṣads or the Four Noble Truths. Whereas ancient Greeks would readily call bullshit on their most "sacred" poets like Homer and Hesiod, myths, even their very gods. It was this willingness to rationally question and test systematically everything that gave us philosophy, which is why Chinese youths are taught more about Socrates and the Germans than the metaphysics of the 易经 or of 老子. Keep in mind that I love the Easterners and their stuff, they are indeed worth reading and I often end up agreeing with them in some places i.e. process metaphysics is the mainstream there; but it's just not philosophy, not reducible to a signifier like "philosophy", they are Confucianism, Daoism, schools of Hinduism, Buddhism... they are not philosophy, they their own thing.

It's the other way round. What you are calling philosophy is mere rationality, and what you are calling not-philosophy is in fact philosophy.

I see the indoctrination is working, enjoy Plato's cave

I do know what I'm talking about. Eastern philosophy never developed the empirical method nor the peer review process. It is neither thorough nor rigorous compared to Western philosophy, which encompasses both systematic theology and science. The East never developed anything like these systems. You're betraying your crude orientialism by projecting your misunderstanding of your own culture onto another culture.

I don't know anything about eastern philosophy but my sister says Buddhism is a philosophy more than it is an organized religion. To what extent is she right or wrong?

She's 100% wrong. That's just something said by Western liberal atheists who hate Christianity but seek to aggrandizing their own egos by latched by onto a foreign religion and remaking it in their own image. In their narrow minds religion equals bad ideas for stupid Republicans and philosophy equals good ideas for smart Democrats so they pretend that the Buddhism they "identify with" but don't actually follow is a philosophy instead of the religion that it is. Your sister is a pleb and a pseud.

You sound like you have some serious psychological hang-ups.

Why do leftists always resort to pseudopsychology in arguments? Weak.

Show my post to your sister. I want to know her reaction. My turn.

*dons cigar and comically oversized hook nose* I bet you want to fuck her.

she basically said that it isn't an organized religion in that it doesn't have a big political structure and doesn't take money from people like Western religions. She also says it's different because they're cool with people not following the philosophy exactly. Like, it's okay if you desire things and don't follow it. Is that true at all? idk she lived in thailand

im not going to show her your post, and i wasn't the one that said the psychological hang-up thing. i don't want to fuck her.

westerners prefer the endless intellectual proliferation over pragmatic guidance

>she basically said that it isn't an organized religion
lol wow. Yeah a religion with temples, monestaries, monastic orders, holy texts, codified rituals, etc sure isn't the definition of organized.

>in that it doesn't have a big political structure and doesn't take money from people like Western religions.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Did she never step foot in a temple? Did she think the donation boxes were mail boxes? How does she think the Dali Lama is chosen? Does she know who the Dali Lama is?

>She also says it's different because they're cool with people not following the philosophy exactly. Like, it's okay if you desire things and don't follow it.
Buddhism is the main missionary religion behind Christianity and Islam. They sent out missionaries and actively converted most of Asia. Not everone is expected to be a monk by the existence of laity hardly means it isn't a religion.

>Is that true at all? idk she lived in thailand
Sounds like a tourist expert.

By insisting so strongly that you don't want to fuck your sister it makes me think that you want to...fuck your sister. Whoah. So this is the power of pseudopsychology.

Is there a good book to redpill me on eastern philosophy and let me choose what I want to look into further?

>misses the entire point of phil, which isn't to achieve the secret to existence, which is inherently impossible, but to re frame existence in new and satisfying ways

That's the problem with westerners.

I love my sister and I think it's cool that she went out and did her own thing and gained some new culture in a different pert of the world. I did the same in Brazil and I still live here (unfortunately). But I fear that you're right about her being a tourist expert and I agree to a degree with .

What I would really like to do is get better acquainted with these ideas and see for myself if I agree with her. I want to study the history of these religions, not just the ideas themselves.

A few years ago I played around with that fantasy in my head and tried to jerk off to her a few times but it just didn't do anything for me. Too weird. Way too weird. I was really open to the idea of being attracted to my sister, just like I was open to being gay. But it just turns out that I am not.

Insofar as philosophy can be understood as the clarification of problematic concepts that arise in language, with the profusion of perspectives and interpretations this entails, you didn't really critically address any of the Eastern writings to warrant a proposition of labelling it as something other than philosophy, but simply cited what is particular to Western thought.

Son, if you're "open" to Sodomy and incest, you don't need to be exploring Eastern religions. You can need to read yourself some Old Testament pronto. Don't end up like this guy.

youtu.be/35QAyctRU_E

>""""""""theories"""""""""
>""""""""rigorous"""""""""
These should not be used alongside philosophy, let alone eastern """""philosophy""""".

buddhisms are religions, the dhamma is not a religion nor opinion >She also says it's different because they're cool with people not following the philosophy exactly.
kek

Mysticism.

Is this n-new sincerity?

I challenge you to show me where fundamental metaphysics are proven in 易經, 論語, 道德經, Mukhya Upaniṣads. They are treated as either self-evident or authoritatively provided by a divine being, sage or बोधिसत्त्व, hence the lack of Heidegger and Socratic dialectic analogues in the related traditions. My post has nothing to do with particular contents but their use. Nobody makes an argument for the existence of 天, 道, 氣. Nobody makes an argument for why, when I close my ears, what I hear is the आत्म, or why should I believe in things like संसार, कर्म, मोक्ष, तत्त्वमसि, शून्यता, ईश्वर. With that out of the way, what makes φιλοσοφία what it is for me, unlike your invocation of a Wittgensteinian reductionism of it, is the unattainability of σοφία, not the memorization of the sayings of sages, nor a 禪 monk shouting and beating you with a stick to shock you out of your beliefs as per /pol/'s whole modus operandi. Now go recite some sutras.

non-western philosophy doesn’t exist. the modern form of the east/west dichotomy is a way to market eastern supernatural ideas as being fundamentally different from abrahamic religions so that they can be sold to a population with an incompatible tradition.

logic is the same everywhere, and there are actual philosophers everywhere. buddhists have never once demonstrated that their premises are true because they operate on unfalsifiable premises. the more intellectual strains of it are pseudophilosophical at best for this reason.

also to the fag above, buddhism is a religion, all your sister did was ride cock and you’re a sick fuck for touching yourself in front of jesus while thinking about her.

>I challenge you to show me where fundamental metaphysics are proven in 易經, 論語, 道德經
There is nothing to show because Eastern Philosophy doesn't attempt to "prove" anything, that is Western binary thinking at its finest.

>Nobody makes an argument for the existence of 天, 道, 氣. Nobody makes an argument for why, when I close my ears, what I hear is the आत्म, or why should I believe in things like संसार, कर्म, मोक्ष, तत्त्वमसि, शून्यता, ईश्वर
Of course not, Eastern philosophy doesn't revolve around arguments because it shows rather than tells.

Are you going to keep projecting some more dogmatic Western butthurt to something completely unconcerned with it or what

>With that out of the way, what makes φιλοσοφία what it is for me, unlike your invocation of a Wittgensteinian reductionism of it, is the unattainability of σοφία
You're free to stick to whatever metaphysical abstractions you want bro, my invocation is perfectly fine if you understand its implications.

>doesn't attempt to "prove" anything
>doesn't revolve around arguments
प्रमाण, चतुष्कोटि, 名家
>dogmatic
you have it so backwards lmfao
>butthurt
I believe already told you I like them. You're so completely clueless you don't know what you argue for, against or why. Also, we're past the linguistic turn. My little tripfag can't be this cute.

>non-western philosophy doesn’t exist
spoken like a true pig ignorant westerner

>the modern form of the east/west dichotomy is a way to market eastern supernatural ideas as being fundamentally different from abrahamic religions so that they can be sold to a population with an incompatible tradition.
Or it's, y'know, based on two differing traditions of thought that also happen to be historically situated on opposite sides of the globe

>buddhists have never once demonstrated that their premises are true because they operate on unfalsifiable premises.
>buddhists
>unfalsifiable premises
lolol ideological tosh through and through

>logic is the same everywhere
doesn't mean that logic is everywhere

>प्रमाण, चतुष्कोटि, 名家
Exceptions to the general tradition, and certainly not something on the level of the Western tradition and worth exclusively focusing on.

>you don't know what you argue for, against or why.
I'm not arguing anything

>Also, we're past the linguistic turn
judging by your consistent conflating of metalanguages apparently you missed the gravy train

>spoken like a true pig ignorant westerner
All you would have to do is to prove user wrong with Eastern "philosophy", but since you have been told (not shown) that Eastern "philosophers" don't or can't use arguments or prove anything (which is false), and case in point you don't examine your teachings, you yourself can't do it; cue you being stuck with inconsequential speech acts to express anguish and an inferiority complex. An unexamined life leads to become people like you, worse than being wrong is to be unable to investigate why.
>Exceptions to the general tradition
प्रमाण is in all Hindu schools. But where is this "general tradition" you speak of? You're making shit up.
>conflating of metalanguages
You must have no idea what you're saying as usual: categorizing thinking and metalanguages that would pigeonhole Oriental doctrines and religious schools into φιλοσοφία are precisely what I've been opposing ITT all along, this post is no exception. Boy, you are confused.
>I'm not arguing anything
I know you can't, please retreat to your cave in deep silence, this is a philosophy thread, and the important sages whose divine opinions matter are talking.

>Why doesn't anyone take Eastern philosophy seriously? Their theories are just as thorough and rigorous as ours

this is an Hegelian board, that's why

>All you would have to do is to prove user wrong with Eastern "philosophy", but since you have been told (not shown) that Eastern "philosophers" don't or can't use arguments or prove anything (which is false), and case in point you don't examine your teachings, you yourself can't do it; cue you being stuck with inconsequential speech acts to express anguish and an inferiority complex. An unexamined life leads to become people like you, worse than being wrong is to be unable to investigate why.
Eastern philosophy in general doesn't engage in reactive narratives of argumentation, it demonstrates by means of examples - take it or leave it. Your myopic presupposition of a dialectical metanarrative/metalanguage that doesn't get satisfied by the abovementioned mode of explication, which isn't concerned with any of the concepts you are using, is your own shortcoming and problem. Not entertaining any other posts regarding this very basic fact which I have already covered unless I see some actual progression.

>प्रमाण is in all Hindu schools. But where is this "general tradition" you speak of? You're making shit up.
I meant traditions* (of Eastern philosophy), the focal point of which is not logic.

>categorizing thinking and metalanguages
I'm not talking about categorizing something (Eastern philosophy) according to whatever interpretation (Western philosophy), I'm talking about conflating the rules of one with the rules of the other, and how this results in a blinkered representation of what Philosophy consists in.

>Why doesn't anyone take Eastern philosophy seriously?
Many posters made the fatal mistake of not starting with the Greeks, so they have noone to compare the orientals with, and see the similarities.

>Eastern philosophy in general doesn't engage in reactive narratives of argumentation
Patently false, whether it's 論語, तत्त्वमसि, मिलिन्दपन्ह, even 莊子.
>unless I see some actual progression.
You haven't named a single text to support your retarded opinions, you are way out of your league, stupid kid.
>the rules of one with the rules of the other
If you have "rules" that except concept from examination and questioning, such as not doing so because master will beat you, you're not doing φιλοσοφία. Shut the fuck up.

>Patently false, whether it's 論語, तत्त्वमसि, मिलिन्दपन्ह, even 莊子.
You either cannot comprehend what "in general" means or what I am implying in the rest of my post

>You haven't named a single text to support your retarded opinions, you are way out of your league, stupid kid.
I haven't had to and I'm not here to wipe your ass

>If you have "rules" that except concept from examination and questioning, such as not doing so because master will beat you, you're not doing φιλοσοφία.
Rules can't be guarded against examination and questioning because language is dialogic, nor was anyone implying that they could be. I suggest you read up on what "rules" in the context of language games means and relate it back to my post bud. Off to bed

>cannot comprehend what "in general" means
You're just lying about things you know nothing of.
>I haven't had to
You never read any, whenever you spout your lies, they are there to disprove them.
>language is dialogic
Bahktin came up with that word, and the authoritative utterances Oriental doctrines religions are so fond of are what he classifies as monologic, same goes for their approaches to texts as transmissions.
>I suggest you read up on what "rules" in the context of language games means
If you did you would see that 哲學 and दर्शनशास्त्र are different language games compared to philosophy, thus not philosophy.

>if you can take Augustine, Aquinas, etc. seriously
We don't. All Christians are retarded.

>A few years ago I played around with that fantasy in my head and tried to jerk off to her a few times but it just didn't do anything for me. Too weird. Way too weird. I was really open to the idea of being attracted to my sister, just like I was open to being gay. But it just turns out that I am not

this desu. But tbqh this is why I prefer eastern philosophy, also because it is often apolitical or at least attempts to transcend politics whereas enlightenment "rational" discourse is anything but apolitical.

The problem with shitskins like you is you don't have a counter point, so you just acting high you fucking pleb

>based on two differing traditions of thought that also happen to be historically situated on opposite sides of the globe
>doesn't mean that logic is everywhere
This is retarded. Easteners shouldn't be given a pass for not being intellectually rigorous just because "they're different." If they can't give any arguments for whatever positions they put forward then they can be safely ignored.

>muh intellectual rigor
it's literally just a tool for people too mediocre to read between the lines

guenon - intro to the study of hindu doctrines

Reminder that this is better than anything western philosophers ever produced

>better than anything western philosophers ever produced
>"CHING CHONG CHING CHONG!"

Only a true zhuangzi fan would call zhuangzi shit

All Western specialised sciences and philosophy stems from the metaphysical doctrines of the East

Typical Western misunderstanding

probably because it's impossible to fully understand a culture you weren't born into

Just lol

If you don't take Eastern phil seriously you should attack ya boys Schopenhauer and Hume since they got most of their ideas from it.

She's right in that it has a lot that it is a lot more adaptable than western religions (i.e., no central god or pantheon of gods means that indigenous beliefs in gods in countries like China and Japan could co-exist), but it's 100% a religion, with various degrees of antinomianism like Christianity. I think the antinomianism of the laity is less controversial in Buddhism than Christianity to an extent, but by all means it remains "dogma."

But just as you don't have to be Christian to see Occam's razor as an important part of philosophy, you don't have to be Buddhist to see the philosophical rigor and implications of Vasubandhu and Dharmakirti.