How come Asians are dominating academia but we have yet to see any great modern Asian philosopher?

How come Asians are dominating academia but we have yet to see any great modern Asian philosopher?

Attached: 1505364270913.png (260x394, 123K)

Because they never had a good philosophical tradition, it's for the same reason that anglo analytic department produced only a couple of good philosophers but never a "great" one, hubris simply isn't part of their mind-discourse. Philosophy is all a language game.
There's also the fact that today knowledge is inclined towards tecnical/scientifical disciplines.

mao killed all smart people

>anglo analytic department produced only a couple of good philosophers but never a "great" one
>Philosophy is all a language game

Attached: witty.jpg (405x563, 27K)

witty wasn't part of an anglo department lol

If you ever lived in Asia, and you're not some dork ass TEFL'er, you'll realize that Asians aren't actually very 'smart'. That high IQ of them is wasted on specializiation. Because of that they know jack shit about anything else that isn't their field.
I've yet to meet an Asian who has a hollistic worldview that crosses over many fields.

inb4 dude making an anecdotal reference to his super smart phd gf

>Cambridge isn't an anglo department

This.

Have you ever gone to college? The Asians there don't know shit - they literally just regurgitate the lecture notes or whatever they've memorised, ask them to elaborate or think outside the box and they're totally lost.

>How come Asians are dominating academia

Dominating how much money you hand to overpriced colleges is not dominating academia. They literally let in any halfwit slopehead who can barely speak English because they get to charge non-Western students absurd quantities to get a meaningless stamp

>witty wasn't part of an anglo department lol
The fuck? Yes he was

what I meant is that he was self-taught, or at least he didn't learn phil at university

He did spend considerable time being personally tutored by Russell though

>another "thinly-veiled" racebait thread

Do Indians count here? This definitely applies to them.

They do but no one actually thinks they're smart to begin with

they only had middle tier losers like lao tzu, if only they had access to the works of luminaries like Thomas 'things moving means jesus must have been the son of god' Aquinas

eastern "philosophy" is very different from our platonic-aristotelic kind of philosophy

>if only they had access to the works of luminaries like Thomas 'things moving means jesus must have been the son of god' Aquinas

Why do things move then?

This so much. Especially in the humanities, I’ve yet to come across asians come up with thoughts of their own.

Becoming is illusionary. All that is, is.

Attached: blocks your blocking.jpg (220x288, 20K)

Gibberish

byung chul-han

nope

who dis

Tao