Western Classical v Eastern Mystical
Western Classical Philosophy v Eastern Mystery Traditions
Which system do you believe pierces the veil better in understanding the mystery of the purpose of living for a 20th Century human?
Which system do you believe pierces the veil better in understanding the mystery of the purpose of living for a 20th Century human?
Comments (41)
Good question :up:
Western classical philosophy has a lot of doctrines and variations. It is complex to choose one of these to explain the purpose of living. But you were specific and referred to a 20th century man so my choice goes to Absurdism. Thus, the philosophical theory that existence in general is absurd. This implies that the world lacks meaning or a higher purpose and is not fully intelligible by reason. The book called Sisyphus by Albert Camus represents this theory.
Eastern mystery traditions only (or most of the cases) focus on different "schools" of Buddhism.
Shûnyatâ is one of the most important of them. It means "emptiness". Emptiness is neither existence, nor non-existence, nor both existence and non-existence, nor neither existence nor non-existence. At the very least, this means that we don't know what is left when we take away all conditioned relations. Beyond that, it can mean that we cannot know what that is. No Self Nature means that there are no essences, just as Momentariness means that there are no substances.
Also we should point out No-Âtman: There is no Self (âtman) in Buddhism, either as an essence or as a substance. What we call our self is a collection of things, the "aggregates" (skandhas): 1) the body, or "form," 2) feelings, 3) ideas, 4) impressions, & 5) momentary consciousness.
:100: :up:
(For a few decades now, for me a self-styled Epicurean-Spinozist, it's been) P.W. Zapffe, A. Camus, C. Rosset, A. Murray ... :death: :flower:
In my opinion, the twentieth century individual is well-served to study both and ultimately synthesize a union between the two. Please keep in mind, that I'm not an expert in either system. But from the studies and practices of philosophy and mysticism that I have engaged in/with, I've found myself with a much deeper sense of respect and awe for this reality by pulling from Eastern and Western systems simultaneously; thereby bringing those contemplations into harmony with each other.
:up: :sparkle:
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
Complex thoughts on put Eastern and Western systems together but also interesting, indeed.
Why aim for "harmony"?
@Gnomon
Good question, mon ami! As far as I can tell, there's no escaping harmony. Let's say we have disharmony - this with harmony is again harmony; iterate this to [math]\infty[/math] if you wish and/but you'll always end up harmony. It's amazing this yin-yang concept - if you oppose it, you endorse it! :cool:
Such areas do not seem to be in the scope of the Eastern mystery traditions or at least not in the direct sense.
Taoism was developed as a conversation with Confucius who put the 'human' experience at the center of what could be known. That conversation involved epistemology, logic, and metaphysics. The inner chapters of Zhuangzi are focused upon the limits of language and opinion to deliver what they seem to promise. The paradox of using language to point beyond it was often discussed.
In some ways, Zhuangzi's approach is similar to Kant's table of antimonies, where the different possible theses are ranged against each other because of the rules of our thinking rather than a result of something beyond it.
I think Jung pointed out the issue well enough by stating that the longing for something unique/alien in the western mindset was quickly filled by setting eyes eastwards. Yet in the west there is already a rich and varied repertoire of mythos and symbolism that we could more easily tap into and identify as a tool for piercing the veil yet the association with the judeo-christian symbolism (which inevitably attached to all western ancient and prehistoric mythos) looks stagnant and repulsive with a fleeting look. The east holds mystery and a new view yet to the average westerner it is actually harder to trace any relevance due to the language, historical and cultural discrepancies. Perhaps many forget that our everyday lexicon is infused with mythos and fable through idioms and metaphors passed down through the endless ages. We cannot simply unravel and forget our origins anymore than we can supplant this with a foreign body even if we try hard to adopt other cultural attributes from neighbouring states and institutions.
Much like someone who has worked as a fisherman for 30 years cannot simply forget what it is to be a fisherman so a westerner cannot simply forget to be have bee raised in the western world speaking the language they speak (which as I stated is infused with symbols and mythos dating back over millennia).
For example, some Christians believe that the purpose of living, the goal, is to get into heaven; salvation is what we lack, and it is lifes purpose to attain it, to get saved. Some people say lifes goal is to progress towards enlightenment; after many lives, many reincarnations, the ultimate goal of enlightenment is reach; a goal which may involve dissolving back into union with the One. Both types of people put lifes ultimate goal beyond this human life. Other people place lifes ultimate goal within this life: to learn, to grow, in Maslows hierarchy to become self-actualized.
So, possible goals for living are to attain heaven, a better reincarnation, and self-actualization. Other goals are to find love, fame, wealth, etc. Some people say we should have a certain goal, salvation, for instance. Existentialists believe it is up to us to freely choose what goal(s) we want to pursue, to choose what purpose we want our life to be about.
Some people are suspicious of an overarching life goal and advocate living in the moment (which, in itself, can be a life goal). Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans, said John Lennon. This may seem to say, Dont waste time on religious, pie-in-the-sky goals. Live for today. Image theres no heaven. Its easy if you try. begins Lennons song Imagine.
Ironically, a religious/spiritual argument can be made for living in the moment, for mindfulness. God or ultimate reality, says the argument, exists for us only in the present because the past and future do not exist at this moment, on the present exists. When we remember the past or think about the future, we are in our own thoughts. But when we are in the present, in reality, we have the possibility of more intimate contact and experience of the Real. With this view, we lack nothing expect awareness of what already exists, of that in which we live and move and have our being.
My own judgment is that there is no ultimate reality or mystery to solve, or purpose to find, nor any thought system that will work or appeal to all. I'm for making things up as I go, and happy to steal the odd idea from wherever if it looks like that idea can help. Personally I avoid systems, for we are already encrusted with all kinds of conceptual detritus and schemas just through socialization and enculturation. For me the journey is more about learning to ditch bad habits and unhelpful thinking.
:up:
:fire:
Quoting David S
The Western and Eastern philosophies are very different and they view life in a totally different way, although they share a lot of things. But concerning this topic, the point is that in the Eastern philosophy, life is not meaningless as it is in the Western one, esp. in the 21th century.
Now, since you are talking about Western Classical, we must exclude modern philosophy, in which the lack of meaning and purpose of life is so evident. Plato, purpose of life is to attain the highest form of himself, which is knowledge about himself. Personal and spiritual growth was believed to be the purpose of life by most ancient Greek philosophers. Yet, this is subjective. It seems that they were not examining the meaning of life per se, but they were rather giving a meaning to life. As people do today, but certainly not in terms of spiritual --or just mental, if you prefer-- development and improvement.
This however, is not the case in the Eastern philosophies, religions and civilizations, which have maintained their basic principles as far as life and its meaning and purpose are concerned. But I'm not going to expand this here ...
***
BTW, your question is biased when you say "the mystery of the purpose of living" because it reflects only the Western philosophy, esp. the modern one. In the Eastern there's no such mystery, as I mentioned above.
I interpret your dichotomy this way:
Epicureanism-Stoicism v.Daoism-Buddhism
(i.e. eudaimonia v. non-attachment).
I had explored the latter (with some devotion) as an undergraduate in the early '80s but the former had prevailed I suspect because that tradition suits my Western (individualistic & logico-mathematical) educated biases much better. Thus, my enduring affinity for Absurdism .
For a man of the 20[sup]th[/sup] century, I'd say Western philosophy is best-suited as the world is dominated by Western meme-plexes and a simple rule of thumb is, excluding imposition by force, ideas that survive/thrive are usually good ones.
However, given the popularity of Daoism in the West, I'd have to say there's a two-way exchange of philosophies.
Agreed. But we have to consider the fact that we in the West have interpreted Tao Te Ching or Confucianism according to our "culture". I mean, those translated works are adjusted to the Western world criteria.
Probably if we read it in the original version/language we would get confused because we wouldn't understand it
[quote=Socrates]I neither know nor think I know.[/quote]
Socrates speaks for all mankind.
The Tao Te Ching has to be read in Chinese to understand it? I believe that's true and yet here we are pointing radio telescopes at stars hundreds of light years away, confident that we can decipher messages in alien tongues. As per the movie Contact, math is a universal language e.g. the Pythagorean theorem was discovered independently by all ancient civilizations and they all, without exception, say the exact same thing: a[sup]2[/sup] + b[sup]2[/sup] = c[sup]2[/sup] (c is the hypotenuse, a and b are the other two sides of a right triangle).
No and I fully respect the work of translators and interpreters who help us to read the Tao in our languages. Nevertheless, we have to be agree with the fact that the original version is better. The Chinese alphabet is based on ideograms. So we need to know a basic sense of Chinese culture before interpreting the Tao. We are not limited to read it and debate about it but... I feel we are losing something when a complex language is translated to Spanish, English, French, etc... There are a lot of filters in the way.
Quoting Agent Smith
It is not the same. Maths are precise science. We are debating about how we express ourselves through philosophy, art, literature, etc...
[quote=Laozi]He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.[/quote]
Then he spoke ... the Tao Te Ching
He contradicted himself (Western verdict on an Eastern case) i.e. he first wrote Tao Te Ching and then took, what?, a quill?, and struck it all off like so [s]Tao Te Ching[/s]. It looks like Laozi, not Heidegger, was the first to use the sous rature technique in philosophy.
In short there's literally nothing to translate! Transalators can rest easy if it's whether they did a good job or not that worries them.
[quote=Boyzone]It's only words, and words are all I have
To take your heart away.[/quote]
There are two important parts in the Tao:
1. Interpretation. How do you interpret the phrase you have shared? We already discussed the meaning and nature of Tao at: My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching.
2. Translation. Trying to find out the correct words to put it on our language or vocabulary. People as Derek Lin did his best to translate it to English: Chinese - English by Derek Lin
This statement is absurd. You want to claim that the differences that are made in meaning are not important to regard on the basis of an ad hominem observation of your presumptions regarding the motivations of those who work on the texts.
This approach suggests you have a secret access to the text that cannot be verified by any actual labor in that regard.
Not a convincing argument that your view should prevail over others.
Excerpt - (It must be noted that, as C. G. Jung correctly points out, Chinese mentality, at least up to very recent times, has been essentially different in some fundamental respects from that of Europeans.
The teachings of the Eastern Mystery traditions from translations of what may have been oral teachings will always leave a doubt arguably as to the original meaning. This is true for any ancient text but for one I am grateful and thankful they have come down to us in particular where certain rulers have been at pains to eradicate such knowledge. The knowledge is Power expression must have been a factor.
All we can do is try and learn from these texts but in turn take from an interpret our own meaning and sensibilities from them.
What's the meaning of asking people their opinion if you are to ignore them?
:down:
Because you do not respond to replies addressed to you
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742163
For me, the difference between western and eastern philosophies is the focus. Western philosophies generally focus on reason, eastern on experience and awareness. To me, it feels like western philosophies focus on one small aspect of our reality while philosophical Taoism and other similar religions and philosophies try to encompass everything. I find Taoism much more satisfying than other approaches. As far as western philosophies go, you can probably call me a pragmatist. Taoism is the most pragmatic way of knowing the world I can think of.
And that's what I call "pragmatism" - whatever works.
I think we've had this discussion before. I disagree. In my understanding, the Tao Te Ching is about the experience Lao Tzu is trying to help us encounter, not what he wants us to understand. The experience speaks for itself in whatever language you understand.
Firstly apologies. I was not so familiar with the site and replying directly to a commented post. Thanks for your carefully considered reply.
We can agree the approaches are indeed different.
Its odd you say the question is biased. I guess phrasing it as meaning and purpose of life. I was just trying to use one question or area to start the conversation. I agree there are different ways to look at it. Agree too that the Eastern way of thinking would not really think in terms of purpose meaning of life. Its my view that there is an over focus on this in the western way of thinking in 21st C. You could take mindfulness as an example. Its arguable that the East v West has a different way of thinking about some fundamental things.
Time is one. The western leaning can be very short term. The East tend to thing for longer term. I possibly argue this makes for better strategic thinking and planning. We have the East to thank for the Art of War and The Book of five rings. I am born in the West but from a young age had a certain interest in the Far East. In part from exposure to programs like the Water Margin and Monkey.
But quite a lot to do with Bruce Lee and David Carradine of Kung Fu fame. I am sure you know that the idea originated from Lee but they wanted an American actor. Carradine in reality I think was a better choice. But to finish thanks for your reply and insight. I assume you favour the Eastern over the Western. That is my leaning too. I have an interest in martial arts and internal styles in particular Tai Chi which has its own classics and principles and seeks to develop both health and spiritual developments.
I'm not intending to be provocative, but I've got to ask, do you think you might be holding a romanticized, Western notion of 'orientalism' rather than an authentic cultural awareness? Westerners often seem to love to fetishize the Eastern and cherry pick partial truths because these seem more palatable or intriguing than the dull Christianity of their upbringing and the dominant culture.
Try to convince the Ukrainians that peace & harmony is inevitable. To the contrary, Philosophers of East & West have argued mostly for bottom-up happiness & harmony. For example, Confucius vainly tried to convince the rulers of his culture that the common people would meekly follow a virtuous lord, but would rebel against a vicious leader. Presumably, if individuals are happy, then the collective should be happy, and society should be harmonious & prosperous. But, political leaders of all times & places have tended to concern themselves primarily with harmony at the top, among their peers, leaving the hoi polloi to their own devices. Hypothetically, If Putin is happy, then everybody who counts (oligarchs) will be happy, and national harmony will reign. :joke: irony
Similarly, the Epicurean notion of harmony was focused mainly on stability at the top of society. Assuming that if the rich & powerful were happy, the whole society should be harmonious -- as far as they (the cream of society) were concerned . But the Platonists & Idealists envisioned a more homogeneous happiness. The Epicurean worldview could be narrowly pragmatic, because it was primarily a view from the top of society. Hence, their self-centered ideal was personal Happiness, instead of general Harmony. Yet most Eastern & Western philosophers have concluded that you can't have personal Happiness without public Harmony. Of course, you are the best judge of what makes you happy, but, as a social being, you also have the innate ability (Empathy) to predict what will make other beings happy, so they will work together as a team, instead of a disorganized mob of MEs.
You could also summarize that the Epicureans tended to be Materialistic Reductionists, whereas the Platonists were Idealistic & Holistic. A similar top-down perspective seems to be the crux of Ayn Rand's argument for "The Virtue of Selfishness" She labeled that attitude as Objectivism, because what matters most is your own empirical experience of happiness. Her anti-socialist arguments were similar to Adam Smith's apology for Capitalism. He turned the socialist hierarchy of concerns upside-down, with the optimistic notion that a rising tide lifts all boats. The implication is that if I'm free to pursue my own happiness, then everybody else should be happy. Unfortunately, people at the bottom of the economic & political hierarchy may not see that theory as realistic. Anyway, idealistic generalizing philosophers have typically had little influence on political & economic leaders. Which may be why social harmony has always seemed to be anything but inevitable. :cool:
PS__This post is not about politics or economics, so don't get hung-up on Socialist vs Capitalist arguments. General harmony may be best approximated by meeting in the middle : not either/or, but both Idealism and Realism. Yin/Yang is a dynamic balance -- a dialectic -- always on the tipping point.
The Virtue of Selfishness :
Rand acknowledged in the book's introduction that the term 'selfishness' was not typically used to describe virtuous behavior, but insisted that her usage was consistent with a more precise meaning of the term as simply "concern with one's own interests". The equation of selfishness with evil, Rand said, had caused "the arrested moral development of mankind" and needed to be rejected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness
"Harmony, on the other hand, is more comprehensive. It includes happiness but also transcends it. Its about expressing the many different aspects of our nature in balanced and adaptive ways. Its about honoring our diverse and competing needs and values".
https://thinkgrowprosper.com/blog/harmony
[i]Why is Spinoza an Epicurean?
Spinoza is pointedly silent about his philosophical allegiances. The only time he lets his guard down is in a letter to Boxel from September 1674 in which he positions himself in the epicurean camp (Ep. 56). Given this, it is surprising that in the multitude of Spinozas in the reception of his work an epicurean Spinoza is nowhere to be found with a few exceptions that I discuss in the next section. I argue that Spinoza is an epicurean because he stages a dialectic between authority and utility.[/i]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv136c4cr
You are welcome. I understand now that you are not notified via email about "Mentions" to you.
Quoting David S
No, it's not that. As I said, it's "the mystery of the purpose of living". This refers only to Western philosophy. There's no such mystery in the Eastern philosophy.
Quoting David S
Right. But then why do you ask. "Which system do you believe pierces the veil better in understanding the mystery of the purpose of living?" if you agree that the Eastern system does not think about this subject?
Quoting David S
Exactly.
Quoting David S
Certainly. Carradine was perfect for that role. Although I think this because I was used to. A lot of actrs could play that role. But have a difficulty imagining Lee in that role.
Quoting David S
You are welcome.
Quoting David S
You got it! :smile:
Quoting David S
Glad to know about this. I don't think we are many! :smile:
Quoting David S
I wish you both.
Tom, I dont believe so but accept the argument that you cannot possibly understand the Eastern philosophy unless you have submerged yourself or of course are brought up with the language and heritage. I made the references for some context and background. But in same way each individual can find his own experience of what different cultures or experience ignites in them. Taoist writing does make you think in a different way. I guess I dont get hung up on a romantic notion but the best way is to try and practice what you take from your understanding of the teaching. There is a lot to be said for learning from a teacher and yes that would be ideal. But like us all we live with our current status with family and responsibilities.
From my perspective I have taken an interest in both Western mysticism and ceremonial magic with a study of the Tarot and its relationship to the Tree of Life. At the same time exploring the I Ching as a system of injury. An interesting parallel between the two systems of divination. Symbology rules.
Personally I do not worry about what may be missing or interpreted incorrectly but in the reading I do appreciate the skills of the translator. I think the voice of the original author can still be heard.
I think Lao Tzu disagrees with you: