Read whatever you want, but please don't just dismiss western philosophy outright like this, remember that western philosophy gave us Marxism, many variants of Anarchism, Existentialism and many many other philosophies that have the intention of being liberating.
And, reading western philosophy is good because many of us, (including you and me) actually subscribe to some unfounded ideas from western philosophy without even realizing it, by understanding western philosophy better, you may be able to also be able to understand how western philosophy and society has shaped your worldview, and perhaps then reading eastern philosophy will feel more fulfilling, as you will be able to approach it while being more aware of your biases.
I meant that you are a westerner, and you approaching eastern philosophy like a westerner because you are not aware of how the western approach has developed over time, making you think it's the universal way of thinking. By not learning about western philosophy, you are actually making yourself more susceptible to it. To me the way you complained budhism not really qualifying as scientific philosophy show to me that you subscribe to some enlightenment era western notions of science, and there isn't anything wrong with that, but you are biased without even being aware of the fact that you're biased. This is kinda what Zizek is rambling about when talks about ideology .
Being aware that you're biased and being aware of what your biases are not the same thing.
Nietzsche is a very good philosopher, but he is very individualistic which is probably why you have the idea that all western philosophy is very individualistic. But there are many philosopher from the west who aren't. So, if you are interested in philiosophy, please, start over at "The Republic" and then make your way up from there (you can skip most western philosophy after Plato and before Descartes).
Yeah sure I can agree with that, it's a good idea to read both and it's true that there are many points of similarities between the two , it's just that I tend to recommend people to read the philosophy that their society holds to be true first, for all the reasons I've stated above.
A key thing the remember is that western philosophy is an invented category that I'm pretty sure (just like the concept of "the west") only came about in the 18th or 19th century (see this graph ).
This especially true with ancient thinkers like Socrates or Plato. They are only in the "western" tradition post-hoc because they predate the conception of the west by thousands of years. Historically, Socrates and Plato are just as much part of the Islamic philosophical tradition.
Yes, this is often overlooked, similarly to how the "empiricist vs rationalist" debate was probably overinflated in it's importance after the death of Hume and Leibnez by Kantians.
deleted by creator
Read whatever you want, but please don't just dismiss western philosophy outright like this, remember that western philosophy gave us Marxism, many variants of Anarchism, Existentialism and many many other philosophies that have the intention of being liberating.
And, reading western philosophy is good because many of us, (including you and me) actually subscribe to some unfounded ideas from western philosophy without even realizing it, by understanding western philosophy better, you may be able to also be able to understand how western philosophy and society has shaped your worldview, and perhaps then reading eastern philosophy will feel more fulfilling, as you will be able to approach it while being more aware of your biases.
deleted by creator
I meant that you are a westerner, and you approaching eastern philosophy like a westerner because you are not aware of how the western approach has developed over time, making you think it's the universal way of thinking. By not learning about western philosophy, you are actually making yourself more susceptible to it. To me the way you complained budhism not really qualifying as scientific philosophy show to me that you subscribe to some enlightenment era western notions of science, and there isn't anything wrong with that, but you are biased without even being aware of the fact that you're biased. This is kinda what Zizek is rambling about when talks about ideology .
deleted by creator
Being aware that you're biased and being aware of what your biases are not the same thing.
Nietzsche is a very good philosopher, but he is very individualistic which is probably why you have the idea that all western philosophy is very individualistic. But there are many philosopher from the west who aren't. So, if you are interested in philiosophy, please, start over at "The Republic" and then make your way up from there (you can skip most western philosophy after Plato and before Descartes).
deleted by creator
Yeah sure I can agree with that, it's a good idea to read both and it's true that there are many points of similarities between the two , it's just that I tend to recommend people to read the philosophy that their society holds to be true first, for all the reasons I've stated above.
deleted by creator
A key thing the remember is that western philosophy is an invented category that I'm pretty sure (just like the concept of "the west") only came about in the 18th or 19th century (see this graph ).
This especially true with ancient thinkers like Socrates or Plato. They are only in the "western" tradition post-hoc because they predate the conception of the west by thousands of years. Historically, Socrates and Plato are just as much part of the Islamic philosophical tradition.
Yes, this is often overlooked, similarly to how the "empiricist vs rationalist" debate was probably overinflated in it's importance after the death of Hume and Leibnez by Kantians.