A Brief History of Philosophy in the East and West | Hacker News Reader

A Brief History of Philosophy in the East and West

expressiveegg.org

63 pointspenfold17 comments

I disagree with most of the comments. I believe the article has great merit, which lies in its conclusion, but most would never make it that far.

For those who'd like the condensed version:

"you are confronted with the one philosophical problem that no book or tradition or teaching can ever know or solve; being you, in your world."

What the article says is that philosophy is not very useful to an individual, which, having failed to gain any relevant insights from raw philosophy myself, I agree with.

However, I would argue that the application of raw philosophy in stories, like Crime and Punishment or The Stranger or Arrival or Romeo and Juliet, is what makes philosophy useful––being able to see it applied in a relatable character's existence, not unlike our own, with the requisite cause and effect chains. Ay, there's the rub.

I have gained great insights from stories that make excellent use of philosophy–through its application. It could be argued that great works of fiction follow from new developments in raw philosophy. Both fiction and philosophy play in the space of universal truths.

I also liked the article's critique of Western philosophy as being too analytical and divorced from real life. Apparently that wasn't always the case in the ancient world and philosophy had more practical application, which probably explains the revival of Stoicism lately as well.

A good starter book on the Stoics that also reinterprets the ancient lessons for the modern age:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0040JHNQG/

I wonder if Stoicism's rise is also related to organized religion's decline and society's increasing secularization, since both Stoicism and organized religion give concrete guidelines on how you go about your day-to-day.

Western philosophy has been divorced from real life for quite a while, and Stoicism's rise seems relatively young comparatively.

I've always thought that the revival of Stoicism is because 20th century philosophy messed with our heads to such an extent that we were left with an empty husk of our former selves, like ghosts floating in a meaningless world, and all we could do was laugh at ourselves to exhaustion lest we commit suicide.

Maybe I'm just talking about myself.

No, I think it's a reaction against the new-agey types that pick up stuff so often from Eastern philosophical and religious traditions. Basically it's new-agey stuff for people that would never be willing to conceive of themselves as anything like a new-agey person.

"[T]he requisite cause and effect chains"? But don't Eastern philosophies deny cause and effect, as an implication of denying non-contradiction? (For denial of non-contradiction, see Buddhist "four-cornered truth.")

This is quite bad — I can barely understand a word of it and I have some background in Greek and German philosophy. I wouldn't take it as anything but a decent list of authors to look into in more detail.

We're talking about thousands of years worth of the thoughts of the smartest people who ever lived. The author's heart seems to be in the right place and they are occasionally poetic, but there is simply very little of substance you can say about this much stuff in such a short space.

"One day people became rich enough to think outside the box for extended periods of time" that's my short and sweet history of philosophy :p

Seems like a nice article though!

> If you can’t read a generalisation without exploding in a rage of counter-examples, stop reading now…!

What is the magic number of counter-examples at which we can safely reject the generalisation? The warning at the top could read more briefly: 'The following is clever, but wrong.'

Yeah, absolutely. I can't imagine anyone who has engaged with these philosophers at any length agreeing with what he's saying.

Generalizations are unavoidable if you want to engage a broader audience, but generalizations are also varying degrees of right and wrong, almost never entirely right or entirely wrong. To disagree with a generalization, just talk about how it's an unproductive generalization, probably because it leads to an incorrect conclusion. You'll need a few counter-examples to support your point, but if you jump in with counter-examples first, you're just missing the point of trying to pick the appropriate generalization to support a productive conversation.

I didn't really read the article and I didn't read too many of the comments here, but to sum up this one massive topic or two massive topics, depending on how you look at it is probably going to fail in such a small amount of space. I just want to say (and I brought this up the last time I commented on a philosophically-themed post on HN) that I highly recommend The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell as a good and thorough overview of Western philosophy. And while some may argue on his view point perhaps, I would find it difficult for anyone to struggle with his style of writing.

I'd suggest supplementing Russell's History. Russell is an engaging writer but he does have some pretty strong biases. Understand that Russell's history was written when he was short of time and money, having just been banned from lecturing at the City College of New York (on the grounds of morality).

Anthony Kenny's four volume history of philosophy is broader, though not without fault. The most authoritative history of Western philosophy is Frederick Copleston's nine volume series, but that might be a bit too much of a good thing for most people.

Do read Russell, but remember he has a whole sack of biases.

Berlin provides an excellent review of Russell's History: https://culturalapparatus.wordpress.com/a-history-of-western...

Look, I would never say that everyone has to formally study philosophy. But if you're going to talk about philosophy as if you've studied it... you really have to actually study philosophy.

It appears to me, as someone who has only studied philosophy informally, that Epicurus and Epicureanism are an exception to his characterization of Western philosophy.

imho this is the definitive guide to eastern vs western philosophy: https://youtu.be/0N_RO-jL-90

> If you can’t read a generalisation without exploding in a rage of counter-examples, stop reading now…!

If you can't write a generalization without exploding in a rage lacking examples, stop writing now...?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com