philosophers

[Guille]

Well Guille,
Can u then kindly tell me what these ppl like Gangesha, Nagarjuna, & many others were doing all the while, if that's not wat Philosophy is abt?

Btw, have u ever done any deep study of all Eastern Philosophy (or whetever u want 2 name it)??

Rgds,
eM.

PS. Have u had a look at the Amartya Sen's "The Argumentative Indian"??

I'm not very much pushed to eastern philosophy. Sun Tzu and Buddhism is all I've read about, and they are interesting to me, and I believe they have important ideas. But you are certainly misinterpreting my post. I never said that eastern philosophy was not rational. Anyway terminology is not important at all, at least in the sense that I don't care and it doesn't matter what you call what eastern philosophers do. I'm not a dictionary nor a fan of lingustics, nor do I want t be a philologist, youa re confusing that to philosophy. Anyway, if it is you who give so much importance to terminology, you should defend the idea that philosophy is only what is in western culture as conceptual though, for the term was invented by Greeks to describe what the Greeks did. And then it was resurected to describe what the philosophers in the 17th and 18th century did. And the in the 19th and 20th it's been kept. Preciselly this kind of problem is part of what I intent to solve with my theory of Analogous Universalization. But it isn't me who thinks in a close set, it is you.

[WithoutMe]

CLOSE SET??? y do u say so???

& my pt. is never to defend my point or any point..... let the facts reveal itself, al i can do is probe & see what i get out of it.... & that may be for me, against me or watever.... Besides, who is more OPEN?? One who reads only Western Philosophy with a reading of only Buddhism & Sun Tzu or one who is open to read any thing one gets to???

& if u think its defeating my pt., so be it, coz i am not here to defend my pt...... well, to defend one's pt. wud be to rediscover what one has already taken to be the truth, which is merely a cloaked version of one's own drive to self-security???

u can defeat me, my pt...... just dont matter, if that is the truth, so be it!

[Guille]

CLOSE SET??? y do u say so???

& my pt. is never to defend my point or any point..... let the facts reveal itself, al i can do is probe & see what i get out of it.... & that may be for me, against me or watever.... Besides, who is more OPEN?? One who reads only Western Philosophy with a reading of only Buddhism & Sun Tzu or one who is open to read any thing one gets to???

& if u think its defeating my pt., so be it, coz i am not here to defend my pt...... well, to defend one's pt. wud be to rediscover what one has already taken to be the truth, which is merely a cloaked version of one's own drive to self-security???

u can defeat me, my pt...... just dont matter, if that is the truth, so be it!

Why are you in a forum then? If it isn't to discuss? I'm not talking about defend or attack, I'm not a warrior. I want to discuss to create as much knowledge, understanding and wisdom as we can, or actually not as much, but the best of it. I want a constructive discussion. You've gone back in your reply to what I had already denyed; you've said I'm closed, and I explained you that I'm not. When I said Sun Tzu and Biddhism I gave them as examples that I have read, not as the only of which I will read. And in fact you and I do exactly the same thing; discover the truth, independent of conditions from the past, in fact I liberate myself from morals, god, and everything else. I just don't read that much of eastern philosophy because it doesn't interest me for the moment. What I'm philosophizing about is related to ideas of western metaphysics, it's, for example, against Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel, and in favour of Deleuze, Bergson, Ortega y Gasset... It's just that it's to do with that. In fact, I don't remove or modify anything of eastern philosophy, what I'm actually trying to do is make a replacement of western philosophy after the posmodern era. But if you really don't want to talk, then I must quote the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

[Mohan.C]

Philosophy is not restricted. It is not a question of east or west. It is a question of ideas. Westerners may have colonized the whole world does not mean they are the creators of the whole world. Everyone has his own point. Indian philosophy goes back beyond greeks or romans almost around 500.B.C. But indians weren't great historians and did not preserve it, it got washed of the drain. Doesn't mean it was wiped out. It was transferred from generations. But we must learn to respect everything there is nothing in words. I write my post in English does not mean no such idea is in Kannada(that is my language). I write in english because others cannot understand it in kannada. We must not isolate our thoughts to east or west. It's the same wherever you go but the name is different. I remember a quote something like A rose by another name is just as red or something like that I don't exactly remember.

[harmonygirl]

Well said Mohan, respecting of great thinkers regardless of their origin is one of the steps towards true knowledge. The quote is "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" and I believe it is from Romeo and Juliet.

[Guille]

Mohan,

I respect all thinkers for thinkers are my ideal, what I want to become. I'm just saying that western philosophy and eastern philosophy are different stories in different worlds, that is something that no one can deny. I don't say that the ideas of both can't be compound, in fact the compunds are always stronger and better, I'm just saying that the way to treat ideas, which is in essence the discourse of method, is very different in both philosophies. One same concept is discussed differently within each philosophy. And I refer always to western philosophy because it is western philosophy what I want to find out about, for it interests me, for it's what I am, a philosopher of the western philosophy, not of the eastern philosophy. Withoutme will say that this is not being a true searcher of truth, but there is no such thing as truth anymore, in fact western philosophy has deconstructed itself, and nothing has had time to prepare for the world of ideas to deconstruct, so everything else, art, science, society, politics, culture, eastern philosophy and many others, have all faced the problem which western philosophy has given by posmodernism. And none has yet find a solution or an escape or anything usefull, Baudrillard, Lipotevsky, Sloterdijk and Maffesoli, amongst others, are making the digestion of the world, and we all know what is the product of digestion.

[hanzoganz]

As it happens with philosophy, it is the same with psychology and specially ecology. Orientals don't have a concept for this occidental subjects. It's not that they don't care about it but they see it in an intrinsical way. Ecology cannot be tought about because the human being and its surrounding are part of the same object. Orientals don't fight about subject and object, as some french people did about 50 years ago.

[WithoutMe]

ooook regarding Decronstructionism, one of the first Philsophers (or if u have a different anme , plz do suggest me), who deconstructed most of what was then known as established theories or even currents of thoughts, was the Buddhist Philosopher called Nagarjuna. Its a seperate thing that u may not be aware of "Mula Madhyamika Karika"... infact one tradition of Buddist Monkhook, aspiring monks have to study Nagarjuna & then finally deconstruct Narguna's works & this has been way back many many yrs prior to Derrida or any Western Philosopher!!!! lol!

[Guille]

ooook regarding Decronstructionism, one of the first Philsophers (or if u have a different anme , plz do suggest me), who deconstructed most of what was then known as established theories or even currents of thoughts, was the Buddhist Philosopher called Nagarjuna. Its a seperate thing that u may not be aware of "Mula Madhyamika Karika"... infact one tradition of Buddist Monkhook, aspiring monks have to study Nagarjuna & then finally deconstruct Narguna's works & this has been way back many many yrs prior to Derrida or any Western Philosopher!!!! lol!

I agree with you in that I believe that ideas do not understand of frontiers or states. Preciselly because if people thought a bit, they would realize there is no sense in frontiers and states. Now, I have not read any of Nagarjuna works, but I do know about deconstruction, and I know that the proposals of Derrida come from a heavy western philosophical background (phenomenology, hermeneutics, existentialism, structuralism, surrealism, psicoanalisis) and if you are trying to tell me that all those movements were previouslly thought by eastern philosophers, then I'll have no alternative but to accept the reality of your radical fanatism towards your cultural background, and thus, you would be as stupid as you think that I am (which I'm actually not). Anyway, what do you think that deconstruction is? Don't give a wikipedia definition, or any google search stuff, but your interpretation. Cause that will clear up many things, if not, our discussion is useless and I've already said that I don't want to waste my time. Anyway, your absurd misinterpretations are nothing else but the proof of the absence of background in your arguments, if you have arguments at all: it has been posmodernism and poststructuralism that have deconstructed the world, just look at how the art is today, and what science is trying to do by the idea of a TOE, or at any aspect of society&culture and you'll see. The 'deconstruction' of which you speak is for sure not what I'm talking, nor Derrida. You seem to miss an important point; you think that with only a lingustig operation, a gramatic analysis of the word deconstruction, you know what it is, whiles if you had read any western philosophy of the 20th century (and you say you have) you should know it has centered preciselly on the problem that language doesn't correspond thought. But of course now you'll came and say something like some guy called something similar to gkeeirjaklgfh discovered everything much before, before even the earth was formed... Listen, withoutme, I search intellectual discussion, not a cheap politics-like and diplomatic-like discussion that we are having, so don't continue with your assertions cause there is nothing behind them but your inconformity with life or with thought, and in any of the cases I don't care.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Guille, I beg to differ with your position, as WithoutMe is quite correct, in the fact that many Indian logicians, metaphisicists and philosophers long ago deconstructed the then prevailing belief systems, and I might add, much more thoroughly and accurately than Derrida and the newest crop of deconstructionists. Not only Nagarjuna in India but Arcesalus in Greece did the same with Plato's and Aristotle's then prevailing belief systems. Foucault and Derrida and company have nothing new on old ideas___they have just repeated history over again, just as WithoutMe has suggested... Philosophy offers much to discover... Guille, I would suggest you at least study the early logic of Indian philosophy___it is almost identicle to Greek philosophy, in form, content and historical evolution... It's just the West knows mostly Indian, poorly exaggerated metaphysics, when in reality they also have a rich tradition of principled sentential logic, from way back B.C., as well...

regards
Lloyd

I agree with you in that I believe that ideas do not understand of frontiers or states. Preciselly because if people thought a bit, they would realize there is no sense in frontiers and states. Now, I have not read any of Nagarjuna works, but I do know about deconstruction, and I know that the proposals of Derrida come from a heavy western philosophical background (phenomenology, hermeneutics, existentialism, structuralism, surrealism, psicoanalisis) and if you are trying to tell me that all those movements were previouslly thought by eastern philosophers, then I'll have no alternative but to accept the reality of your radical fanatism towards your cultural background, and thus, you would be as stupid as you think that I am (which I'm actually not). Anyway, what do you think that deconstruction is? Don't give a wikipedia definition, or any google search stuff, but your interpretation. Cause that will clear up many things, if not, our discussion is useless and I've already said that I don't want to waste my time. Anyway, your absurd misinterpretations are nothing else but the proof of the absence of background in your arguments, if you have arguments at all: it has been posmodernism and poststructuralism that have deconstructed the world, just look at how the art is today, and what science is trying to do by the idea of a TOE, or at any aspect of society&culture and you'll see. The 'deconstruction' of which you speak is for sure not what I'm talking, nor Derrida. You seem to miss an important point; you think that with only a lingustig operation, a gramatic analysis of the word deconstruction, you know what it is, whiles if you had read any western philosophy of the 20th century (and you say you have) you should know it has centered preciselly on the problem that language doesn't correspond thought. But of course now you'll came and say something like some guy called something similar to gkeeirjaklgfh discovered everything much before, before even the earth was formed... Listen, withoutme, I search intellectual discussion, not a cheap politics-like and diplomatic-like discussion that we are having, so don't continue with your assertions cause there is nothing behind them but your inconformity with life or with thought, and in any of the cases I don't care.