East Vs. West...Why?

[acomiclife]

There is a universally accepted division between eastern and western philosophy but I'm curious as to why this occurred. Best I could ever figure is that it's a difference between cultures that was arrived at by circumstances but this is pure speculation.

Has anyone ever come across a reading explaining the reason behind this division? Do you have any theories of your own?

[scameter]

Well, the book, Guns, Germs and Steel partially explains it, saying that the separation of continents of Europe and Asia from the eastern border of the Middle East to the rest of Asia is what caused the division; since the Middle East had it's own unique cultures from that of the Near and Far East and of Europe, it stood between the West and East and so became the Middle, but also dividing the Asian and European countries from each other to form the West-East division. This is the same reason why that Native American cultures in Middle and South America could be so separate and different than their North American brethren, because of the land forms blocking their connection, such as the harsh Mexico, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico lands, and other such land forms.

[Taeguk]

There is a universally accepted division between eastern and western philosophy but I'm curious as to why this occurred. Best I could ever figure is that it's a difference between cultures that was arrived at by circumstances but this is pure speculation.

Has anyone ever come across a reading explaining the reason behind this division? Do you have any theories of your own?

I personally think the division between "East" and "West" can be and often is overemphasized, ignoring the amount of diversity and continuity that exists within both categories. This often promotes certain stereotypes--i.e. "Eastern Wisdom" is mysterious, mystical, and paradoxical while "Western Philosophy" is rational, hard-headed, and straight-forward.

Nevertheless, there are some basic and general differences we can identify.

Whitehead famously said that "All philosophy is merely a footnote to Plato." He's obviously speaking about the European tradition here, and he is absolutely correct. Regardless of whether or not a European philosopher is a Platonist, their habits of thought are inevitably shaped by Plato (or by a reaction against Plato).

In particular, one of Plato's lasting contributions is a notion of duality between "the Real" and "the Illusory", with a clear preference for one over the other. His analogy of the Divided Line in The Republic sundered he world into "reality" and "appearance"---which corresponded roughly to truth (alethia) and opinion (doxa). This is the "Platonic Gap" I alluded to here (http://thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=86221&postcount=5). Ever since, European philosophy and religion has struggled to bridge this gap. This division is at the root of the age old problem of the One and the Many, the Mind-Body problem, the conflict between "Athens" and "Jerusalem", the distinction between Facts and Values. It's in the background of all classical theology (which is far more relevant to understanding Western modernity than most modern thinkers give credit), where Jesus is understood as the bridge between God and Man. Philosophers have sought the real, the "objective" over the mere subjective appearance for centuries, although eventually they had to face backlashes from the Romantic movement and eventually from the existentialists and later on, the post-modernists who sought to tip the balance in favor of the subjective (arguably with some success). Wrestling with this duality is also at the root of the rivalry between the "objective" sciences and the "subjective" humanities, with philosophy lying squarely in between both and in constant danger of being torn in two.

In contrast, when someone says "Eastern Philosophy" they are probably referring to certain Asian traditions which emphasize nonduality. "Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form" as the Heart Sutra says. The point of departure for these schools of "Eastern Thought" is that duality is the problem and ultimately does not describe the heart of reality. And because language is fundamentally dualistic, it cannot adequately express the nondual reality. As a result, "Eastern Philosophy" went in a very different direction from "Western Philosophy."

Keep in mind this is not a hard and fast distinction between "East" and "West". Many schools of thought in "the East" were and are dualist (the distinction between illusion and reality in some (not all) schools of Hinduism is not unlike the distinction made by Plato, for example) and quite a few thinkers in "the West" seem to be nondualist (Meister Eckhart and William Blake to name just two). It also ignores Islamic Philosophy, which draws on resources from both the "East" and the "West".

[Flux]

I agree that the distinction is more a matter of ordinary language and cultural barriers than anything else. In addtion to dualism vs. nondualism, I think that there's another subtle difference between Western and Eastern philosophy, if indeed such a division could even be said to exist. That difference is in the attitude taken toward argumentation. Disagreements over philosophical issues are common in both West and East, but disagreements more often degenerate into passionate arguments in the West. Eastern philosophy tends to emphisise the limits of language in the communication of truth, an attitude that seems to allow vast religious and philisophical diversity, like India for example.

I also think that in the West, dualist language carries with it subtle connotations of opposition. Opposit beliefs arn't merely "different"--instead they are refered to as "conflicting beliefs." For better or worse, I think that Western philosophical thought is to a large extent affected by an attitude that opposing views must collide in a take no prisoners battle of wits. By contrast, eastern traditions such as Taoism tend to view opposites as complementing eachother, rather than conflicting.

Of course, beliefs and attidudes in both "Eastern" and "Western" countries are so diverse that you're bound to have oppinions of all sorts from both areas.

[acomiclife]

I also think that in the West, dualist language carries with it subtle connotations of opposition. Opposit beliefs arn't merely "different"--instead they are refered to as "conflicting beliefs." For better or worse, I think that Western philosophical thought is to a large extent affected by an attitude that opposing views must collide in a take no prisoners battle of wits. By contrast, eastern traditions such as Taoism tend to view opposites as complementing eachother, rather than conflicting.



It seems to me that the beliefs set forth by Eastern philosophical traditions are more practical in the sense that they were more engrained in the culture than the ideas set forth by Western philosophy. The philosophies of Plato, Kant, et al. seem to be reserved for an elite, intellectual class of people while the philosophies of Lao Tzu seem more geared toward common people.

If this is the case (and I don't deem myself to know enough about the history of either hemisphere of philosophical thought to say this to be definitely) then there's inevitably going to be a distinct separation between the two. The intellectuals go off to their side of the playground and immerse themselves in the universe and the commoners play kickball.

Even still with this separation being overemphasized (Taeguk I'm looking at you), there still exists a school of thought in which religion struggles against philosophy and another school in which religion and philosophy are oftentimes difficult to distinguish - this being mostly the case to do, I imagine, the nondualistic approach.

I'm not really trying to nitpick the actual separation between the two - that is the extent of it. I really just wanna know how this separation came to be not only a function of mindset and values but also a function of geographic location.

[Taeguk]

The philosophies of Plato, Kant, et al. seem to be reserved for an elite, intellectual class of people while the philosophies of Lao Tzu seem more geared toward common people.

You forget the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching) was a treatise on how to govern during the waring states period; it was written specifically for political and military leaders. And Daoism itself could be a highly exclusive and elitist religion. Likewise, I'm fairly certain that the philosophies of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. were intended for an intellectual and cultural elite (Brahmins, in the case of Hinduism).

Even still with this separation being overemphasized (Taeguk I'm looking at you), there still exists a school of thought in which religion struggles against philosophy and another school in which religion and philosophy are oftentimes difficult to distinguish - this being mostly the case to do, I imagine, the nondualistic approach.

Well, in many ways our compartmentalization (and seperation) of "philosophy" and "religion" is a product of the Enlightenment. In Ancient Greece, Rome and the European Middle Ages philosophy was considered soteriological. Seeking truth wasn't just about intellectual fulfillment, but about inner tranquility---ataraxia, as the Stoics called it. Being a philosopher was a distinct calling that set you apart from the rest of society in a highly visible way---not unlike many religions, such as Sikhism and its notion of "5 K's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ks)" or even the way Buddhist monks shave their heads and Muslims wear head coverings. In Ancient Rome you could pick out "philosophers "on the street just as you could pick out Christian clergymen in any European or American city today.

Likewise, every major philosopher during the medieval period was affiliated with the Church. And long after Christianity lost its political and intellectual clout, much of philosophy was a conscious or unconscious attempt to create a secular surrogate for Christianity (ironically, secularism is a Christian invention and thus from the get-go secularism is tied to religion).

Finally, if you take a look at some of the greatest European philosophers of the modern era, you'll find something peculiar: much in their writings seems to have a bent that could be described as "mystical". Take the analytic philosopher Lugwig Wittgenstein, for instance:

My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

That sounds like it could have been written by Nagarjuna or a Zen Patriarch. And Socrates, arguably the man who invented "philosophy" as it was to be practiced in the West, was quite open about talking to his daimon, a divine voice that guided him throughout his life. "Religious" or at any rate mystical themes are present in Western philosophy from its inception---yet they are supposed to be a feature of Eastern philosophy.

Finally, it should also be pointed out that one does not need to engage in philosophy in order to be a practicing Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, Confucian Shinto-ist, etc. The real "meat" of these religions are practices and rituals, not doctrines. Many people encounter them only as philosophies or through texts, which can be somewhat misleading.