[General_Zhaoyun]

I've not been well-informed and haven't read widely about western philosophy (namely those Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotles, Plato etc, and others such as John Locke, Nietzche etc).

But, I'm well-informed about chinese philosophy (schools of thoughts) namely confucianism, some bits about Daoism, Mohism, legalism, Dialecticians etc.

It seems that Chinese Philosophy have always emphasized humanism and ethics (esp. confucianism) as the building basis for a society, while western philosphy have tended more to look into naturalism (natural science, metaphysics) as a way of explaning society and nature.

Can someone point me out the major differences between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy? What are the pros and cons for both chinese philosophy and western philosophy? And which do you prefer?

[Dusto]

General_Zhaoyun, on Apr 7 2005, 06:00 AM, said:

I've not been well-informed and haven't read widely about western philosophy (namely those Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotles, Plato etc, and others such as John Locke, Nietzche etc).

But, I'm well-informed about chinese philosophy (schools of thoughts) namely confucianism,  some bits about Daoism, Mohism, legalism, Dialecticians etc.

It seems that Chinese Philosophy have always emphasized humanism and ethics (esp. confucianism) as the building basis for a society, while western philosphy have tended more to look into naturalism (natural science, metaphysics) as a way of explaning society and nature.

Can someone point me out the major differences between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy? What are the pros and cons for both chinese philosophy and western philosophy? And which do you prefer?

One major difference between the two that needs to be addressed before any other differemces, it seems to me, is that Chinese philosophy has had a much more direct impact on Chinese society than Western philosophy has had on Western society. The average Chinese can point to bits of Confucian or Daoist philosophy that affect his daily life, whereas the influence of Plato is far more invisible in the west. Platonic philosophy is a foundation of thought which philosophers throughout the ages have built upon, disputed, and modified to the point that even modern philosophies that have their roots in the thought of Plato often bear little overt similarities to the thought of Plato. Nonetheless, the Greek philosophers provided the West with the beginning of its attempts to explain the world. Philosophy in the West has since branched off into many separate categories (scientific philosophy, ethical philosophy, linguistic philosophy, etc.), none of which have much direct effect on the average person living in the West. An academic or a law-maker may study the ethical philosophy of Sartre and based on that come up with laws that eventually affect all the people living in his country, but the person on the street will probably only be aware of the law and not the philosophy behind it. The West, to me, seems to have a great abundance and diversity of philosophies, none of which have wide or deep followers. Philosophy in the West is much more like a market from which people pick and choose the ideas that most appeal to them.

All that said, some Western philosophy is very much akin to Chinese philosophy. To return to Sartre, his concept of "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith" seems in some ways very in tune with Eastern thought, to me (though in other ways it's also very different). Basically, his idea is that Good Faith is when you realize that you are responsible and accountable for your own actions and that you need to take into account the world around you when making decisions about how to interact with that world. Bad Faith, on the other hand, would be not taking into account the real consequences of your actions and placing the responsibility for the actions on some external source, such as God. So a Nazi soldier who was "just following orders" would be an example of someone acting in Bad Faith, while Sagacious Lu breaking the law to help Lin Chong (wrongly condemned by the government) would be someone acting in Good Faith. I realize this is a fairly individualist philosophy as opposed to the generally more collectivist bent of Chinese philosophy, but I still feel it has certain affinities. Of course, this is just one Western philosopher amid an overabundance of Western philosophers. I think it's really hard to generalize Western philosophy, since it's basically just "pick and choose."

A more fruitful comparison might be made between Chinese philosophy and the Judaeo-Christian religion (which has philosophically influenced far too many people in the West), or the philosophy of the market economy, all of which is generally left out in discussions of "Western philosophy."

[Zhen Er]

General_Zhaoyun, on Apr 7 2005, 01:00 AM, said:

I've not been well-informed and haven't read widely about western philosophy (namely those Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotles, Plato etc, and others such as John Locke, Nietzche etc).

But, I'm well-informed about chinese philosophy (schools of thoughts) namely confucianism,  some bits about Daoism, Mohism, legalism, Dialecticians etc.

It seems that Chinese Philosophy have always emphasized humanism and ethics (esp. confucianism) as the building basis for a society, while western philosphy have tended more to look into naturalism (natural science, metaphysics) as a way of explaning society and nature.

Can someone point me out the major differences between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy? What are the pros and cons for both chinese philosophy and western philosophy? And which do you prefer?

I would say that Western philosophy isn’t as rooted in the natural sciences as you would suggest. Beginning with the ancients, the primary focus of most philosophers has been on the ordering of politics and structure of the regime. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have devoted a considerable amount of time to questioning the role that politics should play in human life, and the question of whether or not the practice of philosophy can be reconciled with the interests of the state. Metaphysics, the theory of knowledge itself, was huge. Ethics is also discussed, (Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics , anyone?) but is most prevalent with later figures such as Bentham, Kant and Sartre. Justice is also a huge issue that’s touched upon, but it usually ends up being tied in with the foundations of the state. It’s interesting, because if you follow an esoteric reading of their works, you can detect signs of how philosophy at the same time is promoted as the best way of life, yet also undermines authority.

It’s interesting because, correct me if I’m wrong, most of the Chinese philosophers seem to think that philosophy and state governing are perfectly compatible, and in fact, philosophy can be used to reinforce the legitimacy of a ruler. I would really like to study more about Chinese philosophy, so I think there’s a valuable trade-off to be made here

I also think that Western philosophy has made as direct on impact on Western society as Chinese philosophy has had on Chinese society. Realism in international relations has roots that can be directly traced to Bismarck’s policy of realpolitik, which can then be traced back to Machiavelli’s initial groundings of political science that includes concepts such as the ends justifying the means. And I was just going to start a thread on Machiavelli and the Art of War as well…

Hobbe’s introduction of the social contract theory and formation of the basis of liberalism that influenced Locke’s works have direct impacts on our modern conceptions of individual rights and political freedoms. Of course, if you also consider Karl Marx to be a philosopher, then that’s another area of discussion entirely.

A huge contrast between Western and Chinese philosophy that’s readily evident is that Western philosophers for the longest time had to keep their writings in line with the major precepts of Christian and classical political thought. But ever since the Confucian school of philosophy became mainstream in China, I’m wondering if Chinese philosophers had to amend their writings as well so that it aligned to Confucianism?

Maybe with a better understanding of Chinese philsophy, I'll be able to tell you which one I prefer better!

[Dusto]

Zhen Er, on Apr 7 2005, 05:01 PM, said:

I also think that Western philosophy has made as direct on impact on Western society as Chinese philosophy has had on Chinese society. Realism in international relations has roots that can be directly traced to Bismarck’s policy of realpolitik, which can then be traced back to Machiavelli’s initial groundings of political science that includes concepts such as the ends justifying the means. And I was just going to start a thread on Machiavelli and the Art of War as well…

Hobbe’s introduction of the social contract theory and formation of the basis of liberalism that influenced Locke’s works have direct impacts on our modern conceptions of individual rights and political freedoms. Of course, if you also consider Karl Marx to be a philosopher, then that’s another area of discussion entirely.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I just think philosophy is far more invisible in the west. People think have their ideologies, but they are not really able to point to any specific tenets or philosophers or philosophical lineage to describe their own ideologies. That's what I mean about it being less direct than Chinese philosophy.

[Mok]

If you will listen to a small fry like me (though I am better-schooled in Western thought than Chinese), one cannot and must not underestimate the importance of the Judeo-Christian influence on Western philosophy. You might say that nowadays Christianity is not as important in the West, but it had an immeasurable influence on it. To fully understand the West one must first have at least a working knowledge of Christianity and how it affected them. It has influenced their judicial system, legislative system (to some extent), and belief in the brotherhood of man and the rights of the common man. just a few examples, sure u can think of more.

Chinese thought on the other hand was heavily influenced by Confucius, even to this day.

Different persons (Jesus and Confucius) definitely results in different philosophies.

[TMPikachu]

There was a theory put forth by a russian traveller in the late 1800's that Jesus, in his 'lost years' had learned Buddhism, then came back. So maybe East and West are not so far apart

[Dusto]

Mok Kwai Yeng, on Apr 8 2005, 03:05 AM, said:

If you will listen to a small fry like me (though I am better-schooled in Western thought than Chinese), one cannot and must not underestimate the importance of the Judeo-Christian influence on Western philosophy. You might say that nowadays Christianity is not as important in the West, but it had an immeasurable influence on it. To fully understand the West one must first have at least a working knowledge of Christianity and how it affected them. It has influenced their judicial system, legislative system (to some extent), and belief in the brotherhood of man and the rights of the common man. just a few examples, sure u can think of more.

Chinese thought on the other hand was heavily influenced by Confucius, even to this day.

Different persons (Jesus and Confucius) definitely results in different philosophies.

I agree completely. I think Christianity is the only "philosophy" that compares in its day to day impact on the West with Confucianism in China. Too often, however, Christianity gets left out of the discussion in favor of more esoteric philosophies.

[Zhen Er]

TMPikachu, on Apr 8 2005, 02:19 PM, said:

There was a theory put forth by a russian traveller in the late 1800's that Jesus, in his 'lost years' had learned Buddhism, then came back. So maybe East and West are not so far apart

Haha, that explains everything then!

But seriously though, I'm interested in knowing why the Judeo-Christian school with prominent writers such as Thomas Aquineas chose to prop up the ancients like Plato and Aristotle as their pre-decessors, especially since no where in their writing do these two mention that philosophy is inherently tied to God or religion.

Another question, do Chinese philosophers such as Confucius believe in the ability of the common man, or are they like most prominent Western philosophers and fearful of the brute might of the masses? Considering that they prop up the divine given powers of the Emperor, I'm assuming that they subscribe to some kind of elitism as well?

[Goujian]

Zhen Er, on Apr 8 2005, 04:30 PM, said:

Another question, do Chinese philosophers such as Confucius believe in the ability of the common man, or are they like most prominent Western philosophers and fearful of the brute might of the masses? Considering that they prop up the divine given powers of the Emperor, I'm assuming that they subscribe to some kind of elitism as well?

The most common one would be:
San Ren Xing Bi You Wo Shi. My crappy translation:
Among three one shall be my master. Kong Zi at least believes that he can learn from commoners.

A popular expression:
San ge chou pi jia ding yi ge Zhuge Liang. My translation:
Three lowerly shoe polishers equal a Zhuge Liang.
Don't underestimate the wisdom of masses.

[jwrevak]

Dusto, on Apr 7 2005, 08:35 AM, said:

One major difference between the two that needs to be addressed before any other differemces, it seems to me, is that Chinese philosophy has had a much more direct impact on Chinese society than Western philosophy has had on Western society. 

I disagree. Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Acquinas, St. Augustine, John Locke, Adam Smith, Marx, and many others have had enormous and direct impact on Western society, including contemporary Western society.

Quote

The average Chinese can point to bits of Confucian or Daoist philosophy that affect his daily life,

Whether the average person can point to bits and pieces of certain philosophers does not mean that said philosphers were impactful or not. Plato and Aristotle were extremely impactful on the West regardless whether the average Westerner knows it or not. In fact, the average Westerner probably doesn't know it. However, this does not diminish the impact of Plato and Aristotle.

Quote

whereas the influence of Plato is far more invisible in the west.  Platonic philosophy is a foundation of thought which philosophers throughout the ages have built upon, disputed, and modified

Plato is one of the major sources; however, Aristotle and others have also been extremely important.

Quote

to the point that even modern philosophies that have their roots in the thought of Plato often bear little overt similarities to the thought of Plato. 

Some don't even have any roots in Platonism.

Quote

Nonetheless, the Greek philosophers provided the West with the beginning of its attempts to explain the world.  Philosophy in the West has since branched off into many separate categories (scientific philosophy, ethical philosophy, linguistic philosophy, etc.), none of which have much direct effect on the average person living in the West. 

The philosophy of science, including the work of Popper, has been extremely impactful. The average person may not have a clue as to who Popper was, but that doesn't change his impact one bit.

Quote

An academic or a law-maker may study the ethical philosophy of Sartre and based on that come up with laws that eventually affect all the people living in his country, but the person on the street will probably only be aware of the law and not the philosophy behind it. 

True, but this wouldn't change Sartre's hypothetical impact.

Quote

The West, to me, seems to have a great abundance and diversity of philosophies, none of which have wide or deep followers. 

I think this is wrong. For many (not all) people in the West the overriding philosophy in day-to-day life is that of capitalism as articulated by Adam Smith, Veblen, and many others. Other important schools of philosophy that have had and still do attract many followers are those of John Locke (especially in America), traditional 19th century liberalism (as articulated by the French philosophes and many others), modern science and empricism (as articulated by Bacon, Popper, and many others), and logic (as originally articulated by Aristotle and expanded by many others). Additionally, although its importance has declined significantly over the past couple of centuries, Christianity (as articulated by Luther, Saint Thomas Aquinas and many others) remains influential. Finally, lest we forget, until a couple of decades ago Marxism was extremely important; today it still attracts adherents.

Quote

Philosophy in the West is much more like a market from which people pick and choose the ideas that most appeal to them.

Often true, but that doesn't mean that Westerners are generally uninfluenced by philosophy in a significant way. Don't mistake the pluralistic nature of some Western cultures for lack of philosophy's influence.

[jwrevak]

Zhen Er, on Apr 7 2005, 10:01 AM, said:

I would say that Western philosophy isn’t as rooted in the natural sciences as you would suggest. Beginning with the ancients, the primary focus of most philosophers has been on the ordering of politics and structure of the regime.

Not completely true by any means. The earliest Greek philosophers (the pre-Socratics) were very interested in the physical world or universe and developed many theories about it, including the atomic theory. Even later Greek philosophers were very concerned with the natural world. Aristotle discussed and researched it extensively, writing lengthy book on physics, biology, astronomy, etc.

Quote

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have devoted a considerable amount of time to questioning the role that politics should play in human life, and the question of whether or not the practice of philosophy can be reconciled with the interests of the state.

Correct, but there was also much discussion about the natural world too.

Quote

It’s interesting because, correct me if I’m wrong, most of the Chinese philosophers seem to think that philosophy and state governing are perfectly compatible, and in fact, philosophy can be used to reinforce the legitimacy of a ruler. I would really like to study more about Chinese philosophy, so I think there’s a valuable trade-off to be made here 

I think you are on the right track. I think a lot of Chinese (not all) philosophy asserts that philosophy and politics should go hand in hand and can go hand in hand. Ultimately, the sage doesn't exist in a vacuum but exists to rule or assist in ruling the Middle Kingdom. In this way Chinese philosophy frequently has a practical this-word quality, that isn't always present in the West. On the other hand, Plato wrote an entire book about the marriage of philosophy and politics: The Republic.

Quote

A huge contrast between Western and Chinese philosophy that’s readily evident is that Western philosophers for the longest time had to keep their writings in line with the major precepts of Christian and classical political thought.

I don't think it was that much different in China. To get an important or influential job you frequently had to adhere to conservative Confucianism as defined and controlled by the state. To pass civil service exams you had to be thoroughly grounded in conservative Confucianism, and adhere to its tenents and worldview. If you didn't it quickly became extraordinarily difficult to gain access to important or influential jobs.

On the other hand, Chinese philosophy frequently had a safety valve (so to speak) in Taoism. Although this philosophy was unofficial (i.e., not sponsored by the state), it did exist and did attract adherents. Ultimately some of its teachings were integrated into state-sponsored Confucianism by Chu Hsi and others.

[jwrevak]

Zhen Er, on Apr 8 2005, 01:30 PM, said:

Haha, that explains everything then!

But seriously though, I'm interested in knowing why the Judeo-Christian school with prominent writers such as Thomas Aquineas chose to prop up the ancients like Plato and Aristotle as their pre-decessors, especially since no where in their writing do these two mention that philosophy is inherently tied to God or religion.

Not true. Plato is very mystical and makes many references to God. Even a cursory reading of his Symposium reveals this. He may not call God, God precisely all the time, but the concept is surely often there. He felt that man ought to strive for re-union with God, whom he frequently he calls the "Good and the Beautiful".

Aristotle also clearly believed in God and makes significant references to Him. However, his view of God is different from the Judeo-Christian in that for him God is impersonal. He frequently calls Him the Prime Mover and felt He was essential to the Universe and a very significant topic for philosphers.

For these and other reasons philosophers and theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas and many others, often found much of value in Plato, Aristotle, and other pre-Christian philosophers. They did not feel they were "propping" them up. Instead, they felt they were finding in them many things of value. They frequently felt that the pre-Christian philosophers understood the nature of God and man's relationship to God albeit incompletely and imperfectly. They then saught to reinterpet them in light of Christian revelation. It isn't a whole lot different from Chu Hsi or the Chung brothers reinterpreting Confucius to reflect changes in Chinese culture and thinking, including the rising popularity of Taoism and Buddhism.

Quote

Another question, do Chinese philosophers such as Confucius believe in the ability of the common man, or are they like most prominent Western philosophers and fearful of the brute might of the masses? Considering that they prop up the divine given powers of the Emperor, I'm assuming that they subscribe to some kind of elitism as well?

I think Confucius clearly believed in the ability of some common men. He was known to take on poor students. He believed that government should be by the well qualified, not necessarily the rich elite. I also hasten to add that his teachings were later used by the state to create a rigid elitist system that clearly discriminated against the common man (not to mention woman!). I also hasten to add that Confucius, like many traditional Chinese philosophers, believed in a paternalistic government. He did not believe, for example, that all common men should participate in government (i.e. in a democratic state). In this respect, he was unlike some of the Greek philosphers who advocated a democracy in which citizens freely participated to determine their own destinies.

[TMPikachu]

Well, many of those greek philosophers still considered the citizen to be free males, that owned slaves.

It seems a curiosity to me that a philosophy that is credited often for advocating personal freedoms came from a society of slavers, and that the philosophy advocating cooperation for the greater good did not institute slavery.

[jwrevak]

General_Zhaoyun, on Apr 6 2005, 11:00 PM, said:

I've not been well-informed and haven't read widely about western philosophy (namely those Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotles, Plato etc, and others such as John Locke, Nietzche etc).

But, I'm well-informed about chinese philosophy (schools of thoughts) namely confucianism,  some bits about Daoism, Mohism, legalism, Dialecticians etc.

It seems that Chinese Philosophy have always emphasized humanism and ethics (esp. confucianism) as the building basis for a society, while western philosphy have tended more to look into naturalism (natural science, metaphysics) as a way of explaning society and nature.

I don't completely agree. Some branches of Chinese philosophy have emphasized natural science, metaphysics, correspondences between phenomenon etc. One such school is often called the School of Yin and Yang. It sought, among other things, to find correspondences between numbers, dynasties, astrology, the Five Elements, etc. They also sought to explain unusual natural events or anomalies (droughts, floods, births of malformed animals, etc.) by relating them to sundry cosmic forces, government policy, the behavior of the emperor, etc. It was a very esoteric and influential school and we often tend to overlook it when examining Chinese philosophy.

Another such school is that of alchemy. Many Chinese philosophers spent a lot of time and energy in such pursuits as the elixir of the immortals in an attempt to prolong life.

On the other hand, Confucius and many other traditional philosophers clearly emphaized an ethical, humanistic approach to life, including government.

Quote

Can someone point me out the major differences between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy?

One important difference, which has not been touched upon yet here, is the manner of presenting ideas. In China, ideas are frequently presented in a terse, eliptical, sometimes almost haphazard style. Think of the Tao Te Ching 道德經 and Analects 掄語. By contrast, in the West ideas are frequently presented in great and ordered detail with much attention to logical development. Think of Aristotle's or Aquinas' works.

Another significant difference is that the West tends to hold the past in lower regard than the Chinese. Sometimes Western philosophers prefer to break completely with past philosophers, discarding them in the process, as they seek to respond to changing times and values. On the other hand, frequently Chinese philosophers seek to reinterpret or expand past philosophers to reflect changing times and values rather than abandoning them altogether. Clearly this happened when Chu Hsi, the Chung brothers, and others saught to reinterpret Confucius to reflect changing times and values.

[TMPikachu]

I think a sort of difference is that...
well, in Chinese poems, which I think relate to this. Many great poems are ones that one seems to have to ponder over, or were written with alot of subtleties and cultivation behind them, on 'simple' things like the pleasure of eating a persimmon. While many Great Western poems are reguarded higly for their flowery language and use of words to spell out ideas, or emotions.