Chinese Culture: Tradition vs Law

Inst said:

Correct; many Westerners don't realize that their culture is post-Christian or post-Platonic. I'm reading Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind", and I especially appreciate a remark where Descartes is said to resort to God to destroy his ultimate skepticism. Many Westerners claim that "I think, therefore I am" is self-evident and always true. However, what they don't realize is that "I think" can be an illusory phenomenon (not even experience, since the self may not exist) and that the system of logic ("I think" implies that there is an object called "I", hence "I" exists) is also a postulational system based on assumptions.

Click to expand...

If "I" and "you" don't exist but is merely illusory, should your post be taken seriously?

If you'd like to discussion questions of epistemology, there are books for that and places for that. In fact, some scientists, arguing for the trivial costs of ancestor simulations as well as artifacts of our reality that resemble digital simulations, claim that we have a greater than even odd of living in a simulation.

My point there, though, is to add to comments about differing Western cultures by showing that the predicates underlying Western culture are not universal and the natural realizations of rational men.

Inst said:

If you'd like to discussion questions of epistemology, there are books for that and places for that. In fact, some scientists, arguing for the trivial costs of ancestor simulations as well as artifacts of our reality that resemble digital simulations, claim that we have a greater than even odd of living in a simulation.

My point there, though, is to add to comments about differing Western cultures by showing that the predicates underlying Western culture are not universal and the natural realizations of rational men.

Click to expand...

This thread is actually about Chinese culture if you haven't noticed. It is not about some of the esoteric western thoughts.

Brumby said:

This thread is actually about Chinese culture if you haven't noticed. It is not about some of the esoteric western thoughts.

Click to expand...

So, it's OK for you to make OT comments, as you did in post 21 above, but not OK for others. How quaint.

"Formerly, I, Zhuang Zhou, dreamt that I was a butterfly, a butterfly flying about, feeling that it was enjoying itself. I did not know that it was Zhou. Suddenly I awoke, and was myself again, the veritable Zhou. I did not know whether it had formerly been Zhou dreaming that he was a butterfly, or it was now a butterfly dreaming that it was Zhou. But between Zhou and a butterfly there must be a difference. This is a case of what is called the Transformation of Things.'"

So if you want to discuss Chinese culture, we can, but let's not get into epistemology. I'm unsure of it, you're unsure of it; we're supposed to discuss social issues.

Inst said:

"Formerly, I, Zhuang Zhou, dreamt that I was a butterfly, a butterfly flying about, feeling that it was enjoying itself. I did not know that it was Zhou. Suddenly I awoke, and was myself again, the veritable Zhou. I did not know whether it had formerly been Zhou dreaming that he was a butterfly, or it was now a butterfly dreaming that it was Zhou. But between Zhou and a butterfly there must be a difference. This is a case of what is called the Transformation of Things.'"

Click to expand...

.... and? If the intend is to demonstrate a metaphor of something else then it is a point that needs to be made and how that relates to the thread. Having said that, the state of being is ontically derived until stronger evidence to the contrary can be demonstrated. Mohammad Ali is known to "float like a butterfly and sting like a bee" but I doubt anyone thinks he is an insect. That is simply basic coherent thinking between object and identity.

Inst said:

"
So if you want to discuss Chinese culture, we can, but let's not get into epistemology. I'm unsure of it, you're unsure of it; we're supposed to discuss social issues.

Click to expand...

It is not a matter of what I want. The thread is about Chinese culture and if this Zhou thingy somehow is related to the subject matter then I suggest you elaborate on the matter so that we are more enlightened.

You know, you should stop embarrassing yourself. That's the infamous Butterfly Dream of Zhuangzi, arguably the most sublime Taoist philosopher.

Brumby said:

This thread is actually about Chinese culture if you haven't noticed. It is not about some of the esoteric western thoughts.

Click to expand...

Yet this is a discussion in a Western language forum where just by that fact alone means the discussion is framed in a Western cultural perspective therefore comparisons of Western culture and Chinese culture have to be addressed to account for subjectivity.

Inst said:

You know, you should stop embarrassing yourself. That's the infamous Butterfly Dream of Zhuangzi, arguably the most sublime Taoist philosopher.

Click to expand...

I don't see why I need to be embarrassed if I am ignorant of Taoist philosophy. Now that we have gotten that out of the way, please enlighten me. This is the second time I am suggesting unless you are as ignorant as I am.

PanAsian said:

Yet this is a discussion in a Western language forum where just by that fact alone means the discussion is framed in a Western cultural perspective therefore comparisons of Western culture and Chinese culture have to be addressed to account for subjectivity.

Click to expand...

Sorry I don't concur with your reasoning. If the intention is to discuss Chinese culture then that is the primary focus. If for whatever reason there is a need to contrast with Western philosophy to make a point, so be it. However, the shadow is not the substance. The difficulty is in expressing Eastern ideas using western language, and that can be very challenging in choice of words in framing a thought.

And you are off topic. Go read "A Short History of Chinese Philosophy" by Feng Youlan or something. The epistemology part was simply raised to discuss Westerners' mistaken notion that their values are self-evident, when they follow from unique postulates.

Shall we return to "tradition vs law"? This thread is beginning to look like a train wreck, and I will not respond to Brumby's bait further.