Talk:Eastern philosophy

message: "Maoism" was obviously "Mohism" (The school of Mozi) in origin. This is a ridicolous mistake,
please, may some expert correct? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism
87.0.208.22 13:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. It's that Ant-Crist  guy again... Banno 06:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why? 79.106.203.124 (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maoism -> Mohism 

message: Doesn't this seem a bit like an argument against the east/west distinction, and less like an article explaining what eastern philosophy is?  Does there really need to be two refutations of the term, but yet no explanation of why the difference exists, or what makes the difference in the first place?  --Omestes 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV part 2

message: What the hell is going on here? See Talk:Eastern culture and RFC for more confusion...  18:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF?

message: Why does this article mention Ken Wilber? Is it really that significant? --romanm (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilber? 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy are developing a policy relevant to this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/geographic divisions. Banno 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Project Policy

message: While I agree with the sentiment expressed, the expression leaves much to be desired. This article expresses a point of view without citation. Banno 18:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Why is God capitalized all throughout this article?  If not refering to one of the Abrahamic religions then god should remain in lowercase because it is NOT a name.  If there was a good reason to capitalize god then gods should also be capped.
198.110.32.2 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God 

message: Other than Maoism there doesn't to be any mention of any philosophy done in the last 100 years or so. Clearly there are academic philosophers working in universities in Asia. I think it would be good if someone with a clue about philosophy added some mention. A Geek Tragedy 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No philosophy conceived in modern Asia should bear the definition of "eastern", as this collective term is somehow disputable even for older asiatic traditions, after the end of colonialism.82.54.209.211 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, yeah, it does seem too broad a term to be very useful, but by the definition used in the article it is "the various philosophies of China, Japan, Korea, India, and, to some extent, of Iran (Persia)." If it only means Asian philosophy before colonisation by Western powers it should say so and the stuff about Mao should be pulled.A Geek Tragedy 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern era

message: Should Islamic philosophy be here? I ask this because Islamic philosophy is actually closer to Western philosophy than Eastern philosophy. Not only because of its status as an Abrahamic religion......but also the fact that Muslim Arabs are the ones that preserved the ancient Greek philosophy after the fall of Rome and it thus became an essential part of philosophy in the Islamic world. Zachorious 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a notable Taylor & Francis journal called Asian philosophy : an international journal of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Buddhist, Persian and Islamic philosophical traditions. Furthermore, Part VI of the authoritative Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy (2002) is titled "Islamic Philosophy". --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic philosophy 

message: This article does not distinguish between philosophies and systems of belief. As examples, Buddhism and Hinduism are religions (perhaps), organizations of ideas, ways of life, systems of belief, etc. Their respective teachings each contains philosophies, but each, unto itself, is not a philosophy. Philosophy is, among other things, a method of examination that uses rational thought. epistemology and logic, for instance, are types of philosophy. Buddhist philosophical ideas cover many areas, among them metaphysics and epistemology. But the teachings of Gautama Buddha themselves (a.k.a. Buddhism) cannot be collectively called a philosophy because it is not all philosophy. The same goes for Hinduism and many other categories of "Eastern Philosophy" covered in this article. I am not an expert on this subject but this much I know is true... ask123 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systems of Belief vs. Philosophy 

message: Following the link to the main article on "Japanese Philosophy" is basically a refresh button.... StaticGull 09:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaaargh: Japanese Philosophy 

message: The Jewish people are as much a part of the East (where they originate) as they are the West, so I think it would be a good idea to include them on here as well. I'm not really sure how to do that yet, though. I apologize for the brevity, but I am heading out as I type this.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jewish philosophy is more influenced by Europe than Asia. Typically, when individuals hear "Eastern philosophy", they understand it is philosophy from the Far East or Indian subcontinent, not the small slice of Asia in the Middle East. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish philosophy 

message: The content of this article is too broad and the organization is random - not historical or topical. I think this does a disservice to all of the philosophical traditions involved. Also, what is happening here is that a bunch of many unrelated philosophical traditions are being mashed together into one category because it was basically the article where all other 'non-Western philosophy' content gets thrown into. 
I am not sure that "eastern philosophy" is the best way to even define all of this, and as a category it is all but useless. Iranian and Muslim thought have nothing to do with Chinese and Buddhist thought, they have basically never been part of the same discourse. So this is a problem, and I propose a division of the article into Middle Eastern philosophy and leaving this Eastern philosophy as is with the Indian and Chinese content (since there was contact between the two cultures, mainly through Buddhism). 
I will note that this way of using "Eastern philosophy" to refer to mostly South Asia and East Asia (and not the Middle eastern traditions) is a common way of dividing the disciplines in the modern academy, as exemplified by Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad's "Eastern philosophy" (2005) and the "Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion" (1994, Fischer-Schreiber, Ehrhard , Friedrichs). In the Introduction to "Eastern Philosophy: The Basics", Victoria S. Harrison notes that this definition of "Eastern philosophy" is common in the academy and that this is because the Islamic tradition is deeply tied with Hellenic philosophy and Western philosophy and cannot be lumped into the same category as Chinese and Indian thought. At the same time, she notes that the whole idea of "Eastern philosophy" is spurious and based on Eurocentric assumptions - either way we are stuck with the term for now as it is. 
Edit: Performed the major edit of moving of Middle eastern material to its own page as per my last comment on this. I also:
*Removed the unsourced section on God and also the one on Religion, there was no reason to have that and God (Isvara, Tian, etc - even the concepts used are not equivalent to the western conception of God) is only one of the many topics in Eastern thinking - and not the most widely discussed one. Comparative religion is a different field than philosophy and should not be on this article. 
*Placed the section on South Asian philosophies in the beginning, since it where Buddhism starts, then it makes sense to have the East asian section afterwards chronologically (since it is easier to make sense of the expansion of Buddhism to China)
*A section on 'modern developments' has been added - the work on 'synthesis' between east and west has been moved there. 
This article still needs a lot of work, but at least the basic structure makes sense now and is consistent with modern scholarship. 
Javierfv1212 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * No comment on the merits of the fork (other than to say starting a discussion and then proceeding with it 2 hours later can be seen as bad form), but please see WP:CWW and follow the steps to attribute the split content, which our license requires (the "BY" in CC-BY-SA). Thanks, CrowCaw 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eastern philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328000932/http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/vita/teaching/eastphil.htm to http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/vita/teaching/eastphil.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041205035315/http://www.atmajyoti.org/spirwrit.asp to http://www.atmajyoti.org/spirwrit.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: So, in scientific terms, what are the criteria to define what is "East" and "West"? Do you guys really believe that there are only these two cultures?
Its not necessary to be an expert to realize that the "East-West" division originated in the Roman Empire, and that the Western Roman culture and identity was stolen by the Germanic tribes after the Barbarian Invasions (as is evidenced in the name of their first civilization, the Holy Roman Empire). 
I will not even mention the fact that today's self-proclaimed "Westerners" were not even true Western Romans but their slaves or their mortal enemies, while half of the real Westerners today are called "Middle Easterners," like the Berbers who by the way were the elite of Rome.
The fact is, if we are going to take this fake cosmography seriously, we will have to add in the so-called "East" the ancient Greeks, who until the London Conference of 1832 were still called "Orientals", and also Jesus Christ, who was not the "blue-eyed blond Western European" that some like to imagine, otherwise the removal of the article will be necessary.
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral place instead of another mean of ethnocentric propaganda of a fake ethnicity. 2804:14C:5BD7:AE55:478:E75A:ACD7:B0CA (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They also forgot Islam and Christianity, and Judaism. They are Asian religions too. 79.106.203.124 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "East'? Who created such thing? 

message: Why are there no Abrahamic religions on here??? 79.106.203.124 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic?