This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
Alright, whoever is writing all that stuff about Christianity under legalism better stop it.
--
Darthanakin 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright, its this guy 164.82.85.3, watch out for this guy
--
Darthanakin 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The following sentence is incorrect:
"Shared concepts include the supernatural, the immortal soul (ancestor of mind-body dualism)"
The concept of the supernatural and the immortal soul is not limited to these two civilizations but occours almost universally in human culture throughout the world.-- Vonaurum 09:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
What the hell is going on here? See Talk:Eastern culture and RFC for more confusion... Sam Spade ( talk · contribs) 18:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article mention Ken Wilber? Is it really that significant? -- romanm (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy are developing a policy relevant to this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/geographic divisions. Banno 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Although I concur that Deng Xiaoping is a notable modern Eastern thinker who could be considered a philosopher and although I concur that noting him under Maoism is not entirely inappropriate I think that the current way that Deng is referenced on this page is severely in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The entire text is rife with weasel words that are based around a pro-capitalist, anti-soviet perspective. This unflinching Deng idolization disregards the significant negative impacts of Deng's "reforms" including the stifling of grass-roots democratization efforts (such as the infamous T-Square incident), the extreme environmental damage caused by rapid industrialization under the economic "reform" policy, and the collapse of the "Iron Ricebowl". Considering the problems that can be laid at Deng's feet I would encourage the contributor who included information on Deng to find a much more NPOV way of introducing his contributions to Eastern Philosophy and am removing the offending text pending revision. 64.201.173.145 ( talk) 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The introduction starts in a negative tone. There is no need to contrast with Western philosophy in the first line itself...Eastern philosophies stand on its own and i would like to rewrite about it in positive terms.
the intro is overly hostile, and assumes a philosophical standpoint (universal philosophy) to criticize opposing philosophies. not only does this not meet up to wikipedia standards, it is off topic.
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)
God also refers to the philosophical concepts, not just the abrahamic religions.-- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 23:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
The best definition of an 'eastern philosophy' is probably the exact opposite to that of 'western philosohpy' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyo50 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand why Ayyavazhi is getting the space among eastern philosophies? it may be a small time cult, thousands of which are present in India. i propose that we should delete its entry among eastern philosophies.
-- SV 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So friends I finally understand that here, What Iam telling, and what credible sources Iam citing, all these are not a problem, but I should be in a large friends-circle here and other wise is not worthy. Some complints and RFCs may be launced against and may be finally blocked for ever. - Д =|Θ|= Д Paul| 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
THIS IS NOT A RELIGION ARTICLE! Why is a religion being given space on this page in the first place? If this "religion," as Paul Raj, calls it above, encompasses philosophical ideas, then those ideas should be discussed here and then included in their own sub-section. But, if those philosophical ideas are actually derivitive of other philosophies, then Ayyavazhi should be a note in that (those) other sub-section(s). And, if there are no non-derivitive phiosophical ideas in Ayyavazhi (only religious and/or faith-based ones), then it should be omitted entirely. Oh, and one more thing, the number of followers an idea/religion/philosophy/cult/whatever has is of little relevance here. There are many ideas/religions/philosophies/cults/whatevers, with many more than 8000 followers, that are not mentioned on this page. ask123 03:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Sort of the same thing with Jewish philosophy. Zachorious 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
Following the link to the main article on "Japanese Philosophy" is basically a refresh button.... StaticGull 09:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
All links of the first section link back this article which is very frustrating if you want to learn more about these philosophies Schwarzbichler 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Japanese philosophy" link redirects back to the Eastern Philosophy page, but the Persian and Korean links do not. This makes it impossible to read about Japanese philosophy specifically. ( 209.33.232.233 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Page created, but it's quite a small stub. JDowning 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The term "Indian religions" does not make sense, because a number of religions and philosophies on that page clearly are not distinctly "Indian." [1]
Merging the content about the above beliefs and changing the title to "Religious History of India" makes more sense.
Furthermore, about the separate articles on Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion -- in the East, there is no distinction between "Eastern philosophy" and "Eastern religions." [6] [7] [8]
The above are just some quick references I pulled from books laying around the house. Were I go to the library or spend some time using Google, I could bury you all in references to support my claims. And as you can see, all the references cited are clearly reliable because they're widely-used scholarly source material.
I will wait until tomorrow to start the merge. However, per WP:BOLD, I will begin the merge tomorrow. Zenwhat ( talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Spasemunki\Clay Collier, your claim "they also have significant social, supernatural, ritual, etc. structures that fall outside of what is traditionally considered philosophy" is probably true per the western definition of philosophy, as noted by my sources above, but not the eastern definition. In the absence of sources, what you said above appears to be original research which seeks to divide Eastern thought into "Eastern philosophy" and "Eastern religion" when no such division is recognized by mainstream philosophers in either the west or east. In many ways, the seemingly "devotional" teachings of Buddhism aren't particularly different from beliefs advocated by modern movements in philosophy, such as Existentialism and Post-Modernism. Alan Watts and Stephen Batchelor have written extensively on this. If such a division between "Eastern Philosophy" and "Eastern Religion" is recognized, please cite a reliable source to substantiate that claim. There are already pages and pages of unsubstantiated claims on discussions which appear to be similar to this issue. In order to move forward, we need to move past that. Zenwhat ( talk) 08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your view and am trying to understand why you want to merge Easter Philosophy with Indian Religions. It seems that this opposition stems from allergy to the word “Indian”. But that cannot be the criteria. Wikipedia does not function on emotions and passions. The fact that Historical Buddhism or for that matter the other Indian Religions originated on Indian soils cannot be done away with.
Your arguments are frail as I will show you why :-
Now let us analyse your references of which you are “proud” that you want to “bury us all” :-
Its quite clear that religion and philosophy can be similar but cannot be considered as synonyms. Similarly the words “Indian” and “Eastern” cannot be considered as synonyms. So you don’t have a case for merger of IR with EP.
Furthermore, even though Dolphin can be considered as a Marine mammal as well as Cataceans, there is no need to merge Marine mammal with Cataceans. Similarly Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism can be a part of Indian Religion as well as Eastern Religions or Eastern Philosophy, which is a broader category. In fact, both articles COMPLEMENT each other. You last phrase “if anyone digs up references which demonstrate the contrary, I can dig up even more references, if necessary” gives an ipression that, you have come with a pre-conceived notion and you are not ready to accept that there can be authoritative and scholarly discord or wide ranging contrary views and all views need to be expressed in wikipedia. I just hope that is not the case.-- Anish ( talk) 11:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Do not support merge Christian philosophy, Jewish philosophy and Islamic philosophy, among other articles, are distinct from the article on Abrahamic religions. I do not really see any significant reasons to support merging both Indian religions and Eastern religions into Eastern philosophy, since in general, people treat religion (as procedure/ritual) and philosophy (as outlook/worldview) as seperate things. I do see a significant amount of overlap between Indian religions and Eastern religions, however, I think the current state of Eastern religions works well as a psudo-disambiguation page, while and Indian religions would be much more useful if its scope was changed to History of religion in India. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Nick, this discussion is about a proposal to merge Eastern philosophy with Eastern religion, not a proposal to merge Philosophy with Religion. I agree the latter would be stupid, but the former is true and has been verified. The existence of some sources which use "Eastern religion" and some sources which use "Eastern philosophy" doesn't demonstrate any distinction between the two if both sources regularly use the terms to discuss the same concepts. Zenwhat ( talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose Merge, Neutral to Renaming - mostly per NickPenguin. (Note: Most of this stuff is adressed to Zenwhat.) I don't have the resources to go into anywhere near a thorough analysis of the issue, but there are people (besides me and a few other people whose opinions have no real credence) who do make a distinction between Eastern religion and philosophy. For the most part, such people believe that most Eastern religions have philosophical aspects but that not all Eastern philosophies are religions ( Confucianism appears most commonly). I'll just give a small list of sources describing these views in same way, either by explicit mention or implication:
I'm fine with renaming Indian religions to "History of religion in India" or whatever was suggested, because those suggest similar topics. However, merging Indian religion with Eastern philosophy would be like merging quark with cheese, or Jainism with Jainism and non-creationism (a specific topic with a general one). My main problem is not with acknowledgment that some religions spread outside of India, as did Buddhism, but with the claim that the Eastern world does not distinguish between religion and philosophy. Just as a disclaimer, I know relatively little about this topic, and I may have misinterpreted my sources; don't hunt me down and kill me if that is the case. -- Qmwne 2 3 5 22:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Response to Qmwne235: Your first source isn't reliable. A simple google search shows that the "Korean times" has malware. Even if it were legitimate, how am I supposed to verify it without being able to read Korean? And how do I know it is not an opinion piece, based on the title? Furthermore, you used the source to contradict my claim cites Confucianism and Confucianism alone. There is specific contention over whether "Confucianism" is a philosophy, a religion, or both. Opponents of Confucianism generally regard it as a religion, while supporters will call it a philosophy. The Idiot's Guide to Confucianism likely either refers to as both a philosophy and a religion, or notes the fact that the ambiguity is a point of contention.
Second, your second source seems to contradict your own claims: If Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion are distinct, why would discussion of a book about Feminism in Eastern religion be in a journal of philosophy entitled, "Philosophy East and West"? Your source demonstrates the exact opposite of your point and it's something I can now use to establish my point even further.
You acknowledge I'm somewhat correct about Buddhism. That alone seems like grounds to at least clean up Indian religions. You're right that my claim about Jains isn't correct. I agree that Jainism is largely an "Indian religion." No disagreement there.
I never claimed that philosophy became one or that they are in fact the same. What I'm saying is that they are perceived that way in the East, this is acknowledged by mainstream philosophers, and that there are no mainstream sources to demonstrate a tenable distinction, although there is some original research by Stephen Batchelor on the matter [2] and there is likely original research by others.
Your final summary of your claims about Eastern philosophy and religion seem to contradict WP:VERIFIABILITY. Even if it is true there ought to be a distinction between Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion (a proposal that I, myself, agree with since I find Asian superstitions absurd and I'm a fan of Stephen Batchelor), such a claim is not verifiable. The fact that it is "occasionally argued" (to use your own words) that Taoism can be regarded as philosophies without being religions seems to violate WP:NOR. Zenwhat ( talk) 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest that "Eastern" itself might be considered a somewhat arbitrary category, invented by Westerners? Peter jackson ( talk) 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
obviously, the two articles are closely related, but just as obviously, they should not be merged. Nobody would suggest we merge Hindu philosophy into Hinduism, for example. -- dab (𒁳) 08:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
Why are there no Abrahamic religions on here??? 79.106.203.124 ( talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
Alright, whoever is writing all that stuff about Christianity under legalism better stop it.
--
Darthanakin 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright, its this guy 164.82.85.3, watch out for this guy
--
Darthanakin 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The following sentence is incorrect:
"Shared concepts include the supernatural, the immortal soul (ancestor of mind-body dualism)"
The concept of the supernatural and the immortal soul is not limited to these two civilizations but occours almost universally in human culture throughout the world.-- Vonaurum 09:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
What the hell is going on here? See Talk:Eastern culture and RFC for more confusion... Sam Spade ( talk · contribs) 18:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article mention Ken Wilber? Is it really that significant? -- romanm (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy are developing a policy relevant to this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/geographic divisions. Banno 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Although I concur that Deng Xiaoping is a notable modern Eastern thinker who could be considered a philosopher and although I concur that noting him under Maoism is not entirely inappropriate I think that the current way that Deng is referenced on this page is severely in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The entire text is rife with weasel words that are based around a pro-capitalist, anti-soviet perspective. This unflinching Deng idolization disregards the significant negative impacts of Deng's "reforms" including the stifling of grass-roots democratization efforts (such as the infamous T-Square incident), the extreme environmental damage caused by rapid industrialization under the economic "reform" policy, and the collapse of the "Iron Ricebowl". Considering the problems that can be laid at Deng's feet I would encourage the contributor who included information on Deng to find a much more NPOV way of introducing his contributions to Eastern Philosophy and am removing the offending text pending revision. 64.201.173.145 ( talk) 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The introduction starts in a negative tone. There is no need to contrast with Western philosophy in the first line itself...Eastern philosophies stand on its own and i would like to rewrite about it in positive terms.
the intro is overly hostile, and assumes a philosophical standpoint (universal philosophy) to criticize opposing philosophies. not only does this not meet up to wikipedia standards, it is off topic.
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)
God also refers to the philosophical concepts, not just the abrahamic religions.-- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 23:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
The best definition of an 'eastern philosophy' is probably the exact opposite to that of 'western philosohpy' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyo50 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand why Ayyavazhi is getting the space among eastern philosophies? it may be a small time cult, thousands of which are present in India. i propose that we should delete its entry among eastern philosophies.
-- SV 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So friends I finally understand that here, What Iam telling, and what credible sources Iam citing, all these are not a problem, but I should be in a large friends-circle here and other wise is not worthy. Some complints and RFCs may be launced against and may be finally blocked for ever. - Д =|Θ|= Д Paul| 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
THIS IS NOT A RELIGION ARTICLE! Why is a religion being given space on this page in the first place? If this "religion," as Paul Raj, calls it above, encompasses philosophical ideas, then those ideas should be discussed here and then included in their own sub-section. But, if those philosophical ideas are actually derivitive of other philosophies, then Ayyavazhi should be a note in that (those) other sub-section(s). And, if there are no non-derivitive phiosophical ideas in Ayyavazhi (only religious and/or faith-based ones), then it should be omitted entirely. Oh, and one more thing, the number of followers an idea/religion/philosophy/cult/whatever has is of little relevance here. There are many ideas/religions/philosophies/cults/whatevers, with many more than 8000 followers, that are not mentioned on this page. ask123 03:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Sort of the same thing with Jewish philosophy. Zachorious 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
Following the link to the main article on "Japanese Philosophy" is basically a refresh button.... StaticGull 09:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
All links of the first section link back this article which is very frustrating if you want to learn more about these philosophies Schwarzbichler 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Japanese philosophy" link redirects back to the Eastern Philosophy page, but the Persian and Korean links do not. This makes it impossible to read about Japanese philosophy specifically. ( 209.33.232.233 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Page created, but it's quite a small stub. JDowning 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The term "Indian religions" does not make sense, because a number of religions and philosophies on that page clearly are not distinctly "Indian." [1]
Merging the content about the above beliefs and changing the title to "Religious History of India" makes more sense.
Furthermore, about the separate articles on Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion -- in the East, there is no distinction between "Eastern philosophy" and "Eastern religions." [6] [7] [8]
The above are just some quick references I pulled from books laying around the house. Were I go to the library or spend some time using Google, I could bury you all in references to support my claims. And as you can see, all the references cited are clearly reliable because they're widely-used scholarly source material.
I will wait until tomorrow to start the merge. However, per WP:BOLD, I will begin the merge tomorrow. Zenwhat ( talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Spasemunki\Clay Collier, your claim "they also have significant social, supernatural, ritual, etc. structures that fall outside of what is traditionally considered philosophy" is probably true per the western definition of philosophy, as noted by my sources above, but not the eastern definition. In the absence of sources, what you said above appears to be original research which seeks to divide Eastern thought into "Eastern philosophy" and "Eastern religion" when no such division is recognized by mainstream philosophers in either the west or east. In many ways, the seemingly "devotional" teachings of Buddhism aren't particularly different from beliefs advocated by modern movements in philosophy, such as Existentialism and Post-Modernism. Alan Watts and Stephen Batchelor have written extensively on this. If such a division between "Eastern Philosophy" and "Eastern Religion" is recognized, please cite a reliable source to substantiate that claim. There are already pages and pages of unsubstantiated claims on discussions which appear to be similar to this issue. In order to move forward, we need to move past that. Zenwhat ( talk) 08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your view and am trying to understand why you want to merge Easter Philosophy with Indian Religions. It seems that this opposition stems from allergy to the word “Indian”. But that cannot be the criteria. Wikipedia does not function on emotions and passions. The fact that Historical Buddhism or for that matter the other Indian Religions originated on Indian soils cannot be done away with.
Your arguments are frail as I will show you why :-
Now let us analyse your references of which you are “proud” that you want to “bury us all” :-
Its quite clear that religion and philosophy can be similar but cannot be considered as synonyms. Similarly the words “Indian” and “Eastern” cannot be considered as synonyms. So you don’t have a case for merger of IR with EP.
Furthermore, even though Dolphin can be considered as a Marine mammal as well as Cataceans, there is no need to merge Marine mammal with Cataceans. Similarly Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism can be a part of Indian Religion as well as Eastern Religions or Eastern Philosophy, which is a broader category. In fact, both articles COMPLEMENT each other. You last phrase “if anyone digs up references which demonstrate the contrary, I can dig up even more references, if necessary” gives an ipression that, you have come with a pre-conceived notion and you are not ready to accept that there can be authoritative and scholarly discord or wide ranging contrary views and all views need to be expressed in wikipedia. I just hope that is not the case.-- Anish ( talk) 11:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Do not support merge Christian philosophy, Jewish philosophy and Islamic philosophy, among other articles, are distinct from the article on Abrahamic religions. I do not really see any significant reasons to support merging both Indian religions and Eastern religions into Eastern philosophy, since in general, people treat religion (as procedure/ritual) and philosophy (as outlook/worldview) as seperate things. I do see a significant amount of overlap between Indian religions and Eastern religions, however, I think the current state of Eastern religions works well as a psudo-disambiguation page, while and Indian religions would be much more useful if its scope was changed to History of religion in India. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Nick, this discussion is about a proposal to merge Eastern philosophy with Eastern religion, not a proposal to merge Philosophy with Religion. I agree the latter would be stupid, but the former is true and has been verified. The existence of some sources which use "Eastern religion" and some sources which use "Eastern philosophy" doesn't demonstrate any distinction between the two if both sources regularly use the terms to discuss the same concepts. Zenwhat ( talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose Merge, Neutral to Renaming - mostly per NickPenguin. (Note: Most of this stuff is adressed to Zenwhat.) I don't have the resources to go into anywhere near a thorough analysis of the issue, but there are people (besides me and a few other people whose opinions have no real credence) who do make a distinction between Eastern religion and philosophy. For the most part, such people believe that most Eastern religions have philosophical aspects but that not all Eastern philosophies are religions ( Confucianism appears most commonly). I'll just give a small list of sources describing these views in same way, either by explicit mention or implication:
I'm fine with renaming Indian religions to "History of religion in India" or whatever was suggested, because those suggest similar topics. However, merging Indian religion with Eastern philosophy would be like merging quark with cheese, or Jainism with Jainism and non-creationism (a specific topic with a general one). My main problem is not with acknowledgment that some religions spread outside of India, as did Buddhism, but with the claim that the Eastern world does not distinguish between religion and philosophy. Just as a disclaimer, I know relatively little about this topic, and I may have misinterpreted my sources; don't hunt me down and kill me if that is the case. -- Qmwne 2 3 5 22:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Response to Qmwne235: Your first source isn't reliable. A simple google search shows that the "Korean times" has malware. Even if it were legitimate, how am I supposed to verify it without being able to read Korean? And how do I know it is not an opinion piece, based on the title? Furthermore, you used the source to contradict my claim cites Confucianism and Confucianism alone. There is specific contention over whether "Confucianism" is a philosophy, a religion, or both. Opponents of Confucianism generally regard it as a religion, while supporters will call it a philosophy. The Idiot's Guide to Confucianism likely either refers to as both a philosophy and a religion, or notes the fact that the ambiguity is a point of contention.
Second, your second source seems to contradict your own claims: If Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion are distinct, why would discussion of a book about Feminism in Eastern religion be in a journal of philosophy entitled, "Philosophy East and West"? Your source demonstrates the exact opposite of your point and it's something I can now use to establish my point even further.
You acknowledge I'm somewhat correct about Buddhism. That alone seems like grounds to at least clean up Indian religions. You're right that my claim about Jains isn't correct. I agree that Jainism is largely an "Indian religion." No disagreement there.
I never claimed that philosophy became one or that they are in fact the same. What I'm saying is that they are perceived that way in the East, this is acknowledged by mainstream philosophers, and that there are no mainstream sources to demonstrate a tenable distinction, although there is some original research by Stephen Batchelor on the matter [2] and there is likely original research by others.
Your final summary of your claims about Eastern philosophy and religion seem to contradict WP:VERIFIABILITY. Even if it is true there ought to be a distinction between Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion (a proposal that I, myself, agree with since I find Asian superstitions absurd and I'm a fan of Stephen Batchelor), such a claim is not verifiable. The fact that it is "occasionally argued" (to use your own words) that Taoism can be regarded as philosophies without being religions seems to violate WP:NOR. Zenwhat ( talk) 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest that "Eastern" itself might be considered a somewhat arbitrary category, invented by Westerners? Peter jackson ( talk) 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
obviously, the two articles are closely related, but just as obviously, they should not be merged. Nobody would suggest we merge Hindu philosophy into Hinduism, for example. -- dab (𒁳) 08:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
Why are there no Abrahamic religions on here??? 79.106.203.124 ( talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)