
A Brief History of Philosophy in the East and West - penfold
http://expressiveegg.org/2017/01/27/history-philosophy/
======
robotkdick
I disagree with most of the comments. I believe the article has great merit,
which lies in its conclusion, but most would never make it that far.

For those who'd like the condensed version:

"you are confronted with the one philosophical problem that no book or
tradition or teaching can ever know or solve; being you, in your world."

What the article says is that philosophy is not very useful to an individual,
which, having failed to gain any relevant insights from raw philosophy myself,
I agree with.

However, I would argue that the application of raw philosophy in stories, like
Crime and Punishment or The Stranger or Arrival or Romeo and Juliet, is what
makes philosophy useful––being able to see it applied in a relatable
character's existence, not unlike our own, with the requisite cause and effect
chains. Ay, there's the rub.

I have gained great insights from stories that make excellent use of
philosophy–through its application. It could be argued that great works of
fiction follow from new developments in raw philosophy. Both fiction and
philosophy play in the space of universal truths.

~~~
alabut
I also liked the article's critique of Western philosophy as being too
analytical and divorced from real life. Apparently that wasn't always the case
in the ancient world and philosophy had more practical application, which
probably explains the revival of Stoicism lately as well.

A good starter book on the Stoics that also reinterprets the ancient lessons
for the modern age:

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0040JHNQG/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0040JHNQG/)

~~~
smhost
I've always thought that the revival of Stoicism is because 20th century
philosophy messed with our heads to such an extent that we were left with an
empty husk of our former selves, like ghosts floating in a meaningless world,
and all we could do was laugh at ourselves to exhaustion lest we commit
suicide.

Maybe I'm just talking about myself.

~~~
pasquinelli
No, I think it's a reaction against the new-agey types that pick up stuff so
often from Eastern philosophical and religious traditions. Basically it's new-
agey stuff for people that would never be willing to conceive of themselves as
anything like a new-agey person.

------
dcre
This is quite bad — I can barely understand a word of it and I have some
background in Greek and German philosophy. I wouldn't take it as anything but
a decent list of authors to look into in more detail.

We're talking about thousands of years worth of the thoughts of the smartest
people who ever lived. The author's heart seems to be in the right place and
they are occasionally poetic, but there is simply very little of substance you
can say about this much stuff in such a short space.

------
Cephlin
"One day people became rich enough to think outside the box for extended
periods of time" that's my short and sweet history of philosophy :p

Seems like a nice article though!

------
JackFr
> If you can’t read a generalisation without exploding in a rage of counter-
> examples, stop reading now…!

What is the magic number of counter-examples at which we can safely reject the
generalisation? The warning at the top could read more briefly: 'The following
is clever, but wrong.'

~~~
maldusiecle
Yeah, absolutely. I can't imagine anyone who has engaged with these
philosophers at any length agreeing with what he's saying.

------
roryrjb
I didn't really read the article and I didn't read too many of the comments
here, but to sum up this one massive topic or two massive topics, depending on
how you look at it is probably going to fail in such a small amount of space.
I just want to say (and I brought this up the last time I commented on a
philosophically-themed post on HN) that I highly recommend The History of
Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell as a good and thorough overview of
Western philosophy. And while some may argue on his view point perhaps, I
would find it difficult for anyone to struggle with his style of writing.

~~~
tommorris
I'd suggest supplementing Russell's History. Russell is an engaging writer but
he does have some pretty strong biases. Understand that Russell's history was
written when he was short of time and money, having just been banned from
lecturing at the City College of New York (on the grounds of morality).

Anthony Kenny's four volume history of philosophy is broader, though not
without fault. The most authoritative history of Western philosophy is
Frederick Copleston's nine volume series, but that might be a bit too much of
a good thing for most people.

Do read Russell, but remember he has a whole sack of biases.

Berlin provides an excellent review of Russell's History:
[https://culturalapparatus.wordpress.com/a-history-of-
western...](https://culturalapparatus.wordpress.com/a-history-of-western-
philosophy-reviewed-by-isaiah-berlin/)

------
bbctol
Look, I would never say that everyone has to formally study philosophy. But if
you're going to talk about philosophy as if you've studied it... you really
have to actually study philosophy.

------
NoGravitas
It appears to me, as someone who has only studied philosophy informally, that
Epicurus and Epicureanism are an exception to his characterization of Western
philosophy.

------
TheOsiris
imho this is the definitive guide to eastern vs western philosophy:
[https://youtu.be/0N_RO-jL-90](https://youtu.be/0N_RO-jL-90)

------
ysavir
> If you can’t read a generalisation without exploding in a rage of counter-
> examples, stop reading now…!

If you can't write a generalization without exploding in a rage lacking
examples, stop writing now...?

