Eastern Philosophy vs Western Philosophy

Do you prefer Eastern or Western Philosophy?


  • Total voters
    32
Feb 2012
3,888
Portugal
#43
Since you bring it up, this issue is not so far away from philosophy as one might think, Diogenes a sort of "Martine" of philosophers that has a story for each kind of situation also participated in a wrestling match as he was engaged by a young man at the gymnasium, unfortunately unlike Martine's the story is not suited for a family forum like this, but the outcome was his opponent running away.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,050
Europix
#44
Since you bring it up, this issue is not so far away from philosophy as one might think...
Of course.

Not all philosophers were gnoms like Kant, to begin with.

And violence, physical confrontation was always part of the human society so it couldn't be ignored by philosophy.

Plus, all martial arts transcend (or try to) the simple "hit harder" level.

Nevertheless, Your "...." made me laugh (but I'll PM You on that, to not derail the thread).
 
Mar 2012
4,340
#45
Not to mention the vast majority of successful styles utilized in MMA are Japanese, Korean, and Thai.

There are a handful of Greco Roman wrestlers who made it in MMA, and one boxer (Holly Holm). Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is big - again, more Southern hemisphere, and with an Eastern origin - Gaidojutsu, shoot wrestling, and Judo are also very popular bases for grappling: all from Japan. Muay Thai, kickboxing, and Kyokushin are the biggest striking styles - all Japan and Thailand based.

Western “martial arts” is generally BS. Joe Rogan makes fun of it all the time... mostly because it’s generally fake. “Grab the wrist, use your arm to deflect this.”

Otherwise, most martial arts taught in the West today are not even western, but Asian based.
Japan's contribution to modern combat sport is huge and probably ranks number one in being most influential of all countries. Most striking sport today originates from Karate, whether it be Taekwando or kickboxing. Big sports such as kickboxing or shootboxing also have Japanese origin. Muay Thai and the less popular Sanda are the only notable striking sports outside of this system (and Sanda is probably affected by Karate too). Just about all submission grappling styles also originates from Judo, whether it be BJJ or Sambo. Only wrestling and boxing are western, and the basics of wrestling is a sport which many societies have; early Judo had just about everything wrestling had plus submissions (not to mention, pure wrestling is generally not even considered a martial art). The next in rank for influence is much more controversial; Britain kick started modern boxing and the United States took it further, Thailand had Muay Thai, which influenced kickboxing, Brazil developed BJJ and world grappling competitions. The United States' influence is more recent, just in the past 30 years or so with the promotion of MMA (which Japan also took a huge part in with the creation and dominance of Pride). Russia and China's Sambo and Sanda respectively are more restricted to their own countries and only occasionally influenced abroad.
 
Nov 2016
683
Germany
#46
Not all philosophers were gnoms like Kant, to begin with.

And violence, physical confrontation was always part of the human society so it couldn't be ignored by philosophy.
What do you mean? That the issue of war/violence was ignored by Kant?

From "Perpetual Peace" (1795):

6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State"

These are dishonorable stratagems. For some confidence in the character of the enemy must remain even in the midst of war, as otherwise no peace could be concluded and the hostilities would degenerate into a war of extermination (bellum internecinum). War, however, is only the sad recourse in the state of nature (where there is no tribunal which could judge with the force of law) by which each state asserts its right by violence and in which neither party can be adjudged unjust (for that would presuppose a juridical decision); in lieu of such a decision, the issue of the conflict (as if given by a so-called "judgment of God") decides on which side justice lies. But between states no punitive war (bellum punitivum) is conceivable, because there is no relation between them of master and servant.

It follows that a war of extermination, in which the destruction of both parties and of all justice can result, would permit perpetual peace only in the vast burial ground of the human race. Therefore, such a war and the use of all means leading to it must be absolutely forbidden. But that the means cited do inevitably lead to it is clear from the fact that these infernal arts, vile in themselves, when once used would not long be confined to the sphere of war. Take, for instance, the use of spies (utiexploratoribus). In this, one employs the infamy of others (which can never be entirely eradicated) only to encourage its persistence even into the state of peace, to the undoing of the very spirit of peace.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2016
683
Germany
#50
An ad hoc translated passage from my German fantasy novel "Die Göttin" (The Goddess) with a female protagonist who is just supernaturally shifted into Kant´s dining parlor:

I myself am the seventh person in this company, sitting between two ladies with artfully draped hair. The others present are elderly men. Strangely enough, the most inconspicuous of them immediately catches my eye, a slender gentleman around sixty who barely reaches his neighbors´ ears, but intellectually towers above them by light years.
Immanuel Kant.
So it´s him whom Selena has meant.
Looking down at me I see me all done up in a bright cotton dress with a wide décolleté excellently showing my bosoms to advantage.
 

Similar History Discussions