Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TargetDroid t1_ixrv8yp wrote

This isn’t true AT ALL.

China has a massive set of philosophical beliefs in which, for example, hermitude is important. Innumerable Daoist and Buddhist sages and wise men retreated from society to be free of its collective grasp.

Of course, the way the alleged commonality is described in the opening paragraphs, it’s loose and vague enough to apply to a wide range of very different philosophical positions. It reads initially like a(n obviously false) social claim, but seems upon its author’s initial description to be a vague metaphysical claim. At best, it gives a dramatically false sense of unity in a very broad and diverse set of beliefs. At worst, it poorly describes any one of them, and fails completely as a thesis.

The author’s first two paragraphs simply put a metaphysical spin on life and the third paragraph states that such a spin would be “near common sense” to a “Chinese philosopher” of a six hundred year period spanning numerous dynasties (during which Buddhism is introduced, no less).

The article is laughable on its face to someone who has actually studied the philosophical and religious content of the time period. It is nothing more than clickbait.

In fact, it’s downright insulting to reduce the complex philosophical environment of the cited time period to some lamely-put, pseudo-profound summary which does no justice to any actual thought from the period.

Edit: My God. Against my better judgment, I decided to read past the first few paragraphs, in the spirit of the sub. My advice: don’t bother. The citations of the DaoDeJing and Zhuangzi in defense of some weird, poorly-defined idea of the “agency” of a house or a tree are outrageously stupid. Like, unbelievably so. Beyond being merely a comedically incorrect academic, it seems apparent to me that this person has absolutely no idea what he or she is talking about.

48

redthreadzen t1_ixt8e2m wrote

Buddhism at it's core extoles the realisation of fundamental interconnection and inderdependance.

8

Tomycj t1_iy21kbl wrote

Just want to point out that individualism does not oppose the fact humans are interconnected and interdependant. It just states that the subject of rights is the individual, that the collective shall not impose itself over it.

2

redthreadzen t1_iy2jfw9 wrote

Interesting. Then has a person really realised fundamental interconnection and interdependance?

As if there is a choice between indiviual imposition and interdependance within right view. Right view doesn't entertain the idea that the individual has priority over the collective, becuase right view is that the individual really doesn't exist as a seperate entity. That would be a selfish individualist point of view, rather than no self or selfless.

In much the same way that a leaf is part of the whole tree. Or an acorn is even seperate from the tree it fell from, because these thing are not things at all but rather dynamic happenings. A fundalmatally different view of matter in that, no thing is static but rather flowing from state to state. Even mountains, and universes change over time and are subject to interaction and interconection.

1

latakewoz t1_ixt01f1 wrote

Just let your spirit go with the flow. I kind of think the aticle is brilliant having read only five lines of it myself

2