Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Xeludon t1_ixstnar wrote

Reply to comment by TargetDroid in In classical Chinese philosophy, all actions are collective by CytheYounger

Not even close.

Rice was not the reason, at all.

They used rice as an example of how the philosophy works, they weren't saying "it's this way because of rice".

I have no idea how you read it that way, no one else did, which is why you're being downvoted so hard, your take makes no sense.

The original comment was very, very easy to read and made sense, it very clearly wasn't what you think it was, at all.

The entire point of the original comment was a brief explanation using farmers as an example, rice is the most common grain there, so using rice farmers made the most sense.

Do you think it would've made sense to talk about Chinese society and how it works using olive farmers as an example? No. Because the most common grain is rice.

You took it to a racist place yourself, for whatever reason.

You decided it was racist because you read rice and Chinese in the same sentence and created your own narrative.

the only one here who was racist was you.

Also; yes, their philosophy does differ from western philosophy, because Chinese philosophy hinges very heavily on everyone helping eachother. Western philosophy hinges very heavily on everyone helping themselves.

1

TargetDroid t1_ixsudg7 wrote

He wrote:

“…neither of us stands a chance if one of us fails at growing rice in the first place. Thus you do not find them hoarding water.”

That is: because they farm rice, Chinese people have developed more “collective-oriented” philosophical distinctions from those in the West… despite the fact that those in the West also face the basic human predicament of sharing resources and cooperating in the rudimentary manner being described while farming other plants…

So that rice must be really magical, huh?

1

Xeludon t1_ixsuyqs wrote

Again; not even close.

The entire meaning is "neither of us stands a chance if one of us fails, thus you don't find them hoarding-" it could be literally anything.

They used rice and agriculture as an example because it's the easiest to follow.

Their point was that hoarding and sabotaging in Chinese philosophy causes negative effects to everyone involved.

Read what they put again, but replace the word water with money, or houses, or cars, or literally anything.

In China, there's laws that stop people hoarding property, among other things.

Their example and analogy wasn't in any way literal. You just read it that way, which is on you.

I'm still not sure where you got lost and why you don't understand, everyone else got it.

And no.

Western philosophy is capitalist and individualistic, based entirely on personal wealth and personal success.

In Western philosophy, it's all for one.

In Chinese philosophy, it's very much socialist and communal, based entirely on societal growth, communal wealth and communal succes.

Chinese philosophy is one for all.

1

TargetDroid t1_ixsvkzj wrote

Yikes.

Well, this is why I quit Reddit. I forgot.

Anyway, be sure to educate Yang Chu, a famous Chinese philosopher of the exact time period in question (who makes an appearance in the author’s cited Zhuangzi, even!) and let him know that Chinese philosophy is just all about collectivism!

−1

Xeludon t1_ixswn6y wrote

No one said it was "all about collectivism"

What is being said is that collectivism is a common theme within Chinese philosophy, which it is.

A good example of this is religion within China.

Buddhism and Daoism- both about helping others, and being communal, the collective outweighs the singular.

Abrahamic religions - about individualism, helping others is minimal, the singular outweighs the collective.

Also; Yang Zhu was regarded as a hedonist, not a philosopher, and was an outlier.

Much like we have people who believe in communism in the west, there's individuals in China who follow capitalist ideals. That doesn't make capitalism the majority belief within China, and doesn't make communism the majority in the west.

That's like saying "well, there's billionaores in the west so everyone is a billionaire", that's not how it works.

You seem to believe that a few individuals within a society believing something the rest of that society doesn't, suddenly makes that society about that individuals beliefs.

1