What's new

The Roots of Western Fundamentalism & Religious Dogma and the Destruction of Thought

Welcome to our Japan community!

A discussion forum for all Things Japanese. Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

and christian slaves weren't? rome, Constantine? chinese capturing koreans and even just treating their own peasants like slaves? isn't it amazing how people simply overlook other cultures issues just so they can lambast the US for stuff it didn't do or just hate on our culture. jews had slaves and they were treated far better than slaves in east asia. in fact a roman general suggested jews need to be wiped out because our slaves may give their peasants idea's. so i really don't see how the worlds most successful culture is so flawed and evil.

Pugtm, I don't think I have denied the existence of slavery in other cultures. What am trying to do is draw a link between slavery and religion and how people use "god" and manifest destiny as reasons to enslave other human beings. I'm not talking about indentured servitude here nor am I talking about slaves who were the spoils of war who had no place to go. I am talking about people who wear god on their sleeves claiming to have a divine right to enslave another race based off the color of their skin or race because god said so.... Historically, western countries have used "god" to justify the enslavement/oppression/discrimination of human beings, not just in Europe but all over the world. You didn't hear the Daoist(Taoist) and the Han Confucianist schools talking this kind of rhetoric ! Only in the West did man justify the enslavement of other human beings based off their
"skin color" because of a mandate from god....Like I mentioned in other posts; the Old and New Testament supported and even encourages slavery.
 
If, Sensationalist san, you had only be referring to the LDS, then why did you chose to add the plural?

I'll take this one point at a time in order to help keep a low white noise threshold on the discussion.


I'll get back to slackness in definitions evidenced in your wording later.

While there is more than one point here, actually, the first one is the one I'd hope to get an answer to.

When we have a lot of people discussion a matter, there will of course be a 'dashing' effect窶。@ツ and development actually becomes lessened. (as in the standard economic productivity model--increases, increases at an increasing rate, then decreases altogether.

I'd like to take this with you one point at a time, in an organized fashion.


窶。@ 'Dashing' is a term used for a motorized plow (usually hand held type, like a rotory bladed one) when due to the hardness of the soil, does not dig in, but dashes ahead at the speed of the turn. Of course many today have opposing rotation builds so as to avoid dashing, though.
 
This thread and the idea behind it is absolutely pointless. I'm still trying to understand what is the point of what you are saying.
Are you trying to say that Western philosophy is evil and destroying the world and if so what leads you to believe this? You haven't given us any sort of hard proof of this other than bringing up long past atrocities. Give us some recent and relevant examples of how the West is bringing terror, instability and destruction to the world.
Are you saying Eastern Philosophy should be more recognized among the Western world or are you saying that we should abandon our own philosophies in favor of Eastern ones because they are better? Again, give me proof that Eastern philosophy is better. While it all may sound good on paper, so far our own Western means have been enough to give us a foundation with which to rise above slavery, poverty, hate, discrimination, exclusion, and any number of social problems. We are doing far better than the East in terms of human rights and acceptance with our own philosophies so give me a good reason to believe it isn't working and we should do it your way instead?

Western philosophy and Western religion are the base for western thought. The very foundation of Western thought has its roots in Judeo-Christian ideology since that's what western philosophy tried to do which was to find a middle ground between the 'absolute' or god and how "god" relates to reality and reasoning. My argument is that this is fundamentally the problem of Western thinking( the intertwining of "god" and "reasoning") and that the evolution of Western thought has been hampered because of it. Eastern philosophy placed an emphasis on benevolence, harmony, widsom, and family(not some unseen paradigm of god). Western philosophy placed an emphasis on ambition, individualism, sectarianism, rationality, and power which ultimately lead to corruption of the mind and the soul.

Albert Camus and Marcus Aurelius were perhaps the only two Westerners to every think outside of Western philosophy.

While there is more than one point here, actually, the first one is the one I'd hope to get an answer to.
When we have a lot of people discussion a matter, there will of course be a 'dashing' effect窶。@ツ and development actually becomes lessened. (as in the standard economic productivity model--increases, increases at an increasing rate, then decreases altogether.
I'd like to take this with you one point at a time, in an organized fashion.
窶。@ 'Dashing' is a term used for a motorized plow (usually hand held type, like a rotory bladed one) when due to the hardness of the soil, does not dig in, but dashes ahead at the speed of the turn. Of course many today have opposing rotation builds so as to avoid dashing, though.


The LDS was merely and example and I don't know why I used it as a plural.
 
Last edited:
Just a tidbit here. Western philosophy placed emotions and reason as seperate, as it was reasoned that emotions get in the way of reason. Some Eastern philosphies categorized everything in terms of whether it brought them closer to a calm inner state or not. Neoruscience and increasingly psychology are beginning to agree a lot with some Eastern philosphies, such now recognizing that thoughts and emotions come up intertwined, whereas western ideas were that thoughts and emotions were seperate somehow.

Roughly said, yes. Although I must admit, that I am not so trained with western philosophers, thus I don't know, if thats always the case. But the general thinking of separations is for sure (still) very present these days.

As for the eastern ones, I was often enough trying to explain the differences, simply because I felt much closer to eastern thinkings, which seemed to be far less shizophrenic, so to say and simply had different advices, explanations, that made much more sense to me.

I also agree, and thus its nice that you mention it, that some (not all) modern scientists, and for sure those, that you mention, are beginning to agree with certain (again, not all) eastern values. I am right in the middle of this, trying to push it towards this on other places plus seriously cooperate on books and other public projects and can confirm it from there.

Sensationalist is on the other hand pretty confusing indeed, maybe he should try to become more essential with his ideas, rather than throw around half baked cakes? (It just makes it partly more funny than serious, thats all, no offence, maybe we can help with the baking (not barking, please)?) ;-)

(although I may be off for a week or so now, but promise to check, when possible)
 
Roughly said, yes. Although I must admit, that I am not so trained with western philosophers, thus I don't know, if thats always the case. But the general thinking of separations is for sure (still) very present these days.
As for the eastern ones, I was often enough trying to explain the differences, simply because I felt much closer to eastern thinkings, which seemed to be far less shizophrenic, so to say and simply had different advices, explanations, that made much more sense to me.
I also agree, and thus its nice that you mention it, that some (not all) modern scientists, and for sure those, that you mention, are beginning to agree with certain (again, not all) eastern values. I am right in the middle of this, trying to push it towards this on other places plus seriously cooperate on books and other public projects and can confirm it from there.
Sensationalist is on the other hand pretty confusing indeed, maybe he should try to become more essential with his ideas, rather than throw around half baked cakes? (It just makes it partly more funny than serious, thats all, no offence, maybe we can help with the baking (not barking, please)?) ;-)
(although I may be off for a week or so now, but promise to check, when possible)

I don't think I was confusing at all and my ideas were clear and essential. You admited that you know little to nothing about Western philosophy, taking that into consideration I can see how what I wrote was confusing to you.

As far as helping me bake my theories better, I'll welcome any constructive criticism and downright honestly.
 
a lot of what you have said seems logical
but what i ask is: what is te point of proving that relgion is an idiology tat is made by culture noy vise versa? is it to make a battle :p

yes many have drifted religion and mixed it with their own tradition that may not aways go along with the real message of the belief system..
like honor killings in jordan ..which are claimed to be from islam and it is not!
or like extremists who claim to be the warriors of the islamic nations and who are in fact not.
or like crusaders who claimed to do the work of God...where in fact i dont see God obliging believers to massacre millions of people like what happened back then.
and the drifting in thought and mixing with traditions that may be condridactory with the original texts.

what you need to realize is that not the religions or the belief systems are the ideologies that may be useful or not for mankind...
the ideologies are made by people who are deviating the true form of their belief...
so if you have to blame some body blame the thinkers who claim to have found the truth through the texts they claim are Godly...
some will have a great understaning to the issue and some will have a devistating interpretations for their believes.
 
Religion is a tool. Among the ancient, widespread religions there isn't a good or bad one, neither is better or worse. They're all the same in a bit different manner. They all limit people for the sake of society (ideally, of course that is not always the case).
Lets first view it from a conservative religious angle:

Declaration:
"Your religion and culture is evil, therefore it is inferior to this and that."
Answer:
"You my dear friend are wrong, let us all respect each other."

Now this is the 0.1 religious answer to the BS of the op.
You can stick to this if you want, this is from on point of view.

Now the second one, the "not necessarily religious" version:

Declaration:
"You people suck because you screw with others."
Answer:
"We don't give a damn! You're knee deep in the same sh*t, so shut up and stop being a hypocrite."

Now this is another approach.
 
Hi,

I would be glad to believe that nations learn from mistakes, but I have the impression most of it is forgotten after a few dozen years. And also, my feeling is that although we are all here chatting peacefully, if tough weather came, everyone would go back home, take a gun, and fight the next war for his country.

Internet and the like help people communicating, but that can be for the better (realizing people from other countries are also human being and understanding better) or for the worst (spreading fear and heatred through the Internet).

We touched the fire.... and perhaps in some cases continue to do so, but we are now learning our lesson, as a global nation, sharing ideas and philosophies.
I hope so Annubis,
I really hope that we are now learning our lesson, as a global nation.
TV helps, Internet too, we come closer towards each other.
Speaking for myself, I learn a lot from the people in this Forum coming from all the corners of the world.
 
Just a tidbit here. Western philosophy placed emotions and reason as seperate, as it was reasoned that emotions get in the way of reason. Some Eastern philosphies categorized everything in terms of whether it brought them closer to a calm inner state or not. Neoruscience and increasingly psychology are beginning to agree a lot with some Eastern philosphies, such now recognizing that thoughts and emotions come up intertwined, whereas western ideas were that thoughts and emotions were seperate somehow.
your absolutly right and wrong. my emotions are based on my logic, so to a degree they are intertwined. however psychology has already proved that one side of the brain handles logic and the other emotions, it becomes a matter of which one is dominant(left/logic in my case). it still doesn't pertain to the thread contents.
 
I don't care about logic, I depend on my intuition. Whatever seems right by gut is the absolute truth for me.
 
I don't care about logic, I depend on my intuition. Whatever seems right by gut is the absolute truth for me.

and you are the one from among those who criticized me by doing the same when speaking about the homosexuality issue !!!
don't you see that as a hypocrisy??
 
I don't care about logic, I depend on my intuition. Whatever seems right by gut is the absolute truth for me.
well intuition is a form of logic but instead its basis is emotion. its just a different thinking style and means that your right lobe is the dominant one. either that or you are just lazy.:p
 
and you are the one from among those who criticized me by doing the same when speaking about the homosexuality issue !!!
don't you see that as a hypocrisy??

You could say that, however, I used the same logic at that time. I listened to folks, and without much hesitation and thinking I decided that I find homosexuality acceptable. After all the circumstances remain the same, you cannot deny them, and no one was criticizing you for listening to your heart, it was all about prejudices. You simply did not make a decision there, rather you sticked to a decision that was made by someone else, loads of years ago. That is not the same.
 
I don't know a lot about psychology's theory that the left hemisphere handles logic and the right hemisphere handles emotion. In fact, are emotions vs thoughts the same as emotions vs logic? What I have read is that every region that has been implicated in a certain emotion has also been implicated in as also handling some purely cognitive functions, and that I read in a book on recent findings in neuroscience. I'll dig that info up sometime and post it.

The basis of the thread is eastern philosophy vs western philosophy, now I don't know enough about either to say one is better than the other, and I believe that science will eventually sort that out. Both have contributed to where we are now, and that includes the religious belief systems, which are just philosophical sets of beliefs. I was just adding in that some scientists are beginning to see how western philosophy colors their thinking, and that some of the eastern philosophies hold some beliefs that are probably closer to mark of reality than that of western philosophy.

As to intuition, it can be right on the mark, or it can be wildly off the mark. Our subconscious makes judgements that has enabled scientists to do things like, randomly choose out the four genes out of a thousand genes to successfully create stem cells froms skin cells, or it can be wildly off, for example, a young women because she had a poor relationship with her father, would decide not to even consider any guy who has similar facial features to her father (and as we know of course, similar facial features alone hardly mean that the guy is at all like her father).
 
a lot of what you have said seems logical
but what i ask is: what is te point of proving that relgion is an idiology tat is made by culture noy vise versa? is it to make a battle :p
yes many have drifted religion and mixed it with their own tradition that may not aways go along with the real message of the belief system..
like honor killings in jordan ..which are claimed to be from islam and it is not!
or like extremists who claim to be the warriors of the islamic nations and who are in fact not.
or like crusaders who claimed to do the work of God...where in fact i dont see God obliging believers to massacre millions of people like what happened back then.
and the drifting in thought and mixing with traditions that may be condridactory with the original texts.
what you need to realize is that not the religions or the belief systems are the ideologies that may be useful or not for mankind...
the ideologies are made by people who are deviating the true form of their belief...
so if you have to blame some body blame the thinkers who claim to have found the truth through the texts they claim are Godly...
some will have a great understaning to the issue and some will have a devistating interpretations for their believes.
I agree with what you are saying, especially about the belief system being different from the religion and how thinkers may either interpret or misinterpret text. However,all of these things, like religion and belief system, have to be interpreted and translated by scholars and thinkers, not ordinary lay people. It's the philosophers that draw the link between god " the absolute" and reality. This is how logic and reasoning is transmitted down from generation to generation. Jim Jones, Christian founder of one of the largest suicide cult groups in U.S. History, a protestant preacher who took 900 of his members to Guyana and made them commit suicide. Obviously his message from god appealed to hundreds of people as the TRUTH according to his interpretation of scripture. His church was called the People Temple which was founded on left-wing principles such as racial integration - there's your belief system. It really makes no difference rather you draw a distinction between the religion and the belief system anyway. You cannot have a religion without it.
This to me is why Eastern philosophy is so appealing. It places more value on humanism and benevolence and common sense.
 
i don't have any problem with what you are saying since i am more attracted to eastern ideologies than western ideologies..
but may be you are just like me..i grew up in the east..for some one brought up in a place with its own ideology it is easy to say it is more appealing.
but any one with logical thinking can take the good aspects of any ideology was it bad or good...
seeking development is ideologies is not always bad, we should catch up with the world that is changing very fast..sticking to non bendable ideology could hold us back..that is why we Arabs are still behind in technology, advanced science..etc..
we have the most bendable, and evolve-able belief system and yet we cant use that to change old traditions with new better ones...
that is what i wanted to point out..religion isn't always used in the way it was meant to which is to build a better society ... some times scholars misinterpret the texts and make an opposite effect of the potential of the belief system.
 
My opinion is that people don"t necessarily need ideology all the time. Just think for yourself. You don't have to believe an ideology just to believe in something, you don't have to take everything in, you don't have to choose an ideology. Just think, decide. The people that made ideologies were human, and no, im not saying that they screwed up, im simply saying that anyone with a healthy mind can come up with something nice, something that isn't inferior to any philosophies existent.
 
Well, it would be nice to be able to sum everything up in a paragraph or two, but it is just impossible. I now see that terms are being strewn around again without any care taken for definitions and referents. Are we to acquisce to the masses of mediocre interest in searching, learning and growing? I surely hope not.

Sensationalist san, since I have seen that you are able to come around to better placing the exact intent behind what would otherwise be loose wording, I hope to be able to count on you here, too! Will you help me out?

Regarding the concepts of emotions and/or versus logic, there is much that can be said. It is all mixed pretty much together, yet the female brain does it better on average than the male brain (mixing it all up--in the sense up having a larger area of processing than the male brain).

We would be talking about the prefrontal cortex area, including the anterior and posterior, frontopolar cortex (both right and left, here), the dorsolateral prefrontal, superior temporal suicus, anterior cingulate, medial prefrontal, orbitofrontal, and posterior cingulate...among a few other areas. This will surely fit a better thread than here though...although development of the details will take much more time.

Regarding philosophy, there is not much difference in the source, actually. It all comes from the brains of the homo sapien. How, then can we actually determine, and thus label one form to be 'right' and another 'wrong?' It is simply not possible. We will be left with 'more productive and with more positive results.' I will take the position that in that respects, we will eventually reach a kind of equilibrium, wherein neither system can be said to have the upper hand. Oriental philosophies have their defects too.

Regarding religion, again, there needs to be a fixed referent for a proper discussion. When we use the word 'religion' here, do we mean 'religious belief-system?' If so, then should investigate firstly, and see if we can find any system without disagreement with any other system. The reason for that, is because if all systems contradict each other, no one system can be seen as correct. In that sense, religious belief-systems, whether they be Zoroastrianism, Animism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhaism, Shinto, Christianity, and so on (including those systems of the Egyptians, the Mayas, etc, too) will have to be taken into consideration as well.

Are we willing to do that here?

Sensationalist said:
What I hope to clear up in this essay is the enormous gap between those who speak for the world,...vs. those that seek the ultimate truth or the greater good for all man.

If we were to see this as the aim of this thread, I will start by saying this proposition needs clearing up (expounding on details of the premise) in a really bad way.
 
It's the philosophers that draw the link between god " the absolute" and reality.

I would rather say, amongst others, artists of all kinds too for example, their way, often non-verbal. . .and they were the first ones, who did so, actually, although it later divided into other sections. Via their remains we can still look back and know a bit at least about the first cults, Ur(ancient)-cults, from which culture comes with all its aspects. At some places this is still intact as a whole.
Nowadays, we can explain a lot via psychology or additionally neurology. (as a Synaesthete I am in permanent contact and cooperation with such sources too). But the verbal split happened long ago, with the split of the races, places, circumstances, to which they adopted, or which they tried to shape.

There are many ways, no only one way or "drawer" thus. We draw together or we are missing important pieces of the puzzle. No philosopher alone could explain the final signs of the different cultures thus, nor the common denominator of them.

Many good starts, right, but an endless discussion about many different points. A filmmaker could say the same in animated form, for example, in shortform, yet understandable (I have just seen many on an asia film-festival here)
Basically I agree with the claim, although I would use slightly different words, plus illustrations, thus my examples would differ, additionally coming from a chinese Dr. phil., with whom I cooperated for longer, as said before.
I am not half as unprepared, as Sensationalist thinks, because this Dr. phil researches about the perception of eastern values in western philosophy. . .in case, that makes sense.

And I attended for longer on according threads and discussions on a science forum and know, what and where to find again, if necessary. All I say is with all honesty, that I am not a philosopher and often do not think in boxes but with the wider view of an artist, but coming from natural science, thus not unbased like many of my kind.

(Or a pope etc.)

A Drawer(messenger) has to be made like a tree, real roots that touch the waters (also of the unconsciousnesss) and high reaching branches plus a lot of persistance.
 
Hi,

Has everybody in this thread tried to define east and west clearly ? Where would the turkish-mongol belong to ? What about the muslim world, India, Russia ? I believe every powerful country has, at one point in time, mistreated its own citizens or its neighbour, whatever the religion or the philosophy behind. Looking back at history, I do not see one region standing out as a haven of tolerance compared with the other.
 
If you want a country that's tolerant to every kind of weirdo and misunderstood genius, doesn't have a definite political orientation, and many many more facts that can be defined as both merits and flaws there's only one place: the internet.
 
The Middle East and Asia

Just to note. West means North America and Europe. East means Asia. The Middle East is included in "East", also, Eastern Europe like Ukrain andTurkey are considered East. In other words, East was considered the "other" way of thinking. Africa and South America just don't think... and yes, it was the West that dictated who was who.:eek:

Continents like South America, Australia, Africa, the Arctic and the Antarctic are not considered when discussing topics of global theology.:(

that was in the not too distant past anyways... today it is quite different!
 
Last edited:
well the fact that only the east and the west are spoken of doesn't mean that Africa and south America don't think Annubis san..
this happens just because the east and the west are the most effective and the most known of theology and ideology...
yes the west did make that distinction between west and east in such way:

the west focuses on industrial evolution and material connection of humanity with life.

while the east is the spiritual connection of humanity to life...spiritual value is more considered in the east than the material value..
that is why japan at the time being has a conflict between whether it is eastern or a western country...
as we know japan is one of the greatest industrial countries, it has a modern, western based, amusement orientated cities...but yet Japanese people always make sure to honor their ancestors and get back to their roots and to appreciate their traditions..

the reason of this distinction between the east and the west is:
the east is proud and still attached to its history and the path of its evolution.

while the west is all based on a revolution that took place against the "kingdom-inquisition" system.
as known the roman empire was the first to have a law based on legislations ....
as for that it was the first nation to have citizen ship who appreciated their country, while the Persians fro example was based on absolute power of the emperor over the people...and all the population was an asset of the emperor and his governors..
this is what Europe became when the roman empire fell and the dark ages started by the rule of the church over Europe.
when the French revolution took place and so liberated the people of Europe from the absolute power of their kings ..the people didn't want to do anything with that past or its spiritual value and for so Europe became material based, power and knowledge was measured by the material wealth of a nation.
where on the other side like china for example, power was the degree of the attachment of the people with their roots. their belief was the source of their power and deep rich culture.
 
Just to note. West means North America and Europe. East means Asia. The Middle East is included in "East", also, Eastern Europe like Ukrain andTurkey are considered East. In other words, East was considered the "other" way of thinking. Africa and South America just don't think... and yes, it was the West that dictated who was who.:eek:
Continents like South America, Australia, Africa, the Arctic and the Antarctic are not considered when discussing topics of global theology.:(
that was in the not too distant past anyways... today it is quite different!
aaaaactually the prime meridian goes right through greenwich england.... so east is everything east of that technically.
 
Hehe, and China once claimed to be the middle of the earth, thus their name, land of the middle. See the Kanjis or better, Hanzi.
Its all relative.
 
Back
Top Bottom