Talk:Eastern philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Alright, whoever is writing all that stuff about Christianity under legalism better stop it. --Darthanakin 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Alright, its this guy 164.82.85.3, watch out for this guy --Darthanakin 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah. It's that Ant-Crist guy again... Banno 06:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The following sentence is incorrect:

  "Shared concepts include the supernatural, the immortal soul (ancestor
of mind-body dualism)"

The concept of the supernatural and the immortal soul is not limited to these two civilizations but occours almost universally in human culture throughout the world.--Vonaurum 09:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV part 2 2 WTF? 3 Wilber? 4 Wiki Project Policy 5 NPOV 6 Rewrite introduction 7 Maoism = Mohism 8 God 9 Modern era 10 what is Ayyavazhi? 11 Islamic philosophy

[edit] NPOV part 2

Doesn't this seem a bit like an argument against the east/west distinction, and less like an article explaining what eastern philosophy is? Does there really need to be two refutations of the term, but yet no explanation of why the difference exists, or what makes the difference in the first place? --Omestes 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

What the hell is going on here? See Talk:Eastern culture and RFC for more confusion... Example (talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilber?

Why does this article mention Ken Wilber? Is it really that significant? --romanm (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Project Policy

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy are developing a policy relevant to this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/geographic divisions. Banno 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

While I agree with the sentiment expressed, the expression leaves much to be desired. This article expresses a point of view without citation. Banno 18:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite introduction

The introduction starts in a negative tone. There is no need to contrast with Western philosophy in the first line itself...Eastern philosophies stand on its own and i would like to rewrite about it in positive terms.

the intro is overly hostile, and assumes a philosophical standpoint (universal philosophy) to criticize opposing philosophies. not only does this not meet up to wikipedia standards, it is off topic.

SV 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maoism = Mohism

"Maoism" was obviously "Mohism" (The school of Mozi) in origin. Please correct. 87.0.208.22 13:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God

Why is God capitalized all throughout this article? If not refering to one of the Abrahamic religions then god should remain in lowercase because it is NOT a name. If there was a good reason to capitalize god then gods should also be capped.

198.110.32.2 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern era

Other than Maoism there doesn't to be any mention of any philosophy done in the last 100 years or so. Clearly there are academic philosophers working in universities in Asia. I think it would be good if someone with a clue about philosophy added some mention. A Geek Tragedy 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No philosophy conceived in modern Asia should bear the definition of "eastern", as this collective term is somehow disputable even for older asiatic traditions, after the end of colonialism.82.54.209.211 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it does seem too broad a term to be very useful, but by the definition used in the article it is "the various philosophies of China, Japan, Korea, India, and, to some extent, of Iran (Persia)." If it only means Asian philosophy before colonisation by Western powers it should say so and the stuff about Mao should be pulled.A Geek Tragedy 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is Ayyavazhi?

I dont understand why Ayyavazhi is getting the space among eastern philosophies? it may be a small time cult, thousands of which are present in India. i propose that we should delete its entry among eastern philosophies.

--SV 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi is not a cult but a religion in India. Pls read the citations in Ayyavazhi article. It has more than 8000 worship centrs across India. Also moving the sections per alphabetical order. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is merely a sect. Paul has been involved in promoting AV as a notable religion on many different articles. Notice how he changed the ordering alphabetically on this article to favor AV? --Blacksun 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the article in Alphabetical order? Then on what ground you removed it? And Iam moving as per valid citations. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also all others are listed as per alphabetical order. Then Are you argueing that 'Ayyavazhi only' to be moved rigth to the bottom of the article mindless to the followed writing ethics here? Also you called it in the edit summary as "trick to promote" Ayyavazhi. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Ayyavazhi under the heading "Minor religious traditions and sects". It should NOT appear alongside major religions. Otherwise it has to be resolved by a vote i guess.

--SV 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would make the list really long. I am not sure if it should be mentioned in this article at all but I guess we can discuss that. --Blacksun 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As SV said, AV is in no way a major religion or tradition. Even the prominent newspapers of the state where it mainly hails from never mention it. Their are only one or two valid citations for it available. THen you go and add it under major religions and traditions and expect us to not realize that you are abusing wikipedia to promote your POV? --Blacksun 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't Paul understand that it is not up to him to decide whether Ayyavazhi is a separate religion but up to Reliable sources. One university paper compared to thousands, if not millions for the major religions is not that many reliable sources. There are more sources which claim the Hare Krishnas and Brahmo Samaj are separate from Hinduism yet they still don't get their own section. Neither should Ayyavazhi. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:DaGizza, for your opinion as comparing Ayyavazhi with Hare Krishnas and Brahmo Samaj's, I say genuinely it's definitely not. It's something extremely different from those you said. And for strenthening my stand, that "University book" only is not my source, I've also a set of historian's views over Ayyavazhi society and it's ideology, which are considered a reliable sources here. I definitly know that those sources may be sealed as Ayyavazhi biased ones by some of the above users; see even university papers are not valid!!!

For a long time, Iam telling Ayyavazhi is a seperate religion. I've told several time to some of the above users that Iam ready to cite Ayyavazhi society as a seperate religion even from Tamil News papers especially 'Daily Thanthi', the largest read out news Paper in India. Still he is telling "prominent newspapers of the state" are not mentioning Ayyavazhi. I don't know on what ground?

As the part of my discussion here in this matter, you all may decide what to do. Because where ever with some valid sources I, despite of wasting time for long discussions and utilising large efforts discussed with the users, most of them including a few administrators found ways to note me as a notorious criminal.I discussed in polite languages with them, not caring about some types of personal attacks, some 3RR blocks for removing undiscussed edits for which I waited upto one week for opinions etc.

So friends I finally understand that here, What Iam telling, and what credible sources Iam citing, all these are not a problem, but I should be in a large friends-circle here and other wise is not worthy. Some complints and RFCs may be launced against and may be finally blocked for ever. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT the forum to debate on what makes something into a religion or sect or cult. The most trivial point is Ayyavazhi is not a MAJOR religion at all. so my opinion is you should mention it, if at all you want to, under a seperate heading on minor traditions and sects. I agree with other editors that Ayyavazhi should not get any space under eastern philosophy, but i am willing to atleast consider it under minor religious traditions and sects.

--SV 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then this page will be cluttered with thousands of such "minor" religions and sects. Where will you draw a line? --Blacksun 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic philosophy

Should Islamic philosophy be here? I ask this because Islamic philosophy is actually closer to Western philosophy than Eastern philosophy. Not only because of its status as an Abrahamic religion......but also the fact that Muslim Arabs are the ones that preserved the ancient Greek philosophy after the fall of Rome and it thus became an essential part of philosophy in the Islamic world. Zachorious 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sort of the same thing with Jewish philosophy. Zachorious 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)