Eastern Philosophy

[Nerian]

In a course by Peikoff, he stated that he did not even consider Eastern philosophy worth mentioning.

Is this a correct assessment of all Eastern philosophy? Is there absolutely nothing good about it? Is it worth dabbling in to understand the East?

How does this relate to the rise of the Eastern tiger economies and now China? Have they succeeded only to the extent they have embraced the right kinds of Western ideas out of practicality? And if they have no basis other than practicality how stable does that make them long term?

[BaalChatzaf]

In a course by Peikoff, he stated that he did not even consider Eastern philosophy worth mentioning.

Is this a correct assessment of all Eastern philosophy? Is there absolutely nothing good about it? Is it worth dabbling in to understand the East?

How does this relate to the rise of the Eastern tiger economies and now China? Have they succeeded only to the extent they have embraced the right kinds of Western ideas out of practicality? And if they have no basis other than practicality how stable does that make them long term?

It is not a completely fair view of some of the eastern philosophies.

The Chines had the notion of Qi (pronounced cheeeee) which is the ebb and flow of forces and energy through extended bodies. If you abstract this you get the notion of fields which are a major component of modern physics.

The Chinese also believed that a ruler, in order to lead successfully and bring prosperity and peace to his domain needed

"the Mandate of Heaven" which is to say his ruling policies had to be aligned with the spirit of the people he rules and had to be in line with the realities his domain had to contend with. The best rulers achieved the Mandate of Heaven by not taxing the people too heavily and not pushing his weight around too hard. Those rulers who asserted their strength too vigorously and abused the people would end up with misfortune.

Ayn Rand in her own way made a similar point. The Mandate of Heaven is to be aligned with reality and not to confuse impulse and desire with fact.

Incidentally, for a period of time the Chinese were a light year ahead of the West (and this includes Greece) in technology, science, medicine and geography. As late as our Middle Ages Cheng Ha (Sung dynasty, I think) the Mariner was leading a fleet of giant sailing ships with an aggregate crew of 41,000 around Africa and what is now Java and Malaya. His ships were so large that they could have carried Columbus' barques as life boats. Our boy Lennie is a bit of an ignoramus when it comes to history, science and math.

Read The Genius of China by Robert Temple and Joseph Needham

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dldelancey]

It's always a mistake to dismiss other schools of thought, in my opinion. Even if I find no value in them, it behooves me to understand the value that others find in them, else how am I ever to truly know those others and whether or not I want to interact with them?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In a course by Peikoff, he stated that he did not even consider Eastern philosophy worth mentioning.

Peter,

It's probably a good thing Peikoff doesn't think it's worth mentioning. That keeps him from stepping in it.

Here is just a small tidbit of what's out there that makes this kind of attitude foolish.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Richard Davidson? He's a world-renowned neuroscientist and pioneer of neuroplasticity studies. (Neuroplasticity is where the mind physically rewires the brain only by thinking.) He is a follower of the Dalai Lama.

Rather than tell you what his ideas and findings are, I'll let him speak for himself. Here is his Google Talk from 2009.

I know this video is a little over an hour, but if you are swimming in the mental waters I think you are, this will be one of the most fascinating hours you will spend in recent memory.

btw - Davidson only starts talking about the Dalai Lama at around 10:45 or so.

You asked about self-help material in another thread. Believe me, I have a crapload to say about self-help. But going one step at a time will save you a lot of time, effort and frustration. Getting familiar with Davidson is a very good start on building a solid foundation. As you approach the self-help literature from there, you will have science, reason and logic on your side as a filter so you don't go woo-woo, but you also don't fall into the wrongheaded traditional dismissals in O-Land like Peikoff did with Eastern philosophies.

I'm not suggesting you replace Objectivism as a frame with this. Objectivism is a very good frame for thinking. I am suggesting you add mindfulness, contemplative neuroplasticity, etc., to that frame--and that you look at everything, including Eastern philosophies--to enrich your thinking and counteract some of the excesses of the bluster that pops up with Rand, Peikoff and others.

But it's your mind. Look into this or not. Your choice.

You are the custodian of you.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have a footnote to add to that video I posted of Davidson.

I had not watched it in full at the time I posted it, but I just finished.

Davidson is a scientist who gets government money for his studies, so his vocabulary sometimes reflects words, phrases and slants that are in line with government policies. And that could be a major turnoff for someone in our subcommunity.

For example, the part where he talked about Kahneman with the financial game of dictator, altruism and redistribution gave me the creeps. There is no excuse for that. Any one of those words would not raise a red flag with me, but the conjunction does. That game could be put in completely different words and still make sense.

I study marketing and propaganda, so I am sensitive to this kind of thing, but you don't need to be the world's greatest genius to see where that vocabulary used in conjunction that way comes from. The whole purpose of using it is to increase its normalcy, therefore the normalcy of the unspoken parallel subtexts that go along with those words, in "respectable" surroundings of scientific experiments. Then we get trickle-down propaganda as it reaches the popular literature, then stories.

Another thing was the hat tip to environmentalism at the end as if it were a proven good. That was irritating.

But the important thing to consider is that all of Davidson's experiments and repeatable findings were based on voluntary mental activity--just like self-help is. There is no denying his results since they can be repeated.

In short, if you train your mind consciously, you rewire your brain. That results in you changing your behavior and, often, your biological responses to outside stimuli, including germs in some cases. That is the practical essence of most self-help material out there.

Michael

[Nerian]

In a course by Peikoff, he stated that he did not even consider Eastern philosophy worth mentioning.

Peter,

It's probably a good thing Peikoff doesn't think it's worth mentioning. That keeps him from stepping in it.

Here is just a small tidbit of what's out there that makes this kind of attitude foolish.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Richard Davidson? He's a world-renowned neuroscientist and pioneer of neuroplasticity studies. (Neuroplasticity is where the mind physically rewires the brain only by thinking.) He is a follower of the Dalai Lama.

Rather than tell you what his ideas and findings are, I'll let him speak for himself. Here is his Google Talk from 2009.

I know this video is a little over an hour, but if you are swimming in the mental waters I think you are, this will be one of the most fascinating hours you will spend in recent memory.

btw - Davidson only starts talking about the Dalai Lama at around 10:45 or so.

You asked about self-help material in another thread. Believe me, I have a crapload to say about self-help. But going one step at a time will save you a lot of time, effort and frustration. Getting familiar with Davidson is a very good start on building a solid foundation. As you approach the self-help literature from there, you will have science, reason and logic on your side as a filter so you don't go woo-woo, but you also don't fall into the wrongheaded traditional dismissals in O-Land like Peikoff did with Eastern philosophies.

I'm not suggesting you replace Objectivism as a frame with this. Objectivism is a very good frame for thinking. I am suggesting you add mindfulness, contemplative neuroplasticity, etc., to that frame--and that you look at everything, including Eastern philosophies--to enrich your thinking and counteract some of the excesses of the bluster that pops up with Rand, Peikoff and others.

But it's your mind. Look into this or not. Your choice.

You are the custodian of you.

Michael

I would say I am very much in line with this kind of thinking. As I've stated before, I'm interested in good ideas only.

I'll definitely be watching that video at some stage. Haven't heard of him, but I've heard of brain plasticity. I was once very intrigued by the brain, but I never looked much into plasticity. I'm not completely unfamiliar with other ideas, but as you say, I always take the good things, and reject the woo-woo.