I miss the days when it was fashionable for Western intellectuals to be an Egyptoboo, Indoboo, or an Islamoboo. Now they're so afraid of being called Orientalists they'd rather just avoid the topic altogether.
schopenhauer would be more like some sort of primitive proto-buddhist hindu. he's way too metaphysical for even the early buddhists. schop understood buddhism far less even than some more commonly derided westerners such as alan watts.
>>man from early 19th century has an inaccurate view of Buddhism compared to man from the middle of the 20th century
not an excuse since nietzsche had a much deeper understanding of buddhism than schopenhauer, it's evident if you read him.
Yeah so did Wagner and everyone else of Nietzsche's era because there was an explosion of translations and knowledge of the East after Schopenhauer died.
Still Nietzsche's criticisms of Buddhism bear Schopenhauer's original misunderstandings.
>Schopenhaur was going at the Theravada buddhist. Hegel was going at it the advaitan/yogacara side.
Hegel never read any Advaita or Yogachara texts, while Schopenhaur read a Latin translation of the Upanishads that included extracts from Shankara’s commentaries. Hegel’s philosophy is closer to Trika or Vishishtadvaita.
I think we can confidently say now that Hindu and Buddhist texts were readily available in sparse translations during the time. The reason why western philosophy/mathematics revitalization has always been connected to Jesuit's knowledge.
No, I don’t. I don't see what major insights it really has to offer that are unique to it tbh. The west already had its own robust tradition of doing systematic naturalism and a realist/naturalist categorizing of everything
He had a poor understanding of Buddhism though. Buddhism is not actually “life is suffering I am going to meditate until I lose the will to live”. It’s more “life contains suffering here is how overcome suffering and become a better person”
>life contains suffering here is how overcome suffering and become a better person
That is mcbuddhism. Real buddhists meditate on how life is an actual hell.
>be philosopher
>be somewhat pessimistic
>Buddhist: omg it’s literally me
he literally compares his own philosophy to Buddhism and Hinduism in TWAWAR
I miss the days when it was fashionable for Western intellectuals to be an Egyptoboo, Indoboo, or an Islamoboo. Now they're so afraid of being called Orientalists they'd rather just avoid the topic altogether.
buddhism is not pessimistic or nihilistic it's bullshit said by people who have no grasp
isn't he more like Fichte?
schopenhauer would be more like some sort of primitive proto-buddhist hindu. he's way too metaphysical for even the early buddhists. schop understood buddhism far less even than some more commonly derided westerners such as alan watts.
He understood it well enough, just thought his system to be better
>man from early 19th century has an inaccurate view of Buddhism compared to man from the middle of the 20th century
Schopenhauer didn't know of anything beyond Theravada.
>>man from early 19th century has an inaccurate view of Buddhism compared to man from the middle of the 20th century
not an excuse since nietzsche had a much deeper understanding of buddhism than schopenhauer, it's evident if you read him.
Yeah so did Wagner and everyone else of Nietzsche's era because there was an explosion of translations and knowledge of the East after Schopenhauer died.
Still Nietzsche's criticisms of Buddhism bear Schopenhauer's original misunderstandings.
Why do you talk of things you have no idea about?
The thing is, major influential western philosophers of the time were partaking in Hindu/Buddhist philosophy.
Schopenhaur was going at the Theravada buddhist. Hegel was going at it the advaitan/yogacara side.
>Schopenhaur was going at the Theravada buddhist. Hegel was going at it the advaitan/yogacara side.
Hegel never read any Advaita or Yogachara texts, while Schopenhaur read a Latin translation of the Upanishads that included extracts from Shankara’s commentaries. Hegel’s philosophy is closer to Trika or Vishishtadvaita.
I think we can confidently say now that Hindu and Buddhist texts were readily available in sparse translations during the time. The reason why western philosophy/mathematics revitalization has always been connected to Jesuit's knowledge.
Are there any westoid philosophers influenced by sautrantika that you know of?
No, I don’t. I don't see what major insights it really has to offer that are unique to it tbh. The west already had its own robust tradition of doing systematic naturalism and a realist/naturalist categorizing of everything
He had a poor understanding of Buddhism though. Buddhism is not actually “life is suffering I am going to meditate until I lose the will to live”. It’s more “life contains suffering here is how overcome suffering and become a better person”
>life contains suffering here is how overcome suffering and become a better person
That is mcbuddhism. Real buddhists meditate on how life is an actual hell.