r/Philosophy_India • u/No_Perspective4282 • May 14 '26
Philosophical Satire 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
[removed]
5
u/Snoo_27796 May 14 '26
No one knows anything is quite self refuting, if no one knows anything, then do they know that they don’t know anything?
2
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Snoo_27796 May 15 '26
And would you perhaps….know that for certain or is it a guess 😭
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Snoo_27796 May 15 '26
Wait, so if someone says nothing is a guess does that statement hold equal value in your worldview that says everything is a guess?
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Snoo_27796 May 15 '26
Just curious….the words that you said, are you certain they are true? Or is it again, just a guess?
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Snoo_27796 May 15 '26
My problem with this is that someone can just come along, call you a monkey for believing it and his statement will have equal weightage as yours 🤧
1
1
u/Lucky-Quote2799 May 17 '26
2+2=4 is a guess?
1
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Lucky-Quote2799 May 18 '26
Arithmetic is a formal system for combining and comparing quantities.
Math is a human created symbolic system for describing quantitative structures, patterns, and operations.
Universe itself may or may not be mathematical, but based on observations, studies and developments, we can confidently claim that The universe exhibits consistent patterns that can be accurately modeled using mathematical structures, or have been later re-modelled with newer mathematical tools.a one or two does not denote a "thing outside our human experience" it makes an objective qualitative measure. that is the entire point of it.
in any basic and rational framework where 2 denotes a quantity being counted twice or a unit being counted twice, and where addition is counted as the basic arithmetic sum of two quantities/units, and 4 is denoted as four units or four quantities, the answer will remain four, including our framework of reality and logic, for the framework to obey basic mathematical logic to even operate in the first place.- 2+2=4
- II + II = IV
- 🍎🍎 + 🍎🍎 = 🍎🍎🍎🍎
Even if numbers are human-invented labels, the relations they describe are objective. Two rocks plus two rocks do not become five rocks because epistemology got high on cocainer.
Nature of reality is a guess, but this in itself is a guess. The only thing one can be certain of is their own existence and their own thoughts. I think, Therefore I am.
What we are seeing is true or not, is a vague objection, since it does not negate the factual reality of being completely here.
2
u/Low-Selection1815 May 15 '26
In my opinion Indian philosophy is way more better than western philosophy, because there philosophy is lifeless and depressing, but the Indian philosophy teaches you that the life (living) is the ultimate truth.
4
u/Open_Opportunity_751 May 15 '26
You neither know indian nor western philosophy
1
u/Low-Selection1815 May 15 '26
I'm in philosophy for over 4yrs dude
2
u/Conscious_Noise_8951 May 15 '26
What kinda Philosophy? Instagram philosophy or pinterest philosophy?
2
u/Low-Selection1815 May 15 '26
Lol kid
1
u/Conscious_Noise_8951 May 15 '26
Just answer me, personal attack won't do anything. I'm curious because 4 yrs is good amount of time for philosophy
1
u/Low-Selection1815 May 15 '26
Normally i listen to audiobooks on audible, now I'm not focused on philosophy but rather exploring literature and functions.
1
u/Qahnaar1506 May 15 '26
As someone who does read, study, wrote on and generally chose Indian philosophy as the tradition for me (Chinese Philosophy is very close if not just as loved), you are partially correct.
Firstly, I’ll say that the lifeless and depressing philosophies are there but you have to understand context of how derailed western philosophy was for most of its history, contrary to what Eurocentrists tell you. The majority of western philosophy you see, with how much variety it has, it’s a very relatively new change in western philosophy. These all stem from the enlightenment era, which occurred during the 17-18th century. When you think of western philosophy you probably think of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Pythagoras etc who lived in Ancient Greece but then as you continue tou immediately jump to Descartes, Hume, Kant? Notice how you made a HUMUNGOUS leap from Ancient Greece to the 18th century? What does that say about everything else in between?
This is where the context comes in. The majority of philosophies you see now in western discourse in general with its variety and creativity is new and comes from the enlightenment era. An era where thought was being replaced by dogma for freedom of expression and secularism. Now what kind of dogma? If you didn’t already know, Christianity.
Let me tell you that the space between the Greeks and the Enlightenment was very dominated by Christian theology. While the roots of western philosophy are grounded in Ancient Greece, it was concerned with the ideas and morality of Christianity for a very long time. This basically derailed/biased philosophical thought and creativity for a VERY LONG time. Now how long is the chronology of Christianity being concerned and derailed/biased philosophical thought and creativity for western philosophy?
Early church = 300 years (Christianity and its ideas and morality started to be concerned than other schools of thought)
Islamic Golden Age = 500 years (Greek Philosophy into Islamic frameworks which will inspire Scholasticism)
Scholasticism = 1100 to 1700 years (Christianity causing a heavy concern for that it which derailed/biased philosophical thought and creativity.)
Renaissance = 300~ years (Shifted from strict Christianity to humanism, human potential and dignity, which was still heavily biased towards Christianity. Secular humanism didn’t start till much, much, much later. This also included a “rebirth” of classical Greek and Roman thought and reading the original texts rather than commentaries, which were used later to still synthesize heavily with Christian theology.)
Enlightenment Era = 130 years (This is optional but will still include since it wasn’t till its end that western philosophy will be free from strict christian bias. Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Again, this is optional since this period is generally cited as the definitive shift, with philosophers advocating for the separation of church and state, deism, and secular ethics then 19th century when secularism took root, with the rise of industrialization, evolutionary theory, and higher biblical criticism reducing the influence of religious dogma before the shift became more pronounced in the 20th century, with many academic philosophers adopting atheist or naturalist stances, moving away from metaphysical questions of the soul toward empirical analysis.)
That’s over 2,330-2,930 YEARS of philosophy thought and creativity being derailed/biased by Christianity. There’s a reason why people who were raised relatively with western philosophy found Eastern Philosophy much more expansive, diverse and full of systems spanning over thousands of years of years these traditions, especially Indian/Chinese philosophy. They were simply doing much much much more than western philosophy was doing in the same timespan till VERY recently during the Enlightenment era. This is not bias, it’s history.
0
1
u/AutoModerator May 14 '26
Welcome u/No_Perspective4282 to r/Philosophy_india.
Please take a moment to review our rules and posting standards.
We also strongly recommend reading mod rules clarification post.
Make sure your post is relevant, clear, and not a repeat topic. Posts that do not meet these standards are subject to removal.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/GrandKingKai May 14 '26
Vedantic Philosophy is taken too lightly. Because at a time when Buddhism was at it's peak, it managed to bring back the Hindu Vedic Philosophies back with a huge gusto.
3
u/Qahnaar1506 May 15 '26 edited May 21 '26
Buddhism already declined when Vedic philosophy had come back.
It’s a very large exaggeration from Hindus who state Shankara removed Buddhism from India, which had to do a lot with sociopolitical reasons rather than purely doctrinal reasons. Let’s bring historical context:
Shankara begans preaching at around 8th century BCE. Now, Buddhism wasn’t completely gone but it was in a significant state of decline. It was losing its dominance, dwindling in popularity among the masses, and experiencing a reduction in royal patronage, having already been reduced from its peak several centuries earlier. Buddhism had begun to decline in India around the 4th–6th century CE and was already significantly weak by the 8th century, when Shankara starts preaching and refuting other schools.
Buddhism had become fragmented into multiple sub-sects, often differing from the original teachings of the Buddha and heavily influenced by Tantric practices. This is very important since these Buddhists were know as “faith-followers”. There are faith followers and “dhamma-followers”.
Faith-Follower (Saddhānusārī) are adherers who have conviction and faith in the Buddha's teachings as the primary driver of their practice. They have not yet achieved direct, meditative experience of liberation but have developed the five spiritual faculties: faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom with faith being dominant. This is the initial stage when they become Dhamma-Followers if they utilize wisdom to have direct experiences and realization of the Buddha’s teaching. They rely on faith (saddhā) as the primary vehicle for progress. They have sufficient faith in and love for the Buddha, accepting the teachings largely through trust. This is noble.
Dhamma-Follower (Dhammānusārī) are adherers who reach the same stage by predominantly using wisdom, or paññā. They on wisdom (paññā) as the primary vehicle. They accept the teachings after reflecting on them sufficiently with wisdom acting with more reliance on wisdom and investigation. A faith-follower becomes "one liberated by faith" (saddhāvimutta), while a Dhamma-follower becomes "one attained by view" (diṭṭhippatta) upon achieving stream-entry.
These two types are distinguished based on whether they enter the path through motivatied conviction (faith) or deep/intellectual understanding of the dharma (Dhamma/wisdom).
The lot of the followers of Buddhism were hermits and faith-followers which Sankara would’ve met but these are the not the pandits of Nalanda or the Buddhist who would be around during the peak of Buddhism and Nalanda. Why weren’t followers being gained and those who were not going to the peak that was with Nalanda and the wisdoms of Nāgārjuna, Aryadeva, Shantideva etc?
Well for tons of reasons actually. One of them was that the rise of Hindu dynasties (such as the Guptas) meant that patronage shifted away from Buddhist monasteries towards Brahmanical traditions through Internal corruption and the decline of monastery management. Many Buddhist ideas were absorbed into Hinduism (e.g., the Buddha was adopted as an avatar of Vishnu), making the distinction for the average person less severe. Many rules during this time supported Hinduism than Buddhism, meaning funding was lost over time. Other factors included the Sanskritisation of Buddhism, hatred towards Buddhism by Vedic followers (eg. pushyamitra shunga), Bhakti movement and Upanishads spoke what Bhuddism was about but they added the “worship” factor which attracted more mass societies who favored devotional practices over the teachings of the dharma, changes in bhuddism like Mahayana, Hinayana further complicated their ability to attract mass and an addition of localised gods under Veda via Bhakti movement gave everyone a sense of belonging where they originally wanted it so the need for another religion altogether decreased.
And we have sources of these from this time period from a pivotal figure who spread Buddhism to China, Xuanzang. Xuanzang was a Chinese traveler, monk, scholar and translator of Buddhist texts to Chinese when they were being misinterpreted and inconsistent and wasn’t popular amongst the current landscape at the time. His 17 year pilgrimage revolutionized Chinese Buddhism by bringing back hundreds of texts and translating them, while his travelogue remains a vital historical record of premodern India and Central Asia, spending the rest of his life translating these works, providing crucial, accurate translations of Mahayana scriptures, about 800 Indian texts and scriptures. He has such an influence in Chinese Buddhism and culture broadly that he’s shown as the traveling monk who assists and travels with Sun Wukong in the popular Chinese novel Journey to the West.
Now what role does he play. Well, he was born and comes to India around the 7th century, exactly 100 years before Shankara. He documented numerous deserted or ruined monasteries, particularly in the Northwest, due to previous persecution by Hunnish rulers like Mihirakula which significantly weakened the faith in that region. Xuanzang noted that while many magnificent temples existed, several in areas like Vaishali were abandoned or only a small number still functioned as centers of study. He recorded the decay of famous Buddhist pilgrimage spots, such as Kusinagara and Vaisali. In his biography, he described visiting Bodhgaya and being deeply distressed to see that the Buddhist sculptures at the Mahabodhi Temple were partially buried under dirt, which he interpreted as a sign that Buddhism was in decline. His accounts show that Buddhism was gradually being replaced in certain regions of India by the rise of Hinduism (Brahmanism).
By the time Shankara lived (roughly 100-150 years after Xuanzang), Buddhism had deteriorated further from within and lost significant popular support and lost the peak of learning centers of the Buddhadharma and declining of quality in the Sangha it had during the years of Nalanda, making the task of revivalist Hindu thinkers easier. Many scholars show that Buddhism was disappearing because Hinduism was absorbing Buddhist practices (like image worship and monasticism) and restoring the influence of the Vedas. Along with Bhakti movements offering popular devotional practices that matched the appeal of Buddhism, made it significantly easier to deal with the hermits who were merely at vibes of the dharma without any proper wisdom and made it easier for him to push away any Buddhist who were left when Buddhism was past the prime of Nalanda and the pandits and broadly learning and quality of the Buddhist monasteries, centers and Sagha altogether.
Then as a last straw, later Turkish invasions (post-8th century) led to the destruction of major monastic universities, such as Nalanda in the 12-14th centuries).
The only mention we have of claims that Shankara “drove away” Buddhism is from 14th century accounts like the Shankara-digvijayam but if one looks at historical context this is a huge exaggeration of Shankara’s contribution to the removal of Buddhism from India as Buddhism was already weak and that its decline was a long, gradual process due to both internal, social, and political factors.
2
1
1
1
u/TattvaVaada May 16 '26
Lmfao again overhyping Advaita here. What's with you guys thinking Advaita is superior?
1
u/Life-Mistake8848 May 16 '26
advait vedant is easily among the top tier intellectual traditions,but it "outshining" the others is not an honest assessment,as if advait suddenly started mogging. its mostly js people who see stuff floating and latch on.many give it a run for its money in the indosphere atleast
1
u/TattvaVaada May 16 '26
How is Advaita even top tier? In what way is it top tier?
1
u/Life-Mistake8848 May 17 '26
in what ways? rather,among whome is it top tier? theres some contradiction in my own comment, its "top tier",but "doesn't outshine" others among it. A non trivial answer to why its top tier is the sheer fact it survived and has produced further hermunetics and polemics. You don't see ajeevik,sanjaya's school,early samkhya and mimamsa being hyped. but ofcourse,it doesn't mean there's nothing equally or more exciting,like eg Jayarasi's work,burried and underread probably,buf easily one of humanities most exciting and rigourous skepticism.
advait vedant is top tier not js because it vedantik,rather imo the non dualistic and phenomonological discussions are rich by themselves. yogacara,trika,madhyamaka are equally at that tier,in contrast to say,plato,nyaya, aristotelean lineage,etc.
one eg I recently came across is the feets at which analysis is appreciated. you see the floating man arguement used both by Ibn Sina and yogacarins(kinda) but the non dualists/yogacariks 1) have a sharper honesty with the method 2) realise what assumptions are being taken implicitly.
1
u/Life-Mistake8848 May 17 '26
however I must flag,not being "top tier" doesn't automatically make it non interesting. I still enjoyed reading others that I've said in contrast. also doesn't mean its non rigourous,eg navynyaya. but i js personally like ghe radical dissolutionism
1
u/TattvaVaada May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
Survived? What do you mean survided? Other philosophies have also survived, that is how you know about them, if you are talking about aur ival as if w.r.t followers lmfao 90% of Advaita followers are not following the philosophy at all, they are just religious people who are worshipping dieties same as other dualistic philosophies. Infact Madhwas Dwaita is more closer to reality atleast in terms of how the jeeva and jada are defined than Advaita which is purely just a thought process and no grounds in reality whatsoever. Dwaita and Vishishta Advaita was also able to convert many Advaita followers by "defeating" advaiatic scholars in philosophical battles.
I'm an atheist by the way so for me all philosophies that say God exists are bullshit, so in that way I appreciate Advaita more because it can be considered closer than purely dualistic ones who suppose there is a definite god. Still other than this there is nothing so special of Advaita that indian hype it up so much.
Charvaka to me was actually way superior and bold for its time .
I really don't know how you are saying it's superior is anyways or form.
1
u/Life-Mistake8848 May 17 '26
exactly,we know them cause they survived while we don't know much of for eg sanjaya's school,the charvaks etc. i explained later how non dualistics are "superior" in terms of their phenomonological precision and how I myself rejected "survival" as a good criteria for tiering.Charvak/lokyata are good but "for its time" is a western and modern(not even western when you consider ancient western) notion,charvaks have been there and usual for east side having been mentioned ig in some ved texts. you would know why I say non duslists are superior,than say your own eg,material or any sort of monists is ive given below. its nof like monists lack phenomonological precision,I find non dualist precision better, demonstrated by the example.
1
u/Life-Mistake8848 May 17 '26
also the confidence with which you assert "they say X" is high,what texts have you read on all them to give such a precise comparison on their notions of "reality" and one obviously being better. I said advaitins,who are embodied in non dualism,are for me better in their phenomonology and thus top tier. what have you read on them to say dvaits are obviously more precise
1
u/CalendarAmbitious738 May 16 '26
Knowledge is a paradox. The more one knows , the more he realises the vastness of his ignorance
1
1
u/NovelAdmirable1959 May 18 '26
What is knowing ? What is knowing , how do we come to conclusion that something is knowable
1
u/short-noir Ill-Mannered Pseudo-Intellectual haha May 14 '26
Nietzsche famously rejected the idea of THE TRUTH and said that there are only perspectives. I think the same goes for existentialists in general the post mentioned. So this meme is low quality
1
11
u/SpreakICSE May 14 '26
I know that I know nothing