" Never said anyone was worse, but just Eurocentric (even your American hellraisers - they were born and lived most their life in Europe). You say you're very open to reading anything, which'd be great. The problem is, so many things are biased, especially when you're reading in this one tongue, that the British philosophers wrote. Wikipedia is biased about this kind of thing, it's not really fully your fault, but you must understand that China and India were civilised for far longer than Europe, and each having 1-3x the population at any given point in the past - the bulk of philosophers are from China and India. Then there are some from Europe, the Islamic world, and then smaller ones like Japan and Korea. "



^ Acknowledging that's it's " Not my fault " partly insinuates that it's a problem? Which it is not. Everything in this world is biased, being opened minded doesn't mean your not biased, it just means that your open to different view points

Edited 5/21/2016 20:44:03

Eurocentric? well many people here are huge fans of Confucius (or Confucious according to Imperator) apparently.

It's a typo man, but thanks for letting me know about it :)

Unluckily, I see that many here are very Eurocentric, but probably mostly not your fault, but how you were taught. Oh, and of course the Americentricity has American hellraisers on it.

I'm actually not too big a fan of a lot of western philosophers; Cases in point Voltaire, Nietzsche, Kant.

Acknowledging that's it's " Not my fault " partly insinuates that it's a problem? Which it is not. Everything in this world is biased, being opened minded doesn't mean your not biased, it just means that your open to different view points

Do you not agree that Eurocentrism is a problem? That 1/10 the world gets 9/10 the heeding here?

If you want to rid yourself of this bias, set yourself reading schedule proportional to their historic relative populations with some room for deviation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world

+476 was not a particularly important year in the past, just for the Mediterranean world and some of the Middle East. But if you're "open", you'd think that the sack of Roma, the 101 theses, and all scientific findings were done in Europe, and later America (Seaborg), since that's how English reading has traditionally taught things.

Realise bias for what it is - you shouldn't be open to only untruth or clearly misleading truths. You can make anything sound bad or good omitting truths. I have a whole book that I found that was all about making historic evil folk sound good - Hitler, Stalin, Tōjō Hideki, Hong Hsiuchuan. And it doesn't lie once, and it does make me feel sorry, respectful, or reverent of them a bit.

I'm actually not too big a fan of a lot of western philosophers; Cases in point Voltaire, Nietzsche, Kant.

The problem is, though, not sure about you, but for some folk, their only knowledgebase is in Europe.

Edited 5/21/2016 21:23:18

Once again, I do not see a problem with reading books from both philosophers from the east and west. I don't judge a philosopher based on the region they come from. I refuse to put Eastern or Western Philosophy on a pedestal. Both make good points and have good ideas. I will not say one group is better then the other because that would be a flat lie

Once again, I do not see a problem with reading books from both philosophers from the east and west.

The problem is, the books from in the east are written in Chinese or an Indian tongue, and are less taken to interest by European-cultureborn academists, or not translated. There's far more to read upon East Philosophy, and if you knew every tongue, then it wouldn't be so bad, then what you're doing's fine.

I refuse to put Eastern or Western Philosophy on a pedestal. Both make good points and have good ideas.

You don't have to (and you shouldn't) - European philosophy is already highlighted for you.

Edited 5/21/2016 21:43:48

No, you can reject something fed to you through culture. My entire family is evangelical southern Baptist and I'm a Classical Liberal ( American Libertarianism )

And btw Juq, the same thing can apply to you if you live in Asia.

No, you can reject something fed to you through culture. My entire family is evangelical southern Baptist and I'm a Classical Liberal ( American Libertarianism )

1. Faith does not intervene in what you believe outside of faith. I don't think Baptist churches have disavowed the Libertarian group.

2. You haven't, as all of who you have put down are European and American - and that the Americans are the only one putting down American ones.

the same thing can apply to you if you live in Asia.

I know who Diderot and Marx, and a fair few European philosophers - but you see, Asia holds in it over half the world's population, and even more historically. An unbiased world past would be Asiacentric, as that's where everything happened.

^^

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/swiss-watch-discovered-in-400-year-old-chinese-tomb-might-be-proof-of-time-travel

1. Faith does not intervene in what you believe outside of faith. I don't think Baptist churches have disavowed the Libertarian group.

The implication is obviously that to be a Classical Liberal you have to support things like Gay marriage, which is simply incorrect on The Conservative's part. Most classical liberals, commonly called simply "Conservatives" don't support these kinds of things.

No, all I implied was my philosophy was Classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the basis of Conservative Democrat, Libertarians, and moderate conservatives. Classical liberalism isn't a party, it's a philosophy. I never implied that you have to support progressive ideals to be a Classical Liberal. Evangelical conservatives are much different from classical liberalism. Evangelicalism isn't rooted in philosophy, but religion. That's why they are called " Evangelical " Conservatives, because they are different from other conservative groups because they don't plant themselves in worldly philosophy. That's why it was difficult for me to bring myself to the point where I got out of that closed minded shit that gives Christianity a bad name.

since I'm greek and I've studied them the most,

Im gonna have to go with:

Socrates
Plato
Aristotle

Edited 5/22/2016 00:11:27

joseph stalin good philospher

Hobbes always. Nietzsche and Sun Tzu are cool too.

Sun Tzu, the father of war crimes and total war?

One of his tacts is to wave a white flag, but then pull out your guns and shoot as the foe comes, unprepared. That is very wrong.

its called fighting a war

gotta win

he a good strategist

Sun Tzu was a realist. Basically the man was brilliant but immoral on an astronomical level. He treated death like a number and had no honor. But his tactics worked.


Personally, I would rather lose with honor, than win without it.

1863 Boshin War , samurais vs guns mothafukas

Sun Tzu ftw

Edited 5/22/2016 04:54:48

fuck honor

that shit gets you killed

if u wanna die thats ur own protocol

how do you people mention immorality without goddamn Machiavelli?