I’m currently listening to a lecture series on Buddhism, right now specifically lectures comparing aspects of Buddhism to Daoism and Confucianism. The parallels between these traditions are intriguing and have prompted me to reflect on the differences between Eastern and Western philosophies. This is obviously a sweeping generalization, but it seems like continental philosophy, in some ways, is attempting to reintroduce a more creative and nebulous style of thinking reminiscent of Eastern traditions. This has me thinking about the origins of Western philosophy and its analytic tradition. I wonder if it began with the ancient Greeks or even earlier.

Analytic thinking in the Western tradition, rooted in the works of ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, emphasizes logic, argumentation, and systematic inquiry. This foundation has led to a tradition characterized by clear, linear, and precise communication, ideal for empirical and scientific thinking. However, this approach is also stilted, struggling to accommodate the fluidity and nuance of human experience. Science and empiricism have valuable roles in providing clear, testable knowledge. However, they seem to mostly zoom in instead of zooming out.

The creative and artistic concept creation in continental and Eastern philosophies and the ability to leverage paradox and contradiction may broaden our understanding in ways that purely analytic thinking often cannot. These approaches seem to allow for a deeper engagement with abstract ideas and the complexities of human consciousness. The limitations of human cognition most likely mean that some ideas remain inaccessible through purely analytic methods. Even removing the problems associated with parsing large amounts of data effectively there are material constraints on things like memory creation which necessitate a linear perception of time or the way our neural pathways have been shaped by natural selection to serve specific purposes/goals which then constrains what we even have the ability to perceive. Most likely we merely perceive representational icons of fitness and don’t experience the “real world” at all. If so, it’s interesting to speculate whether this reliance on analytic thinking could have hindered Western cultural progress in certain areas that require more conceptual flexibility and creativity as a heuristic tool for overcoming our cognitive limitations.

That said, there’s no expectation for one approach to dominate the other, nor for any individual or school of thought to perfectly balance them. The way memetic flows work allows these lines of inquiry to coexist simultaneously, often taking contradictory routes while moving in various directions in multiple dimensions. This isn’t just normal, it’s preferable. A dynamic intellectual ecosystem where ideas can cross-pollinate and evolve in unexpected ways ensures the vitality of philosophical inquiry. However, from a meta perspective, it’s important to recognize the limitations inherent in each tradition. If one were to overshadow all others, the resulting loss would be profound. This is the main justification for my love of epistemological anarchy. I think we need to boost those numbers up even. The interplay between these varied methodologies is what keeps philosophy vibrant, ensuring that no single approach monopolizes the pursuit of understanding.

I kind of visualize the whole of human essence as one large memetic amoeba made up of not only the sum total biomass of humanity but also every other method for information exchange/storage as the medium through which it exists and moves.

Anyway, all that to say Buddhism is cool and professor Malcolm David Eckel is pretty legit.