The recognition of reality.

I agree with you!

We are talking past each other about completely different things here: competitive vs cooperative economical models of ancient societies is an explanation of the “dichotomy,” not the “dichotomy” itself that I was talking about. What I was referring to are the differences between Eastern and Western cognitive processes—somewhat paralleling individualistic/collectivistic social processes—what cultural psychologists call the analytic vs holistic cognition.

The empirical support is entirely on the social and cognitive processes, of which cooperative vs competitive economic models is just one hypothesized explanation for a root cause.

What is truth?

I remember pontius pilot saying this in the bible. I think its a underrated part of the story. Anyone got a idea of what truth is?

> Eh you could be right about the explanation OF the dichotomy

To be clear, that's what I'm questioning, the idea that the West was based on hunting/gathering vs. agriculture in the East. Agriculture was the base of all settled populations worldwide, with very few (and relatively small) exceptions.

> but THAT the dichotomy exists is an empirical question and had already been answered by decades of (cross-cultural psychology) research

Interesting; that does not match my experience of American and Chinese cultures. What would you say is the best empirical evidence supporting the idea of a simple competitive-West/cooperative-East dichotomy?

Anecdotally, I'm reasonably familiar with Chinese and American cultures, and that simplistic dichotomy does not fit what I have observed. Competition is brutal right now for Chinese parents and their kids, and also in many other ways (for people seeking spouses, for top university spots, for desirable apartments, etc.). Chinese families in the USA are markedly more competitive than their white peers; witness the "Tiger Mom" stereotype. In many ways, this competition has deep cultural roots, notably including the imperial examinations needed to become a civil servant which date back centuries.

My understanding is that there's more evidence for a consistent difference in individualism vs. collectivism, but (a) that's a different thing than competition vs. cooperation, and (b) that's in large part due to many of the comparisons being made against the USA, which itself stands out as unusually individualistic even compared to its Western peers.

[deleted]

The particles that make up the door can be closed or open depending on the observation…

We’re a small company, our team is shown here https://fivebooks.com/contact-us/.

Yes, we keep in touch with many of the expert we interview and some update their interviews over time. For example our interview on the best Stoicism books was first carried out in 2016 and then updated in 2020 https://fivebooks.com/best-books/massimo-pigliucci-stoicism/.

Many of the experts are on Twitter and answer readers questions about the interview. You can follow us on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/five_books

Eh you could be right about the explanation OF the dichotomy, but THAT the dichotomy exists is an empirical question and had already been answered by decades of (cross-cultural psychology) research—it isn’t just a cherry-picked narrative.

> and especially trading played much larger roles, all of which emphasized direct competition between neighbors and neighboring city states.

Trading inherently has a strong cooperative element, though, so I don't see how Ancient Greece's significant reliance on trading supports the "competitive West/cooperative East" dichotomy.

In particular, trading generally requires making mutually-beneficial agreements with peer groups outside your immediate circle. By contrast, farming essentially relies on monopolistic use of a piece of land, and as a result could most certainly be framed as competitive (more food grown = more people = take over more land = even more food grown, etc.).

Either direction could be spun to support the dichotomy; as a result, there's a strong chance that the book is cherry-picking its analysis to support its target narrative, and as a result is not presenting a realistic view.

This is rather amazing!

How many people are in your organization?

Do you keep in touch with any of the people you interview (or, have that option perhaps, say if you had followup questions for them)?

> No… but reducing Chinese philosophy’s differences from the West to a consequence of tilling rice paddies is pretty bad…no?

It is, so why are you doing it?

> but damn if this doesn’t smack of it, nonetheless.

I recommend you fix your terrible perception then.

> I don’t even think he’s intending racism; he’s probably just so enamored with the sense of the exotic that he is absent-mindedly and inaccurately placing cause and effect relationships therein.

Of course: what seems to be true is "probably" true.

This whole piece strikes me as a false dichotomy and very manipulative. People aren't either collective or individual, they are both all at once. Every high school kid who plays a sport knows that the team is stronger than the individual. The difference in the west is we don't say "empty and forget the heart mind" to be a better part of the collective. We say be the strongest and best individual you can be and you will make everyone around you better for it. We also say if you are ordered to do something against your conscious, and you do it, you are still accountable to God for your sins.

The interconnnection ideas here seem more closely related to the Buddhist idea of dependent-coarising rather than ideas of the Chinese philosophers of the classical period. The ideas of correlative cosmology in 感應 mentioned in this paper have many parallels in premodern European thought such as in the humours if the body and so on. If anything, I would say that China traditionally placed much more emphasis on the individual human actor than in the west, as seen for example in the importance of the biography sections of their dynastic histories. The Chinese emphasis comes at the expense of social and material considerations of action in the world. China does have a stronger group culture than in the west, both family and hometown ties are much more important than in many and perhaps most other cultures. In this way China has been less individualistic.

‘The Prince’ has made it onto five of our reading lists including “Philosophy Books to Take on Holiday.” https://fivebooks.com/book/prince-by-niccolo-machiavelli/

remindme! 8 hours

I've been on the internet long enough that I earnestly expected one of them to be The Prince

I’m no archaeologist (and neither was the author of these ideas) but once a civilization grows to a certain size hunting/gathering naturally becomes insufficient.

From what I could remember tho, the book made the case that agriculture of Greek civilization was nevertheless a much smaller component of its diet and economy (relative to Chinese farming); fishing, herding, and especially trading played much larger roles, all of which emphasized direct competition between neighbors and neighboring city states.

Economy was only one hypothesized factor. I think others were linguistic structures and early (Western) development vs nearly complete absence of (Eastern) logic. But you’re right I definitely could use a revisit of the book.

Ahhh, yet more ranting. Are you aware of how rice grows? It is not a plant growing out of hard earth. It grows in shallow ‘ponds’ that we call paddies. Water must remain in those paddies, yet flow through unobstructed. If it does not flow it stagnates, and the rice molds and becomes garbage.

It absolutely requires a cooperative mindset to get it right.

But you seem resistant to the idea that the basis of survival in a given region would be reflected in the writings that come from that region. Why?

Also, I did not say “Chinese people don’t hoard water”. I said RICE FARMERS do not hoard water. Contextual reading is your friend, targetdroid, unless your intent is to continue to rant and look silly.

We do not cooperatively till plants here! My corn field gets water, that water sinks into the ground otr evaporates. It does not pass down the line to my neighbor’s crop. I’m in competition with that neighbor for the water resource.

Thus we have the rugged individualism of the American West, and of philosophers who emerge from this tradition.

That’s none of what I said. You are ranting. I’m amused though by you labeling my post ‘racist’ when the topic is Chinese philosophy, and the OP asks the question of why in this philosophy all actions are collective.

Do you really imagine the environment from which a particular philosopher emerges has zero impact on his/her thinking? The Central European thinkers of the 19th century had differences, but one could easily conceive them as a single body of work. And that body of work is far different than that of Plato and Aristotle and Epicurus, in a different place and time… which is far different than Alan Watts.

No…. it would be nearly impossible for environment to not impact philosophy.

Thank you for doing what you do.

Thanks - we’ve spent the last 13 years interviewing experts about their best books. We’re spoken to more than 80 philosophers covering all sort of philosophy topics.

Your profile is a goldmine!! 🙌

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.