A Battle of Wisdom

[Mega_Champion]

Hi Guys,

A lot of people think that martial arts are all about using the body / physicality etc., but my teacher told me that actually using the mind and spirit are the higher levels of martial arts. With this in mind, who would win in a fight of wisdom between the following in your opinion?

Lao Tsu

Buddha

Confucius

Plato (because wisdom exists in the West too)

Keith Jardine (included because I want someone to represent the modern way)

-

I’d really appreciate your thoughts! Thanks a lot,

The Champion

[PalmStriker]

What about Patton. Patton could kick Plato's ass.

[MarathonTmatt]

Hi Guys,

A lot of people think that martial arts are all about using the body / physicality etc., but my teacher told me that actually using the mind and spirit are the higher levels of martial arts. With this in mind, who would win in a fight of wisdom between the following in your opinion?

Lao Tsu

Buddha

Confucius

Plato (because wisdom exists in the West too)

Keith Jardine (included because I want someone to represent the modern way)

-

I’d really appreciate your thoughts! Thanks a lot,

The Champion

I am confused by your comment that wisdom exists in the west too, and you cite Plato, a Greek philosopher. I am fairly aware of some of Plato's works and philosophies, and I like the jist of it. However, what do you mean by the west? This gets very confusing, especially from an American Indian perspective. For instance, if by the West you mean the New World, then you are actually referring to the American continent, the America's, which up until a few hundred years ago was it's own civilization(s) and culture(s)- Inuit, Algonquin, Iroquois, Athabascan, Cherokee, Taino, Aztec, Mayan, Incan, etc. etc. There are wisdom traditions in the west too, and many leaders such as Red Cloud (Lakota), Waukon Decorah (Ho-Chunk Winnebago), or Metacomet (Wampanoag) you could use as an example of a wise leader.

I don't understand why this fact is always over-looked. In fact, the only culture and way of life that truely belongs to the land known as the America's (the true west) is the indigenous ways of life that have been either eradicated or disrupted or supressed. I would argue that the mainstream modern society is confused like a little brat that doesn't know any better and that grown-up adult people, when you think about it, for the most part, act like foolish "adult" children.

If by westerner you mean the western part of the African/Asian/European continent, than ok. I know that the traditions of the average American are influenced and come from Greek/ Roman and Christian (or one of the 3 Abrahamic traditions- Judaism, Islam and Christianity) thought, education and law but I find it disturbing how Native American history, from the perspective of non-native people is rarely acknowledged in any way, even in terms of how First Nations laws, customs, language, land use, conflicts etc. from the invasion to the modern day has impacted and shaped American society greatly, not to mention the still older (pre-contact) implications of society (even in North America, on par with any of the great civilizations of the old world), land use, trade distribution, etc.

[pazman]

Feeling honored to have posted in a MegaFist thread.

[Scott R. Brown]

MarathonTmatt

Way to turn a post on philosophy into modern, mindless political jibberish!

No one would win in a battle of philosophies, because philosophies are founded upon un-provable premises. This was well demonstrated by Socrates over 2,500 years ago.

This is also why political philosophies and religious perspectives rarely agree. They can only agree when the foundational premises are similar enough to allow for similar conclusions.

The error is in trying to convince someone with different premises than yours that your conclusion is true and valid when they cannot accept the premises you start from. They will rarely understand or accept your conclusions unless they have matured to the point of understanding that even their own premises are indemonstrable.

[MarathonTmatt]

MarathonTmatt

Way to turn a post on philosophy into modern, mindless political jibberish!

No one would win in a battle of philosophies, because philosophies are founded upon un-provable premises. This was well demonstrated by Socrates over 2,500 years ago.

This is also why political philosophies and religious perspectives rarely agree. They can only agree when the foundational premises are similar enough to allow for similar conclusions.

The error is in trying to convince someone with different premises than yours that your conclusion is true and valid when they cannot accept the premises you start from. They will rarely understand or accept your conclusions unless they have matured to the point of understanding that even their own premises are indemonstrable.

Yes sir,

You have very good points about Socrates and premises, and how people reach their conclusions. Spot on.

I guess I did sort of rant/ get off topic... but there is a point to be made, there. The western hemisphere has always been different from how people perceive it today, as they know it. Much to be learned/ discussed/ understood by people.

So, who should represent the western hemisphere in this "battle of wisdom" because Plato ain't from the West, that is my point.

[RenDaHai]

So, who should represent the western hemisphere in this "battle of wisdom" because Plato ain't from the West, that is my point.

Well, he is.

I mean, America is NOT the west, thats a very modern idea. America is the new world, it is not connected to the old world by land. Europe, Asia and Africa ARE all connected. When talking about ancient philosophy it is well accepted and indeed sensible to divide 'Eastern' and 'Western' philosophy.

If you take Turkey, Egypt and Israel as the centre of the Ancient world then anything to the north west is 'The West' and Occident, Europe and anything to the south east is 'The East', Asia, the Orient. To the direct south we have Ethiopia and then impassable heat, to the direct north we have Scythia and impassable cold and barbarians. As far as the rest of the world is concerned America does not exist at this point in time.

Nowadays 'The West' means first world democratic culture, because this is an extension of the culture of western Europe, i.e Britain, Western Europe, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (certainly not west yet called the west). So America is referred to as 'The West' NOT because it is to the west of Europe, it is also to the East of Japan, but because it is the now dominant extension of European democratic culture.

Western philosophy IS Plato and then many later people. Though he influenced near eastern and middle eastern philosophy also they had many other influences, where as in the West he is by far and away the most important figure. Maths, Science, Philosophy, Politics, Law, Theology--- all are massively indebted to Plato.

Before Plato we have Pythagoras. He was contempory with LaoTzu and the Buddha. Reading Plato's Timaeus (supposedly Pythagorean doctrine) we can see startling similarities with LaoTzu and Buddhism even. So much so that it seems to point to a more ancient common philosophy. So I think between these there would be much agreement and no battle.


However if they were to be judged..... We should have to award Plato as the winner. Looking at the worlds most successful cultures it is clear, in our time, Plato's influence has been more beneficial than that of LaoTzu or Buddha.

[Scott R. Brown]

So, who should represent the western hemisphere in this "battle of wisdom" because Plato ain't from the West, that is my point.

This is not true. Plato is a representative of Western Philosophy.

If we want to be accurate, west is relative to where you start from. From Asia, America is east and Europe is West. In educated/academic conversation, however, it is commonly understood that Europe is considered the home of Western philosophy, India and China the home of Eastern philosophy.

West is understood to include Greece, East begins in Asia Minor, that is the eastern side of the Bosphorus. This has been the case for 3,000 years or so.

So your previous comment is a bit nit-picky and argumentative within the context of the original post. It is more a political issue and not pertinent to the original post.

That is not to say it is not a topic worth discussing, but on its own thread perhaps?

Having said that, Amerindian philosophers have not and cannot be included in the discussion because we know, essentially, nothing about them since they recorded nothing. Whereas Western and Eastern philosophy has been recorded in relative detail for nearly 3000 years.