Humanities desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 25

Can you give the names of some contemporary Asian philosophers who focus on the eastern tradition? Is eastern philosophy taken seriously in the 21st century?

Philosophy has roots in both the eastern and the western world. Undoubtedly, there is a big difference between the two. Eastern traditions are more prescriptive and religious and less formal. Western traditions, on the other hand, are devoted to the formal and structural aspects of truth, reason and argumentation. However, why is western philosophy more popular in most universities around the world? Would you say that eastern philosophy is not respected because it is less rigorous and analytic compared to the western thought?

There are few, if any, journals devoted to the eastern thought today. Today, western philosophers receive more recognition than Asian or eastern philosophers. In fact, when we talk about the branches of philosophy, we always discuss the western branches of philosophy as if it is the only philosophical tradition we have.

Will I be taken seriously in the philosophical community if I would, for example, focus exclusively on eastern philosophy? In other words, is there still a place in the 21st century for an eastern philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.223.218 (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To your last question: No. You simply must be conversant in the history and basic formal methods of Western philosophy, in its contemporary analytic (and preferably also its Continental) tradition to intelligibly discuss with the non-indoctrinated any of the many particular non-Western philosophical traditions in an academic or professional philosophic context, "East" or "West".

The widely varied Western philosophical traditions, especially analytic, represent the Esperanto of comparative philosophers today. Know it or you're just not in the game. Because you can't communicate with the vast majority of living philosophers. Alternatively, become a monk.

Comparative philosophy is still a good, though not major league, philosophical game, with journals, conferences, etc. You'll not lack sparring -- or dancing, if you prefer -- partners. But the game is argumentative, however defined, or it simply isn't philosophy. No need for words.

You might enjoy Ben-Ami Scharfstein's A Comparative History of World Philosophy: From the Upanishads to Kant for an example of how it is done at its best. I like his pragmatist/phenomenological approach as a bridging stance between Eastern and Western, as well as Analytical and Continental philosophical traditions. I hope you do, too. (Don't miss his The Philosophers: Their Lives and the Nature of their Thought, an unusually perceptive thread study of some pinnacles of Western philosophy, many of whom were influenced by various "Oriental" philosophies, and especially valuable when read young - it's how I found my closest analogues in our tradition, and many of their Asian and Indian counterparts. His short and nuanced Ineffability: The Failure of Words in Philosophy and Religion is another must for comparatists. I found his books pivotal, mind-expanding.)

More on your other questions if time allows. ---- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To your first question: "Can you give the names of some contemporary Asian philosophers who focus on the eastern tradition?"

Yes, I can.

Will I?

No, Grasshopper. That would give you nothing. It would take away your chance to learn. Most unphilosophical. Others will try to do your thinking for you, by giving you names. Ignore those. Find your own. Only then can you make your own.

As you may know, you can find -- and frequently download -- expertly cataloged papers and reviews of books written by professional contemporary philosophers working the Asian philosophical tradition: PhilPapers - Browse Asian Philosophy. Browse, find some interesting subtopic, download and skim a few related papers, just to gauge the density of argument and level of reliance on "Western" philosophical constructs and methods. That's who you're up against.

Another path: follow your curiosity with more controlled browsing in the three standard philosophy encyclopedias.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Scholarly and conveniently online, but incomplete.
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second edition. Become familiar with the Thematic Outline of Contents in volume 10. Libraries offer online access.
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Again, inquire if you have access through university or public library. East Asian philosophy, not a full article with references, but a navigation aid, was written by a Roger Ames. Who is he? Editor of top journal, Philosophy East and West and a prolific translator besides. That's one way to build your names list.

The One Forbidden Encyclopedia for Serious Philosophical Research is also known as Wikipedia. Why? A very good question, indeed. The name is shorter, for one. Another place, another time, perhaps.

Go to the monastery library (use the "look inside" feature of Amazon books) to briefly note the table of contents of various anthologies of Asian, Chinese, Indian, and Japanese philosophy. Not just the classics (though translators and editors of classic texts are frequently engaged in contemporary philosophy), but anthologies of contemporary developments, as well. Oxford, Cambridge, Hackett, Routledge, Blackwell, Princeton, Columbia, SUNY, and Hawai'i (in no particular order) are the names of some of the best publishers of such anthologies, and much else, in comparative philosophy.

Those are all the names you need to find the names of philosophers meaningful to you. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Japanese scholar told me the other day that Western philosophy, specifically Ancient Greek philosophy, was insufficiently known in Japanese universities and he wished that Aristotle would be taught. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are Holland and the Netherlands exactly synonymous?

A friend told me that Holland is only part of the Netherlands, but he could not explain which part. I've always thought they are just two names for the exact same country/territory. Who is correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Holland? Technically Holland is a region within the Netherlands, but in colloquial speech it is often used to refer to the Netherlands as a whole (even by Dutch people). - Lindert (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Holland is the central part of the Netherlands, Zeeland is in the south, Friesland is in the north and Brabant is (I think) in the east. Friesland has its own languages. It's rather like people saying England when they mean the United Kingdom (except that they are "provinces" rather than "home nations" in the UK). See Provinces of the Netherlands. Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not at all synonymous. It is unfortunate even many Dutch people (though mostly Hollanders) make this mistake. Although historically it is correct, it has been wrong for the best part of two centuries. I will note that for people from the North (like myself many many years ago), the use of Holland to describe them can be considered very insulting, on the same level as calling a Scot English. This stemming from the general arrogance and superiority complex of many Hollanders over the 'provincials' in the North and East. Fgf10 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "historically correct"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find this easy to remember by noting that "Netherlands" is plural; Holland being one of the lands in the "nether region" (although a check of Wiktionary definition suggests this would be rather insulting). —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deliciously suspiciously, the capital of Saba is The Bottom. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "The Bottom" is "officially" a part of the public body of the Netherlands. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must share this anecdote. I was socialising with a bunch of Sri Lankan Australians last weekend. They generally speak quickly, and with their accent and my hearing issues, I don't always follow the conversation, and that's even when they don't spontaneously burst into Sinhalese, which is not often (that they don't do that). Anyway, the conversation had been about food, and somehow it turned to "private parts". I thought I was keeping up, but then they started talking about which ones they eat and which ones they give to the dog for a treat. Then the penny dropped: what they were calling "private parts" is what I call offal. Cute dialect, that Sri Lankan English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Up above, Fgf10 used that term "Dutch" to describe the people. I'm guessing they are people from anywhere in the Netherlands, not just Holland, but yet again the name doesn't help. Why are people from the Netherlands called Dutch? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word Dutch is cognate with deutsch, the self-appellation of Germans today. It was originally a self-appellation used across the whole continental West Germanic speech area, i.e. across today's Germany and the Netherlands, and was borrowed into English from Middle Dutch in that wide sense some time around the 15th century or so. After the 17th/18th centuries, in English, the term then stuck with only that part of the West Germanic area that was closest to England, namely the Netherlands, while in the Netherlands themselves it fell out of use as the inhabitants began to conceive of themselves more and more as a nation separate from the Germans to the east of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Originally 'Dutch' denoted all variants of the Germanic language(s) in modern-day Germany and the Netherlands (which did not exist as a separate country) and by extension it became synonymous with the people who spoke it. From the late medieval period, 'Dutch' was divided into Low-Dutch and High-Dutch, the former spoken in the low lands by the North-Sea, the latter more to the east. When the Low-Dutch people (in their language Nederduytsch) became independent (around 1600), they began calling their country 'de Nederlanden' ('the Netherlands') and their language they called 'Nederlands' ('Netherlandish'). Eventually they stopped using the term 'Dutch' to describe themselves. The High-Dutch, however, did not and their country they called simply 'Deutschland' ('Dutch-Land') and their language 'Deutsch' ('Dutch', hence Pennsylvania Dutch). The reason that 'Dutch' in English specifically denotes the people and language of the Netherlands is that historically (particularly in the 17th century), there was a lot of contact (both friendly and hostile) between England and the Low-Dutch people, and far less with the High-Dutch, who lived further inland. So out of convenience, the English dropped the prefix 'Low' and simply called them Dutch, and have been doing so ever since, even when the 'Dutch' themselves stopped doing this. - Lindert (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So what's the Dutch word for Dutch? Or, more correctly, what do the people of the Netherlands call themselves now? HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We call ourselves (and our language) 'Nederlands'. A Dutchman is a 'Nederlander' and a Dutchwoman a 'Nederlandse'. Collectively Dutch people are 'Nederlanders'. - Lindert (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes an awful lot of sense. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes more sense is that the expressions "Double Netherlandish" or "Double Hollandese" sound ridiculous, and would never have caught on. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Germany in the 1920s

Hi, I am writing an essay about Ebert and Germany in the 20s. I can't find some info which I think would benefit the essay, namely:

What was the death toll per year in the period?
How many died in the Spartacist Uprising?
How many died in the Kapp Putsch?
How many died as a result of starvation caused by hyperinflation?
What were the names of Ebert's two sons who died in the First World War?

Thanks, 86.139.247.47 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seek and ye shall find:

Spartacist uprising

Kapp Putsch

Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic

Friedrich Ebert

- Eron^Talk 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles listed in Category:1920s in Germany might be helpful. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EronMain: I had looked at those, but they don't contain the info I wanted (at least, I couldn't see it), which is why I asked. Thanks, 86.139.247.47 (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(eced)For one Spartacist uprising claims ca. 100 civilians + 17 Freicorps members. de:Spartakusaufstand seems to be a lot more detailed, and, unlike our article, is well-referenced. It refers to a parliamentary investigation listing 156 dead. The total death toll of the following Germany-wide unrest is given as "about 5000". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((edit conflict)) A cursory scan of the category that I suggested didn't find anything useful. The following PDF looks promising, however:

Peukert, Detlev. "3. Germany in the 1920s". Facing History and Ourselves (PDF). pp. 109–153. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)

I couldn't find any answers in that source for your specific questions, but that chapter might provide some background. —Sorry that I couldn't be more helpful, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Painting of Autumn Woman in Leaves - seeking artist name

A friend sent me this lovely image file - It almost looks like a Waterhouse painting (pre-Raphaelite at least) and yet I have been unable to find the original artist. Google searched for images also, and it just brought me back a version where someone had written a message across it. Help? http://www.legionofpagans.com/daily-greetings/4093/blessed-wodens-day-pagans

It looks like a photo to me, perhaps with CGI. The lower-right has "Airwolf", suggesting the moniker of the image's creator. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be "Kelly Miller-Lopez, of the band Woodland, holding one of Wendy Froud's masks. Photo by Brian Froud." [1] (Kelly Miller-Lopez is mentioned in our article on Faerieworlds). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Airwolf" appears to be "Elder Airwolf", the operator of the site. There's some stuff here. I couldn't be bothered digging through all the new-agey fooforall, but I assume there's contact info in there somewhere. Read carefully, however, as there's literally a quiz. Matt Deres (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Sluzzelin! That's what I needed - I found the references to Airwolf (of course - since that was the link I posted doah). I just couldn't find the Original Artist! Awesome. Thank you. Amazing that it is a contemporary artist - but makes sense I guess that it is CGI - it looks a little too real. But is still beautiful and reminded me of Waterhouse. Thanks a bunch all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidnessone (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]