How wrong am i if i say western philosophy strips man from nature and eastern philosophy encourage man to live with nature? Wrong or absolutely wrong or Absurd ?
How wrong am i if i say western philosophy strips man from nature and eastern philosophy encourage man to live with nature? Wrong or absolutely wrong or Absurd ?
Could you elaborate? I sense depth, yet need more clarity.
My interpretation of OP’s sentiment:
Western philosophy somewhat centers around the concept of Man as the intersection of the Rising Ape and Falling Angel. Through reason we can elevate ourselves above our base nature to become something More: more rational, more perfect, more in-line-with-the-divine.
Eastern philosophy somewhat centers around the concept of fundamental oneness. Through understanding we can reconcile ourselves with our base nature to become harmonious with our environment.
In short, Western transcendence comes from breaking free from our incidental conditions, and Eastern transcendence comes from acceptance of our initial conditions.
I believe this is something of an oversimplification, but I don’t think the “Noble Savage” interpretation is exclusively correct. There do seem to be methodological distinctions between Eastern and Western models of Enlightenment.
Consider Naturalism, Darwinism, Absurdism in the West. More than transcendence? Eastern philosophy: perhaps transcendence from nature through inner focus, not just acceptance.