are Chinese philosphers more popular than Indian philosophers because they're just plain less sophisticated?
Chinese philosophy is objectively inferior to Indian philosophy. This is exceptionally obvious to anyone who's ever read and compared the two in depth. But that's precisely why Confucius is a much more well known name amongst first worlders than any Indian philosopher.
Indian philosophical texts unlocking deep secrets are long and complex to read, and don't have much use to the average prole, only the sophisticated Brahmin class. but Lao Tzu teaching to respect your parents and become a doctor ASAP for the family clan's prosperity and "he who go to bed with itchy bum wake up with sticky finger" is way more catchy and digestible to your average modern American/European, who has a 92 slightly-below midwit IQ
>but Lao Tzu teaching to respect your parents and become a doctor ASAP for the family clan's prosperity and "he who go to bed with itchy bum wake up with sticky finger"
Laozi never said any of that. He founded the Daoist philosophical school. Also Daoism as a religion was founded later and deified Laozi and has its own metaphysics and religious theology.
The misotheistic West has, since the days of the blasphemer Voltaire, always rejoiced in Oriental sages whose teachings it can ignoring by making them appear secular. Confucius was merely a messenger of forgotten Tradition in the same way Guenon was more recently. But if you ignore the fact that his teachings make absolutely no sense without the foreknowledge that they are the product of a higher, celestial order, you can present them as merely a bunch of meaningless platitudes. Kid's stuff, easy for any dunce to understand.
This is certainly more palatable to a benighted Westerner today than the Hindoo fixation with the illusory quality of everything, which is blasphemy to materialists. They've tried to destroy Indian philosophy in the same way, but thus far they've only succeeded in selling Buddhism as secular simply by refusing to speak about its actual contents at all.
I agree that Indian philosophy is basically superior to Chinese philosophy but this is not due to inherent lack of sophistication but of certain tendencies the Chinese chose to follow
Explain how knowledge of some primordial tradition is in any way relevant to Confucius
>you can present them as merely a bunch of meaningless platitudes. Kid's stuff, easy for any dunce to understand
If you think that, you haven't understood them!
>Explain how knowledge of some primordial tradition is in any way relevant to Confucius
>If you think that, you haven't understood them!
That's not what I think, learn to read. You're the one who just repudiated his entire premise. Without the knowledge that his wisdom is based on a blueprint from a more perfect realm, it is largely meaningless. It is reduced to a mere set of soft suggestions instead of absolute imperatives necessary to maintain a steady civilization; set against the barbaric disorder of his own times.
Explain how, certainly this was not the interpretation of philosophers like Xunzi or Wang Chung who thought it completely arbitrary
Who in their right mind thought giving 700 million Indians internet access was a good idea? Didn't they for once think "maybe we shouldn't flood the world wide web with millions of low iq holders" can't we just cut them off? Let them have their own local network away from the rest of the civilized world
>Let them have their own local network away from the rest of the civilized world
Why not just nuke them? That way they can stop coming here too
Giving Indians education was the first mistake. The second mistake is giving them the internet.
Voltaire, Goethe, Schopenhauer and other famous Western philosophers almost immediately fell in love with Indian philosophy from the moment they first encountered it though
>are Chinese philosphers more popular than Indian philosophers
They are not.
>because they're just plain less sophisticated?
They are not.
>Chinese philosophy is objectively inferior to Indian philosophy.
It is not.
>But that's precisely why Confucius is a much more well known name
No, it's because "Confucius" is easier to remember, also Confucius isn't a real philosopher he's just a popular midwit.
>but Lao Tzu teaching to respect your parents and become a doctor ASAP for the family clan's prosperity
Not what Laozi taught.
>Confucius isn't a real philosopher
Most Chinese philosophers would disagree with you
Turns out most Chinese philosophers are wrong.
boy am I glad to not be born an indian
I guess these were the primitives...
>Indian philosophical texts unlocking deep secrets are long and complex to read, and don't have much use to the average prole, only the sophisticated Brahmin class. but Lao Tzu teaching to respect your parents and become a doctor ASAP for the family clan's prosperity and "he who go to bed with itchy bum wake up with sticky finger" is way more catchy and digestible to your average modern American/European, who has a 92 slightly-below midwit IQ
average IQ in india is 80. maybe you can get it up a bit by not eating with your hands from the floor. just a thought
Now do average IQ of the Brahmin caste.
are those the ones who scam boomers on the phone? or the ones begging for nude photos of white women online? wow poojeets sure are diverse
No, it's the ones in charge of the organised takeover, subversion and monopolisation of the IT industry, academia and other important sectors of modern society. Why don't you post their average IQ? See what thousands of years of eugenics amount to and all that.
Name a single tech company that an Indian founded, rather than being handed the CEO position after the founder got bored and decided it was a day 2 company.
You can't, because Indians can't invent and simplify, only copy, take credit and break existing solutions
Post the average Brahmin IQ and don't fuck about homosexual.
>only the sophisticated Brahmin class
You had me until there
I knew it was only a matter of time until Biharis and UPers got internet access, and tanked India's international reputation further with cringe like this.
Why does every Indian on the internet hate Biharis?
In the north things are very primitive. Poor, agrarian, extremely high fertility rates, low literacy. Bihar is the poorest state in India, so It's considered the biggest embarrassment in that regard. Most of the state still lives in agrarian farming villages that are essentially unchanged from the 19th century, with cattle driven wooden plows instead of tractors. Literacy is below 30%. In America the average income in the richest state, new York is about twice that of the poorest, Mississippi. In India Kerala's is 10x Bihar.
Sounds based t b h.
Its not. All the negative things people think about Indians are worse in the poor provinces of the north, and worst in Bihar. By that I mean
>No understanding of modern sanitation and cleanliness
>People shit outside every day
>Extreme poverty and sub Saharan Africa tier economic backwardness
>Extreme corruption and impunity, with politicians being indistinguishable from the mafia, and people keep voting for them because they promise to increase welfare while stealing everything they can
>High levels of sexual violence and discrimination
>Primitive superstition and backwardness, like drinking cow piss to cure covid (directly from the cow too, I wish I was making this up)
>People don't know what a condom is
It's an embarrassment. All the north is like this, Bihar is just the worst. I don't know how much longer this country will be able to stay together and have stability. The south is where all the economic development is, but the north has such high fertility so they have more votes, and vote to spend more of the south's tax money on gibs. I don't think it's sustainable.
>I don't know how much longer this country will be able to stay together and have stability
Is it really that bad?
The apportionment of representatives in government is supposed to be based on population, but its been frozen since the 1970's out of fear that changing it would lead to unrest. As a result the North is underrepresented by population, since the population there has increased much faster than the rest of the country. The BJP is very popular in the north largely because of their social programs funded by tax money from the south. In 2 years unfreezing the reapportionment will come up again, and since it will greatly benefit the BJP to do it, they probably will. At that point it will be literally impossible for the south to vote them out.
I don't know if that is going to tear the country apart, but at the very least it is going to increase problems with brain drain. Why should the best and brightest stay, when their own government doesn't care about them? Also, I don't want to appear overly miserly and say social programs designed to redistribute wealth are necessarily bad, but when one half of the country is paying for the other, and the part of the country that pays is not represented in government, that can be really problematic. Especially when SO MUCH of India's wealth is wasted through graft, yet people are willing to overlook this because they are tossed some crumbs by the political class who eat the whole cake.
>Lao Tzu teaching to respect your parents
Can't you "people" even bother to know what you're trying to criticize? Immediately announcing to everyone that you have absolutely zero idea as to what you're talking about does not exactly help your case.
Chinese philosophy is highly complex. Idk what your point is when Indian philosophy like any regional thought system runs the gambit from highly abstracted logical discussion to blatant superstitious nonsense.