Asian Philosophy Study Guide Cards

What are the three reasons Van Norden Gives for why multicultural philosophy should be taught in philosophy departments?

1. Practical Use —> China is a growing super power.

2. Philosophical Use —> Expands our philosophical views.

3. Diversity Use → Differs and broadens your thinking and views, views beyond demographic

Reproduce a version of the quality argument from Van Norden, explain why Van Norden thinks it does not succeed.

V1. P1. Non-western philosophy is less valuable than All western philosophy.

P2. If p1, then western philosophy should be the foundation for all philosophy departments.

C. So, western philosophy should be the foundation for all philosophy departments.

Norden disagrees due to the amount of subjectiveness in this claim, and the lack of sufficient evidence to support objective “less value.” (P1 is from people who aren’t really familiar with/ non-western philosophy, grant that you have even if that’s the case, the arguments in both are similar in structure. What’s the reason as to why you think the counterparts are bad?

Why is is plausible that Confucius’s Tian is consistent with the existence of a God of Classical Theism?

According to Kongzi, Tian is akin to god in a sense that, Tian is agent-like (Book 3), ground of moral good (Analects 8:19), and the moral law giver/distributer. (Analects 6:28)

To Mengzi, Creates Human Kind, Providentially Guides the world

What are the two primary texts for Confucianism, and who are they traditionally said to be written by?

The Analects —> Written by partially Confucius, partially his disciples, and others who have carried on his stories.

The Mengzi —> Attributed to Mengzi (Mencius)

What are the three great Confucian virtues, and which is the primary one?

1. Ren —> Goodness, care for others

2. Wisdom —> Appropriate judging, implies intelligence, but having intelligence doesn’t always imply wisdom, and you’re committed to the other virtues.

3. Humility —> Kinda obvious, being able to recognize and admit when you’re wrong.

REN IS PRIMARY ALLOWS US TO DEVELOP A BASIS FOR THE OTHER LESSER VIRTUES

What are the two main Daoist texts and who are they (respectively) attributed to?

The Daodejing - By: Laozi

The Zhuangzi - By: Zhuang Zhou

Describe naturalist and supernaturalist readings of what the Dao is as expressed in the Daodejing.

Naturalist —> The Dao in a naturalist sense is the essence of things, “It’s what makes waterfalls flow, winds blow, etc.” Everything is self produced, and also has an explanation for itself.

Supernaturalist —> What is the Dao in supernaturalist sense? Transcendent, ineffable, eternal, explains all of reality. The “ultimate explainer.” Almost like a “god”.

1. Creates Qi

2. Light and Dark Yin and Yang,

3. Heaven Earth Humanity

4. THE REST OF REALITY.

What is the Daodejing argument FOR the Dao, in PtoC format?

P1. No being can explain why there are any beings at all (premise).

P2. But something explains why there are any beings at all (premise).

C. So, there is something that is not a being and explains why there are any beings at all. (P1-P2, proof by contradiction)

What is Zappulli’s case/argument from the Daodejing to think Dao is a good candidate for a perfect being, and what are the further God-like attributes he says the Dao has according to the Daodejing?

Zappulli argues that The Dao is the ultimate explanation, the explanation for everything in reality (book 42), the Dao is ineffable (book 1). The Dao is at the top of the greatness hierarchy in the Daodejing(book 25), human takes earth, earth takes heaven, heaven takes Dao as model, and Dao takes its own ways. It also has Daoist specific great making properties, maximal imagery and completion, and being nothing. (Lacking non-great making properties by not having a form.)

Further Attributes include, Creator (in the Daodejing), Divine Simplicity—> it has no parts therefore no form, and Divine Aseity —> the Dao is completely independent of anything else, it stands alone and takes its own way.

What is the main interpretive issue in the Zhuangzi and how does Van Norden attempt to resolve it?

The main issue in the Zhuangzi is a lot of contradiction, Zhuangzi employs a lot of skeptical and relativistic arguments, but they are aimed at CALMING our fears and anxieties to get us in touch with the Dao.

What are the six features that the Orthodox Hindu Philosophical Schools all have in common?

1. Acceptance of scripture

2. Samsara cycle (reincarnation)

3. Karma (across lifetimes)

4. Moksa (release from Samsara)

5. Atman is Brahman (Pure consciousness is ultimate reality.)

6. Eternality of Time

What does Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta Hinduism say about the relationship between us and Saguna Brahman, and Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman?

Saguna Brahman → Saguna Brahman is the divine entity “with properties”.

Nirguna Brahman → Nirguna Brahman is the divine entity which is so transcendent such that it’s “property-less”.

Us and Saguna Brahman —> We are both Brahman in different ways. (NEED MORE HELP ON THIS TOPIC.)

Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman —> Saguna is less fundamental than Nirguna, Nirguna Brahman is fundamental reality as it is. They aren’t separate, just different layers.

What is Shankara’s main argument for Nirguna Brahman in premise-to-conclusion format?

P1. Nothing which is changing can explain why there is anything changing at all.

P2. Something explains why there is anything changing at all.

C. Therefore, something unchanging explains why there is anything changing change at all.

Describe the commonalities and differences between Ramanuia’s Visistadvaita Vedanta conception of God, and the Western conception of God, described by McNabb and Baldwin

Commonalities → God is perfect, Triple-O God, the fundamental explanation of all reality, and God is committed to helping all individuals attain salvation.

Differences → The worlds exists in ‘God’, and God has infinitely many attributes, and God is something like the material cause of the universe.

What is the Prabhupada-inspired Vaisnava theory of consciousness (PIVTC), and what composes a ‘subtle body’, according to Gupta?

PIVTC → The self is an immaterial, eternal, bearer of consciousness and is distinct from other individuals. The self has three aspects related to it: the self itself, its physical body, and its ‘subtle body’.

Subtle Body → Made up of three things, mind (manas), reasoning power (buddhi), and ego (ahankara). The subtle body stays with self throughout reincarnations.

What are the commonalities and alleged points of conflict between Advaita Vedanta Hinduism and Classical Theism, what are McNabb and Baldwin’s responses to these alleged points of conflict?

Commonalities → Property-less, Unchanging, Pure Consciousness/Bliss

Points of Conflict →

Impersonal: Brahman is not a person, whereas Classical Theist God is. Response? God is not a person univocally, rather God is a person analogically. (They agree with this one.)

Non-dualistic: There are not two types of objects/things for the Advaitan. But for the classical theist, there are two types of things. Response? God is not an object/thing, and so classical theists can strictly say there are not multiple types of objects.

Material Cause: Brahman is the material cause of the universe, whereas the classical theist god is not. Response? We agree and can therefore say God is the material cause of the universe analogically. (Materials making things up.)

Reconstruct Gupta’s argument that God is a person in premise-to-conclusion format.

(1) God is the greatest possible being.

(2) Anything with the greatest possible being is such that it possesses the greatest combination of great-making properties.

(3) Therefore, God possesses the greatest combination of great-making properties (1-2, universal instantiation)

(4) Anything with the greatest combination of great-making properties is such that it is a person.

(5) Therefore, God is a person

Briefly describe the evidentially problem of evil, the Soul-building Theodicy and Skeptical Thiest responses to it, and how Gupta (generally) thinks the Bhagvata Purana supports these responses. (Don’t worry about reproducing stories, just capable how they are relevant.)

P1. There are gratuitous horrendous evils.

P2. If there are gratuitous horrendous evils, then this is evidence that there is no God.

C. This is evidence that there is no God.

Soul Making response → God allows natural and moral suffering to allow for significant moral virtues/growth. To have genuine empathy, one most experience genuine suffering.

Skeptical Response → For all we know, every horrendous evil which seems gratuitous actually has some further greater good it realizes. So for all we know, P1 is false. Thus, we should be indifferent to wether we know P1 is true.

Bhagvata Purana Supports → God actualizes the following greater goods through both horrific and non-horrific suffering. The possibility of developing robust moral character sometimes produces happiness from cultivating a deeper loving relationship with god. Skeptical Thiesm BhP: God could very well have greater goods realized by horrendous suffering that we have no cognitive access to. Supported by Battle of Kuruksetra.

Why do Gupta and Gallagher think that reincarnation and karmic mechanisms together virtually guarantee universal salvation aka moksa?

Given the fact that individuals have endless lifetimes to attain salvation, karmic mechanisms teach soul-building lessons over various lifetimes, and therefore there is a non-zero chance that at any given lifetime the individual will achieve moksa, the likelihood someone will attain moksa is very high.