Western culture is more direct and straightforward, while Eastern is the opposite. "Face saving, excuses, bs, white lies, hypocrisy, beating around the bush, etc." are all under the umbrella of lies in the West, not in the East.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" - Mark Twain
Extrapolated resources:
[1] https://www.bible.com/bible/105/MAT.5.37.NCV
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrEZwe1nbBU&t=226s
[3] https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYePOH_ypzb/
[4] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14142060/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_...
Maybe they are in the umbrella of lies in real of philosophy, but western culture does not see them as a bad thing. West goes out of its way to defend outright lies as long as they are made to help business get money or get more power in politics.
West lives in post-truth world where truth does not matter at all and ability to lie is rewarded. And those who made it happen are getting more powerful, riches, even winning elections and are praised for their ability to convince people that lies are true.
And of course Japan's indigenous religion(s) have always been about venerating spirits, not looking within.
> Buddhism is the largest religion in the continent
It also says that Islam is the largest religion in Asia.
If your source of knowledge of these religons is visiting Wikipedia in search of a pedantic gotcha quotation, I don't think you have any qualifications for contributing to this subthread. Try at least reading a substantial book about Hindu popular devotion, which doesn't involve meditation, and spend some time in India watching it. Hinduism is a million and one things, but most of them are (as I said) the domain of a few.
It’s hard to not notice.
> "Asia" is rarely used in the expansive definition that encompasses also the Middle East which is necessary for Islam to be called the majority religion. Even Pakistan rarely gets included. The OP presumably wasn't thinking of Islam in his definition of Asia, as Islam is obviously an external-directed religion.
That’s fair. But you’re the one who said the continent.
> If your source of knowledge of these religons is visiting Wikipedia in search of a pedantic gotcha quotation, I don't think you have any qualifications for contributing to this subthread. Try at least reading a substantial book about Hindu popular devotion, which doesn't involve meditation, and spend some time in India watching it. Hinduism is a million and one things, but most of them are (as I said) the domain of a few.
Now the framing has completely moved. Your motivation for replying was because of these assumptions around Buddhism. Yeah? Well the same goes for Hinduism or whatever religion is far-enough-to-the-East. (That someone initially characterized The West and The East with this dichotomous thinking wasn’t a problem for anyone here so that’s presumably fine.) So when I mention Hinduism it’s not because I know anything about Hinduism, compared to your venerable self. It’s exactly because Buddhism and Hinduism are closely associated in the typical, dumb, brutish brains of Westerners like me; meditation, yoga (associated with Hinduism, associated with meditation), yogis, “mysticism”.
Hence why Buddhism? Not because we KNOW Hinduism better than we know Lipton Tea. But because the associations are similar.
But it’s about size across the continent one minute, even though the previous minute indigenous religion in the archipelago nation of Japan was an important a question as answering the question about Asia with Buddhism.
It’s such a weird idea it feels like pure theater.
In fact it is such a strange concept that it indicates that Anthropic has not the slightest genuine internal concept of what ethics is really about.
“We need ethics, let’s partner with the church” is cartoonish in its foolishness.
An easy way of seeing part way into this is to note that the ethical complaints we make against the church as institution are all founded on principles explicitly taught by the same church.
But if you mean that ethics came from orthodox Christianity, or is predicated on the existence of Christ, I'd have to ask to elaborate, though I'm sure I misunderstand.
Virtue ethics were developed by Plato, arguably Kantian and utilitarian systems attenpt to come to ethics through reason and don't mention religion.
Religion, truth, and time are interpreted differently between them. Western thinking considers absolutes, right & wrong, black & white. Eastern thinking considers truth relative and time cyclical.
Of all the books that could be scraped, wonder if any translations from other philosophies or sources could have (or had) an impact (or not) on the process.
Will certain flavors or profiles of ethics exist, or a kind of poly-ethics?