Compared with Eastern philosophy, Western philosophy separates the heart and brain. What you feel with your heart is religion, and what you think with your brain is science. In the East, we have a sense of unity of heart and brain. Of course, this is also true. It’s just a metaphor

Western philosophy can be divided into several periods with different emphases, so we might as well talk about them separately

1) The Greek period. If you look at the names of the philosophical works of the Pre-Socratic period, you will know that they mainly studied the structure and operation of the universe, which generally belong to the ontology of the universe. They have the meaning of scientific soil, which is different from the East. Among them, Pida Coras and Heraclitus are odd numbers: the former has a mysterious belief in numbers, somewhat similar to the I Ching and the Indian Samkhya school; the latter has the idea of ??endless life and "all things burn in a certain measure. "Extinguished at a certain level", the spiritual essence is closer to the "Book of Changes". Socrates focused on morality and was similar to Confucius. From him, the Western spirit became prominent: Plato was close to religion, Aristotle and the later Atomists were close to science, and the later Sophists could be attributed to logic. Platonism belongs to religion

2) Early Roman period. The most famous one is "On the Nature of Things". This book is difficult to define. It might as well be regarded as an attempt to develop a scientific world view and a scientific outlook on life

3) The late Roman period and the entire Middle Ages. Needless to say, the world is mainly dominated by theology, and religion covers everything. This is of course different from our China. But among them, masters like Thomas Aquinas, who pay so much attention to logic, are probably only above the Indian Yinming. They can be said to be a mixture of religion and logic. After all, it is not possible to use "brain" to explain "heart". Completely integrated

4) Renaissance. In his early days, Bruno was a master of philosophy. He seemed closer to the Pre-Socrates, but he also had the brilliance of the Neo-Platonists in his cosmology. There was no such figure in Chinese history. The Renaissance is essentially the revival of human values. If it is a normal revival, it is close to Confucius. If it is overcorrected, it is close to Yang Zhu. This period of time is just a trend of thought, not philosophy

5) Enlightenment. Bacon's science, Spinoza's pantheism, Descartes' philosophy, Leibniz's monads. Among them, only Spinoza is worth mentioning. This man was of great character. He did not believe in traditional God, but he had unparalleled religious sentiments, which are rare in the East and the West. But after the Enlightenment, the scientific spirit soared rapidly

6) German classical philosophy. The highlight of Western philosophy. However, Kant’s First Critique, in the final analysis, is what Buddhism calls “consciousness alone.” The Second and Third Critiques are absolutely not found in the East, and are pure practical rational moral self-discipline. Haha, whose thinking in the East takes this path? ? No, Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling all followed the path of rational self-discipline, that is, the path of self-logic. There is no such thing in the East

7) Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the former one is similar to In the Hinayana of Buddhism, all dharmas are selfless and have outflows, all suffering, and finally return to the ultimate nirvana. As for Nietzsche, logically speaking, what he did to oppose Schopenhauer can be seen as progressing from "false view" to "medium" View', but he really went too far and went to the extreme, becoming a Dionysian philosophy

8) After Nietzsche. There are many factions. Bergson seems to have Heraclitus, needless to say pragmatism, logical positivism, logical atomism, linguistic analysis, psychoanalysis, etc., going to the details. Only phenomenology and existentialism are the absolute centerpieces. I think, these two This trend of thought somewhat echoes the Eastern way of thinking. This meaning is the historical significance of these two trends of thought, that is, the way of thinking of the heart and brain as one. Husserl did it logically, that is, from Western philosophy. Starting from the heart of the mind, this transformation was invisibly guided; in Heidegger, especially in his later articles, it was completely obvious; Merleau-Ponty was still going in circles in epistemology, but it was also an inevitable step in the Western philosophical system One step; Sartre's thought has gone through several stages, but in the ultimate sense it is nothing more than this. Rather than saying that he is a philosopher, it is better to simply say that he is a thinker

9) There are a few big figures who did not mention, Such as Jaspers, Dilthey, Derrida, etc. I think these people are nothing, they are just rolling between a few tracks, but I respect their thinking ability.

The most valuable postmodernists are Fuchs and Gilles Deleuze. These are the most thorough humanistic thinkers. They both break and establish reality, and they ultimately end up with the liberation of human nature. If they can be realized, it will really be a worldly thing. Pure Land

Having written so much, I have sorted out my Western philosophy. I hope you won’t get tired of reading it