There is an irony there. Or maybe it's a trap. We speak of naming things as akin to understanding them. And we have grown quite used to being able to control things we understand.
Yet, I am fairly confident we can name more things than we can control. So, I don't know why that is such a common misunderstanding. One I often have.
I’ve had a large number of conversations over the years with people over the decision whether or not to pursue a diagnosis for a mental disorder. Naming something doesn’t give you a ticket to understand something, but it does give you something to find in the card catalog or Google. If you have both eyes open, you can answer “Do I have an anxiety disorder?” or “Do I have bipolar disorder?” and understand some of the consequences, both negative and positive, of labeling yourself that way. It’s not a truly binary choice, but when you apply these labels to yourself it both exposes you to the effects of stigma and makes treatment and support available, depending on circumstances. I say “choice” because for many, the diagnosis is a choice… a capable adult who is not a danger to themself has a lot of latitude here.
If you think that “we” speak of naming things as akin to understanding them, then there are very, very few people I know who are in this group “we”.
A name is just a substitute for the infinite complexity of the universe. We can’t understand the universe, so we have to name things, create models, and understand the models as a proxy.
I am willing to bet I can find several text books that include phrases about the power of naming things. Pretty sure SICP does. And this is ignoring how common the trope is in fantasy.
"naming is the origin of all particular things" - Tao Te Ching.
That quote, first page, stopped me in my tracks for a long time.
I often recall it when I'm tempted by the naming (categorization, abstracting, ...) of some X imagining I understand more about it than I actually do. Similar to as you note, I think.
Oriental philosophy has had a lot to say about names and their vacuity, but at the same time constructed its own extremely elaborate abstractions and conceptual systems. They don't give due credit to abstract and conceptual thinking though. It's not like we can understand the world any other way, we have to use names and abstractions, but apparently that comes in conflict with spiritual practice. I think the practice of stopping abstract thinking during meditation is a way to escape from reality into a self induced stated of peace, but it does nothing to help you solve practical problems, for which you would still have to engage in name based conceptual thinking.
The point of dropping the abstractions during meditation is not to deny the usefulness of them. It's to prevent getting caught up in abstractions to the point of extreme delusion. In this way, it improves the executive function of the mind which can have practical benefits. I view meditation as a way of giving the brain some "fresh air" and keeping abstractions in check.
One view of of thoughts is that there are 2 types of them: one type focused around analysis and problem solving, and a second type focused around the stories the "self" invents and gets absorbed in. This analysis also correlates with different brain activation patterns.
Many people's minds spend most of the time in the second type of thoughts("self"), and it can be very helpful to have less of those, both for peace and other psychological benefits, and for having more mental power and clarity for useful thoughts.
But in the context of ancient India, China, where eastern philosophies came from, people don't need that much thought most of the time, but spiritual qualities can be very useful in small interdependent peasent communities.
I find the phrase "oriental philosophy" to be problematic in addition to being quite vague.
Additionally, your statement that this "oriental philosophy"(?) doesn't give "due credit" to abstractions, which seems like a very wide dismissal of an undefined subset of philosophical groups.
Then you go on to dismiss meditation as a practice as well, as an "escape from reality". I am assuming that you would agree that since abstractions and definitions are important, the term "reality" isn't well-defined within your statement.
I am curious as to what you mean in general, because it seems like you're trying to tear down some sort of philosophy that we aren't privy to without offering any meaningful alternative counterpoint.
>I find the phrase "oriental philosophy" to be problematic in addition to being quite vague. oriental philosophy
And I find your tone to be unnecessarily confrontational. People have been writing about consistent differences between Eastern and Western philosophies for at least a hundred years. Hell, there's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to Eastern philosophy[1]. I'm curious as to what exactly you find "problematic" about GP's post.
Yet, I am fairly confident we can name more things than we can control. So, I don't know why that is such a common misunderstanding. One I often have.