Are there cultural differences in first principles (Western vs. Eastern philosophy)?

Absolutely, and the differences are quite significant. I'll try to explain it to you in plain language.

You can imagine "First Principles" as the "foundation" of a house. Everyone needs to lay a foundation, but the materials used and the method of laying it can vary greatly.

Western "First Principles": Like playing with LEGO bricks

Western philosophy, especially starting from ancient Greek thinkers like Aristotle, has a strong penchant for "getting to the bottom of things." They believe that anything complex can be broken down into a pile of the most basic, simplest, and indivisible "building blocks." These "building blocks" are the first principles.

Key feature: 'Deconstruction': Taking a car apart into its components, then breaking those components down into screws and steel plates, and finally analyzing them at the molecular and atomic level. They believe that by understanding how the most basic atoms work, one can deduce the operating principles of the entire car.
Pursuit of 'Sole Truth': They tend to believe that this "foundation" is objective, universal, and applicable everywhere. Examples include axioms in physics, definitions in mathematics, and syllogisms in logic. It is static and definite.
Method: 'Linear': Deriving B from A, and then C from B. Like a straight line, the logic is clear, moving forward step by step.

Therefore, Western first principles thinking is more like a scientist or engineer, dissecting the world with a scalpel to find the most core and solid "fact" or "axiom."

Eastern "First Principles": More like appreciating a landscape painting

Eastern philosophy (such as the ideas of Laozi, Zhuangzi, and the I Ching in China) doesn't particularly like to break things down into such minute pieces. They feel that if you dissect mountains, rivers, clouds, and trees into independent elements, the "artistic conception" or "essence" of the painting is lost.

Key feature: 'Connection': Eastern thought is more concerned with the "relationships" and "connections" between things. They believe that all things are not isolated but interact and influence each other within a vast network. The operating rules of this "network," or rather, the "momentum" that drives the changes in all things, is what is most fundamental.
Pursuit of 'Dynamic Balance': The Eastern "foundation" is not a rigid stone but something like "water." It emphasizes "Dao," "Qi," and "Yin-Yang." These are not entities but describe the laws of change, balance, and cycles. For example, "solitary Yin cannot generate, solitary Yang cannot grow" speaks to a principle of dynamic balance.
Method: 'Systemic': They view problems not as a straight line, but as a circle or a network. They consider the right time, favorable location, and harmonious human relations, looking at the overall trend and pattern. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is a typical example; they don't just treat a sore throat but also ask about your recent routine, emotions, and diet, because they believe a person is a small universe that needs holistic regulation.

Therefore, Eastern first principles are more like a sage or an artist, stepping back to observe the interaction and flow of the entire system, finding the "fundamental law" or "trend" that drives the harmonious coexistence of all things.

In simple summary:

Western: Finding the "smallest brick" (What). It's a noun, an entity.
Eastern: Finding the "laws of how things operate" (How). It's a verb, a relationship.

Neither of these two ways of thinking is inherently superior or inferior. In scientific research and technological development, the Western "deconstruction method" is incredibly powerful and highly efficient. However, when it comes to understanding complex social systems, life wisdom, and organizational management, the Eastern "systemic view" appears to offer greater depth and foresight.

A truly capable person can often switch seamlessly between these two modes of thinking depending on the problem at hand.