I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:08 pm

KT,

Excellent post =D> .

Religion arises via attibuting agency to things that happen. Humans were immersed in nature with a variety of life forms, flora and fauna, all struggling to live. And all doing stuff.


This is what I'm getting at when I say that religion could be due to how people interpreted their experiences. Attributing agency to things (like nature) is key to this discussion IMV. It will be interesting to see how Prismatic deals with this, as it so clearly effects what he's insisting, and other salient points that you made.
Last edited by Fanman on Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:37 pm

Fanman wrote:KT,

Excellent post =D> .

Religion arises via attibuting agency to things that happen. Humans were immersed in nature with a variety of life forms, flora and fauna, all struggling to live. And all doing stuff.


This is what I'm getting at when I say that religion could be due to how people interpreted their experiences. Attributing agency to things is key to this discussion IMV. It will be interesting to see how Prismatic deals with this, as it so clearly effects what he's insisting, and other salient points that you made.

Thank you. You are much more patient and polite than I am. Must be your Christian background ( :-D ) When I see patterns of interaction coupled with certainty that remind me of similar patterns 'out there' that have a lot of power, my patience is low and I can get downright rude. I know this does not help, but I am also skeptical that continued discussion helps in any way. I really don't know what to do with the dogmatic 'rational' people of the world.

The dogmatic openly irrational I find easier to deal with and actually I think they have vastly less power and influence.

Yes, your way of phrasing it works also: how they interpreted their experiences.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:32 pm

KT,

Thanks also. If I am that way, I do believe that my Christian background may have something to do with it. I understand what you mean about the powerful, similar thoughts regarding patterns run through my mind in these discussion. I'm not calling anyone a bully, but I've had experiences with bullies as an adult in positions of power (in the work place), so I'm pretty used to dealing with them. That might explain my patience and politeness. Giving into their domination and/or eliciting an emotional response is what bullies crave, because they want to make you seem irrational. Their energy levels are also off the scale in my experience, they can go for ever in their pursuit. They don't deal well with confident articulate people though, as they're difficult to dominate, unless they have a clique... With regards to what to do with the dogmatic 'rational' people of the world, keep a safe distance!
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:15 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:As usual you are ignorant of Buddhism-proper and how it is to be applied properly, that caused you to come to the above silly conclusions.


As others have in turn pointed out above, when you make this argument, you are only iterating that until others share your own assessment of Buddhism-proper they are -- by definition -- understanding it improperly. Which is why over and again I propose that you take Buddhism-proper out into the world of actual human interaction and situate it in a context most here will be familiar with.

Like the one I provided above:

If you find yourself in a situation that involves, say, reacting to a close friend who is about to be deported as an "illegal immigrant", how attached to or detached from an actual existential self might you be?


And:

If you are that immigrant about to be uprooted from loved ones and sent packing back to Guatemala, it may be considerably more difficult to detach "I" from the actual reality of the flesh and blood self here and now.


Or, sure, choose another context.

Instead, you provide us with yet more "general description" contraptions to grapple with "intellectually".

Prismatic567 wrote:
    As far as the secular individual is concerned, we can not live in the absolute level of reality that has the characteristic or the true nature of the “empty self” or “no-self.”
    In our worldly lives, we can not live in the absolute level of non-dualism and indiscrimination.

    The aim of mindfulness practice for secular people is not to transcend the cycle of life and death that is proclaimed by Buddhism as a religion [not Buddhism proper].
    Instead, the significance of internalizing and integrating the essence of Buddhist psychology organically into one’s self-system lies in enlightening the mind to wisdom such as non-attachment, letting-go to alleviate our suffering, and coping with the uncertain challenges of life.

    We can be mindfully aware of our selves and experiences at the relative level, while simultaneously recognizing the absolute reality of phenomena (Gyatso, 2002).

    Presumably, in fact, mindfulness fully practiced will lead one along the “middle way” (Hanh, 1999)—i.e., seeking a path between the self and no-self.

    We conceptualize the aim here as the mindful self, which takes the self as a process with awareness.
    The more self-as-process is active, the more the person experiences his or her behaviors as volitional and autonomous, and the more his or her actions are experienced as wholehearted and authentic (Ryan and Rigby, 2015).


Pick any one of them and situate it out in the world that we live in.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 33009
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:29 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

My point is we should put aside all beliefs and focus on what is testable, justifiable and provable, i.e. reality that is empirically and philosophically justifiable.
In this case, it is not just "physical reality", but one that is overseen by philosophical justifications cover pure physical reality and the self [conscious and subconscious].


If we want to find an answer to an empirical question then yes. But the nature of this topic is religion and spirituality, and whilst you may be certain that there is no reality behind the claims made by the religious, others are not. Hence beliefs and the reality/non-reality of them are fundamental to the discussion. We cannot just dismiss them as though they have no bearing on the situation, after all there may be some kind of truth to them. In looking at this from a purely empirical perspective, we may be ignoring something real that we are unaware of.

I did not state 'purely empirical' perspective. Read my post again and note,
"one that is overseen by philosophical justifications [that] cover pure physical reality [empirical] and the [empirical] self [conscious and subconscious]."

So what is 'real' must be empirically and philosophically verifiable.
As such, theists must show empirical and philosophical justification to prove the God they claimed existing as real.
But theists, since the emergence of the idea of God, has NEVER been able to provide empirical and philosophical justification to prove God is real.

In general, the belief in God is based on faith which imply there is no intention to seek to prove God is empirically and philosophically real.

My point is, for any question of whatever is claimed to be real, we must resort to empirical and philosophical justifications.

The most obvious empirical and philosophical justifications on the question of God is what is in the theists' brain and mind. This approach is more realistic than hunting for a God that is so illusive which I have demonstrated is a transcendental idea and an illusion of the brain/mind to deal with an existential crisis.

True, there will be different views in every topic, but in the case of;
1. DNA-RNA wise all humans are embedded with a will-to-live
2. To live a human being has to avoid death.
3. To avoid death a human being is 'programmed' to fear death among other primal drives.
4. The above operate instinctively at the subconscious level of the mind.

The above is very evident and can be empirically inferred and verified.
So far, there are no alternative views to the above.
Do you have any or heard of any from others?

EVEN, if say, God created humans, the above are still valid and can be empirically inferred and verified.
In this case, we can question the condition god exists, but the premises of 1, 2, 3 and 4 are still true empirically.
Even if there are new scientific discovery, 1-4 above will still be true.


The problem is I don't agree with this. Where is the empirical verification? If its as plain as you're presenting, there should be many links you can provide supporting exactly this. Not something that has to be interpreted as what you're claiming, but stating exactly what you've argued here. Your arguments aren't doing the trick, so far.

First you can verify point 1 personally, generally you would strive to survive, avoid death and has conscious fear of death intermittently which goes away. [A]
As I had stated, you can do a scientific test by asking every human being of the same experience and view as [A] and all normal human beings' response will be the same as yours. Those who are different, say the suicidal are mentally ill.
Another point is, if one can have a fear of death consciously, it is likely to have arisen from the subconscious mind initially. This can be verified empirical by studying the neural networks in the brain. There are tons of research on this topic.
Thus the above are the empirical evidences.

Thus while we will respect different views [contentious], the premises 1-4 are still true and are not contentious


Which you need to demonstrate with corroborating evidence (because you're claiming a fact). I don't think that anyone is going to agree you until you do, and maybe there just isn't any? If you can provide substantive evidence that all religions are based upon the subconscious fear of death, then you have a good case, but your arguments, links and excerpts are open to interpretation. If you can't find any precise evidence, you might as well give up arguing this, as it is such a huge claim.

As stated I have provided the empirical basis for premise 1-4.
I have already justify ALL religions' main focus in on death, thus fear of death, e.g. John 3:16 in Christianity and from the texts of all mainstream religions.

It cannot be 'maybe not'.

Whatever the beliefs a person has, they MUST involved the person's brain and mind.
Whatever the beliefs you have have must happened in your brain and mind, not in mine, someone's else or somewhere else.


The brain and mind are undoubtedly involved in beliefs, and from an empirical perspective that is where we start, but we don't know for certain if there is any reality to the beliefs, so completely ruling them out as a factor doesn't seem correct from my perspective.

The claim of the reality behind theistic religion, i.e. God [ultimate] is a pure transcendental idea and it can never be empirical. [note this point in the other thread, re concept is not an idea]
Since what is purely a transcendental idea is never empirical, God as a transcendental idea cannot be considered under the perspective of reality.

What is really real about God are the neural activities in the brain/mind of theists generating the transcendental idea and transcendental illusion of God as real.

You keep saying there are other reasons but provided no evidence.


I said that one of the reasons for religious belief could be how people interpreted their experiences. There is also feelings, intuitions, cognitively, perceptions, efficacy, expediency, reflection, introspection, fear, love, etc... In reducing all religions to the subconscious fear of death you are not considering the actual diversity of the human experience. How do you know precisely what is subconscious and what isn't? I'm quite sure that if you search for evidence of why people have religious beliefs, you will find a plethora of examples. I'm not sure if I would call that "evidence", because there are so many different opinions on the matter.

Note the feelings, intuitions, cognitively, perceptions, efficacy, expediency, reflection, introspection, fear, love[?], etc... you mentioned are all grounded on the subconscious fear of death, thus to avoid death thus to facilitate procreation.
'love' is more about procreation.
I have also explain the difference between what is subconscious and conscious is very obvious.

If you ask religionists and theists, there will be a wide spectrum of reasons, but they all will be reduced to the subconscious fear of death.
It is the same if you ask question 'why and how to be healthy' there will also be a spectrum of reasons, but all the reasons can be reduced in principle to the subconscious fear of death, to avoid death to facilitate procreation.

My points and conclusions are not ultimate but opened to questions, but they are still useful while being opened to questioning upon have put through the most thorough questionings to date.


You've rejected and every counter-view and answered every question by insisting you are right. Even now, you claim that the subconscious fear of death is the cause of all religions with certainty, as if it were proven. Like I said, your posts can be read, this open minded exhortation is just not the case. But then I suppose you can't say what you actually think "No one can prove me wrong" :lol:.

I have rejected whatever counter views that are not soundly justified.
If I had rejected your views, then you can always re-counter why I claim your argument is not justified.
I believe I have and we all should comply with the agreed rules of arguments and discussions.

Btw, I don't believe in 'certainty' like theists do and have never done that.

My stance is;
My argument stands as long as there are no valid counter arguments to prove it is false, which is very reasonable.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:59 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:True, there will be different views in every topic, but in the case of;

    1. DNA-RNA wise all humans are embedded with a will-to-live
    2. To live a human being has to avoid death.
    3. To avoid death a human being is 'programmed' to fear death among other primal drives.
    4. The above operate instinctively at the subconscious level of the mind.
The problem with this is primarily number three and how it leads into 4. Animals do not have a subconscious fear of death, they have a fear of things like predators. At least as far as we know. The fears deal with, yes, things that can cause death, but they do not have a fear of death, I would guess, since most would not have a conception of death.

Fear of spiders is triggered by spiders. People who are afraid of spiders do not have an unconscious fear of death. The have a conscious fear of spiders and an unconcscious one also, perhaps. The reason they have this is very likely evolutionary, but THERE NEED NOT BE ANY DEATH COMPONENT. All the DNA needs us to fear is the trigger. There need not be a unconscious idea of death underlying it.

Animals will protect themselves from things that scare them because of their instincts. There need be no conception of death. Natural selection has led to animals that are afraid of things that cause harm because this allows them to live. They simply have the fear. There is no unconcious death idea invovled.

Humans, unlike most other animals are CONSCIOUS that they will die. This may or may not be a factor in religion. I assume that it affects some of the beliefs involved in religious systems of belief, but given what religions and does, it is only a part of religions purpose.

You have provided no evidence, none, that there is some unconcsious idea of death involved in fears and anxieties.

Yes, those fears may be in place to prevent deaths, but that does not mean there is an unconscious fear of death. do you see the difference?

Natural selection will lead to us being afraid of things that are threats, but this does not mean that individual minds or brains have an unconscious fear of death. The will have fears of threats, because this will lead them to avoid and protect themselves from the threats. In fact it is more efficient to simply have the

evolutionary trait

to be afraid of heights

so we take precaution around them.

There is no need to have a middle man step.

Height---->triggers my fear of death unconsciously------->I am afraid of the height and step back.

Fear of height------->step back

The second is a vastly superior evolutionary trait. I don't need the height to trigger my fear of death and then I take action. I am afraid of heights or take caution around them due to the anxiety they create DIRECTLY.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that for some odd reason evolution added this extra step where animals (including us) unconsciously bring up the death issue so that then we are afraid. There is no reason to do this. and it is less efficient. And there is no evidence of this.

Your contention is there is no subconscious fear of death.
Point here is, because it is subconscious, we cannot consciously knows the subconscious fear of death.
It is the same with many primal instincts and emotions, we are not conscious of them, but then scientists are able to infer the full mechanisms of these instincts and emotions that operate within the subconscious levels.

Take for example, the emotion of anger.
The emotion of anger operates at the subconscious and conscious levels.
Many of the responses of anger happened in the brain and body at the subconscious level without the person being conscious of it. This is why some murderers killed spontaneously in response to the subconscious levels trigger of the 'anger' emotion.
The person is aware of one's anger emotion consciously after feeling certain reactions of the body or seeing someone killed or other consequences that resulted from the anger responses.

The above mechanism of the emotion of fear is the same for that of anger.
The emotion of fear also operates at the subconscious and conscious levels. [A]
This principle is supported by tons of research on emotion and emotion of fear.
Thus when one sees a spider, the brain interprets the data of a spider and reacts accordingly initially as the subconscious level, then one is conscious one is has a fear of spider.

BUT, the fear of death is very unique from all other fears
To avoid death, it would be logical to fear death.
Re [A] this fear of death operates at the subconscious and conscious levels.
Thus when the person sees or learn of death empirically, there will be triggers at the subconscious levels initially as a the first response.

BUT unlike spiders or any other threats, it is totally different with the knowledge of death.
In the very unique case of the empirical sighting and knowledge of death, whatever happened in the subconscious level re death is SUPPRESSED at the conscious level.
This is because if this fear is not suppressed, the person will be paralyzed with the conscious fear of death at all times, since death is a certainty.
In the case of the spider and other threats, it is possible for one to run away and avoid these potential threat of death.
But death is a certainty, and the threat of death trigger fears, therefore the fear of death as the subconscious level must be SUPPRESSED. If it leaks to the conscious mind, in the majority of cases, it is only temporary to ensure humans are not paralyzed by this conscious fear of death.

While the conscious fear of death is SUPPRESSED, the subconscious fear of death is still active at the subconscious levels of the mind.
This is because by the time the person is, say 5-10-15, they would have observed real death of humans [kins, friends, etc.] and their subconscious mind would have such a knowledge and thus react accordingly, which is very turbulent and tremendous.
While this is very active and desperate, humans are evolved with inhibitors that suppressed all these desperate reaction of the subconscious fear of death from reaching the conscious mind except intermittently.

If you are aware, within psychology and psychiatry, the resultant of suppressed feelings and emotions result in all kinds of psychosis which are not easy to trace.
This desperate and terrible suppressed subconscious fear of death exudes [through leakages] a spectrum of indirect feelings of anxieties, despairs, loss of meaning, Angst, and the likes.
These terrible uneasy feeling happens to all humans beings and the majority turned to religions to soothe these existential pains and sufferings.
Because the theists as majority has resolved their existential pains, most would not be bothered to trace their belief in religion to their source, i.e. the subconscious fear of death.

The only religion [as far as I know] that [quite explicitly] trace the existential pains and sufferings to the subconscious fear of death is Buddhism.
This is after the Buddha noted all theistic religions were not able to fully resolve the existential pains while some has contributed to more sufferings.
Note the Buddha Story, the 4NT, the 8FP and other core principles.

All the other mainstream religions' focus in also on death and thus the subconscious fear of death.
Believers will give a range and spectrum of reasons why they are religious, but on deeper analysis, they are traceable to the subconscious fear of death.

Hope you get the point why the subconscious fear of death is inherent within the subconscious mind and as a special case is suppressed from the conscious mind, except intermittently.

You lost it when you bring in animals fear of death because animals do not have a 'conscious mind' and fear of spiders,heights, etc. cannot be compared to the unique fear of death [a thought not an object].

Thus my point;
The root cause of all religions is the subconscious fear of death.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:29 am

One interesting point from the above;
"This is because by the time the person is, say 5-10-15, they would have observed real death of humans [kins, friends, etc.] and their subconscious mind would have such a knowledge and thus react accordingly, which is very turbulent and tremendous."

I believe if a human being is not exposed to the concept of death at all, his subconscious fear would not be triggered with the subconscious fear of death. His subconscious will not have any data of possible death.
In this case, this person will not experience the indirect unease, anxieties, despairs, Angst indirectly from the subconscious fear of death.
Such a person will be genuinely indifferent to the fundamental purpose of religion and theism.

This is the basis behind the Buddha Story [myth] where the prince was prevented from the knowledge of illness, old age and death [corpse] so that his subconscious fear of death will not be triggered.

But nature is such the majority of human beings will not be able to escape the knowledge of inevitable mortality.
As such the subconscious fear of death will be activated in the majority of human beings and all human beings will suffer from the existential pains. The majority would have turned to religions and theism because it the easiest and most effective balm to soothe those existential pains.

I believe those who are mentally handicapped and unable to process the knowledge of death will not be triggered with the subconscious fear of death thus will be blissful to the threat. [ignorance is bliss].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:04 am

Prismatic,

I have already justify ALL religions' main focus in on death, thus fear of death, e.g. John 3:16 in Christianity and from the texts of all mainstream religions.


Very clearly, you haven't.

Note the feelings, intuitions, cognitively, perceptions, efficacy, expediency, reflection, introspection, fear, love[?], etc... you mentioned are all grounded on the subconscious fear of death, thus to avoid death thus to facilitate procreation.
'love' is more about procreation.
I have also explain the difference between what is subconscious and conscious is very obvious.


Hasty generalisation.

If you ask religionists and theists, there will be a wide spectrum of reasons, but they all will be reduced to the subconscious fear of death.


In your reasoning.

Btw, I don't believe in 'certainty' like theists do and have never done that.


Your posts can be read.
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:28 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

I have already justify ALL religions' main focus in on death, thus fear of death, e.g. John 3:16 in Christianity and from the texts of all mainstream religions.


Very clearly, you haven't.

I have in principles and given examples at various times, e.g. Christianity [John 3:16, focus on eschatology], Buddhism [Buddha Story], Islam [30% of eschatology], Hinduism [Reincarnation].
I could into depth in the above. For me to convince you further I would have to present a lot of data. Perhaps you can read into the above religions and counter otherwise.

Note the feelings, intuitions, cognitively, perceptions, efficacy, expediency, reflection, introspection, fear, love[?], etc... you mentioned are all grounded on the subconscious fear of death, thus to avoid death thus to facilitate procreation.
'love' is more about procreation.
I have also explain the difference between what is subconscious and conscious is very obvious.

Hasty generalisation.

I am very surprised you dispute above.
Can you quote me where in Science, the concept and perspective of the subconscious mind and conscious mind is disputed.

If you ask religionists and theists, there will be a wide spectrum of reasons, but they all will be reduced to the subconscious fear of death.

In your reasoning.

Yes, my justified reasoning, note my latest response to KT above.
Do you have any counters or critique the points are false?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:58 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Your contention is there is no subconscious fear of death.
Not exactly. I am 1) saying you have not demonstrated it, and certainly not in any way that relates to religion 2) I am saying that our responses to threats, like those of animals are more efficiently handled by fears of threats, without some unconconcious conception of death. But here I am repeating myself, since you did not respond, below, to what I wrote. I do think we fear death. I do think this fear can occur unconsciously. I disagreed with the model of fear in general you presented and that disagreement you chose not to interact with at all. 3) what makes us unique is we are conscious of our deaths. 4) you assume that we are always suppressing our fear of death from reaching consciousness. But in fact you make no moves to demonstrate this. We are engaged with life and we have other foci.


Point here is, because it is subconscious, we cannot consciously knows the subconscious fear of death.
Not relevent to my argument. But it does cause problems for your argument.

The above mechanism of the emotion of fear is the same for that of anger.
The emotion of fear also operates at the subconscious and conscious levels. [A]
This principle is supported by tons of research on emotion and emotion of fear.
Thus when one sees a spider, the brain interprets the data of a spider and reacts accordingly initially as the subconscious level, then one is conscious one is has a fear of spider.

BUT, the fear of death is very unique from all other fears
To avoid death, it would be logical to fear death.
No, you are incorrect. And I notice you do not actually respond to my argument.
What is death?
What do I sense when I look around when I am looking for death?

To get us to protect ourselves we need a fear of things that can cause death, that we can sense? Aggressive facial expressions, weapons, predators, poisonous animals, rotting meat, diseased people, strangers especially armed or angry ones, water, heights.

That makes sense. The organism via natural selection has uncoconscious and conscious fears of things that can cause death.

Yes, the fear of death is unique. But the next sentence does not make sense. To avoid death, one must avoid threats. Because one cannot avoid death. This gives no information to the animal or human.

And, in fact, the avoidance of death does not always have priority. As I showed in other posts. We often rush towards both increased risk of death and even sometimes inevitable death to save others, in the name of honor, to have the life we want.

And to effectively minimize death we have to avoid specifics.
BUT unlike spiders or any other threats, it is totally different with the knowledge of death.
In the very unique case of the empirical sighting and knowledge of death, whatever happened in the subconscious level re death is SUPPRESSED at the conscious level.
This is because if this fear is not suppressed, the person will be paralyzed with the conscious fear of death at all times, since death is a certainty.
Speculative. Is this how you feel? You write about death all the time. Are you afraid of death all the time? Were you before you started Buddhist meditating?

Of course if we think about death all the time it is anxiety producing, but we don't need to suppress this CONSCIOUS FEAR THAT ONLY HUMANS HAVE AS FAR AS WE KNOW. We engage in life.


In the case of the spider and other threats, it is possible for one to run away and avoid these potential threat of death.
But death is a certainty, and the threat of death trigger fears, therefore the fear of death as the subconscious level must be SUPPRESSED. If it leaks to the conscious mind, in the majority of cases, it is only temporary to ensure humans are not paralyzed by this conscious fear of death.
More speculatoin.

While the conscious fear of death is SUPPRESSED, the subconscious fear of death is still active at the subconscious levels of the mind.
This is because by the time the person is, say 5-10-15, they would have observed real death of humans [kins, friends, etc.] and their subconscious mind would have such a knowledge and thus react accordingly, which is very turbulent and tremendous.
While this is very active and desperate, humans are evolved with inhibitors that suppressed all these desperate reaction of the subconscious fear of death from reaching the conscious mind except intermittently.
Well, then they don't need religion do they? This undermines your own argument.

If you are aware, within psychology and psychiatry, the resultant of suppressed feelings and emotions result in all kinds of psychosis which are not easy to trace.

Sorry, this is just not the case. I have a graduate degree in psychology. First saying psychology and psychiatry as if there is some sort of unified position on emotions in these two professions or even within each one is confused. And psychiatry is all about the suppression of emotions mainly through pharamacological treatments. Further suppressing feelings very rarely leads to psychosis and usually there would be other factors.


This desperate and terrible suppressed subconscious fear of death exudes [through leakages] a spectrum of indirect feelings of anxieties, despairs, loss of meaning, Angst, and the likes.
These terrible uneasy feeling happens to all humans beings and the majority turned to religions to soothe these existential pains and sufferings.

And here you are simply restating your position.

That's what you do. Someone critiques your position. You do not respond to their specific arguments. You repeat your argument. It's rude and inadequate.

Because the theists as majority has resolved their existential pains
Absolutely, unequivocably ludicrous. Theists have no as a majority resolved their existential pains. I don't even know where to begin to try to attach you to reality. There is so much counterevidence to this, every day, in the news alone, in biographies, everywhere showing how much fear, anxiety, dark nights of the soul, crises and all sorts of psychological issues and problems at the existential level in the theist community, that I really wonder how isolated you must be.

The only religion [as far as I know] that [quite explicitly] trace the existential pains and sufferings to the subconscious fear of death is Buddhism.
Buddhism certainly deals with the fear of death, but you are quite simply wrong. Buddhism traces, quite clearly, extential pains to attachment/desire and while this includes attachment to life in relation to death, it is general.

You don't know your Buddhism. I am sure you have read as many texts as you could, but you projected your issues onto them and see them via your biases. The texts are come back to attachment desire over and over again. That is the center. And I can tell you from experiences in Buddhist temples and communities East and West, the focus is on desire/attachment as the central problematic causal center in Buddhism by nearly every practitioner I've met and is stated openly in talks and master/student conversation.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

All the other mainstream religions' focus in also on death and thus the subconscious fear of death.
Other religions focus on much more than death, precisely as I argued in the post above


AND YOU, AS USUAL, DECIDED NOT TO ADDRESS




ANYTHING







I SAID.

You just repeat your position.


Believers will give a range and spectrum of reasons why they are religious, but on deeper analysis, they are traceable to the subconscious fear of death.
Reassertion of
statements you have made hundreds of times.



You lost it when you bring in animals fear of death because animals do not have a 'conscious mind' and fear of spiders,heights, etc. cannot be compared to the unique fear of death [a thought not an object].

My point was about how evolutions works in developing fears in response to YOUR examples of concrete fears like those. You used those examples also as parts of your model of fear, unconscious fear and surivival. Further I was responding to you and showing that if you were correct things would be different with animals. There is so little to show you even read my post and this last point shows you are not even paying attention to your own arguments.

Not a critical point but....Animals don't have a conscious mind? You are lost. That goes against all current zoology. Yes, they are more driven by instincts they we are, but obviously they are conscious, aware of what is happening, even to others of their and other species if they are social mammals.

Yes, the coming of death in some form is different from the fear of spiders - so perhaps you shouldn't have YOURSELF used other kinds of fears and attributed an unconscious fear of death as underlying those fears. Get it. You posited an unconscious fear of death related to things like spiders and heights and so on. I argued against that. Get it. You presented a model of fear and phobias connected to precisely those kinds of things that had a subconscious fear of death. I was responding to that. Now suddenly you have amnesia.

and now instead of being an honorable conversation partner, you just shifted to a position that undermines your own positions as if you never said them.

I did address the fear of death concept but since you don't read and respond to people but just use their posts as excuses to repeat yourself, you are just a waste of time. And I do think that we have unconscious fears of death and that this can affect us. What I was criticizing was, well, what I wrote about. And nothing you write explains the complicated religious phenomena and....oh, well, I wrote about all that too and you chose not to respond.

You didn't make counter arguments. You did not counter arguments. You repeated yourself. So when you tell Fanman that you counter arguments, you are hallucinating.

Thus my point;
The root cause of all religions is the subconscious fear of death.


Well, we know you believe this. But your argument is simply a collection of assertions.

You did not respond to me, you repeated yourself.

This is why you should be ignored and I will go back to doing that. Thank you, I suppose, for confirming my earlier sense that you were not a respectful discussion partner. You simply lack the skills or intention to actually respond to points made. Maybe it's an unconscious fear of being wrong. Who knows?
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:34 am, edited 5 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:59 am

Fanman wrote:KT,

Thanks also. If I am that way, I do believe that my Christian background may have something to do with it. I understand what you mean about the powerful, similar thoughts regarding patterns run through my mind in these discussion. I'm not calling anyone a bully, but I've had experiences with bullies as an adult in positions of power (in the work place), so I'm pretty used to dealing with them. That might explain my patience and politeness. Giving into their domination and/or eliciting an emotional response is what bullies crave, because they want to make you seem irrational. Their energy levels are also off the scale in my experience, they can go for ever in their pursuit. They don't deal well with confident articulate people though, as they're difficult to dominate, unless they have a clique... With regards to what to do with the dogmatic 'rational' people of the world, keep a safe distance!
I can't deal with him. I'll start getting really angry. He did not actually respond to the points I made and primarily simply repeated his position. Good luck with him, should you continue to respond to him.

If he tells you he counters arguments, well, that's just not the case. He did not address, for example, the main thesis of my post that religions come out of personfication/attributing agency to 'things' modern science does not and that religion is about relationships with these beings and family and so on. Nothing. He just restated his positions. There were a number of specfic points he never addressed. He never addressed the problem with his unconcscious fear of death in relation to phobias and other fears and how his model is inefficient and further there is no evidence of it, which took up a different large portion of my post. He only dismissed the whole topic as irrelevent to the unique fear of death, not seeming to remember that it was he who presented this model and used it in regard to specific other kinds of fears.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:46 am

Prismatic,

I have in principles and given examples at various times, e.g. Christianity [John 3:16, focus on eschatology], Buddhism [Buddha Story], Islam [30% of eschatology], Hinduism [Reincarnation].
I could into depth in the above. For me to convince you further I would have to present a lot of data. Perhaps you can read into the above religions and counter otherwise.


You don't seem to understand that it is your interpretation that has lead you to this conclusion. There is no principle and no examples that substantiate your claim. For some reason you are insisting that there are.

I am very surprised you dispute above.
Can you quote me where in Science, the concept and perspective of the subconscious mind and conscious mind is disputed.


How did you interpret this from what I've stated?
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:07 pm

KT,

I was quite surprised that he didn't even attempt to deal with the main parts of your arguement. Perhaps he couldn't find a way to reduce them to the subconscious fear of death (because they cannot be) which seemed rational. So he just opted to ignore them. I was wondering how he would deal with what you said, but he just recycled his claims over yours, rather than actually dealing with your arguement.
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:21 pm

Fanman wrote:KT,

I was quite surprised that he didn't even attempt to deal with the main parts of your arguement. Perhaps he couldn't find a way to reduce them to the subconscious fear of death (because they cannot be) which seemed rational. So he just opted to ignore them. I was wondering how he would deal with what you said, but he just recycled his claims over yours, rather than actually dealing with your arguement.
yes, his argument is a bit like this:

Most cars have airconditioning and seats.
Cars were invented to give us a cool place to sit.

And he happily repeats this silly reductionism even when presented with evidence and arguments that actually fit religious texts, rituals, personal testimony, and practices much better. IOW theories that explain the bulk of the texts, practices, rituals, etc.

If you disagree with him, then he argues that cars do in fact have seats and air conditioning.

And he can't see the forest for the tree even if we show him a photo of the forest.

And then his arguments often have a lot of problems in specific areas. He can't seem to acknowledge criticisms of these either.

And he makes bold statements about Buddhism that neither match texts nor practices in specific communities. He's got his bone and he ain't letting it go.

I'm being polemical here. I think death has more to do with religion than airconditioning and even seats have to do with cars. But his argument at its center suffers the same reductionist problem. And it makes him blind to counterargument and counterevidence. To a degree that I think we could call a delusion.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:32 pm

KT,

I think it is most likely that religions arose from people attaching agency to things or aspects of life, and creating what we describe as religions therefrom – that is the most logical explanation. Like attributing deities to different aspects of nature – Gaia the god of nature or Odin the god of thunder. When there were harsh weather conditions and poor quality of life the gods were angry. Or when the there were clear blue skies, sunshine and abundant crops the gods were pleased. Herein we can observe the faculty of pattern recognition in human-beings (as you expounded on in your post) and how interpretation of these patterns leads to beliefs of all different kinds, superstitions etc (which Prismatic has ignored) People wanted to maintain good relations with the gods or God, the reward of which was a favourable life on earth, and an eternal life with the gods/God hereafter which doesn't strike me as fear. These are historical human facts.

Yes, death is associated with religion, no one is disputing that. But it is difficult to contextualise the relationship in anything more than an anecdotal way. There is no necessity to conclude that it was/is fear, that is something which is clearly open to interpretation. Yet Prismatic is certain that his claims are justified by evidence - which is just his interpretation of the religious texts... Though people fear death, believing in life after death may be part of the belief systems themselves and may have arisen from people's perceived communication with those who have died. Whereby they claimed that their loved ones were in a beautiful place or at peace somewhere in eternal paradise, like Valhalla or Heaven. Again, not fear.

In the Christian religion there is the story of Jesus communicating with Moses and Elijah, implying that even though they had both died physically, they were in heaven with God - that is hope, not fear. Does that mean that I should make a certain claim that all religions are based upon the subconscious need for hope, because I interpret it? Certainly not - how could I prove that? Death is entwined in religions, because that is a part of human life, the human experience, but fear being the cause of them, is from my perspective incorrect, when there are other valid causes to consider and have been put into the arena. However, for some reason Prismatic rejects them all and has prioritised death. He further compounds his position by adding “subconscious” to the equation, as if he somehow knows the full scope of how the subconscious mind relates to how we perceive death, not even having the humility to perceive that he is speculating. Nope, he believes that his claims are not only based upon principles, but that he also has evidence of this, both of which I haven't observed, and what little external "evidences" he has provided, are clearly open to interpretation.

From my perspective, Prismatic needs to see the wizard of Oz #-o.
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:50 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:You did not respond to me, you repeated yourself.

This is why you should be ignored and I will go back to doing that. Thank you, I suppose, for confirming my earlier sense that you were not a respectful discussion partner. You simply lack the skills or intention to actually respond to points made. Maybe it's an unconscious fear of being wrong. Who knows?

I did note your other points but I assessed what I have posted cover them all.

If you think they are critical, I will have a re-look on them.

As stated it is always your discretion to continue or not.
On my part I will respond to whatever counter arguments there are and whatever is necessary, that's all.
I will not impose nor be bothered whether you counter reply or not. That's Buddhism's detachment from expectations.

This discussion is like a casual tennis practice of rallying [not a competitive game btw], I will return the ball as long as you hit the ball back and show intention to continue. If you decide not to return the ball to my side of the court, so be it, that the end of the rally.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:03 am

I have responded to the first part which I believe cover the following as well.
Since you think I have not covered, here is my response.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The above is very evident and can be empirically inferred and verified.
Empirically inferred is an oxymoron.
You are using (poor) deduction. In fact you are not even doing that. You simply state things.

Why not?
As I had mentioned somewhere;
You can test it yourself personally, whether you want to be killed or not, i.e. to avoid death. If you are to face a threat of death in serious situation, your subconscious and conscious fear of death will trigger you to save yourself.
I believe all human beings will respond the same as you do except the mentally ill who are suicidal and indifferent to living.

What are the alternatives for the beginnings of religion? Well, let's black box the issue of 'are gods real'? IOW let's assume neither that they are real nor that they are unreal.

Religion arises via attibuting agency to things that happen. Humans were immersed in nature with a variety of life forms, flora and fauna, all struggling to live. And all doing stuff.

We have an innate tendency to personify things. Children tend to personify animals and even what are considered inanimate objects.

We know that indigenous groups tended to personify what modern people tend to call natural forces.

IOW humans have a tendency to attribute agency to things that modern science has not confirmed have agency.

This is closely related to finding meaning in things that modern scientists would say are contingent.

We see agents, meaning, cause and effect, relationships, where modern science has not confirmed there is agency, meaning, cause and effect, relationships.

These tendences, correctly or incorrectly led to the gods, spirits, creatures - iow all the so called supernatural entities - we find in indigenous religions.

We know that in indigenous groups communication took place between humans and non-human entites. Talking to plants, talking to hunted animals, talking to spirits.

Once you believe that there is agency, and relationship and meaning related to creatures other than humans

you

want

to control

that relationship.

Appease anger, ask for gifts, ask for forgiveness for killing and eating.

We see these patterns, the social relation, to non-human entities all through all indigenous groups.

What we call religion developed out of rules and ideas for dealing with entities that are very powerful.

There is no distinction in indigenous culture between religion and secular activity. It is only much later with the transcendent religions that were heavily dualist (and showed a hatred of the 'material world' as they conceived it) that this split took place.

Pantheist and animist religions have conceptions of deities even sometimes an overarching head deity (God). And like their dealings with all other entities they developed rules to get along with, get close to, deal with, please, the powerful deities.

That's where religion arises. Relationships and ways of dealing with these beings that many modern secular humans consider unreal or not animate or both.

Point is all the above are grounded on;

    1. DNA-RNA programmed all human to strive to live
    2. To live all humans has to avoid death [cup half-empty = cup half-full].
    3. To avoid death, all humans are programmed to fear death at the subconscious level and the conscious level. The emotion of fear trigger responses to avoid death.

Note to avoid death, all humans are programmed with many other potentials but one of them -the topic on hand - is fear, i.e. fear of death to as to avoid death.
Note the link, avoid death via fear of death is very logical and rational.

Re the idea of agency from the beginnings.
In the primitive days, humans are faced with loads of catastrophe that killed many members of the tribe.
By ascribing agency, they put a name to these agents so that they can appease them to that these super agents will not bring forth more catastrophe.
Note the ancient practices of sacrificing animals and humans to appease the 'gods' e.g. the Incas and elsewhere.
These sacrifices are done to appease their gods to avoid death of tribe members including the individuals.
These sacrifices to avoid death are triggered by the subconscious and conscious [where apparent] fear of death.

Yes, afterlife entered into this. Fear of no longer continuing after physical death

A FEAR THAT AS FAR AS WE KNOW ONLY HUMANS HAVE

may have or may not have entered into religions because we as humans are aware of death.

But to say that religions are caused by a fear of death conscious or otherwise

goes against the complexity of religion and the sources we know there are for religion.

In the earliest primitive religion, human were focused on appeasing their god via offerings, sacrifice of animals and humans as triggered by the fear of death [subconscious] to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate.
The concept of afterlife came later as in mummies and pyramids and various forms of burial which may be related to a god or simply they believe the soul just moved on to another life.
Again this thinking and action is triggered by the emotion of fear, fear of what? it is the fear of death to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate.
Note this is programmed thus not a conscious effort by rather driven subconsciously.


And this matches what religion focuses on. The relationship with God, how to appease God, and what is focused on in the religion. This is the core reason we have what gets called religion. Of course religions are vast complex phenomena, so there are all sorts of social facets in there. I am arguing that the core is this relationship with and dealings with what get called supernatural agents. But even that is only part of what religions are.

As I had argued the above is reducible to the fear of death [subconscious] to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate as programmed.
What you did is stopped on the surface and did not dig into what is going inside the human brain, mind, DNA-RNA and further.


Further there are things that speak against this idea.

Hell. Why in God's name (lol) would religions come up with an idea that for many is even worse than the idea of death?

I know people who have been relieved to become athiests because they had lived with a fear of hell they considered much worse than fear of nothingness.

Why create scary deities?

Why create religions where only heroes get into Heaven?

Why would people create something like this....

She'ol, in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and from God

The inhabitants of Sheol are the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[58]

The fear of hell is subsequent to fear of death [subconscious].
To fear hell is to fear death which would lead to hell.
The idea of the fear of hell, is more of a moral issue as a threat to ensure the person obey the commands of a God or deity.
But why the person believe in the idea of the deity in the first place is due to the fear of death [subconscious] to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate as programmed.

Buddhism is even worse. Here we have no self that even lasts through the lifetime before death. Why come up with that belief?

Before a person in influenced by a threat of no-self [I don't agree it is a threat] the person has to become a Buddhist first.
Why a person become a Buddhist is because of the the fear of death [subconscious] to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate as programmed.
It is only thereafter he is told [wrongly] there is absolutely no-self.

Call this process of personification a pathetic fallacy, a deep insight, projection, false attribution, misplaced pattern identification, correct interpretation....whatever

but it is the core reason we have religions.

We correctly or incorrectly attribute agency in or behind what is around us and develope ideas about how to make this work well.

Which is why religious texts tend to focus on God and family and how to be good in relation to these important agents.

This does not disprove that fear of death has led to ideas of an afterlife. But this talk about religion being to assuage our fear of death is the most ridiculous reductionism being bandied about at ILP right now.

As I had shown above you are merely scratching the surface of human actions in relation to religion.
You simply ignore what is going on in the brain/mind, the emotions, the DNA-RNA factors of the person.

And the fact that in humans knowledge of death is conscious plays the role in our beliefs, not that it is unconscious. This is not to say one cannot have anxiety over death that appears through other thoughts or behaviors, where it drives it unconsciously. But we are unique in being conscious of death.

Note I have stated many times, humans are unique in that humans are "programmed" with inhibitors to suppressed the fear of death otherwise humans will be paralyzed with fears of the conscious fear of death at all time and will not be able to function effectively.

Humans are the only mammals programmed with self-consciousness.
Other mammals and animals has to avoid death to survive, thus are programmed with fears to avoid death.
Because other mammals and animals do not have self-consciousness, there is no question of whether their fear of death is subconscious or conscious. Their fear of death is like what we humans would termed as subconscious fear of death.
Note other mammals also have emotional triggers of fear, anger, etc.

Other strange ideas are the DNA makes us live as long as possible,when in fact DNA can lead creatures to have extremely short lives or to be virtually immortal like certain jellyfish.

You are very short-sighted on this.
The DNA-RNA programs are very multi-faceted. There are programs that drive humans to live as long as possible and there are programs what oppose this.
Example DNA-RNA wise the neurons in the human brain are subjected to atrophy and there will come a time where the brain will be ineffectively and thus the human will likely to die. Even the neurons that activate the person to live as long as possible will be weakened in time.
Point is the program that drive humans to live as long as possible are optimized for the period the human is most productive to produce and care of the next generation. Thereafter nature will not give a damn.

The whole setting of percentage points is irrational. You have no good way of determining the percentages you throw around.

I must say again, the % cannot be specific but merely to denote the relatively significant ratio which we can more or less infer from experiences. This relative ratio is recognized by scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists.

To sum up:
Personification and attribution of agency and meaning must have advantages for us. Children do this without being taught to do it and it is done in every single indigenous culture ever encountered. Whether it is correct or not, it must help humans. It is an important tendency we have and one that is not related to conscious or unconscious fear of death. This leads to beliefs about how to relate to all entities and to posit entities behind events in nature and dreams and illnesses and astronomical events and also meanings in even very small events (omens, signs, trivial weather changes, the shapes tea leaves make in the bottom of a cup, the shape of intestines in a sacrificed animal). Experts interpret, though amateurs interpret also and can receive messages, be intimate with, communicate with, recognize signs and so on.

We are pattern recognizers and we personify many patterns.

After that we try to develop heuristics to work with these beings and these messages. And how to get more messages and how to improve relations with other beings.

To improve out relations with all important beings (family, strangers, enemies, deities, spirits, ancestors, other supernatural agents, God) is present in all religious rituals and ceremonies. It is a vastly larger part of all religious texts, must larger than the parts dealing with after death. It is the largest part of all sermons and speeches. It is what the experts in the religions spend their time trying to get better at, be they shamans, priests, monks, sunyasin or whatever. They work on improving their relations with other beings including what get called supernatural beings. That is the core of what religion is a bout and it is not based on fear, it is based on our tendency to personify and as social beings to want to do well in our relationships, especially with those who have power or whom we love.

As I had argued, all the above forms of actions and thoughts of humans are reducible to the subconscious fear of death, to avoid death, so as to live to produce the next generation.

Personification and attribution of agency and meaning must have advantages for us.

What advantage for humans?
    The advantage is to ensure humans can produce the next generation.
    To do so, human must live to survive
    To survive, humans must avoid death
    To avoid death, humans must fear death [subconsciously] and perform other functions.

As you can see above, we cannot avoid the subconscious fear of death that lead to the idea of agency to gain advantages.


Choosing one emotion and one outcome as THE source of religion is not logical and flies in face of the religious texts and rituals and human nature. It is based on not verified ideas like unconscious fear of death being causal in protective behavior and is supported in Prismatic's arguments with ridiculous use of numbers and percentages which just comes off as the intention to seem in control and rational but fails on both counts and has the opposite effect.


The primary emotions are fear, happiness, sadness, and anger.
One condition of happiness is the removal of fear.
Do people report they turned to religion because of sadness?
Sadness is a result from the subconscious fear of death.
Do people report they turned to religion because of anger?
Anger is an emotion to eliminate the threat that trigger the fear of death.
As you can see the most dominant emotion is 'fear.'
So its a question of me choosing fear over other emotions but point is it is a natural fact.

As you can see from the above, the main point is reducible to the subconscious fear of death.
This is what I had focused on my earlier respond in ignoring the above to save time.

One limitation to your argument is you lack a deeper knowledge of how the emotion of fear works within the brain with evolutionary link to the first single-cell living thing.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:17 am

Fanman wrote:KT,

I think it is most likely that religions arose from people attaching agency to things or aspects of life, and creating what we describe as religions therefrom – that is the most logical explanation. Like attributing deities to different aspects of nature – Gaia the god of nature or Odin the god of thunder. When there were harsh weather conditions and poor quality of life the gods were angry. Or when the there were clear blue skies, sunshine and abundant crops the gods were pleased. Herein we can observe the faculty of pattern recognition in human-beings (as you expounded on in your post) and how interpretation of these patterns leads to beliefs of all different kinds, superstitions etc (which Prismatic has ignored) People wanted to maintain good relations with the gods or God, the reward of which was a favourable life on earth, and an eternal life with the gods/God hereafter which doesn't strike me as fear. These are historical human facts.
There's also the shamanic tradition which involves altered states, sometimes narcotic plants, and long term training. And we have to remember also that religions have everyday people who may or may not understand their own religions and then people who come up with practices and engage in them for long periods. And their conceptions will be quite different. You can see this with Buddhism which in Asia may very well have deities, reincarnation and all sorts of other beliefs that practicing masters do not agree with or contextualize in different ways.

Yes, death is associated with religion, no one is disputing that. But it is difficult to contextualise the relationship in anything more than an anecdotal way. There is no necessity to conclude that it was/is fear, that is something which is clearly open to interpretation. Yet Prismatic is certain that his claims are justified by evidence - which is just his interpretation of the religious texts... Though people fear death, believing in life after death may be part of the belief systems themselves and may have arisen from people's perceived communication with those who have died. Whereby they claimed that their loved ones were in a beautiful place or at peace somewhere in eternal paradise, like Valhalla or Heaven. Again, not fear.
His evidence is scanty. He keeps harping on that quote from John. I know there are other references, but really he has not here or elsewhere made a strong case. And he seems to have no explanation for why religious texts focus on other things much more than death and afterlife.

Death is entwined in religions, because that is a part of human life,

Exactly! He's also making a logical error, a bit like when people say that a mutation in an animal (in evolution) happened for ability X, or to make it easier for an animal to survive. One of the side effects of religion might be that it eases the fear of death. I would guess this is true for many. That doesn't mean that's why it formed. And it is certainly only one of many of a large number of parts of the religion.

From my perspective, Prismatic needs to see the wizard of Oz #-o.
LOL.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:49 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Your contention is there is no subconscious fear of death.
Not exactly. I am
1) saying you have not demonstrated it, and certainly not in any way that relates to religion
2) I am saying that our responses to threats, like those of animals are more efficiently handled by fears of threats, without some unconconcious conception of death. But here I am repeating myself, since you did not respond, below, to what I wrote. I do think we fear death. I do think this fear can occur unconsciously. I disagreed with the model of fear in general you presented and that disagreement you chose not to interact with at all.
3) what makes us unique is we are conscious of our deaths.
4) you assume that we are always suppressing our fear of death from reaching consciousness. But in fact you make no moves to demonstrate this. We are engaged with life and we have other foci.

I have responded to what you claimed I have missed out.
However what you proposed are merely the superficial actions of the religionists, e.g. the idea of agency, personification, and other outer forms of behavior.
I countered argued you ignored the evolutionary, DNA-RNA, emotions factors and how the brain and mind works.
In countering all the points [you accused me of missing] I have directed them to the root cause of the subsconscious fear of death, to avoid death so as to survive thus driven to procreate and take care of the next generations.


Point here is, because it is subconscious, we cannot consciously knows the subconscious fear of death.
Not relevent to my argument. But it does cause problems for your argument.

It is very relevant.
I have explained above.
All the actions in the brain of mammals are what is to us humans, our subconscious mind.
All humans are programmed with a significant conscious mind that is not in all other mammals and animals.
This is why we have to differentiate our subconscious mind (equivalent to all mammals] from our unique conscious mind that we are conscious of our mortality which is suppressed most the time.

The above mechanism of the emotion of fear is the same for that of anger.
The emotion of fear also operates at the subconscious and conscious levels. [A]
This principle is supported by tons of research on emotion and emotion of fear.
Thus when one sees a spider, the brain interprets the data of a spider and reacts accordingly initially as the subconscious level, then one is conscious one is has a fear of spider.

BUT, the fear of death is very unique from all other fears
To avoid death, it would be logical to fear death.
No, you are incorrect. And I notice you do not actually respond to my argument.
What is death?
What do I sense when I look around when I am looking for death?

To get us to protect ourselves we need a fear of things that can cause death, that we can sense? Aggressive facial expressions, weapons, predators, poisonous animals, rotting meat, diseased people, strangers especially armed or angry ones, water, heights.

That makes sense. The organism via natural selection has uncoconscious and conscious fears of things that can cause death.

Yes, the fear of death is unique. But the next sentence does not make sense. To avoid death, one must avoid threats. Because one cannot avoid death. This gives no information to the animal or human.

And, in fact, the avoidance of death does not always have priority. As I showed in other posts. We often rush towards both increased risk of death and even sometimes inevitable death to save others, in the name of honor, to have the life we want.

And to effectively minimize death we have to avoid specifics.

You stated "To avoid death, one must avoid threats" do not make sense.

Note you stated yourself,
"That makes sense. The organism via natural selection has unconscious and conscious fears of things that can cause death."

It is logical that fear of things that can cause death [threats of death] is to avoid death.
So my point "To avoid death, one must avoid threats [of death]" do make sense.

As I had stated, the DNA-RNA is the genes has multi-faceted programs of which some oppose each other.
E.g. the program to drive one to live as long as possible is contra by the program of the atrophy of neurons.
The majority are risk adverse and fear death subconsciously so as to avoid death.
One point is the human species also risk extinction if the natural expansion of population to increase chances of survival of the species could be a disaster if no new sources of food and resources are available.
Therefore nature will programmed a small % [say 10%] with risk seekers program. This is so obvious, how many among the 7 billion are explorers, mountain climbers, involved in parachuting and other dangerous endeavors?
While these risk seekers are programmed with an addition program that drive them to seek greater risks than the majority, they still have the program that drive them to strive to live as long as possible. This is why we often hear of stories of risk taker who are caught in very dangerous situation but they had strove to live as long as possible until they have to give up. Some may give up easily, but they are the exceptional.

Re risk to save others, this is driven by a program that drives altruism. But again these people still have the program to strive to live as long as possible. Where there is death due to altruism, this is due to lack of impulse control, as in blind altruism. Again what % of these are to the 7 billion people?

Note I have replied to your repeated point above before but you don't seem to get it.
Do you dispute my counter as above?

BUT unlike spiders or any other threats, it is totally different with the knowledge of death.
In the very unique case of the empirical sighting and knowledge of death, whatever happened in the subconscious level re death is SUPPRESSED at the conscious level.
This is because if this fear is not suppressed, the person will be paralyzed with the conscious fear of death at all times, since death is a certainty.
Speculative. Is this how you feel? You write about death all the time. Are you afraid of death all the time? Were you before you started Buddhist meditating?

This is very logical.
Those who fear death constantly are recognized as having mental issue and need to consult a psychiatrist. This can be a very serious mental issue.
https://www.healthline.com/health/thanatophobia
Therefore it is logical the normal person without such a mental issue will not fear death constantly.
This imply the fear of death is suppressed at the conscious level most of the time in most people except intermittently. This suppression comes in degrees so some may be trigger with the fear of death more regularly than others. Those extremes one will be suffering from Thanatophobia which warrant psychiatric attention.

As an ordinary human, it is obvious I have an inherent subconscious fear of death and intermittent conscious fear of death.
Naturally the inherent subconscious fear of death will generate unease in my mental self and I deal with them appropriately with effective spiritual practices including those from Buddhism-proper.

Of course if we think about death all the time it is anxiety producing, but we don't need to suppress this CONSCIOUS FEAR THAT ONLY HUMANS HAVE AS FAR AS WE KNOW. We engage in life.

No you don't consciously suppress the conscious fear of death.
Nature has done that for you naturally with evolved inhibitors.
It is a fact to conscious humans, mortality is a fact.
It is also naturally humans are programmed to fear death, to avoid death so as to live to procreate and nurture the next generation.
If humans has a constant fear of death, they will be paralyzed by it and will not be able to function properly to produce and take care of the children of the next generations.
Therefore its nature's imperative that the conscious fear of death [unique to humans] is suppressed naturally.


In the case of the spider and other threats, it is possible for one to run away and avoid these potential threat of death.
But death is a certainty, and the threat of death trigger fears, therefore the fear of death as the subconscious level must be SUPPRESSED. If it leaks to the conscious mind, in the majority of cases, it is only temporary to ensure humans are not paralyzed by this conscious fear of death.
More speculation.

Reflect on it deeply and you will note the above is very rational.

While the conscious fear of death is SUPPRESSED, the subconscious fear of death is still active at the subconscious levels of the mind.
This is because by the time the person is, say 5-10-15, they would have observed real death of humans [kins, friends, etc.] and their subconscious mind would have such a knowledge and thus react accordingly, which is very turbulent and tremendous.
While this is very active and desperate, humans are evolved with inhibitors that suppressed all these desperate reaction of the subconscious fear of death from reaching the conscious mind except intermittently.
Well, then they don't need religion do they? This undermines your own argument.

As I had pointed out,
while the very turbulent and tremendous within the subconscious by its definition is not relayed to the conscious mind by inhibitors, these turbulent impulses effects other pathways [emotions of sadness, secondary anxieties, anger, pains, etc] which manifests indirectly as conscious existential pains, anxieties, Angst, despairs, meaningless, etc.
Therefore the person will react to these conscious existential pains but they are not aware of its root causes.
To soothe these existential pains, these people resort to actions that eventually become of what we termed as 'religions.' Point is these solutions work very effectively and that is why 90% of people are religious.

If you are aware, within psychology and psychiatry, the resultant of suppressed feelings and emotions result in all kinds of psychosis which are not easy to trace.

Sorry, this is just not the case. I have a graduate degree in psychology. First saying psychology and psychiatry as if there is some sort of unified position on emotions in these two professions or even within each one is confused. And psychiatry is all about the suppression of emotions mainly through pharamacological treatments. Further suppressing feelings very rarely leads to psychosis and usually there would be other factors.

Ok, psychosis is a strong term.
Note this suppression of internal impulses re fear of death is done naturally.
Whilst the suppression will not invoke psychosis in general, it would definitely have manifested various degrees of psychological anxieties and Angst.
Since you have knowledge in psychology, do you understand the concept of Angst?

This desperate and terrible suppressed subconscious fear of death exudes [through leakages] a spectrum of indirect feelings of anxieties, despairs, loss of meaning, Angst, and the likes.
These terrible uneasy feeling happens to all humans beings and the majority turned to religions to soothe these existential pains and sufferings.

And here you are simply restating your position.

That's what you do. Someone critiques your position. You do not respond to their specific arguments. You repeat your argument. It's rude and inadequate.

There is nothing wrong in repetition especially when the subject it complex.
The above is not a repetition but a further explanation to the earlier point why the majority turned to religions.

Because the theists as majority has resolved their existential pains
Absolutely, unequivocably ludicrous. Theists have no as a majority resolved their existential pains. I don't even know where to begin to try to attach you to reality. There is so much counterevidence to this, every day, in the news alone, in biographies, everywhere showing how much fear, anxiety, dark nights of the soul, crises and all sorts of psychological issues and problems at the existential level in the theist community, that I really wonder how isolated you must be.

I meant the existential pains at the fundamental level.
For example all theistic religions [comprising 90% of all religions] dealt with the fear of the afterlife and promised salvation with eternal life after physical death.
This promise relieved the fundamental basis of their subconscious fear of death.

Of course as human beings theists will still have fears, anxieties, etc. but more often theists will have faith God will help them if they have full faith in God.
However I am confident no theists will doubt they are assured of life after physical death ,if any they are not proper believers.


The only religion [as far as I know] that [quite explicitly] trace the existential pains and sufferings to the subconscious fear of death is Buddhism.
Buddhism certainly deals with the fear of death, but you are quite simply wrong. Buddhism traces, quite clearly, existential pains to attachment/desire and while this includes attachment to life in relation to death, it is general.

Note the Buddha Story with the focus on illness, old age and death [corpse] which is primarily related to the existential threat and fear of death. This main focus of the existential is dealt with the 4NT and 8FP.
The attachment/desire is derived from Right View from the 8 Fold Path.

I say you are wrong in principle with Buddhism i.e. Buddhism proper.

You don't know your Buddhism. I am sure you have read as many texts as you could, but you projected your issues onto them and see them via your biases. The texts are come back to attachment desire over and over again. That is the center. And I can tell you from experiences in Buddhist temples and communities East and West, the focus is on desire/attachment as the central problematic causal center in Buddhism by nearly every practitioner I've met and is stated openly in talks and master/student conversation.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Point is all humans are naturally suppressed from the conscious fear of death arising from the subconscious fear of death.
It is this natural suppression that walled you from getting to the root cause of the subconscious fear of death.

Why the desires and attachment [in 12 elements] is because of the subconscious fear of death, to avoid death so as to live, thus facilitating procreating and nurturing the next generation.
One desire food and cling to food as triggered by the fear of death, to avoid death to live to procreate. But the desire goes out of hand giving rise to attachment and greater attachments without understanding the root cause, i.e. the subconscious fear of death.

The rational solution is to understand the root cause is due to the subconscious fear of death that drive on to cling to more food to to alleviate the subconscious fear of death.
But when one understand the root cause as taught by Buddhism, one can mitigate one's clinging to more food by merely having enough food that can sustain one to avoid death, thus overriding the subconscious fear of death.

All the other mainstream religions' focus in also on death and thus the subconscious fear of death.
Other religions focus on much more than death, precisely as I argued in the post above
AND YOU, AS USUAL, DECIDED NOT TO ADDRESS
ANYTHING
I SAID.
You just repeat your position.

Nope I have taken a helicopter view of your points and has addressed them effectively on an effective basis.

Believers will give a range and spectrum of reasons why they are religious, but on deeper analysis, they are traceable to the subconscious fear of death.
Reassertion of
statements you have made hundreds of times.

Yes, that is my fundamental thesis which I had justified.
You are unable to rationalize it because you are too focused on the forms rather than the substance of the issue.

You lost it when you bring in animals fear of death because animals do not have a 'conscious mind' and fear of spiders,heights, etc. cannot be compared to the unique fear of death [a thought not an object].

My point was about how evolutions works in developing fears in response to YOUR examples of concrete fears like those. You used those examples also as parts of your model of fear, unconscious fear and surivival. Further I was responding to you and showing that if you were correct things would be different with animals. There is so little to show you even read my post and this last point shows you are not even paying attention to your own arguments.

Not a critical point but....Animals don't have a conscious mind? You are lost. That goes against all current zoology. Yes, they are more driven by instincts they we are, but obviously they are conscious, aware of what is happening, even to others of their and other species if they are social mammals.

Yes, the coming of death in some form is different from the fear of spiders - so perhaps you shouldn't have YOURSELF used other kinds of fears and attributed an unconscious fear of death as underlying those fears. Get it. You posited an unconscious fear of death related to things like spiders and heights and so on. I argued against that. Get it. You presented a model of fear and phobias connected to precisely those kinds of things that had a subconscious fear of death. I was responding to that. Now suddenly you have amnesia.

and now instead of being an honorable conversation partner, you just shifted to a position that undermines your own positions as if you never said them.

I did address the fear of death concept but since you don't read and respond to people but just use their posts as excuses to repeat yourself, you are just a waste of time. And I do think that we have unconscious fears of death and that this can affect us. What I was criticizing was, well, what I wrote about. And nothing you write explains the complicated religious phenomena and....oh, well, I wrote about all that too and you chose not to respond.

You didn't make counter arguments. You did not counter arguments. You repeated yourself. So when you tell Fanman that you counter arguments, you are hallucinating.

Animals do not possess a conscious mind like humans.

Yes, I have dealt with your various forms but I will repeat the substance of the issue because there is nothing to change with the fundamentals.

Thus my point;
The root cause of all religions is the subconscious fear of death.


Well, we know you believe this. But your argument is simply a collection of assertions.

You did not respond to me, you repeated yourself.

This is why you should be ignored and I will go back to doing that. Thank you, I suppose, for confirming my earlier sense that you were not a respectful discussion partner. You simply lack the skills or intention to actually respond to points made. Maybe it's an unconscious fear of being wrong. Who knows?

I think it is childish to give all sorts of unwarranted reasons why you are displease with the discussion. I don't believe it is my fault.

I posed a challenge, it would a waste of my time if I do not answer any challenges.
I will not leave any significant point unchallenged. To do so would be a blemish to my intellectual integrity.
If I missed any challenging point that is an oversight or I have already countered it somewhere and somehow.

If you think there is any point of yours that is not unchallenged your should point it out.

Whatever the case, it is your discretion to do what you want and I am not bothered about it.

As with a tennis rally, if you return the ball back, I will hit it back to keep the rally going. If you don't return back, I will not be bothered.

Whatever the case, I believed I have already been enriched by the exchanges so far from you and Fanman, Phyllo and others, so thanks for that.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:40 pm

However what you proposed are merely the superficial actions of the religionists, e.g. the idea of agency, personification, and other outer forms of behavior.


Wrong.

I countered argued you ignored the evolutionary, DNA-RNA, emotions factors and how the brain and mind works.
In countering all the points [you accused me of missing] I have directed them to the root cause of the subsconscious fear of death, to avoid death so as to survive thus driven to procreate and take care of the next generations.


Wrong.

His evidence is scanty. He keeps harping on that quote from John. I know there are other references, but really he has not here or elsewhere made a strong case. And he seems to have no explanation for why religious texts focus on other things much more than death and afterlife.


Right.

Exactly! He's also making a logical error, a bit like when people say that a mutation in an animal (in evolution) happened for ability X, or to make it easier for an animal to survive. One of the side effects of religion might be that it eases the fear of death. I would guess this is true for many. That doesn't mean that's why it formed. And it is certainly only one of many of a large number of parts of the religion.


Right.
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:13 pm

Prismatic,

You stated "To avoid death, one must avoid threats" do not make sense.


You don't understand this, but you understand the in-depth workings of the subconscious mind?

So my point "To avoid death, one must avoid threats [of death]" do make sense.


So your argument is that to avoid death, one must avoid death? That is a tautology.

Therefore the person will react to these conscious existential pains but they are not aware of its root causes.


So why are you?

However I am confident no theists will doubt they are assured of life after physical death ,if any they are not proper believers.


No true Scotsman.

Point is all humans are naturally suppressed from the conscious fear of death arising from the subconscious fear of death.


This claim requires evidence. Not repetition, not your arguments, evidence.

It is this natural suppression that walled you from getting to the root cause of the subconscious fear of death.


And now you are a professional psychologist?

One desire food and cling to food as triggered by the fear of death, to avoid death to live to procreate. But the desire goes out of hand giving rise to attachment and greater attachments without understanding the root cause, i.e. the subconscious fear of death.


Absolute reductionism. When are you going to claim that everything is reducible to the subconscious fear of death? What are waiting for?

Nope I have taken a helicopter view of your points and has addressed them effectively on an effective basis.


#-o

Yes, that is my fundamental thesis which I had justified.
You are unable to rationalize it because you are too focused on the forms rather than the substance of the issue.


Category error.
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:54 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

You (KT) stated "To avoid death, one must avoid threats" do not make sense.


You don't understand this, but you understand the in-depth workings of the subconscious mind?

What is that I don't understand? The statement made by KT above is pure ignorance.

You cannot be that ignorant as well?
There are tons of research that has been done regarding the subconscious mind, e.g. the workings of the primal responses, the instincts, the emotions, etc.

So my point "To avoid death, one must avoid threats [of death]" do make sense.


So your argument is that to avoid death, one must avoid death? That is a tautology.

You missed my point and worst deceptively create a new statement.
Note my point is "To avoid death, one must avoid threats of death"
Note the new term 'threats'.
What is so tautological about that?

Therefore the person will react to these conscious existential pains but they are not aware of its root causes.

So why are you?

Because I took the trouble to study the root causes, thus aware of them.

However I am confident no theists will doubt they are assured of life after physical death ,if any they are not proper believers.

No true Scotsman.

This is very obvious.
E.g. the typical Christian will be not doubt they are assured of eternal life as promised in John 3:16 by Jesus/God.
The exception is only when the person is skeptical, doubt and do not have faith in Jesus/God, where if any would be the very small minority.

Point is all humans are naturally suppressed from the conscious fear of death arising from the subconscious fear of death.

This claim requires evidence. Not repetition, not your arguments, evidence.

You can confirm this yourself, i.e. are you and do have a conscious fear of death all the time?
Serious death anxiety or thanatophobia [conscious fear of death] is not a common mental issue.
I have noted most members in philosophical forum assert they do not have fear of death [I presume constantly].
I believe if you ask the question to all humans, 99% will reply they do not have a constant fear of death.
Therefore the inherent and unavoidable subconscious fear of death is suppressed naturally and not relayed to the conscious mind on a permanent basis.


It is this natural suppression that walled you from getting to the root cause of the subconscious fear of death.

And now you are a professional psychologist?

Are you are professional philosopher whilst participating in the "Philosophy" forum.
What counts is whether my views are rational and well justified.

One desire food and cling to food as triggered by the fear of death, to avoid death to live to procreate. But the desire goes out of hand giving rise to attachment and greater attachments without understanding the root cause, i.e. the subconscious fear of death.

Absolute reductionism. When are you going to claim that everything is reducible to the subconscious fear of death? What are waiting for?

I have NEVER claimed EVERYTHING is reducible to the subconscious fear of death.
The subconscious fear is not the main root but the sub-sub root comprising other instincts that are necessary to avoid death, e.g. hunger, to breathe, physical security, and few others.

What I am claiming is 'the root of all mainstream religions is the subconscious fear of death'. All other reasons given by believers why they are religious are merely secondary and are forms.

Yes, that is my fundamental thesis which I had justified.
You are unable to rationalize it because you are too focused on the forms rather than the substance of the issue.

Category error.

Do you understand the phrase 'substance over forms?'

Note your counters are very superficial which due to misrepresentation of my views and ignorance of the subject matter.

Show me one point above where my counter-points are not effective to contra your views?

One of the problem is your lack of knowledge on the Neuro-Psychology of Fear. I suggest you read up on this topic.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:13 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

You stated "To avoid death, one must avoid threats" do not make sense.


You don't understand this, but you understand the in-depth workings of the subconscious mind?


I notice he makes some fairly common English-as-2nd-Language mistakes, so this may be a factor in some of his inablity to respond to points others make, to understand them, and also to present his ideas.

That said: He can't understand that if, for example, one wanted a child to avoid dying, one would instruct the child about threats. Don't run out in the street between cars. For example. Telling the child to avoid death is not helpful. So, it is with our instinctive fears. Traits that lead to people being afraid of things that can cause death will be passed on and selected for. Traits that get an organism to avoid death gives them nothing concrete to work with. But I explained this to him. I don't think he can think his way into situations. He cannot think his way into the minds of religious people, now or back when religions were forming. He can only see abstractions. No context understanding.

So my point "To avoid death, one must avoid threats [of death]" do make sense.


So your argument is that to avoid death, one must avoid death? That is a tautology.
And here he is now presenting my position as if it was his position all along.

However I am confident no theists will doubt they are assured of life after physical death ,if any they are not proper believers.


No true Scotsman.


Notice the implicit binary thinking. He cannot, he simply cannot have experience with theists OR he takes certain statements at face value. A theist says to him, I believe there is a Heaven, and he assumes they are sure they are going there, do not have doubts and then further that this is why they are religious and why the orignators of the religion made the religion. This is psychologically naive, binary and reductionistic to a rare degree.

Point is all humans are naturally suppressed from the conscious fear of death arising from the subconscious fear of death.


This claim requires evidence. Not repetition, not your arguments, evidence.
Exactly.

It is one of those cases where something that makes sense on paper much be true in reality. Other models that also make sense on paper are ignored. Interaction with the actual people involved, the religions involved...not necessary for him.

It is this natural suppression that walled you from getting to the root cause of the subconscious fear of death.


And now you are a professional psychologist?
He's not even an amateur one.

One desire food and cling to food as triggered by the fear of death, to avoid death to live to procreate. But the desire goes out of hand giving rise to attachment and greater attachments without understanding the root cause, i.e. the subconscious fear of death.


Absolute reductionism. When are you going to claim that everything is reducible to the subconscious fear of death? What are waiting for?
And it doesn't even work well as reductionism. Animals will kill themselves to procreate, for example.

And why do we desire to sing?

Nope I have taken a helicopter view of your points and has addressed them effectively on an effective basis.


#-o
Someone with a minimal applicable knowledge of psychology would be embarrassed to write something like he did here.

Yes, that is my fundamental thesis which I had justified.
You are unable to rationalize it because you are too focused on the forms rather than the substance of the issue.


Category error.
It's also a mind reading claim. He constantly behaves like a psychic when he would certainly consider psychics to be deluded.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:42 pm

Prismatic,

What is that I don't understand? The statement made by KT above is pure ignorance.


What is your explanation for claiming this?

You cannot be that ignorant as well?


#-o Of course I agree with him. Why wouldn't I? He broke it down to evolution, did you miss that?

There are tons of research that has been done regarding the subconscious mind, e.g. the workings of the primal responses, the instincts, the emotions, etc.


Do any of those tons explicitly claim that all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death?

You missed my point and worst deceptively create a new statement.
Note my point is "To avoid death, one must avoid threats of death"
Note the new term 'threats'.
What is so tautological about that?


In my view it is. I don't really see what difference “threats” makes to the statement. Because by “threats of death”, you mean things that can cause death - hence death. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Because I took the trouble to study the root causes, thus aware of them.


You assume that those you are referring to haven't? Because they have not reached the same conclusion as you, you interpret that they are ignorant. That is funny. Not only does it assume that you think that people don't look into things that directly concern them, but that you found the root cause because you are thorough and sagacious. Like you've found some kind of intellectual holy grail. However, given your arguments relating to the root cause of religion, it doesn't seem that you've studied enough.

This is very obvious.
E.g. the typical Christian will be not doubt they are assured of eternal life as promised in John 3:16 by Jesus/God.
The exception is only when the person is skeptical, doubt and do not have faith in Jesus/God, where if any would be the very small minority.


I don't agree. It is unlikely that you will encounter a Christian who doesn't have doubts (they are human) about going to heaven or God in general. Because people are individuals, I don't think there is a generic Christian in the sense that you mean. And if Christians tell you that they have no doubts, how would you know if they were telling the truth? How would you know if they were telling the truth to themselves? I don't think you can apply majorities or minorities in this case. Not without being ridiculously arbitrary.

You can confirm this yourself, i.e. are you and do have a conscious fear of death all the time?
Serious death anxiety or thanatophobia [conscious fear of death] is not a common mental issue.
I have noted most members in philosophical forum assert they do not have fear of death [I presume constantly].
I believe if you ask the question to all humans, 99% will reply they do not have a constant fear of death.
Therefore the inherent and unavoidable subconscious fear of death is suppressed naturally and not relayed to the conscious mind on a permanent basis.


How do you know that the fear of death is suppressed by the subconscious, where is your evidence of this? The above is not evidence, it is a speculation based upon your interpretation (can't you see that?). Couldn't the case be that people accept the fact that they are going to die, because it is an inevitable part of life? Do you understand the nature of acceptance and how it affects people's mental states?

Are you are professional philosopher whilst participating in the "Philosophy" forum.
What counts is whether my views are rational and well justified.


Really? You don't have to be a professional philosopher to engage in philosophy. But you do have to be educated in the field of psychology to be able to diagnose people. What are you trying to say here, that you can diagnose people without any formal training if your views are rational and well justified? You can claim what you want about people, but there is a difference in claiming things about people, and creating complex diagnosis.

I have NEVER claimed EVERYTHING is reducible to the subconscious fear of death.
The subconscious fear is not the main root but the sub-sub root comprising other instincts that are necessary to avoid death, e.g. hunger, to breathe, physical security, and few others.

It was an exaggeration based upon the pattern of your comments, didn't you recognise that? You claimed that the fear of public speaking was reducible to the subconscious fear of death, and you can't even see the problems with that claim.

What I am claiming is 'the root of all mainstream religions is the subconscious fear of death'. All other reasons given by believers why they are religious are merely secondary and are forms.


Which is patently, a nonsense.

Do you understand the phrase 'substance over forms?'


In what context? I took your comment to mean that for some reason, you thought that KT had responded to the form of your claims, rather than the substance.

Note your counters are very superficial which due to misrepresentation of my views and ignorance of the subject matter.


You might feel that way, but can you demonstrate that, other than to say that I disagree with you?

Show me one point above where my counter-points are not effective to contra your views?


You won't be able to recognise them, the proof of that is the above.

One of the problem is your lack of knowledge on the Neuro-Psychology of Fear. I suggest you read up on this topic.


Category error. Based upon the inference that you believe yourself to be right in all cases.

...The point is this. You believe that your “thesis” is justified, but the justification is your interpretation of how you think the available information relates to your claims – hence it is subjective. Evidence of something necessarily has to show specifically that what you're claiming is both valid and supported factually. However, what you're claiming as evidence can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn't necessarily lead to or demonstrate what you conclude it does. You don't seem to recognise how important this is in substantiating your claim. As such your thesis is only justified to you.

Also;

You infer that when people disagree with you, they are lacking intellectually i.e. unable to rationalise, not reflecting deeply enough, lacking knowledge of the subject matter etc. You also claimed that KT has not focused on the substance of this issue, but it is patently clear that from reading his posts that he has. IMV, these are category errors.
Fanman
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:07 pm

"Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?"
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.

According to Buddhism, the central characteristics of existence are impermanence, suffering and ‘no-self’. The Buddha’s view of life as suffering might give rise to the notion that Buddhism is essentially pessimistic. However, as I argue, in offering a complete liberation from suffering, Buddhism is highly optimistic.


A classic "general description" argument.

Is it true or not?

Well, my point is always that it depends in large part on what the actual set of circumstances are when conflicting thoughts of this sort pass through one's head. For one individual in one situation it might make considerably more sense to be pessimistic, while for another individual in the same set of circumstances, it might make more sense to feel optimistic.

It's just that with Buddhism impermanence reconfigures into reincarnation such that the more virtuously you live on this side of the grave the better the odds there might be less suffering in the next incarnation.

But over and again one can't but help to come back to this: how "for all practical purposes" does this actually all unfold? And who or what effectuates it?

And then the part where so much suffering endured by so many people is embedded precisely in the fact that the more people are preoccupied with their enlightened "soul", the less likely they are to organize with others politically to effectuate changes that might reduce human suffering here and now. The religion as "the opiate of the people" tagline.

Understanding that the cause of suffering is craving (the Buddha’s Second Noble Truth) enables us to eradicate suffering by removing the cause – which is achieved by following the Eightfold Path in order to be freed from the cycle of re-birth and the accumulation of karma.


Sure, for the cravings that we want, this can make sense for some. Depending on their circumstances. But what of the cravings that we need: food, water, shelter, defense, a stable environment to reproduce. Subsistence itself. Suffering here is often embedded precisely in the arguments of folks like Marx and Engels.

And then the extent to which karma can be separated from determinism. Or the arguments that revolve around karma and conflicting goods. If karma is defined as "the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences" who is to say which behaviors precipitate a better incarnation in future lives?

Here of course Buddhism is not unlike all other religious denominations: It just shrugs aside the arguments that folks like me make regarding identity, conflicting goods and oblivion.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 33009
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]