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 phyllo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:54 am

:-k
Why on earth would I talk about myself here? Why would I talk about my behaviors?

What would be the point?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11599
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:56 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
If so, he's lying because he has described how fear of oblivion for himself and people he cares about is chewing him up.
Yo, chill, dog. He be messing wit our minds, feel me? Prometheus, he like Flava Fav to Iamb's Chuck D, Tony Yayo to 50 cent. He just splainin' Iambs banging shit, like, transcends our craniums. Lying? nah, it be freedom, word, yo.

We got's to suss Iamb's fly posts full time, bro, or we be just dissing his bluh.

Iambiguous, man, he's, like, the shit. We been bumrushing a Boddhisatva. His posts be pointing at the moon, not describing it.

Gots to grow up, you and me.


Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being "clever"!

That still boggles my mind. Though, admittedly, less and less.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:03 am

phyllo wrote::-k
Why on earth would I talk about myself here? Why would I talk about my behaviors?

What would be the point?


Huh?

No, seriously: HUH?!

As a mere mortal, you interact with others who may well come into conflict with you over value judgments. For many, these conflicts go beyond the existential and encompass one or another equivalent of Heaven and Hell.

For me that revolves around moral nihilism here and now, oblivion there and then.

What about you? In a philosophy forum, you have no earthly reasons to discuss how these relationships impact on your day to day existence?

If not, we are put together differently.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:15 am

If I go to a history forum, then I talk about history.

If I go to a science forum, then I talk about science.

I don't talk about myself.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11599
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:05 am

phyllo wrote:If I go to a history forum, then I talk about history.

If I go to a science forum, then I talk about science.

I don't talk about myself.


If I go to a religion forum, I want to discuss the relationship between the behaviors that religionists choose here and now as this is related to what they anticipate will result from this there and then on the other side.

And, in that regard, as someone not able to believe in God or Enlightenment, I am not able to not think as a moral nihilist who is just around the corner from oblivion.

Not to talk about how these relationships are crucial to an understanding of the life I live is [to me] ridiculous.

If, on the other hand, thinking like I do seems ridiculous to you, then steer clear of me on threads such as this. Just accept that we think about these things differently.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:22 pm

That's very general.

What on earth does it mean?

We need a context. For example:

A Christian volunteers at a soup kitchen every year at Thanksgiving. He is inspired by what Jesus said about helping the poor.(Cite NT passages if necessary.) He "earns points" towards entering heaven.

I suppose that another Christian may be inspired to volunteer as well, when he reads the story.

What does an atheist get out of the Christian's story? He might, or might not, volunteer at a soup kitchen but for reasons other than Jesus and heaven.

Where is the philosophy?

What am I missing?
Last edited by phyllo on Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11599
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:20 pm

Serendipper wrote:Well, I see nothing has changed around here: 30 pages of the same group of guys perpetually peddling perceptions like some sort of philosopher purgatory :D
Nice perception!
I must say that it is good to see everyone is still around.
Nice to see you, again.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:46 pm

phyllo wrote: That's very general.

What on earth does it mean?


Well, when I am exchanging insulting retorts with objectivists of your ilk, what's the point of specificity?

phyllo wrote: We need a context. For example:

A Christian volunteers at a soup kitchen every year at Thanksgiving. He is inspired by what Jesus said about helping the poor.(Cite NT passages if necessary.) He "earns points" towards entering heaven.

I suppose that another Christian may be inspired to volunteer as well, when he reads the story.


My point revolves around how, given a particular trajectory of personal experiences, the volunteers and the folks being fed came to be in this soup kitchen in the first place. "I" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein.

And then the extent to which the Christian volunteer is able to demonstrate that his role model actually did in fact exist; and was both God and the Son of God; then died for our sins; then was resurrected.

And how, say, even though Jesus was a Jew, any number of Christians today reject the Jewish faith. As do Muslims who rally around Muhammad instead. Even though they all claim to worship and adore the God of Moses and Abraham.

And that's before we get to the reaction of all this from the Buddhists here.

And what of the Marxists who claim that soup kitchens are an inherent manifestation of capitalism? That those in them should choose instead to struggle politically against a ruling class that creates such disparity between the wealthy and the poor? And that Christianity is just one more example of religion being the opiate of the masses? And how politicians like Trump use evangelicals as chumps in order to sustain their own class interests.

phyllo wrote: What does an atheist get out of the Christian's story? He might, or might not, volunteer at a soup kitchen but for reasons other than Jesus and heaven.


Again: what particular atheist, in what particular set of circumstances, viewing the world around her from what particular set of assumptions? Philosophical or otherwise.

Sure, she might be in the soup kitchen for her own reasons. But what are those reasons? How did she come to embody them?

Indeed, how is the "I" of any of these characters here not a profoundly problematic manifestation of the manner in which "I" construe the meaning of dasein?
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:03 pm

That doesn't sound like philosophy. It's more like an interest in personal history - biography or autobiography.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11599
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:09 pm

phyllo wrote:That doesn't sound like philosophy. It's more like an interest in personal history - biography or autobiography.


Like I said:

Not to talk about how these relationships are crucial to an understanding of the life I live is [to me] ridiculous.

If, on the other hand, thinking like I do seems ridiculous to you, then steer clear of me on threads such as this. Just accept that we think about these things differently.


Let's leave it at that, shall we?

You know, after you discuss it with Karpel Tunnel.

Pick one:

:wink: :lol: :wink:
:lol: :wink: :lol:
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:32 pm

It could explain why the discussions don't go anywhere. One person is interested in personal histories and the other person is interested in something else.

The overlap could be small.

Then there comes the time when we start talking about the person. And suddenly that's off limits for some reason.

It's quite confusing.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11599
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:47 pm

phyllo wrote:It could explain why the discussions don't go anywhere. One person is interested in personal histories and the other person is interested in something else.

The overlap could be small.

Then there comes the time when we start talking about the person. And suddenly that's off limits for some reason.

It's quite confusing.


Okay, let's leave it at that then.

Yo, KT, does that work for you too?
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:57 pm

iambiguous wrote:Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being "clever"!
If my attempt at humor was a hapless attempt at being funny or clever, (both certainly possible failures on my part)...

it wasn't you who did this, it was prometheus who did it - if such control is possible - with his street talk, calling people whose posts he must have skimmed at best...niggas, etc. lol. His post led to my response, not yours.

His style of posting.
And then...his explanation of what you are doing here, not your explanation of what you are doing here.
I was obviously mocking his style of posting and his claims about you - which, again, it bears repeating, do not match what you say you are doing, so my humor in my post doesn't relate to your posts or claims, but his.

Yet here you are taking credit for controlling the behavior of other people, again.

With a dash of mind reading powers as well.

I couldn't just be someone who sometimes thinks he's being funny or clever when he's not.

No, Iambiguous 'reduced me'.

Talk about comforting contraptions.

And you still haven't driven me away as you claimed you had already managed to do, now quite a while ago. Being a psychic doesn't become you. You might want to make claims consistent with your philosophy.

To put this in a Buddhist context, here is a Zen story about hubris...
Once upon a time, there used to live an unhappy man, who set out on a quest to find the true meaning of life. He went through mountains and valleys, talked to all the sages known to the world for their great wisdom. Yet it was all in vain for he deemed their knowledge unworthy compared to what he assumed he already knew. After years of tiresome journey, he finally went to an old Zen monk, who lived in a monastery in the forest. Upon hearing the desire of this miserable person, the monk offered him tea. The man held the cup while the monk poured tea into the cup. He kept on pouring into the cup even after it was full and overflowing. The man screamed, ‘stop!’ thinking that the monk was crazy and regretting coming to the monastery in the first place. The monk smiled and told him, ‘You must first empty your cup! You will not learn anything new, while you fill and take pride with what you think you already know.’


Have my posts made you believe in immortal life or the resolution of conflicting goods? No. Of course, they have not attempted that.

But will you manage to learn about some more humble, smaller things, about yourself and life...? or from others?

About how you view yourself and your project, about what you are doing or claim to be doing?

And notice that the guy in the story, at least, he tried to find actual practitioners of religions, actual experts, where they might be. I know, you are limited in mobility. If only the internet existed.....and one could actually find the email addresses of experts...if only.....

But what you lack in certain options you make up for in your ability to reduce people.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:02 am

phyllo wrote:Then there comes the time when we start talking about the person. And suddenly that's off limits for some reason.

It's quite confusing.


I thought this was interesting and it is part of a pattern....

Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being "clever"!


He 'reduced me.' He has elsewhere bragged about driving people away and predicted he had done enough to drive me away and I would be soon leaving. He has said that he knows why people get irritated at him and that his posts are triggering their fears, loss of comfort. There are other examples of what I would call a general pattern of him

claiming to control the behavior of others.

So perhaps he views interactions like this as a situation where someone else might potentially control him.

If he admitted someone else was right about what he had done or said, they would be 'reducing' him, or compelling him to some feeling or behavior. IOW he views it as a kind of power struggle where someone can actually gain control of another person. And since he assumes that the only possible issue someone might have with his process is to avoid losing comfort and consolation, I think it is fair to wonder if this is how he views interacting with others: they are going to take something away from him if he admits anything or changes in any way in response to what they right.

And of course actually engaging in the practices of a school of therapy or at a Buddhist temple is verboten. That would be potential loss of control in spades.

Which fits with his concern that for all he knows he will have some new belief system in the future. He has no way to know if he will be a Buddhist or Catholic or racist later in his life, even though these, now, do not fit is values and beliefs.

And his concern that he has gone through a series of belief systems before, as he has pointed out hundreds of times. (which actually is an observation very much in line with Buddhist thinking. There they do not think there is any self, with him he bemoans this changing self, which he calls fractured. And any Buddhist worth his or her salt would recognize that he has become aware of something most people have not, but is frozen at the stage of being afraid of it)

Now (to protect himself from being controlled by others) if anyone is going to affect him it has to be via something that would change every single rational person's mind on the planet.

No one is going to control him, certainly not in particular. Won't get fooled again.

So when he is the subject it is taboo. Though he is happy to make claims about others and what is going on in their minds, even unconsciously, and further it is sometimes under his control what they think, feel and do.

The last thing he wants is for someone else to have, what he conceives of as, control over him AGAIN.

Now the Buddha argued that what one thinks and feels is not who you are. So he would have seen such a defensive position and a view of dialogue as people controlling other people (selves) as confused and clinging....

https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato

If anyone says, ‘thoughts are self’ … ‘mind consciousness is self’ … ‘mind contact is self’ … ‘feeling is self’ … ‘craving is self,’ that is not tenable. The arising and vanishing of craving is evident, so it would follow that one’s self arises and vanishes. That’s why it’s not tenable to claim that craving is self. So the mind, thoughts, mind consciousness, mind contact, feeling, and craving are not self.

This is the conclusion, the full argument is in that link.

So, from a Buddhist perspective focusing on the contents of thoughts (and feelings) is confused. It is the relation to the thoughts and feelings in general that need to change. He's fighting a war of control with others - celebrating victories where he drives people away or reduces them - and making sure it never seems like they won a battle by controlling his thoughts and feelings and behavior.

Buddhism offers a release from this battle.

It's not the release for me. But I think Buddhism can give a little insight into what is happening and why it might be confusing to interact with him.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:40 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:Then there comes the time when we start talking about the person. And suddenly that's off limits for some reason.

It's quite confusing.


I thought this was interesting and it is part of a pattern....

Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being "clever"!


He 'reduced me.' He has elsewhere bragged about driving people away and predicted he had done enough to drive me away and I would be soon leaving. He has said that he knows why people get irritated at him and that his posts are triggering their fears, loss of comfort. There are other examples of what I would call a general pattern of him

claiming to control the behavior of others.

So perhaps he views interactions like this as a situation where someone else might potentially control him.

If he admitted someone else was right about what he had done or said, they would be 'reducing' him, or compelling him to some feeling or behavior. IOW he views it as a kind of power struggle where someone can actually gain control of another person. And since he assumes that the only possible issue someone might have with his process is to avoid losing comfort and consolation, I think it is fair to wonder if this is how he views interacting with others: they are going to take something away from him if he admits anything or changes in any way in response to what they right.

And of course actually engaging in the practices of a school of therapy or at a Buddhist temple is verboten. That would be potential loss of control in spades.

Which fits with his concern that for all he knows he will have some new belief system in the future. He has no way to know if he will be a Buddhist or Catholic or racist later in his life, even though these, now, do not fit is values and beliefs.

And his concern that he has gone through a series of belief systems before, as he has pointed out hundreds of times. (which actually is an observation very much in line with Buddhist thinking. There they do not think there is any self, with him he bemoans this changing self, which he calls fractured. And any Buddhist worth his or her salt would recognize that he has become aware of something most people have not, but is frozen at the stage of being afraid of it)

Now (to protect himself from being controlled by others) if anyone is going to affect him it has to be via something that would change every single rational person's mind on the planet.

No one is going to control him, certainly not in particular. Won't get fooled again.

So when he is the subject it is taboo. Though he is happy to make claims about others and what is going on in their minds, even unconsciously, and further it is sometimes under his control what they think, feel and do.

The last thing he wants is for someone else to have, what he conceives of as, control over him AGAIN.

Now the Buddha argued that what one thinks and feels is not who you are. So he would have seen such a defensive position and a view of dialogue as people controlling other people (selves) as confused and clinging....

https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato

If anyone says, ‘thoughts are self’ … ‘mind consciousness is self’ … ‘mind contact is self’ … ‘feeling is self’ … ‘craving is self,’ that is not tenable. The arising and vanishing of craving is evident, so it would follow that one’s self arises and vanishes. That’s why it’s not tenable to claim that craving is self. So the mind, thoughts, mind consciousness, mind contact, feeling, and craving are not self.

This is the conclusion, the full argument is in that link.

So, from a Buddhist perspective focusing on the contents of thoughts (and feelings) is confused. It is the relation to the thoughts and feelings in general that need to change. He's fighting a war of control with others - celebrating victories where he drives people away or reduces them - and making sure it never seems like they won a battle by controlling his thoughts and feelings and behavior.

Buddhism offers a release from this battle.

It's not the release for me. But I think Buddhism can give a little insight into what is happening and why it might be confusing to interact with him.


We'll need a context of course.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:09 pm

Beyond true and false
Buddhist philosophy is full of contradictions. Now modern logic is learning why that might be a good
Graham Priest

Western philosophers have not, on the whole, regarded Buddhist thought with much enthusiasm. As a colleague once said to me: ‘It’s all just mysticism.’ This attitude is due, in part, to ignorance. But it is also due to incomprehension. When Western philosophers look East, they find things they do not understand – not least the fact that the Asian traditions seem to accept, and even endorse, contradictions. Thus we find the great second-century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna saying:

"The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature: no-nature."


Once again, we are off to an inauspicious start. Exactly: another general description intellectual contraption.

They can originate in Western philosophy and religion or in Eastern philosophy or religion.

To wit:

What contradiction regarding the nature of what things and relationships in what particular context? Again, as though before we go there, we've got to be clear in our mind about the definition and the meaning of the words we will use that by and large will hardly ever actually leave our minds and become entangled in what we either can or cannot demonstrate is true for all of us in our interactions.

In other words, suppose you were able to grasp Buddhism without any ignorance of anything at all? Suppose you had a complete comprehension of it?

How would that change my point?

The same with Western narratives. If someone was able to actually transcend all ignorance and comprehend rationally all that is of most importance in our interactions with others, where would that leave them in regard to that which is of most importance to me in regard to both philosophy and religion: morality here and now, immortality there and then.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:50 am

Beyond true and false
Buddhist philosophy is full of contradictions. Now modern logic is learning why that might be a good
Graham Priest

An abhorrence of contradiction has been high orthodoxy in the West for more than 2,000 years...As Avicenna, the father of Medieval Aristotelianism, declared:

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."


So, sure, why not, through either God or No God, extend that frame of mind to value judgments. One is either right about the morality of abortion or they are wrong. And, even though a distinction can clearly be made between the objective fact of having an abortion and conflicting subjective reactions to the morality of choosing to have one, you simply embrace one or another rendition of obligatory or deontological or metaphysical morality as true. Thus, from Plato to Kant to Ayn Rand, it's the reality in your head that counts.

That way the act of being beaten or burned and one's point of view regarding the morality of the beating and the burning become interchangeable in the objectivist's mind.

Now on to the East...

Let’s start by turning back the clock. It is India in the fifth century BCE, the age of the historical Buddha, and a rather peculiar principle of reasoning appears to be in general use. This principle is called the catuskoti, meaning ‘four corners’. It insists that there are four possibilities regarding any statement: it might be true (and true only), false (and false only), both true and false, or neither true nor false.

We know that the catuskoti was in the air because of certain questions that people asked the Buddha, in exchanges that come down to us in the sutras. Questions such as: what happens to enlightened people after they die? It was commonly assumed that an unenlightened person would keep being reborn, but the whole point of enlightenment was to get out of this vicious circle. And then what? Did you exist, not, both or neither? The Buddha’s disciples clearly expected him to endorse one and only one of these possibilities. This, it appears, was just how people thought.


Okay, so what are the "four corners" here?

What does happen to enlightened people after day die? How, choosing each corner at a time, would one go about demonstrating that this is in fact what happens to enlightened people after they die?

After all, were there not people like me around back then who refused to just accept what people believed about things like this "in their head"? Buddhist or not. Or, perhaps, since the "vicious circle" is really only created in one's head, then why not the solution as well.

And, again, the reason that this is just "how people thought" about things like this [then and now] is because, in convincing yourself that it is true, it comforts and consoles you. Whether it be in regard to Nirvana or Heaven or the Promised Land or Paradise or Canaan or Elysium or Arcadia.

The only thing that really changes on this side of the grave are the particular behaviors that one is obligated to embody in order to pass muster on the other side.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 34327
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:14 pm

Why on earth would anyone choose an article called... Beyond true and false
Buddhist philosophy is full of contradictions. Now modern logic is learning why that might be a good thing


and expect it to answer questions about whether abortion is moral or not?

And he actually expressed a kind of frustration that the article was not meeting your needs.

Here's in reaction to just the very beginning of talking about non-contradiction, it seems to me, Iamb has no idea what non-contradiction is. He writes what he always writes without even trying, it seems, to integrate anything he is citing. Now I think it would be tricky to do this, but the following does not respond to, integrate or critique what he quoted. It seems merely triggered by what he quoted.
So, sure, why not, through either God or No God, extend that frame of mind to value judgments. One is either right about the morality of abortion or they are wrong. And, even though a distinction can clearly be made between the objective fact of having an abortion and conflicting subjective reactions to the morality of choosing to have one, you simply embrace one or another rendition of obligatory or deontological or metaphysical morality as true. Thus, from Plato to Kant to Ayn Rand, it's the reality in your head that counts.


Then we have this....

What contradiction regarding the nature of what things and relationships in what particular context? Again, as though before we go there, we've got to be clear in our mind about the definition and the meaning of the words we will use that by and large will hardly ever actually leave our minds and become entangled in what we either can or cannot demonstrate is true for all of us in our interactions.

and
The same with Western narratives. If someone was able to actually transcend all ignorance and comprehend rationally all that is of most importance in our interactions with others, where would that leave them in regard to that which is of most importance to me in regard to both philosophy and religion: morality here and now, immortality there and then.


He is asking people what it would mean in relation to his 'point' if we had completely knowledge of Western tradition?
I mean, must one actually point out the idiocy. We aren't the person who has this, so how could we possibly answer.

He complains that there isn't a particular context...as if the article said it was going to resolve something like conflicting goods or immortality. When in fact, oddly enough givne the title, it is talking in broad terms about how what seemed just plain wrong, in terms of logic, in Buddhism, is not not considered to be. IOW the article is on topic and one not directly related to his issue, but it is failing somehow since it is not answering his question.

Sound familiar?

Yup, that's how he treats us.

I am putting his quotes in a different order.....in case someone thinks this is unfair they can check his posts above to see if I have changed something significant...
In other words, suppose you were able to grasp Buddhism without any ignorance of anything at all? Suppose you had a complete comprehension of it?

How would that change my point?


OK, again, first issue: who does he think he is talking to? He is asking non-Buddhists to answer what they would answer or could resolve if they had complete Buddhist knowledge. Now it is the internet and I am sure one can find people idiotic enough to answer that, but...why bother?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]