I understand that Buddhism rejects the idea of a soul. I wouldn’t argue that there is a soul, but I believe there is a self, empirical and personal. I don’t believe that is what Buddhism teaches/practices though. Buddhism practices that there is no personal self, but there is a dharma-self, which they believe is composed of aggregates; material form, feelings, perceptions, mental fabrications, and consciousness. I think that in Buddhism, the acceptance of there being any kind of personal self, which is what I mean by “self” and “negation of self”, would hinder the process of detachment from craving, desires, attachment etc. From what I’ve read on Buddhism, they do not refer to an “empirical-self” that seems to be your interpretation.
Is an “empirical self” your interpretation or something that is actually stated in Buddhism? And also, is “Buddhism-proper” a distinction that you’ve made?
-I think that this post by KT is a good summary of how Buddhism perceives the self;
Here, he describes most accurately what I’ve read about Buddhism (oh and thanks for the links all).
What is the WRONG concept of self? If you’re stance on this taken from Buddhism, then I would guess you’re referring to the transcendental self. But you haven’t stated exactly what you mean?
If you are referring to the transcendental self, how could you possibly know that there is no such thing? You can believe there is no such thing, but you cannot know. If I am wrong and you do somehow know, how do you know, by the absence of empirical evidence?
In most Buddhist sutra, there is no mentioned of the “empirical self” I brought the concept empirical self in to reconcile the various interpretation of such a self within the various Buddhist schools.
The concept of aggregate is limited to the Theravada School and the other school with describe what is supposedly the empirical-self with different terms.
I don’t see any significant difference between what I described as empirical self and the similar self described within the two-truth theory of Buddhism.
In a way I am reconciling the Buddhist view in this case with general philosophy term of 'empirical.
Note the definition empirical,
Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Empirical:
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Kant used the term ‘empirical self’ regularly to distinguish it from the transcendental self [the illusory self or soul].
Okay, but I think you need to give these kind of explanations in the introduction not the conclusion, or it can make it seem as though you took it directly (as quoted) from Buddhism.
This is what Christians do when they struggle to find answers! There’s no need to quote scripture brother, I was asking how you know.
His views are idiosyncratic. Further while the translated term ‘aggregate’ may be used primarily when translated the same ideas come up in other forms of Buddhism. The fleeing unstable impermanent empty without self nature of reality. This is consistent through every school, each using their own ways of conveying this. He’s being slippery, though I don’t think he is doing this consciously. But since his post often and in general are mind reading ad homs in relation to theists and other religious people, even Buddhists, I will return the favor again and say that I don’t think he wants to face the Buddhist assertion that not only is their no soul that continues after death, there is no continuous or as they say in philosophy persistent self. He sees others as fearing death and so believing X and this is projection since he simply cannot accept that Buddhism is saying he doesn’t really exist at all. Yes, there is an experiencer or experiencing, but it is not the same one that will be present using his name next years. Buddhism practices of all kinds and texts lead to this conclusion.
I didn’t miss it. I chose to deal with the issues that I wrote about instead.
I think that your focus on subconscious fear of death makes your theory unfalsifiable.
You identify causes and links which are hidden in the subconscious. Yet, you seem to see them easily and not just in yourself but in all people.
If we bring up cases where a person(s) is not afraid, then you can always say that the fear is subconscious. Which is what you done in your post.
I think that’s a good example of a subconscious fear.
But I don’t think it can be generalized into ‘fear of death’. That’s taking it too far.
You claim a link to fear which you don’t demonstrate. Fight-or flight effectively avoids death. There is no need for fear to be inserted as a necessary factor in the fight-or-flight response.
You keep asserting the same beliefs over and over. As if repetition makes them more true.
It clearly is an appeal to authority. It seems that because Kant used the phrase/term “empirical self” that somehow reinforces him doing so. I kind of understand what he’s trying to say in how an “empirical self” relates to Buddhism, but Kant was using the term in a different context to what we are discussing here. If he thinks that it applies here, he needs to explain why in more detail, rather than just using it and expecting us to understand what he means, accept its relevance and state an authority for using it.
I don’t want to change him, but I believe that he is too concerned with being right and creating invincible arguments.
Why Buddhism Is True by Robert Wright
Lachlan Dale considers a naturalistic view of Buddhism.
From the book review section of Philosophy Now magazine.
Of course this approach to Buddhism aligns truth with the assumptions of those who are willing to accept the premise that this is at all relevant to any discussion of Buddhism. After all, you could do the same with any other religious/spiritual narrative.
Does this then even count at all?
Thus…
So, sure, why not explore it in this manner…if only to assess the coherence of the argument itself. And, for folks like me, to measure against my own set of assumptions.
Here, I suspect Buddhism is clearly an effective remedy for any number of men and women who, however they regard the “metaphysical and mystical” aspects of Buddhism, are able to live their lives with considerably less mental, emotional and psychological travail. And only a fool in my view would just shrug that part off.
But, from my vantage point, those who are able to benefit “personally” by including Buddhism in their day to day interactions with others, are still no less thrown into a world where neverending moral and political conflicts are far, far, far more relevant to the overwhelming preponderance of Earth’s inhabitants.
As individuals, some are able to intertwine Buddhism into their daily lives because their daily lives do not involve coming face to face with the reality of political economy around the globe.
Or they can cloister in small communities able to effectively distance themselves from the conflicting goods that rend those millions less able to. Or those little concerned at all with anything that does not revolve around money transactions in the world of consumption.
Then those who are raised in nations where there are large communities of practicing Buddhists. Here, in my view, they become more or less like the other major religious denomination around the globe. In other words, one way or another they integrate Buddhism into the modern capitalist state. Or the modern state capitalist contraptions in, say, Chine and Russia.
Whatever the actual case, it still revolves around dasein in my estimation. Each individual is thrown into a particular world at birth, is indoctrinated as a child to believe certain “truths” and then goes out into the world as an adult the embodiment of his or her own trajectory of experiences, relationships and access to ideas that predispose them to react to Buddhism [as with all other value judgments] in a certain way.
Kant is not a Christian. Kant is a deist and he criticized organized Christianity heavily as an inferior ideology.
Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of all times.
Thus I won’t be far from wrong when I stand on ‘the shoulders of philosopher giants.’
Scientific knowledge [not pure theoretical ones] is the most realistic, objective, reliable and useful* humanity have on hand at present. * After taking note of any of its cons.
Scientific knowledge is grounded on empirical evidence and empirical justification.
Thus when we assign the term ‘empirical’ to ‘self’ we will ensure it is as close to scientific as possible plus we imputing critical thinking and philosophical tools into it.
Thus by qualifying that self with ‘empirical’ we ensure this concept is not led into la la land as woo woo when done by some Buddhists.
Note the Dalai Lama views on Buddhism and Science;
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
The concept of the aggregates is:
Skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāḷi) means “heaps, aggregates, collections, groupings”.[1] In Buddhism, it refers to the five aggregates of clinging (Pancha-upadanakkhanda), the five material and mental factors that take part in the rise of craving and clinging.
They are also explained as the five factors that constitute and explain a sentient being’s person and personality,[2][3][4] but this is a later interpretation in response to sarvastivadin essentialism.
The five aggregates or heaps are:
form (or material image, impression) (rupa),
sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana),
perceptions (samjna),
mental activity or formations (sankhara), and
consciousness (vijnana).
-wiki
All the 5 aggregates above are covered by Science. While ‘consciousness’ is starting to be taken up Science, it is well covered within Philosophy.
They [5 aggregates] are also explained as the five factors that constitute and explain a sentient being’s person and personality,[2][3][4] but this is a later interpretation in response to sarvastivadin essentialism.
-wiki
Since,
the 5 aggregates are empirically based and open to Science,
the 5 aggregates constitute a sentient being’s person and personality [the self]
thus this ‘self’ can be described as ‘the empirical self’ or the empirical-I-self.
Note the point above ‘this is a later interpretation in response to sarvastivadin essentialism’ i.e. it is counter response.
Essentialismis the view that every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function.[1]
In early Western thought, Plato’s idealism held that all things have such an “essence”—an “idea” or “form”.
In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it, “make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing”.[2]
The contrary view—non-essentialism—denies the need to posit such an “essence’”.
Kant’s empirical self is also a non-essentialism view.
I believe it is more effective to use the term ‘empirical self’ when discussing Buddhism to cover what is common within all the schools of Buddhism rather than ‘5 aggregates’ extended to person, personality re essentialism, etc. then have to explain this school use such and such a term.
Note my justification in the above post why I used ‘empirical-self’ which I think is more effective and potentially more objective.
You are simply forcing words into my mouth.
Note I agree with Buddhism, Hume, Kant, and other non-essentialists,
"I’ the transcendental-I-self do not exists as a permanent thing.
BUT, in another perspective,
“I” the empirical-I-self do exists as real and empirically justified by Science and Philosophy.
You may not agree to the Two-Truths Theory of Buddhism but this theory is useful for all Buddhists and others to ensure they are not led into essentialism and its la la land and woo woo. This potential error is where some Buddhist believe literally in rebirth, i.e. the person is born into another realm in another form.
No shame in standing on the shoulders of giant philosophers.
It is an imperative to quote the proper recognized authority in any thesis paper to lend weight to one’s argument.
I believe the subconscious fear of death is critical to Buddhism.
This is reflected and highlighted in the Buddha Story.
As stated in my argument,
'to live one has to avoid death [premature] till the inevitable,
‘to avoid death, one has to fear death’.
This is very logical, if one fear death, then one will avoid death.
But I stated this is not with reference to a conscious fear of death.
Btw, to fear death is merely one impulse to avoid death.
There are many instincts and impulse within the subconscious mind, e.g. food, security, breathing and others.
I mentioned ‘to fear death’ as this is related to why people turned to religion, i.e. Buddhism and others.
Those avoidances that are related evidence of immediate death by snake, height, poisonous plants, animals, and the like can be generalized within the fear of death. For example those bitten by poisonous snakes, fall from height, eaten by beast do die immediately thus the evidence of death. Thus the mind will naturally associate these with death and the fear of it to trigger avoidance.
Nope, whatever is stated and repeated must still be justified.
If you don’t agree you can offer a counter argument to the above.
Repetition is only a burden to me, one can always ignore it while they could be a good reminder and refresher to others.
Yes, untraceable.
It is noticeable in those who converted to theistic religions.
Their often complain is an anxiety, Angst, hopelessness, depress and despair within a meaningless life.
When they believes in a theistic religion, they have meaning as defined by a God and there is an order and purpose for them to adopt, follow and practice, i.e. having some meaning and ultimate hope of eternal life.
The reality is such meanings are made-beliefs and God is an illusion. But this pretense somehow works and relieve their existential pains.
But then, the theists are unable to trace to the real origins and causes, i.e. the subconscious fear of death.
Buddhism on the other hand identify the true nature of the above existential pains as represented in the Buddha Story and deal with its root cause, i.e. the subconscious fear of death. The main practices of Buddhism is to deal with this inherent subconscious fear of death and learn how to modulate it via skillful actions.
If you are aware of serious and in depth Buddhist practices, the dealing with death is a very critical and essential step.
This is why Buddhist has to imagine and practice mindfulness on how is it to be dead.
There are practices where Buddhists will sleep with corpses and various other practices associated with death.
Maraṇasati (mindfulness of death, death awareness) is a Buddhist meditation practice that uses various visualization and contemplation techniques to meditate on the nature of death. The cultivation of Maranassati is said to be conducive to right effort and also helps in developing a sense of spiritual urgency (Saṃvega) and renunciation (Nekkhamma).
There are loads of meditation, mindfulness and other practices that are linked with death in the various school of Buddhism.
I have read tons of materials on Buddhism.
From these, you will note the focus in the subconscious fear of death, i.e. not to eliminate it but to modulate it.
As I had stated the only valid currency in this Philosophical Forum is justified sound argument.
I will always try to throw in justified sound argument and invite counter arguments, if you are incline to it, then we can trade, else its your discretion to ignore.
Btw, in Buddhism arguments are welcomed but not as critical as practicing.
Note Tibetan Monks arguing Buddhist Philosophies;
Hey, I wouldn’t mind being right and creating invincible arguments. (though I suppose I am a bit more skeptical about how easy those are to create and stricter about what the criteria are)
you are mistaken when you associate ‘avoidance’ and ‘desires’ with fear.
you don’t have a causal link between subconscious fear of death and the actions of theists.
you have no way to access the subconscious of all humans or even a particular group of humans
I can ignore you, but then your poor arguments and reasoning may proliferate. They may appear to be true to some people who read them. It’s in everyone’s interest that I point out the problems with your argument.
Well, then, what or who is this image which stares back at you when you look in the mirror which you recognize? Simply an illusion? If that is the case, then what need is there to get rid of “craving, desire or attachment”? If a self does not exist, then all the rest is illusion too.
A puff of smoke will soon dissipate.
What is it about our selves which seems to want to deny what is clearly there?
“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” A. Einstein
How did you manage to interpret that I claimed Kant was a Christian? There’s nothing wrong with applying Kant’s thinking on a philosophy forum, but you used Kant as an authority in your claim that a transcendent-self or “soul”, does not exist – which doesn’t make sense unless Kant demonstrated such unequivocally. Kant may have reasoned the soul out of existence in his estimations, but he didn’t know that there is no soul, and neither do you - that is a matter of belief. Maybe you can present an argument/syllogism which demonstrates your thinking on this matter? For me, using philosophical authorities kind of kills the discussion, because interlocutors don’t want to disagree with them. Like saying: “This is what my big man says on the matter, so I don’t have to argue anymore.” Which is what some theists do. Only instead of Kant they say God.
I never claimed that you were wrong to use the term “empirical self”. It is idiosyncratic in my view, but I understand what you mean. There’s no need for extensive justification. You just need to explain what you meant - which you have… That is what suits you, but it may suit others to actually discuss the aggregates as they relate to Buddhism and philosophy. If you want to use the term “empirical self” that’s fine, but from my perspective it is not a qualifying term as such. Rather a description of what you mean. I don’t think that people who enjoy philosophy mind discussing things in depth. Using generalisations kind of defeats the purpose I think.
Ha! I’m satisfied with a good argument or comment that makes sense. For me making sense is the priority. I also like to learn from others here. I don’t really try to create invincible arguments, I like being right, but I’m not too concerned about it. I prefer discussion and bouncing points to and fro. If I had the knack of being right the majority of the time and could create invincible arguments, I’d look at publishing my work! In the years I’ve been using philosophy forums, I’ve yet to see an argument that was accepted by all forum members and ticked every box required for being a proof. Prismatic believes he has created logical proofs, but I think his arguments are prone to confirmation bias. He’s got smarts, but I think he bottle-necks things through his own biases and strict real/not real paradigm of thinking. I think that Phyllo is right in the sense that it is better to debate with Prismatic, rather than ignore him.
This is arbitrary and doesn’t compute. You will just claim (as you usually do) that my arguments are not sound, and conversely, that yours are (as you usually do). I can do more than what you state here if I choose to, and still be within the purview of philosophy. This is cliche, but with you, I believe the problem is choice. I don’t think that you understand the nuances of how choice relates to human behaviour, and the factors which lead to people making them. As an example, you regard theists with almost absolute disdain, but if you understood their choice, you wouldn’t. You are more like a theist than you realise, which is ironic.
(though I suppose I am a bit more skeptical about how easy those are to create and stricter about what the criteria are)