Why believe anything that Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus says? (Or pick any other philosopher.)
You apply it to your life and see if it works.
It works if you get something out of it.
If you are looking for “peace of mind” and you get it from a philosophy then the philosophy works. (At least, it works for you. It may work for others.)
Yes, that’s how it works. And, as noted above by myself and others, with Buddhism there is no historical equivalent of crusades or inquisitions or jihahs. And, in terms of self-discipline and other benefits, it does work. For some, remarkably.
No argument there from me.
But my own interest in religion revolves around moral values here and now as that relates to actual evidence of the afterlife there and then. And here [for me] Buddhism is just one more rendition of objectivism. To the extent that Enlightenment comes to revolve around thou shalt do this [and become one of us] and thou shalt not do that [or become one of them], is the extent to which I tend to become increasingly wary.
Sure there are. Myanmar comes quickly to mind.
Buddhists have fought each other and non-Buddhists.
Buddhists supported Japanese expansion. There would be no Bushido without Buddhism.
One can use self-discipline in many ways … in combat, in tending your garden …
One is going to use what learns from Buddhism to live one’s life and that will produce conflict with other people … whether they are other Buddhists or not.
That’s not limited to any particular religions/philosophies. It’s just life.
I don’t see how that can be avoided. It’s not going to go away.
How, in Myanmar, does this…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_ … Revolution
…fit into that assumption.
And how might Gautama Buddha himself have reacted to the “samurai way of life”?
Admittedly, I know very little about the historical evolution of Buddhism. I just recall a number of conversations I have with Buddhists who always seemed to emphasize how Buddhism was different from other religious denominations in regard to bringing others into the fold.
From wiki:
In south vietnam during the war, also, I think the Buddhists got pretty… not peaceful.
You see, nothing special about Buddhism.
If your criterion is ‘no Buddhist has participated in violence,’ no. I mean, if the followers of Jesus can bomb cities and rape, pretty much anything can be interpreted to suit any means.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m no authority on the extent to which, historicially, particular Buddhists either were or were not in sync with this observation from wiki:
In comparison to, say, the major Western denominations.
But to the extent that particular Buddhists today do practice their own rendition of the crusades, the inquisition or jihad, they would seem to be at odds with the founder of the religion itself!
Also, I have always noted that if someone does embody one or another rendition of this…
…there is always the possibility that they will treat those who don’t/won’t share their own value judgments as “one of them”.
Just look at how any number of objectivists here [over the years] have reacted to those who refused to embrace their own TOE. The huffing and puffing, the name-calling, the personal attacks, the bile.
On the other hand, with so much at stake – morality on this side of the grave, immortality on the other side – maybe one is obligated to save as many souls as they can. Or to do battle with those who attempt to curtail [even extinguish] their own path to salvation.
In other words, crusades, inquisitions and jihads, given a particular historical context, are not necessarily irrational things.
The way I read you, an objectivist is anyone who doesn’t fold like a wet noodle when confronted with a conflicting view. He/she should immediately seek a compromise. Right?
There are those who use aggression to steamroll and intimidate their opponents. That could be because it’s a tactic that works for them or it’s all they know or it’s easier that researching and presenting arguments - effectiveness, ignorance or laziness.
A lot of things are not irrational when considered in a narrow sense (individual or small group) but are undesirable in a larger sense. You could says it’s both rational and irrational.
Stealing is not irrational but a society which accepts it as a norm will be dysfunctional.
Killing your partner for the insurance money is not irrational but it can’t be accepted as the norm for society.
No, my own objectivist is someone who argues that his or her own moral and political values reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which others are obligated to think or feel about any context involving conflicting goods.
As for compromising, it revolves around the assumption that with respect to conflicting goods, the alternative is either might makes right or right makes might. And, to the extent that any particular Buddhist is able to convince himself his own right ought to be embodied in might, there is always the possibility that those who don’t share his values are in for some trouble.
I agree. My point though is that the lines are drawn differently here depending on the historical, cultural and experiential context that one finds himself “thrown into” at birth. And, then, over the course of living his life, he accumulates a particular set of experiences that predispose him to go in one rather than another direction. And that philosophers have yet to take all of that into consideration and then come up with the optimal or the only rational way in which to make these distinctions.
And, as a consequence, some see moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law] as a better alternative to might makes right and right makes might.
And then all the stuff that Marx and Engels suggested.
Most of the time you are claiming that’s what they are arguing even when they are saying no such thing.
Eventually one has to get off the comfy couch and something has to be implemented. Some people are not going to like what is done or the way that it is done. Compromise or non-compromise … same beef.
Contrary to your dasein theories, societies find similar solutions that work and don’t work.
So philosophers have to be objectivists? 
How does moderation, negotiation and compromise work in the two examples I gave … stealing and killing?
The stuff that they wrote in books and articles which doesn’t work when people try to implement it. All that stuff?
And also there is an implicit objectivism here and one with practical consequences. Hitler or Stalin says they think country X should be a part of Germany or Russia. Someone else can say ‘no, that is wrong’. Now Iamb is quite correct that this ‘someone else’ is objectivist. They are making a claim (as are Hitler and Stalin) that something is objectively the case morally. However, so is Iamb. He is saying that that person is being bad for being an objectivist. For not compromising. For thinking his view is better than Hitler’s and Stalin’s views. That person should compromise. That’s a moral position. Now Iamb will say he sees this as practical, not objectively good, but he is confused about what he is doing.
First he blames objectivists for causing the problems in the world. Then he tells them that they should compromise.
That functions exactly as an objectivist position. This is good that is bad. You are contributing to the bad by not compromising, etc.
He may think that saying he does not believe in objective morals absolves the precise functioning of what he is doing, but I can see no reason to take this seriously. He points the moral finger just like everyone else, except he points it at nearly everyone else.
Well, many people are Buddhist in Asia, nominally, or more so. If this means their violence comes out of their Buddhism, who knows. What disturbed me more, in fact, was the self-immolation of certain monks, where I think they did feel justified in these acts by Buddhism and they were, well, experts in being Buddhist. IOW a self-hatred that I sense in Buddhism in general seemed to me come to the fore in these extreme acts.
50% of prisoners in US prisons are Protestant. I am not sure what that means about religion and the behavior of people. Obviously religious background certainly doesn’t rule out violence,t he question is whether it encourages it in the wrong contexts (however one defines wrong there).
I think Buddhism is less likely to encourage violence. Right off the bat it encourages a kind of detachment from emotions and, well, everything. Other religions actually directly encourage violence. Certainly Islam and the other Abrahamic religions Many pagan religions do. In general my dislike of Buddhism has to do with its intra-pscyhic violence and not its encouragement of sectarian violence. But it certainly has been involved in the latter. Hey, people are creative.
He has already said that he is not an objectivist because he does not claim to have the optimal solution which all rational people are obligated to adopt.
His moral position appears to be that nobody should hang on to his/her moral position. That lines up with his moral nihilism.
Yes, but one can claim something in one moment and act in an opposed way in other moments. Then when people point out what you are doing, you can refer them to the claim you have made, as if this eliminates the actions. If one bemoans the behavior of people who follow might makes right or use objectivist arguments for moral positions and problematic, and then present oneself as saying that compromise moderation and negotiation are not like this, one is implying (and sometimes he goes out and states) that these approaches are better. Note: they are not moral positions. It is a meta-ethical position. Since we cannot know objective morals we should compromise. It is still a should. You can’t point a moral finger, over and over, and then add a disclaimer that you don’t have a moral position you think is better. If he actually believes he does not have the optimal solution, he could demonstrate that. If he can’t help but point a moral finger, than why should people believe his occasional disclaimer rather than notice his actions?
‘That’s not optimal’ and ‘that’s not optimal’ and ‘look at all the horrible things objectivists have done’ and ‘the only rational thing left is to compromise, etc.’ is a moral finger.
The truths of Buddhism is that life involves suffering and that there are ways to lessen that suffering, which is useful, in this life. If you don’t happen to get that, happily Buddhism provides the concept of ignorance. I like to think of this type of ignorance not as someone who is dumb, but someone who ignores facts that they really know are true. Thank you Alan Watts for that.
Anyway, the stories of Buddhism are not that important. You aren’t meant to worship the Buddha since you have Buddha nature yourself. Yes, I can see the tease of that, and the bothersome frustration of waiting for any type of enlightenment.
If you don’t get it now, maybe you will later since all things are subject to change. Another Buddhist truth.
Personally I borrow from any religion or philosophical thought helps me get through this experience. I am part Buddhist, part Hinduism follower, and Catholic believer in Heaven and God, but don’t believe the Bible is the word of God unless all words are, including pickle fart.
In other words, don’t let it bother you. You’ll feel better. Hope this helps.
Most of the time this is all in your head. Not much I can do about that.
As for the rest of your points, we will just have to agree to disagree. Besides, there’s not a one of them that even remotely piqued my interest. Again, the Old Phyllo – the one in my head – would never have stooped to such banalities.
And all I can do now is to point out just how uninteresting your posts have become to me of late. And there’s not much I can do about that either.
Okay. Go talk to people who are uninterested in your posts.
Meditating with Descartes
Karen Parham asks how close Western philosophy gets to Buddhism.
Well, the koan I am most interested in exploring is this, “what is it like to be dead?” And, “what does it mean to behave in an enlightened manner”?
And, where, given a particular context, does one draw the line between one’s “reasoning faculties” and one’s “intuition”?
And what can that possibly mean in regard to death itself?
Again, in regard to my own interest in religion – morality and mortality – what “appropriate responses” has anyone here come to? And what specifically is the distinction that is made between not solving something but still being enlightened about it? Cite some examples please.
Yes, but what religion does for many is to subsume the answers to questions of this sort in the religion itself. For most this means God and His mysterious ways, but what does it mean for Buddhists? If no God, what actually brings one to Nirvana – the universe itself?
On the contrary, with respect to the “solutions” that Western Philosophers have arrived at in regard to the questions/koans that most interest me, their “euphoria” and “enlightenment” is, in my view, predicated only on what they have managed to convince themselves is true “in their head”. And that can be almost anything. Whereas for me, in regard to identity, value judgments and political power intertwined at a particular existential juncture, it is not what one believes is true but what one can demonstrate as the obligation of all rational people to believe is true in turn.