Our problem here is in how each of us make a distinction between “I” in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world. I don’t feel at all fractured and fragmented in observing that down through the ages, God and religion have in fact been used re one manifestation or another [culturally] to connect the dots between how one is expected/obligated to behave on this side of the grave in order to be judged favorably by God on the other side.
How is that not basically religion in a nutshell?
Now, with Buddhism, no God. But with Buddhism you still have reincarnation and Nirvana. And somehow their understanding of “enlightenment” and “karma” are connected to them.
Well, how?
As with Western religions, I am most interested in why particular behaviors are chosen by Buddhists “here and now” as this portends the fate of “I” there and then.
Out in a particular context where karma is examined given the existential relationship between enlightenment and conflicting goods. And where karma is examined given the existential relationship between “I” before and after death.
Or that there is anything remotely like heaven in other traditions or immortality in any sense that wouldn’t scare the shit out of most Westerners since you don’t continue to exist. Your obsession with morality as a way to earn something - a very Western and really rather immoral attitude in most systems of morality - is being projected onto areas of life you are ignorant about. Your summation here also assumes you beliefs not only about the religions themselves, what they are for, but the motives of people lot dead. It’s just an amazing bunch of implicit claims from someone who expects others to demonstrate stuff so every rational person on earth must agree.
Again: For the Buddhist, in what context? How would this “general description intellectual contraption” of yours be applicable for the Buddhist faced with choosing an enlightened behavior here and now in this or that set of circumstances so that his or her understanding of karma is in sync with his or her understanding of “beyond the grave”?
Let the Buddhists here take us into their heads when, like the rest of us, they are confronted with situations in which value judgments are clearly in conflict depending on one’s moral, political or religious beliefs.
Just as one would imagine that all Kantians would agree on those behaviors all rational and virtuous men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to pursue, should one imagine in turn that all Buddhists are in agreement as to which behaviors are enlightened? Or are there degrees of enlightenment corresponding with levels of reincarnation. Behave over all in a less enlightened way and you come back as insects?
Again, how exactly does that work out in the world of human interactions? And how do the Buddhists go about convincing me – demonstrating to me – that it does in fact work that way?
Here on this thread what can they provide me with that might motivate me to go further in exploring their sense of reality?
But now on to your main point:
Why do you allow yourself to spread a bunch of bullshit, when you expect others to create arguments with magical universal force?
This is generally called hypocrisy. And with good reason-
It’s all about me. I’m the problem. And yet over and again I ask you to focus in on a context, on a set of behaviors. We exchange our philosophical and experiential reactions and you are there to point out more specifically when I am spreading a bunch of bullshit hypocritically.
You pick the context and the conflicting goods. I’ll react to them given the components of my moral philosophy and you’ll react to them given yours.
Instead, around and around you go:
Besides, what I ask of Buddhists is what I ask of all religionists: Where’s the beef?
Where is the demonstration that what they believe in their head is in fact in sync with that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Again, with so much at stake!
If you actually believed so much was at stake you’d try some stuff.
I’ve addressed this point over and again above. And turned it around and asked you what you are doing to pin down your own conviction that morality is not objective and that death appears to = oblivion.
I also noted how the very different lives we live might prompt us to view all of this differently. You know, the part embodied in dasein.
And where’s the beef that your approach is a good one?
It’s contained in my assessment of my own moral perspective on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
And this is the part where – again! – I ask you to in turn note the manner in which your own moral/religious views are intertwined in both your life experiences and your attempt to grapple with it all philosophically.
And I would never argue that my approach is a good one. At least not in the sense that this implies that those who do not share my own assessment here are engaging bad ones.
Instead, my arguments here are no less existential contraptions than your own. We just react to that very, very differently.