|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 14 2010 08:59 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 08:29 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 08:17 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 08:07 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:01 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to. I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused. On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites. I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it. Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas? You edited your post lol. I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend. Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught. But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion. It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position. Allow me to take your statement as an example: "What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is. I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me. My statement was not meant to imply that it came from a 'true position' but reading it does feel that way. I was merely attempting to get some debate going on that topic or maybe stimulate others to think about something they never though about before. Your argument does make sense from where you are coming however you have misunderstood what Buddha actually taught. There is a concept in Buddhism that you may have heard of before called emptiness. Emptiness is the idea that nothing of itself can establish its own inherent existence. So emptiness really means dependent origination, that is that all things originate based on some kind of causes and conditions. Now because all things depend on other things in order to have some kind of definable quality and characteristic we cannot really say anything at all is actually something because it is only something based on cases and conditions which include physical properties and mental properties. Another way of establishing emptiness is to look at the way things are formed. If you take a car for example and try to establish its inherent existence as a car you will not be able to find it because there is no actual car within what you perceive to be a car. It is made of parts all of which have no intrinsic car-ness. You can take this down all the way to so called 'atoms' of which have no intrinsic qualities either (that is outside of any other definable thing). What we are basically talking about is relativity, as I'm sure you know. But Buddhism use itin such a way as to analyze there point of view and mind. You see because we cannot establish the inherent existence of anything we cannot establish the inherent existence of our thoughts or mind as well. So whatever we may 'think' about the universe or ideas it is ultimately ungraspeable because ultimate reality has no definable characteristics. Now a typical view after you hear this about Buddhism is to think that it is nihilistic but they have another idea which has some legitimate base to it. It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true. You might say that what we experience is ultimately empty because what we experience must necessarily be empty but Buddhism argues from a point where awareness itself is emptiness. That is, emptiness has a quality about it that is aware and luminous (that quality which allows you to know directly without conceptualization). Now we are talking about an abstract idea of emptiness in which emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Everything you see lacks inherent existence. It exists as an illusion because your mind which is also empty believes that what its seeing is in somehow inherently real. Truth in Buddhism then is ultimately unspeakable because speaking is ultimately empty. The only way to know real truth is through direct experience which is based on no conceptualization and no dependence on any physical thing. Now it does presuppose that awareness is something intrinsic to the universe, but I would argue that all positions must take a first small leap of faith before arguing anything at all. Even hard skeptics are guilty of being hypocritical because they argue there is no truth but the truth of no truth is real. This is idea as a whole and not the symbology with which I used to describe it I adhere too. I have not just read Buddhism but many things from classic philosophy, to contemporary thought, eastern and western religions, quantum physics and relativity, and new theories in science coming out about consciousness as a whole. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for example describes how consciousness itself has a hand in creating what we perceive. My purpose with this discussion may not have addressed your question specifically but I sought to correct your understanding on what Buddhism actually is ( from the point I believe you were coming from). Let me know what you think. : ) Sorry for such a long post.
On July 14 2010 10:50 Gnosis wrote:
That was a wall of text, if I ever saw one. Before I present a fuller reply, I have two questions which I wanted to get out of the way, so that I could properly understand what you're saying. It should come as no surprise that I have "misunderstood" Buddha--I have not read much into Buddhism.
My first question:
You said, "...ultimate reality has no definable characteristics" so what are you and others (i.e. Buddhists) doing, if not defining reality?
My second question, you said:
It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true.
How does Buddhism cut through these critiques? If I understand "legitimate experience," then does this not also require common thought, some knowledge of truth, etc.? Why should I not view this teaching, itself, as completely incapable of describing reality as it is? Why should I take it as true?
Yeah, it was a huge piece of text. I'll try to format it better this time.
I'll try to answer your questions as clearly as possibly in one go, since they are related.
The idea of emptiness is empty as well. The idea of emptiness is based on causes and conditions. Those are that we live in a universe that is 'empty' of inherent existence and this gives rise to the idea of emptiness. There is nothing inherent in the idea of all things being empty. So it is not really defining existence in any 'true' form because we have acknowledged that our definition of reality is empty as well.
There is a metaphor in Buddhism of reality being like a mirror. Though you may see a form in a mirror it does not actually mean that there is something there. The form you perceive in the mirror is dependent on causes and conditions. And so to is reality like the illusion of the mirror.
What this all amounts to is that since ultimate reality has no definable characteristics because all forms are 'empty' what we are really saying is that all things are whole (that is of one being). When our minds are first confronted with the idea of emptiness we take that to be an absence because it is an absence of what we had thought was there. However, because we now understand emptiness we understand that it was never really there in the first place and we start to realize that what emptiness actually means is that there is no possible way that you can separate something that is whole. I cannot distinguish the form of your body outside of another definable thing such as my body. Our bodies are also dependent on other causes and conditions to exist. This is because the universe is not a separate thing. It exists as one being. That being has an 'awareness' about it. So the emptiness that we perceived when trying to distinguish different forms was actually because that form did not exist, only the whole exists (the whole of existence).
Therefore, the only actual real experience you can have of truth is experiential and that experience is one of wholeness beyond forms. Such an experience cannot be communicated because the very act of communication is a separating into forms because communication must necessarily be based on subject, object, and action.
All this takes that one leap of faith that I discussed before which is that awareness is a quality of 'reality'/'emptiness'/'wholeness' itself. I would cite that this may not be wholly untrue because there is thousands of years of personal experience of accomplished meditators and practitioners backing this statement up. Whether or not you take that evidence to be actual evidence is up to you. Also for anyone to be able to argue anything you must at least make a tiny leap of faith so I do not believe this to be out of the scope of consideration.
|
On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote:
real philosophy is not concerned with "what is the meaning of life", etc. that is silly.
real philosophy deals with arguments. either making them, refuting them, or commenting on them.
The two aren't exclusive, nor is one "silly"; "real philosophy" deals with both (if not phrased "what is the meaning of life," then "what is the good life?" i.e. Aristotle). Suggesting philosophy is not concerned with these (and other similar) questions is either shortsighted, or dimwitted. Either way, it's foolishly ignorant (arrogant?) for someone who seems to be so familiar with Kant.
|
On July 14 2010 19:30 UFO wrote:
I agree on what you said about the opposites and separation. Polarity.
Perceiving things as disconnected from one another causes one to not see the larger picture and therefore create concepts of good and bad - and this is the nature of mind - pin things inside a box of a managable size for the reason of comparision and analisis.
Yet there is evil but its the question of what you define as evil, question of perspective. Also - would there be good if there wouldn`t be evil ? What is the origin of good then ? There is good in polarity and there is another good, which is beyond polarity.
I think perceiving things as both sovereign and united is to be in non-polarity and being in non-polarity is to be free of judgements which cause the overdose of 'negative' emotions like irritation, anger etc ... and to be free from this overdose is to be in a virtuos cycle instead of vicious cycle. Which is to say - live a much more joyous and meaningful life, though there is much more to this.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this post. More like stimulating conversation. 
Is there evil? Or only what we perceive to be evil. If you acknowledge that there is a 'good' which is beyond polarity then you are acknowledging that there is a whole which has no opposites. Good and evil are factors of being sovereign and if in reality this is not true, then there is only 'good'.
|
On July 14 2010 22:39 Epsilon8 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 14 2010 08:59 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 08:29 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 08:17 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 08:07 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:01 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to. I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused. On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites. I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it. Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas? You edited your post lol. I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend. Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught. But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion. It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position. Allow me to take your statement as an example: "What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is. I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me. My statement was not meant to imply that it came from a 'true position' but reading it does feel that way. I was merely attempting to get some debate going on that topic or maybe stimulate others to think about something they never though about before. Your argument does make sense from where you are coming however you have misunderstood what Buddha actually taught. There is a concept in Buddhism that you may have heard of before called emptiness. Emptiness is the idea that nothing of itself can establish its own inherent existence. So emptiness really means dependent origination, that is that all things originate based on some kind of causes and conditions. Now because all things depend on other things in order to have some kind of definable quality and characteristic we cannot really say anything at all is actually something because it is only something based on cases and conditions which include physical properties and mental properties. Another way of establishing emptiness is to look at the way things are formed. If you take a car for example and try to establish its inherent existence as a car you will not be able to find it because there is no actual car within what you perceive to be a car. It is made of parts all of which have no intrinsic car-ness. You can take this down all the way to so called 'atoms' of which have no intrinsic qualities either (that is outside of any other definable thing). What we are basically talking about is relativity, as I'm sure you know. But Buddhism use itin such a way as to analyze there point of view and mind. You see because we cannot establish the inherent existence of anything we cannot establish the inherent existence of our thoughts or mind as well. So whatever we may 'think' about the universe or ideas it is ultimately ungraspeable because ultimate reality has no definable characteristics. Now a typical view after you hear this about Buddhism is to think that it is nihilistic but they have another idea which has some legitimate base to it. It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true. You might say that what we experience is ultimately empty because what we experience must necessarily be empty but Buddhism argues from a point where awareness itself is emptiness. That is, emptiness has a quality about it that is aware and luminous (that quality which allows you to know directly without conceptualization). Now we are talking about an abstract idea of emptiness in which emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Everything you see lacks inherent existence. It exists as an illusion because your mind which is also empty believes that what its seeing is in somehow inherently real. Truth in Buddhism then is ultimately unspeakable because speaking is ultimately empty. The only way to know real truth is through direct experience which is based on no conceptualization and no dependence on any physical thing. Now it does presuppose that awareness is something intrinsic to the universe, but I would argue that all positions must take a first small leap of faith before arguing anything at all. Even hard skeptics are guilty of being hypocritical because they argue there is no truth but the truth of no truth is real. This is idea as a whole and not the symbology with which I used to describe it I adhere too. I have not just read Buddhism but many things from classic philosophy, to contemporary thought, eastern and western religions, quantum physics and relativity, and new theories in science coming out about consciousness as a whole. The copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for example describes how consciousness itself has a hand in creating what we perceive. My purpose with this discussion may not have addressed your question specifically but I sought to correct your understanding on what Buddhism actually is ( from the point I believe you were coming from). Let me know what you think. : ) Sorry for such a long post. Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 10:50 Gnosis wrote:
That was a wall of text, if I ever saw one. Before I present a fuller reply, I have two questions which I wanted to get out of the way, so that I could properly understand what you're saying. It should come as no surprise that I have "misunderstood" Buddha--I have not read much into Buddhism.
My first question:
You said, "...ultimate reality has no definable characteristics" so what are you and others (i.e. Buddhists) doing, if not defining reality?
My second question, you said:
It also gets to a tricky point because we can no longer argue about what is true because we have established that there can be no real truth because ultimately in our common thought truth is based upon perception and some kind of knowledge. Buddhism cuts through these both by arguing that even though we cannot have thought or knowledge of truth because this is wholly based on conditions which are empty we can have legitimate experience which can constitute itself as true.
How does Buddhism cut through these critiques? If I understand "legitimate experience," then does this not also require common thought, some knowledge of truth, etc.? Why should I not view this teaching, itself, as completely incapable of describing reality as it is? Why should I take it as true?
Therefore, the only actual real experience you can have of truth is experiential and that experience is one of wholeness beyond forms. Such an experience cannot be communicated because the very act of communication is a separating into forms because communication must necessarily be based on subject, object, and action.
Isn't experience, much like communication, also based on (in part), "subject, object, and action"? That is, communication is only the relaying of experience from one to another, I still experience "reality" as something other than "wholeness beyond forms"--cars, "empty cups", people, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I do not see a difference between communication and experience, such that one allows for the experience of truth, while the other does not allow for the transmission of truth. Which essentially means that all you can tell me is, "take it on faith", right?
On July 14 2010 22:39 Epsilon8 wrote:
All this takes that one leap of faith that I discussed before which is that awareness is a quality of 'reality'/'emptiness'/'wholeness' itself. I would cite that this may not be wholly untrue because there is thousands of years of personal experience of accomplished meditators and practitioners backing this statement up. Whether or not you take that evidence to be actual evidence is up to you. Also for anyone to be able to argue anything you must at least make a tiny leap of faith so I do not believe this to be out of the scope of consideration.
Because of how it treats suffering (and good and evil, among other things), it's a "leap of faith" I'm not willing to make. It does not provide answers coherent with how I experience reality.
|
On July 14 2010 18:10 Jazriel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 17:51 Daimon wrote:On July 14 2010 17:41 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 17:30 Daimon wrote:On July 14 2010 17:08 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 16:37 Kishkumen wrote:On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject. I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy. Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you. By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple. This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionrefuted going to sleep now Strawman ArgumentI asked someone to refute Objectivism. Not my presentation of Objectivism.
Perhaps you should offer someeone to refute your presentation of objectivism. So offer a piece of evidence and then debate from there, not the whole objecctivism.
For example, is is easier to say "Prove that God doesnn't exist." then to prove that god exists.
So first prove objectivism exists and then go from there.
|
Good and evil can be defined in terms of motivation and foresight. The subjective experience of the person, providing he or she adhere's to social contracts, will determine if that action is one or the other. This said, society is constantly in flux and good and evil are constantly being redefined as values and beliefs rise and fall. A good example of this is demonstrated in how we manage pedofiles today verses ancient greece.
Those who fail to maintain social contracts usually have little concern with good and evil as they can often twist both to justifiy or explain their actions.
I beleive most people have the ability to see and judge an action as good or evil in a split second using a moral compass.
Kill 1 person to save 1000? This is evil.
Morallity isnt math....or even logical sometimes...
Stuff I've read: Neitzche, aristotle, plato.
|
On July 14 2010 23:19 AdamBanks wrote:
Good and evil can be defined in terms of motivation and foresight. The subjective experience of the person, providing he or she adhere's to social contracts, will determine if that action is one or the other. This said, society is constantly in flux and good and evil are constantly being redefined as values and beliefs rise and fall. A good example of this is demonstrated in how we manage pedofiles today verses ancient greece.
Those who fail to maintain social contracts usually have little concern with good and evil as they can often twist both to justifiy or explain their actions.
I beleive most people have the ability to see and judge an action as good or evil in a split second using a moral compass.
Kill 1 person to save 1000? This is evil.
Morallity isnt math....or even logical sometimes...
Stuff I've read: Neitzche, aristotle, plato.
Having reading Nietzsche and Aristotle, do you side with Nietzsche, or Aristotle? Or neither? In any case, as was pointed out by an earlier poster, this line of thinking "conflates what a society believes is moral with what is moral".
|
On July 14 2010 23:19 AdamBanks wrote:
Good and evil can be defined in terms of motivation and foresight. The subjective experience of the person, providing he or she adhere's to social contracts, will determine if that action is one or the other. This said, society is constantly in flux and good and evil are constantly being redefined as values and beliefs rise and fall. A good example of this is demonstrated in how we manage pedofiles today verses ancient greece.
Those who fail to maintain social contracts usually have little concern with good and evil as they can often twist both to justifiy or explain their actions.
I beleive most people have the ability to see and judge an action as good or evil in a split second using a moral compass.
Kill 1 person to save 1000? This is evil.
Morallity isnt math....or even logical sometimes...
Stuff I've read: Neitzche, aristotle, plato.
You mean you would let a thousand children die because you wanted to keep your own conscience secure? A thousand unique, innocdennt lives because you didn't have what it takes to stop an evil mann?
That sounds evil to me. As I said previously, my definition of evil is putting the needs of yourself to the point of harming the needs of the many.
But again, your a person, and I'm sure you have good reasons. Elaborate for a better discussion?
|
On July 14 2010 22:45 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote:
real philosophy is not concerned with "what is the meaning of life", etc. that is silly.
real philosophy deals with arguments. either making them, refuting them, or commenting on them. The two aren't exclusive, nor is one "silly"; "real philosophy" deals with both (if not phrased "what is the meaning of life," then "what is the good life?" i.e. Aristotle). Suggesting philosophy is not concerned with these (and other similar) questions is either shortsighted, or dimwitted. Either way, it's foolishly ignorant (arrogant?) for someone who seems to be so familiar with Kant.
i realize the contradictory and paradoxical arrogance that is associated with a phrase like "real philosophy" but my point was that no matter what the subject, contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned with validity and soundness, i.e. logic. i do not champion this is any qualitative way and i am merely stating, as a matter of fact, the way the word "philosophy" is used today by "philosophers". arguments, phrasing and builld-orders, are what drives the field today more than any of the content of said BO. In summation, philosophy IS concerned with "these things" but only by happenstance. philosophy has run away from moral question since, as we know from various T-shirts, GOD IS DEAD. it might be better if philosophy were still aimed at such lofty idealism but it is not in any functioning way.
the most important work of philosophy for contemporary industrial society in our generation is called
ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN by HERBERT MARCUSE
|
On July 14 2010 23:19 AdamBanks wrote:
Kill 1 person to save 1000? This is evil.
I'm sorry, but why is this evil?
|
What can change the nature of a man ?
|
One does not prevent evil by doing evil. Evil begets evil much like racism. Those who are confronted with it must accept it and move on or be damned to become apart of its cycle in which we just pass it on to the next victim and so on and so on.
Once you kill 1 person to save 1000, the next time, it becomes much easier to kill 999 to save 1000. (A little extreme i know but i hope you see my point.)
I side more with Aristotle but enjoy Neitzhe much more.
Individual morality verses social morality verses true morality (if this last one exist, im not yet sure it does).
Kind of reminds me of the question "what is true justice?" I do not think such a thing exist beyond anything more then a vague concept that incites unique definitions from just about everyone you would ask. It becomes fustrating when dealin with these terms as its so hard to establish a basic definition on which a majority can agree.
|
On July 14 2010 23:50 Boblion wrote:
What can change the nature of a man ?
well if it is in man's nature to be changeable, that is to say "man is such that he is susceptible to change" then by man's vary nature can he be changed...
but can the operating principle, what is termed "nature", be changed?
for this one has to ask questions like "is man's nature NECESSARY or coincidental"?
|
On July 14 2010 23:10 Gnosis wrote:
Isn't experience, much like communication, also based on (in part), "subject, object, and action"? That is, communication is only the relaying of experience from one to another, I still experience "reality" as something other than "wholeness beyond forms"--cars, "empty cups", people, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I do not see a difference between communication and experience, such that one allows for the experience of truth, while the other does not allow for the transmission of truth. Which essentially means that all you can tell me is, "take it on faith", right?
The difference is that this 'experience' of wholeness cannot be broken down into parts because then it would no longer be whole and would not mean the same thing and as such you cannot communicate it because for communication to work you must break it down. Communication is within the bounds of subject, object, and action.
The reason why the experience of wholeness can communicate truth is, as shown by the reasoning with emptiness before, it is the only thing that actually exists. A universe full of separate forms is only created within your own mind. Wholeness, the no separateness of the universe/reality/existence is what is real. And this is why this experience communicates truth.
On July 14 2010 23:10 Gnosis wrote:
Because of how it treats suffering (and good and evil, among other things), it's a "leap of faith" I'm not willing to make. It does not provide answers coherent with how I experience reality.
Buddhism has an explanation for this. If you accept that all things are not separate then all things are not separate from you as a discrete human being. If you take this as your 'base' thought upon which to build your paradigms and understandings anything else other then compassion, love, understanding, and peace is not possible. This is because if nothing is separate from you then all things are you. You have nothing to fear because there is nothing to harm.
Now this all depends on what you define as yourself. Taken on the view of emptiness, all the stories about who you are as a human being, your job, your family, your life experiences, that make up who you believe yourself to be are only emptiness. They do not actually exist they are only ideas in the mind.
From this perspective people who do 'evil' things are seen to be delusional. They believe in a separate self, ego entity, that exists and because of this they compartmentalize reality into good or bad, self or other, gain or loss. It is this very belief in separateness that spawns all the other thought systems of violence and fear.
Finally, to respond to what you said about it not being able to explain suffering. To have a full understanding of this would take a lot more delving into implications and other thought systems of Buddhism.
The Buddha specifically taught what it is that he taught in order to get rid of suffering. The four noble truths, the first things the Buddha every uttered are as follows :
1. There is suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by clinging and vexation.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The cessation of suffering is attained by following the Noble Eight Fold Path.
So in fact Buddhism does not actually not explain the originations of suffering. It is wholly aimed at uncovering it, understanding it, and attaining cessation of suffering.
|
On July 14 2010 23:50 Boblion wrote:
What can change the nature of a man ?
Education? Love? Insight? Tragedy?
|
On July 14 2010 23:45 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 22:45 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote:
real philosophy is not concerned with "what is the meaning of life", etc. that is silly.
real philosophy deals with arguments. either making them, refuting them, or commenting on them. The two aren't exclusive, nor is one "silly"; "real philosophy" deals with both (if not phrased "what is the meaning of life," then "what is the good life?" i.e. Aristotle). Suggesting philosophy is not concerned with these (and other similar) questions is either shortsighted, or dimwitted. Either way, it's foolishly ignorant (arrogant?) for someone who seems to be so familiar with Kant. i realize the contradictory and paradoxical arrogance that is associated with a phrase like "real philosophy" but my point was that no matter what the subject, contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned with validity and soundness, i.e. logic. i do not champion this is any qualitative way and i am merely stating, as a matter of fact, the way the word "philosophy" is used today by "philosophers". arguments, phrasing and builld-orders, are what drives the field today more than any of the content of said BO. In summation, philosophy IS concerned with "these things" but only by happenstance. philosophy has run away from moral question since, as we know from various T-shirts, GOD IS DEAD. it might be better if philosophy were still aimed at such lofty idealism but it is not in any functioning way. the most important work of philosophy for contemporary industrial society in our generation is called ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN by HERBERT MARCUSE
In truth, you are probably correct. Philosophers do seem to be more concerned with "air-tight" logic than with worthwhile content. I suppose that is why I am not a fan...
|
On July 15 2010 00:00 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 23:45 omninmo wrote:On July 14 2010 22:45 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 16:00 omninmo wrote:
real philosophy is not concerned with "what is the meaning of life", etc. that is silly.
real philosophy deals with arguments. either making them, refuting them, or commenting on them. The two aren't exclusive, nor is one "silly"; "real philosophy" deals with both (if not phrased "what is the meaning of life," then "what is the good life?" i.e. Aristotle). Suggesting philosophy is not concerned with these (and other similar) questions is either shortsighted, or dimwitted. Either way, it's foolishly ignorant (arrogant?) for someone who seems to be so familiar with Kant. i realize the contradictory and paradoxical arrogance that is associated with a phrase like "real philosophy" but my point was that no matter what the subject, contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned with validity and soundness, i.e. logic. i do not champion this is any qualitative way and i am merely stating, as a matter of fact, the way the word "philosophy" is used today by "philosophers". arguments, phrasing and builld-orders, are what drives the field today more than any of the content of said BO. In summation, philosophy IS concerned with "these things" but only by happenstance. philosophy has run away from moral question since, as we know from various T-shirts, GOD IS DEAD. it might be better if philosophy were still aimed at such lofty idealism but it is not in any functioning way. the most important work of philosophy for contemporary industrial society in our generation is called ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN by HERBERT MARCUSE In truth, you are probably correct. Philosophers do seem to be more concerned with "air-tight" logic than with worthwhile content. I suppose that is why I am not a fan...
Mathematics ftw
|
On July 14 2010 23:53 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 23:10 Gnosis wrote:
Isn't experience, much like communication, also based on (in part), "subject, object, and action"? That is, communication is only the relaying of experience from one to another, I still experience "reality" as something other than "wholeness beyond forms"--cars, "empty cups", people, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I do not see a difference between communication and experience, such that one allows for the experience of truth, while the other does not allow for the transmission of truth. Which essentially means that all you can tell me is, "take it on faith", right?
The difference is that this 'experience' of wholeness cannot be broken down into parts because then it would no longer be whole and would not mean the same thing and as such you cannot communicate it because for communication to work you must break it down. Communication is within the bounds of subject, object, and action. The reason why the experience of wholeness can communicate truth is, as shown by the reasoning with emptiness before, it is the only thing that actually exists. A universe full of separate forms is only created within your own mind. Wholeness, the no separateness of the universe/reality/existence is what is real. And this is why this experience communicates truth.
Do you find it odd, then, that you are trying to communicate this truth to me, using examples which breakdown "wholeness"? The reality is that experientially (as we do in communication), we break "reality" down into parts. I do not view the world as Neo views the matrix; I see my webcam as distinct from my printer, which I see as distinct from me, which I see as distinct from you, which I see distinct from my monitor, and so on. If we break down communication, we also break down the world around us, it is inherent to our functioning. I cannot call murder wrong and love good, if they are "empty"--the same part of the whole. It's a contradiction.
If all that makes absolutely no sense, then in the very least what you are suggesting is that we must "break down" reality to view it as a whole, and in this way we can experience truth. But we cannot break down reality through communication and convey that truth. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense.
On July 14 2010 23:53 Epsilon8 wrote:
Buddhism has an explanation for this. If you accept that all things are not separate then all things are not separate from you as a discrete human being. If you take this as your 'base' thought upon which to build your paradigms and understandings anything else other then compassion, love, understanding, and peace is not possible. This is because if nothing is separate from you then all things are you. You have nothing to fear because there is nothing to harm.
Now this all depends on what you define as yourself. Taken on the view of emptiness, all the stories about who you are as a human being, your job, your family, your life experiences, that make up who you believe yourself to be are only emptiness. They do not actually exist they are only ideas in the mind.
From this perspective people who do 'evil' things are seen to be delusional. They believe in a separate self, ego entity, that exists and because of this they compartmentalize reality into good or bad, self or other, gain or loss. It is this very belief in separateness that spawns all the other thought systems of violence and fear.
Finally, to respond to what you said about it not being able to explain suffering. To have a full understanding of this would take a lot more delving into implications and other thought systems of Buddhism.
The Buddha specifically taught what it is that he taught in order to get rid of suffering. The four noble truths, the first things the Buddha every uttered are as follows :
1. There is suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by clinging and vexation.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The cessation of suffering is attained by following the Noble Eight Fold Path.
So in fact Buddhism does not actually not explain the originations of suffering. It is wholly aimed at uncovering it, understanding it, and attaining cessation of suffering.
Your teaching would deny the existence of suffering, so it does not give an answer. To say it another way, if I asked a monk "Why do I suffer?" He would say, as I understand you, "there is no such suffering". That does not explain, uncover, understand or attain the cessation of suffering. It only denies the obvious.
|
Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
|
On July 14 2010 17:51 Daimon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 17:41 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 17:30 Daimon wrote:On July 14 2010 17:08 Jazriel wrote:On July 14 2010 16:37 Kishkumen wrote:On July 14 2010 13:48 Jazriel wrote:
There's no point to a philosophy thread. The only correct philosophy is Objectivism (cannot be refuted). All what a "discussion" on philosophy ends up being about is a group of people revealing their inadequacies and ignorance on the subject. I really hope you're not talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Feel free to post a rebuttal to Ms. Rand's Objectivism that doesn't rely on a fallacy. Why would he do that? You're the one who made the sweeping claim that Objectivism couldn't be refuted. There are relatively few people who take Ayn Rand and her Objectivism seriously, most of whom aren't taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you. By the very existence of Objectivism, I have put forward my "burden of proof" as you have said. If you wish to prove me wrong, then put forth a rebuttal. I even went so far as to kindly provide you with something more specific, so should any debate arise, there is a clause (don't use an argument that hinges on a fallacy) that will assist in keeping the debate clean and simple. This is what you're saying here: Objectivism is true, therefore Objectivism is true. This is circular reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in the proof. You've committed the fallacy of begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionrefuted going to sleep now
You should listen to Daimon, he just owned you pretty hard, you should probably beg for his forgiveness too right about now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
