Buddism: Religion or Philosophy?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Aeson
Well I do disagree with him in some areas on empirical grounds. Rebirth for instance. That is not to say I subscribe to empiricism (Classical or Modern).

Though in this case I was simply pointing out the non-empirical portions of his belief system, since he had asked why it is viewed as non-empirical.

Well, that's very reasonable, and therefore you aren't allowed to post on Apolyton any more.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well, that's very reasonable, and therefore you aren't allowed to post on Apolyton any more.

[Nostromo]

Rebirth is a "metaphysical" hypothesis and can't be verified on the basis of observation or experiment. At least, I wouldn't know how it could be done. But is it an important part of Buddhism?

EDIT: OK, you sort of answered my question. Sort of... Some people could recall a previous life. Its at least logically possible. But that's not saying much... OTOH, all the cases I've heard about have been shown to be bogus.

[Maniac]

So where can I read what the man himself (buddha) supposedly said?

I voted banana btw. Some people treat it as a philosophy; others like a religion. Blake is an example of the religious variety.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Someone who believes in rebirth without personal evidence, is a not-a-buddhist, because he violates much more important aspects of Buddhism.

You were quite clear earlier that you feel that people are born a certain way because of what they have done in past lives. I claimed there was no evidence to suggest it, and you kept trying to rationalize your beliefs on the matter, saying it's the only way things make sense. In essence, you were showing your preference for rebirth over a lack thereof, without evidence to support your view, and that is evidence of your belief. You were rejecting non-rebirth without evidence to support your assertions, and that is evidence of your belief.

I was the one offering the "middle way" in that debate.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Nostromo
.

Bohr seems to be popular sig material.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Nostromo
Rebirth is a "metaphysical" hypothesis and can't be verified on the basis of observation or experiment. At least, I wouldn't know how it could be done. But is it an important part of Buddhism?

Plato argues for it in the Meno and Phaedo on the basis of the identity of the person with an immaterial soul (at least the gaps in the first are worked out in the second).

His argument (when fully understood) is that if you accept the non-identity of equality and particular equal things, and understand the difference, you can't have the former without it being likely that you are an immaterial being, since cognition of immaterial beings has to be non-representational in his view. Of course, if you are an immaterial entity, then it is unlikely that you would be destructible in the same way as a body is.

It's a better argument than most people give him credit for, although it does rely on the distinctly antiquated proviso that cognition is of things rather than propositions.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Agathon


Plato argues for it in the Meno and Phaedo on the basis of the identity of the person with an immaterial soul (at least the gaps in the first are worked out in the second).

His argument (when fully understood) is that if you accept the non-identity of equality and particular equal things, and understand the difference, you can't have the former without it being likely that you are an immaterial being, since cognition of immaterial beings has to be non-representational in his view. Of course, if you are an immaterial entity, then it is unlikely that you would be destructible in the same way as a body is.

It's a better argument than most people give him credit for, although it does rely on the distinctly antiquated proviso that cognition is of things rather than propositions.

Not sure I understand the argument. I'll have to think about it. But somebody could probably come up with an equally convincing argument that proves the exact opposite. And we would have a stalemate, as is frequently the case in metaphysics. Must be fun immersing yourself in alien thoughts.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Aeson


You were quite clear earlier that you feel that people are born a certain way because of what they have done in past lives. I claimed there was no evidence to suggest it, and you kept trying to rationalize your beliefs on the matter, saying it's the only way things make sense. In essence, you were showing your preference for rebirth over a lack thereof, without evidence to support your view, and that is evidence of your belief. You were rejecting non-rebirth without evidence to support your assertions, and that is evidence of your belief.

I was the one offering the "middle way" in that debate.

Aeson,

I spent 23-24 years, as someone who at best, didn't reject rebirth.

I then FOUND EVIDENCE by penetrating deeply into my mind, and changed my beliefs on the basis of that evidence.

My stance changed because I found evidence, not on a whim, not on trying to fit in, not in the hope of being rewarded in the future becuz I "believed" something...


Comprehend what I'm saying there. Because it's why I can be highly accepting of people who don't believe in rebirth, and also highly accepting of people who do believe in rebirth. I consider both to be completely valid.

No belief in rebirth is very valid for the person who has not found the evidence.
Belief in rebirth is very valid for someone who has found the evidence.

It's the same with belief in anything...

That IS the middle way in this case. That in cases where the evidence is personal-evidence, people CAN have different beliefs, AND those beliefs, despite being different, are still rational for the individuals involved.

I don't even know if all peoples minds have the evidence in them, I only have my own mind to go by on.

You have to admit, that I would be foolish to reject a belief in rebirth just because the people without evidence reject a belief in rebirth...
Maybe if the other people WITH evidence rejected a belief in rebirth, that would say something a lot stronger...
but they um... don't . It's the norm for people who have developed an intimate understanding of their own mind through direct-experience, to believe in rebirth.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
I then FOUND EVIDENCE by penetrating deeply into my mind, and changed my beliefs on the basis of that evidence.

That reads like just about every religious experience ever...

Still not empirical.

Comprehend what I'm saying there.

I understand what you are saying better than you seem to.

That IS the middle way in this case.

Just for fun, let's for a moment ignore the difference between "personal-evidence", as you've offered, and actually evidence. That means you have "personal-evidence" of your rebirth. You still do not have any evidence (personal or otherwise) of someone else's rebirth.

Yet that didn't stop you from claiming that the situation that other people are born into is due to how they lived a past life. That is your belief. You do not have any evidence, nor even "personal-evidence" of that.

You were not on the "middle way". You were actively believing in something that you had no evidence for, and arguing against an opposite view you had no evidence to refute.

It's the norm for people who have developed an intimate understanding of their own mind through direct-experience, to believe in rebirth.

You hide behind a baseless and derogatory assumption that everyone who doesn't accept your belief system just isn't as "enlightened" as you, so you can avoid having to accept the fact that your belief system is just that, a bunch of things you believe but can't prove.

It's a delusion.

[Blake]

Yet that didn't stop you from claiming that the situation that other people are born into is due to how they lived a past life. That is your belief. You do not have any evidence, nor even "personal-evidence" of that".

I simply offered my perspective. I didn't insist you had to accept it.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
I simply offered my perspective. I didn't insist you had to accept it.

Insisting someone accept your belief is not a requirement for something to be a belief.

[MarkG]

The word philosophy comes from two words 'philo' which means 'love' and 'sophia' which means 'wisdom'. So philosophy is the love of wisdom or love and wisdom

the "love and wisdom" part is wrong.
philosophy (in the original ancient greek meaning) is the love (and pursuit) of knowledge. it isnt about love in the sense of loving people, animals and nature....

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Blake
I was in the past, a big poorly defined

dont feel bad about yourself! post a photo, i dont think you're that poorly defined!

[Blake]

Furthermore, there's a fascinating exercise in "collective delusion".

In the WEST, people tend to mourn after a funeral, they suffer and grieve over the loss of their loved one. You just spend some time moping and crying, then get on with your life. If you don't go through this mourning process, you'll be emotionally scarred, mourning is normal and natural.

In the EAST, no-one mourns over their lost loved ones, they don't cry or grieve. You just spend some time to appease the spirits of the dead and get on your life. If you don't go through this appeasement process, you'll be tormented by the spirits of the dead, the spirits are normal and natural

And both westerners and easterners, think the other side is crazy! Why would you do that? Isn't it obvious it doesn't do anything? You can just move on with your life without that whole silly process which only makes you get all emotional and wastes your energy!

The really funny thing, is that a lot of westerners think there's really no need to mourn, they might just do it just to fit in.

And a lot of easterners, think there's really no need to appease the spirits, they might just do it to fit in.

Sometimes people are driven insane by having to follow the bizarre customs which make no sense and are labeled as mentally ill (in the west) or tormented (in the east).
(Basically this insanity comes from obsessing over being "not normal" - if they just don't care how unique they are or aren't, there's no suffering).

I've heard stories of easterners living in the west, who have been forced to go to counseling after a brutal family death or trauma (as part of nanny-stateism, of course), the counselor maintains firm insistence that they HAVE to mourn the loss of their loved ones, until they cry over the death of their loved one, they have to keep coming to counseling sessions! The counselor keeps digging up the past, trying to force the person to dig up the past (which always goes "It happened, I was sad then, but I'm not sad now... that's really how I feel!") the counselor of course, insists denial "you're not doing it properly, we have to keep doing this until you acknowledge how sad and angry you are deep inside!"

Sometimes, only intervention can stop the counselor and free his victim (like: Look, look, look, they don't DO it that way in the east! She really isn't sad or angry, she really has moved on!)

When you compare the east with the west, comparing both critically, you start to see the folly of ever clinging to beliefs so tightly that you'd hurt people over them. That;s actually a moral of THAT story, the counselor is so insistent that his belief that mourning is required is "true", that he tortures the victim over it, he traps her and wont let her be free until she accepts his belief.


So with clinging to beliefs, I'm not just talking about them tehorrists who use baby-bombs in the name of Allah.
A lot of people cling so tightly to a belief in God/Jesus or whatever that they'll insist other people have to believe also, or it'll make them very miserable, for instance a friend, a Christian, told me that it keeps her awake at night, suffering and miserable, that her son doesn't believe in Jesus. That's called clinging to a belief so tightly that it causes harm, it tortures both her and her son - can you imagine the son? "What Mum, you want me to believe in something I don't believe in just so you'll stop torturing yourself? gahhhhhh", I think she wonders why he's a bit messed in the head...

That's something I'd never do, cling to a belief so tightly that I'd hurt myself or someone else over it. I hold my beliefs gently, I believe in rebirth? Sure. But I'd stop believing tomorrow if I found a better explanation for the evidence and I'd never insist someone else believes it 'else I'll emotionally/physically torture myself or them over it. That's how beliefs should be treated, held gently with a willingness to let go in the face of new evidence, or the grip relaxed if one notices they are being pushed towards engaging in emotional torture over a belief.

Buddhists REALLY ARE OKAY, with other people not being Buddhists . It's hard to understand that for some westerners, I think in large part because they are used to Christians and Muslims who can often be (or are stereotyped as) pretty intolerant - Many Westerners assume pushiness when someone starts talking about religion...
But it's not like that with Eastern religions, the east has a long history of religions getting along. Obviously Buddhists like to talk about Buddhism - it's the one unifying thing common of ALL Buddhists - the lot of them talk about Buddhism, but the "take it or leave" it attitude is very heartfelt and not some kind of reverse psychology (that's not reverse psychology! (or is it? (you just can't know (so go with whatever leaves you feeling more at peace))))