Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Eudaimonist · 05-05-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by victorialis:
Objectivism seems to take refuge in saying that if I can't find a rational solution at all times, my reasoning is at fault. It blames the victim and essentially invalidates all emotion which is not under rational control.

It does? I'm not aware of Objectivism doing this.

I don't claim to agree with Objectivism on absolutely everything (which is why I call myself a Eudaimonist, a broader term), so if it really does take this view, I'd disagree with it on this point. I personally don't think that one should feel guilty about emotions that are "not under rational control".

St. Robert · 05-05-2002, 06:42 PM

I, too, have struggled with this aspect of Buddhist thought. Does it make sense that a Buddhist desires to separate him or herself from desire?

Can a person truly rid themselves of desire?

I would say no, because longing to not desire is desire. For me, it's not that we desire. It's more a question of what we desire.

victorialis · 05-06-2002, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by St. Robert:
For me, it's not that we desire. It's more a question of what we desire.

Well said.

Eudaimonist · 05-06-2002, 01:47 PM

I agree, St. Robert.

I've got a question for the Buddhism experts. As I understand it, Buddhism's "eightfold path" is a set of virtues, or practices.

right understanding
right thinking
right speech
right conduct
right livelihood
right effort
right mindfulness
right concentration

What is the purpose of these practices? (Inner peace?) How do they aid in achieving this purpose?

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]

St. Robert · 05-06-2002, 04:28 PM

I am in no way an expert on Buddhism, but finding purpose in a belief is key.

A belief system should only be considered valid, if it answers questions of origin, purpose, meaning, and destiny with logical consistency.

The first question I would ask a Buddhist is: How do you define what is right? Where is your point of reference for right living?

AdamWho · 05-06-2002, 06:15 PM

St Robert:

quote:
A belief system should only be considered valid, if it answers questions of origin, purpose, meaning, and destiny with logical consistency.

Any "issues of origin" are objective facts independant of a belief system, they are issues of science. The "purpose, meaning and destiny" of ones life is independant of belief also,they are choices made by the individual. They are issues of psychology and history not of belief.

I think a belief system is valid if it is a good approximation of reality.

quote:
The first question I would ask a Buddhist is: How do you define what is right? Where is your point of reference for right living?

Read the post starting this thread, it outlines the point of referance.

St. Robert · 05-07-2002, 11:08 AM

If science, history and psychology are at the foundation of what a person believes, how can they act independently from a belief system?

It seems like some people actually depend on science, history, and psychology for answers to questions of origin, purpose, etc. Their faith is placed in science, history, and psychology which makes up their belief system.

AdamWho · 05-07-2002, 02:54 PM

St Robert

Quote:

It seems like some people actually depend on science, history, and psychology for answers to questions of origin, purpose, etc. [therefore] Their faith is placed in science, history, and psychology which makes up their belief system.

You conclusions are incorrect; they don't follow from your first statement. One can believe something to be true (given a state of evidence) without faith (belief without or in opposition to evidence).

If you wish to discus scientific method, origins, moral principals there are forums for that. The point of this forum is to discus Buddhism. Do you have any incites into Buddhism as related to the topic "Is desire the cause of all suffering"?

St. Robert · 05-07-2002, 03:39 PM

The answer is no. Desire is not the cause of all suffering. Just because all people suffer and desire doesn't automatically mean that one causes the other.

All people suffer, because we live in a self-centered world. Desire cannot be avoided. Neither can suffering.

AdamWho · 05-07-2002, 04:04 PM

St Robert

Quote:

The answer is no. Desire is not the cause of all suffering. Just because all people suffer and desire doesn't automatically mean that one causes the other.
All people suffer, because we live in a self-centered world. Desire cannot be avoided. Neither can suffering.

Self-centeredness is contained in the concept of desire. Desire, as used in Buddhism is a big concept as outlined in previous posts. Your arguement in oposition actual bolsters the case.

05-06-2002, 01:47 PM	#64
Eudaimonist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Sundsvall, Sweden Posts: 3,159	I agree, St. Robert. I've got a question for the Buddhism experts. As I understand it, Buddhism's "eightfold path" is a set of virtues, or practices. right understanding right thinking right speech right conduct right livelihood right effort right mindfulness right concentration What is the purpose of these practices? (Inner peace?) How do they aid in achieving this purpose? [ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2002, 06:42 PM	#62
St. Robert Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 170	I, too, have struggled with this aspect of Buddhist thought. Does it make sense that a Buddhist desires to separate him or herself from desire? Can a person truly rid themselves of desire? I would say no, because longing to not desire is desire. For me, it's not that we desire. It's more a question of what we desire.

05-06-2002, 04:28 PM	#65
St. Robert Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 170	I am in no way an expert on Buddhism, but finding purpose in a belief is key. A belief system should only be considered valid, if it answers questions of origin, purpose, meaning, and destiny with logical consistency. The first question I would ask a Buddhist is: How do you define what is right? Where is your point of reference for right living?

05-06-2002, 06:15 PM	#66
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	St Robert: quote: A belief system should only be considered valid, if it answers questions of origin, purpose, meaning, and destiny with logical consistency. Any "issues of origin" are objective facts independant of a belief system, they are issues of science. The "purpose, meaning and destiny" of ones life is independant of belief also,they are choices made by the individual. They are issues of psychology and history not of belief. I think a belief system is valid if it is a good approximation of reality. quote: The first question I would ask a Buddhist is: How do you define what is right? Where is your point of reference for right living? Read the post starting this thread, it outlines the point of referance.

05-07-2002, 11:08 AM	#67
St. Robert Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 170	If science, history and psychology are at the foundation of what a person believes, how can they act independently from a belief system? It seems like some people actually depend on science, history, and psychology for answers to questions of origin, purpose, etc. Their faith is placed in science, history, and psychology which makes up their belief system.

05-07-2002, 03:39 PM	#69
St. Robert Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 170	The answer is no. Desire is not the cause of all suffering. Just because all people suffer and desire doesn't automatically mean that one causes the other. All people suffer, because we live in a self-centered world. Desire cannot be avoided. Neither can suffering.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.