Freethought & Rationalism Archive

boneyard bill · 05-09-2002, 06:56 AM

St. Robert writes:

Quote:

There is no authentic end-point of achievement to the eight-fold path to peace, because it's based on a continual doing without a done. There is no absolute victory over the lack of peace.

In Buddhism all of existence is a continual doing without a done. Peace is found, therefore, in non-existence i.e. nirvana. According to Buddhism, everything that exists is born, created, and conditioned. Peace is only found in the "unborn, uncreated, and unconditioned."

"Change and decay in all around I see.
Oh Thou, who changest not, abide with me."

This could easily be a Buddhist hymn. Of course, it is not. It is a Christian one. As far as I can see, Christians and Buddhists are both interpreting an experience. And as far as I can see, it is the same experience.

Eudaimonist · 05-09-2002, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by boneyard bill:
What constitutes success is extremely subjective. Many people who we regard as highly successful considered their lives a failure. "Success" is a relative term that pits you against others as is defined in terms of ranking yourself against others. This is not a productive way to approach life.

I agree that ranking yourself against others is not productive. Success understood in this fashion is misguided. But I tend to think about standards of success that are less subjective and comparative, and involve a deeper understanding of the nature of human well-being. This goes against the common understanding of success, of course.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]

Eudaimonist · 05-09-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by boneyard bill:
God is the creator of the universe.
The universe was created.
Therefore, God exists.

It is a perfectly valid argument which would appear to "prove" the existence of God.

It is not perfectly valid! It may seem so if one is judging it rationalistically -- only showing concern for internal consistency, without any consideration of consistency with reality. Reasoning isn't simply formal Aristotelian logic; it also possesses an empirical aspect. It is precisely because we can reason that we can see that there is something wrong with the argument. We may note that we don't have evidence to support the premise that the universe was created.

Since reason involves an empirical aspect, we can learn new things. We can reason about what we observe.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]

boneyard bill · 05-09-2002, 08:57 AM

Eudaimonist writes:

Quote:

Since reason involves an empirical aspect, we can learn new things. We can reason about what we observe.

Reason, as an epistemology, doesn't involve an empirical aspect. That's the point. (The syllogism is perfectly valid, by the way. The premises don't have to be correct for it to be valid.) Reason cannot get us "new" knowledge. It can only uncover the full implications of what are already contained in our premises.

AdamWho · 05-09-2002, 03:27 PM

boneyard bill: I am glad you were not offended by my questions and that you are posting to defend the pro-Buddhist camp.

Quote:

...you seem to be juxtaposing reason and faith. I'm not aware that faith is a significant concept in Buddhism

No I was using the word "faith" as a jab at previous posts of yours, which sounded very faith oriented rather than objective. I don't mean to be hostile, it just slips out once in a while.

Eudaimonist:

Quote:

Are you speaking for Buddhism here, or for yourself? [with referance to 8fold path]

No, I am speaking for myself. I thought someone ought to respond to your question.

Quote:

Does this mean that the selection of practices in the eightfold path is arbitrary?

To me, yes, it just seems like a list of things a person should consider, whatever path they are on. I interpret it as an objectist: As a list of concepts to pay attention to if I want to maximize my experience of life.

For instance, the "Right Livelihood" is very much a path of discovery for me. The only "practice" I do is ask myself "Does this job maximize my values and goals in life."

Eudaimonist · 05-09-2002, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boneyard bill:
Reason, as an epistemology, doesn't involve an empirical aspect. That's the point.

You must adhere to a different school of epistemology than myself. I don't recognize the methods of reason as limited to epistemological rationalism.

Eudaimonist · 05-09-2002, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamWho:
To me, yes, [the eightfold path] just seems like a list of things a person should consider, whatever path they are on. I interpret it as an objectist[sic]: As a list of concepts to pay attention to if I want to maximize my experience of life.

For instance, the "Right Livelihood" is very much a path of discovery for me. The only "practice" I do is ask myself "Does this job maximize my values and goals in life."

Okay, what is your method for determining what is "right"? Is it Buddhist, or is it more Objectivist/Aristotelian in applying practical reasoning to select the virtuous course of action?

Eudaimonist · 05-09-2002, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boneyard bill:
These are often referred to as the Buddhist ethics, but I think this is misleading. I would call it the Buddhist therapy.

That's an interesting way of phrasing it. I like it. I have a similar view of ethics. (Virtues as therapeutic, or perhaps more positively as nourishing growth.)

Quote:

I would getting beyond my competence to try to expound on each one of these.

Pity, but your descriptions are helpful enough. Thanks.

Quote:

The meditative steps are aimed at self-discovery.

I think inner reflection is worthwhile. As the Greeks would say: Know thyself!

Quote:

Zen means "meditation." It began as a "greater vehicle" (mahayana) school. This means it was an attempt to simplify the route to attaining nirvana by focusing on just this part of the eightfold path. The point of the mahayana schools was to find less demanding ways to achieve nirvana than the eightfold path which seemed possible only for monks. The mahayana schools wanted to make nirvana available for everyone.

Thanks for this unsolicited history lesson! I didn't know these details, and it helps to clarify for me the distinction between the Greater Vehicle and Lesser Vehicle schools of Buddhism.

AdamWho · 05-09-2002, 05:11 PM

Eudaimonist:

Quote:

Okay, what is your method for determining what is "right"? Is it Buddhist, or is it more Objectivist/Aristotelian in applying practical reasoning to select the virtuous course of action?

Reason (or my best attempt at reason) is my method of determining the "right" course of action in my life. I have a rationalist epistimology, I thought that was clear from previous posts.
I am a critic of how Buddhism manifests in societies and individuals. However, in recent posts I have taken to defending it agaist misunderstandings. I hope that boneyard bill takes up the defence.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]

St. Robert · 05-09-2002, 05:21 PM

Siddartha Gautama was searching for God the Holy Spirit. Because of when and where Siddartha lived, he had no knowledge of or access to the God of Israel. If Siddhartha were alive today, he would follow the Prince of peace.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]

05-09-2002, 05:21 PM	#100
St. Robert Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 170	Siddartha Gautama was searching for God the Holy Spirit. Because of when and where Siddartha lived, he had no knowledge of or access to the God of Israel. If Siddhartha were alive today, he would follow the Prince of peace. [ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.