Ted Hoffman

snatchbalance
It boils down to whether one feels we are right in saying "Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen combine to form water" or assuming a passive role and delivering harsh criticism against anyone who "claims" to have "found out".
We can desert the field of "knowledge" citing unreliability of our perceptions (which is essentially a cop-out) or actively contribute to the body of "knowledge".
The former, I think, is a quibble and has no practical use, 'xept in philosophical palavers.

In retrospect, its no wonder that the ancients regarded philosophers as Lazy people who do not want to contribute actively in building the society.
Not that I share their view, but well...

snatchbalance

Intensity,

I agree, we take what we can and use it.

I also think that there is another side to the story:

1. Chaos as I understand it(everyday chaos). Theory says: 2 mole H + 1 mole O => 1 mole H2O.
Invariably, this is just not the case. Various types of statistical analyses give us a better picture.(But still not the exact picture.)

2. There is a story behind the story, dare I say the word? Metaphysics. What is all this stuff? Mathematical descriptions are only that. Can we see behind the language? I can't. But I give credit to the people who try. (I think "god" only gets in the way.)

SB

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

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

boneyard bill

Ender writes:

Very creative indeed. The will-to-power strikes me a typical German Romaniticism. Not only that, it is hard to understand apart from a highly developed egotism which is quite anathema to Buddhism.

I find the will-to-power to be as abstract as the principles Nietszche is criticizing. I know Nietizche would not regard it this way. He believes the will to power is an objective fact. (In fact, didn't Hobbes invent the term?) But I think you really have to abstract from human behavior to come up with will-to-power as a defining human characteristic. It's there, of course, but so are a lot of other human characteristics.

I'm sorry. I can't recommend a book on Nagarjuna. I have only read about him in a chapter here and there on other books about Buddhism. I've never encountered a book exclusively about Nagarjuna or the Madyamika school.


There are many schools with different nuances. In general, however, Hinduism seems to take a view similar to Berkeleyan idealism. Theravada Buddhism regards such speculations as unproductive to enlightenment.

Mahayana Buddhism has a special kind of idealism. It claims that the universe is self-perceiving. The bed in my bedroom exists right now even though no one is perceiving it because the molecules of the bed perceive each other. Everything that exists shines by the reflected light of each other. This is usually called an idealist view. Personally I think it is closer to the naturalistic panpsychism advocated by David Chalmers.

I mean anybody who had studied much about language.

Yes. But I think the point applies even outside the critique of language. I made the same point, after all, with Nietszche's critique of logic.

phaedrus

Havent read it..but one of the chaps i know did like it....(is skewed towards a western perspective)

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0195093364/104-9478897-2617555" target="_blank">The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way : Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika - by Nagarjuna, Jay L. Garfield (Translator)</a>

Edited to add...for indian authors apparently these are recommended...

Nagarjuna's Philosophy as Presented in the Maha-Prajñaparamita-S astra by K. Venkata Ramanan

The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System by T.R.V. Murti

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>