Objectivism & Buddhism

wicked_good_kamma

I recently had an interesting but I suspect fallacious discussion with my girlfriends uncle where he was trying to reconcile zen buddhism and objectivism. I told him I was into Buddhist philosophy and his first words were "ahh a nihilist" and I kind of assumed he was one of those people with "much dust in their eyes" so I politely carried on the conversation, alluding to corrections in his theory when I could without offending him. Anyways what do you guys think?

Sabre

Even in the time of the Buddha people argued the Buddha taught nihilism/annihilation. On the surface it seems like this, when saying there is no soul/self, and the outside world is made of mind. But in the suttas the Buddha said no, I don't teach this. However he said it is the "foremost of wrong views" (paraphrased) because if reflected on it also leads away from attachments. So to hold to nihilism from a practical point of view is not that much a problem. I say that because for me an important part of Buddhism is the practical approach of the philosophy and not only the ideas.

I don't know what objectivism is so I can't comment on that.

Nek777

I am reminded of a quote by HHDL, to paraphrase, the question is not so much whether "things" exist, the question is the nature of or how "things" exist.

Lazy_eye

wicked_good_kamma said:

I recently had an interesting but I suspect fallacious discussion with my girlfriends uncle where he was trying to reconcile zen buddhism and objectivism.

An interesting endeavor. They seem to be quite far apart, almost at opposite ends of the spectrum. Ayn Rand sees selfishness as a virtue and altruism as a dangerous illusion; Buddha taught that the self is illusory and altruism is a virtue.

There might be a few areas of overlap if we look at the Buddha's teachings to laypeople about prosperity and wealth, but even here we find significant differences as the Buddha encouraged use of wealth for the social good, while Rand believed that generating wealth is all the social good we need.

how

Tough call.
You did well with what you had to work with but I think the discussion was really about how identity is threatened by the concepts of sufferings cause..
Approaching the discussion from that direction often allows the participants to sidestep their respective ISM'S so there can be less entrenchment and adverarial responses.

Nevermind

wicked_good_kamma said:

I recently had an interesting but I suspect fallacious discussion with my girlfriends uncle where he was trying to reconcile zen buddhism and objectivism. I told him I was into Buddhist philosophy and his first words were "ahh a nihilist" and I kind of assumed he was one of those people with "much dust in their eyes" so I politely carried on the conversation, alluding to corrections in his theory when I could without offending him. Anyways what do you guys think?

Religious nihilism is an oxymoron. :nyah:

fivebells

What do I think of objectivism? I think it's a propaganda tool. There can be no reconciliation between Buddhist practice as I understand it and Objectivism. The very notion of objectivity as an absolute frame of reference is antithetical to the Buddhist teachings.

Why not judge it in the terms the Buddha recommended to his seven year old son, Rahula? Do the thoughts associated with objectivism lead to a good destination, to actions praised by the wise? It's pretty clear from Ayn Rand's own life that they don't.

riverflow

Citta

wicked_good_kamma said:

I recently had an interesting but I suspect fallacious discussion with my girlfriends uncle where he was trying to reconcile zen buddhism and objectivism. I told him I was into Buddhist philosophy and his first words were "ahh a nihilist" and I kind of assumed he was one of those people with "much dust in their eyes" so I politely carried on the conversation, alluding to corrections in his theory when I could without offending him. Anyways what do you guys think?

What is the sound of one Rand clapping ?

Lazy_eye

Ayn-lightenment?

Jeffrey

<- restrains self from potty humor

Gui

I wonder if OP's uncle meant objectivity instead of objectivism.

Citta

Jeffrey said:

<- restrains self from potty humor </p>

Why ?

Jeffrey

^ smiley face indicates a joke! I am not really afraid to say 'crapping'.

Florian

Objectivism has no metaphysical foundation. This clearly distinguishes it from any kind of Buddhism. It is, in my opinion, just about the least well thought through idea in the history of philosophy. In order to endorse it we are forced to stop doing philosophy, since it is irreconcilable with human reason. Not a fan, as you can guess.

lobster

Objectivism is opinion and Zen is not.
As a philosophy objectivism is trite and Zen is.
Nothing to reconcile. No question about it.

PS. be kind to the reconciliators