Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Philosophizing about philosophy.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Everyone,
The subject of philosophy, while at times thought provoking, has always seemed like a waste of time to me—a waste of time that I am often guilty of pursuing. Using my own powers of reasoning, it appears to me that no matter how well our thoughts may look on paper, no matter how well they sound in theory, no matter how much they may agree with our own sensibilities, most philosophies simply do not hold up to the chaotic reality which is human existence.
For example, while it seems that most philosophies centered on ethics and morality that I have familiarized myself with are based upon a certain set of assumptions, the potential for the arising of various mental states such as greed, anger, and delusion alone makes for an unstable equation. In addition, many philosophies are based upon various assumptions that as of yet cannot be proven (such as the existence of G_d), and this does not even take into account the potentially infinite variables that could also be possible.
It begs to ask, “How can the mind of any one individual — or the collective minds of various individuals for that matter — take into consideration the seemingly infinite variables of the known universe and place them into terse systematic frameworks of logic or reason?” On what assumptions do we even begin our search? Even those philosophies that rely more heavily on personal observation as their foundation have their limits, limits that depend on the capacities of the individual or individuals from which they originate.
It is inconceivable to me that our sensory experience that is reliant upon our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind can somehow grasp the totality of the universe—from the farthest reaches of space to the smallest particles of matter and beyond. While there are those that have declared that the secrets of life are finally revealed in their entirety — from the revolutionary discoveries of science to the awe-inspiring revelations of religion — each generation still looks further into the darkness of uncertainty and doubt.
Perhaps this journey is one that is without an end, a story without a conclusion. Perhaps we pursue such contemplative passions to fill the void of our inexplicable existence, afraid of looking within to discover the emptiness of our true nature. Perhaps the philosophical question that I would most be inclined to ask is, “Why does our life have to have any meaning?” Subsequently, the answer might as well be, “Why does the question have to have any answer?”
Sincerely,
Jason
The subject of philosophy, while at times thought provoking, has always seemed like a waste of time to me—a waste of time that I am often guilty of pursuing. Using my own powers of reasoning, it appears to me that no matter how well our thoughts may look on paper, no matter how well they sound in theory, no matter how much they may agree with our own sensibilities, most philosophies simply do not hold up to the chaotic reality which is human existence.
For example, while it seems that most philosophies centered on ethics and morality that I have familiarized myself with are based upon a certain set of assumptions, the potential for the arising of various mental states such as greed, anger, and delusion alone makes for an unstable equation. In addition, many philosophies are based upon various assumptions that as of yet cannot be proven (such as the existence of G_d), and this does not even take into account the potentially infinite variables that could also be possible.
It begs to ask, “How can the mind of any one individual — or the collective minds of various individuals for that matter — take into consideration the seemingly infinite variables of the known universe and place them into terse systematic frameworks of logic or reason?” On what assumptions do we even begin our search? Even those philosophies that rely more heavily on personal observation as their foundation have their limits, limits that depend on the capacities of the individual or individuals from which they originate.
It is inconceivable to me that our sensory experience that is reliant upon our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind can somehow grasp the totality of the universe—from the farthest reaches of space to the smallest particles of matter and beyond. While there are those that have declared that the secrets of life are finally revealed in their entirety — from the revolutionary discoveries of science to the awe-inspiring revelations of religion — each generation still looks further into the darkness of uncertainty and doubt.
Perhaps this journey is one that is without an end, a story without a conclusion. Perhaps we pursue such contemplative passions to fill the void of our inexplicable existence, afraid of looking within to discover the emptiness of our true nature. Perhaps the philosophical question that I would most be inclined to ask is, “Why does our life have to have any meaning?” Subsequently, the answer might as well be, “Why does the question have to have any answer?”
Sincerely,
Jason
0
Comments
I try not to hold onto any difficult philosophy. Mine is quite simple...
---Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
---Do whatever you want, provided you do not hurt anyone. Or at least, do not hurt anyone that does not want to be hurt.
---Life has no meaning. Therefore, make your own purpose and create your own destiny.
That about sums me up.
Biologically speaking, my most basic purpose is to survive and reproduce. But as Daniel Dennett points out, we simply don't care that much about the latter. Sure, the drive for sex is there, but no one defines success by having more children or grandchildren than their neighbors.
Dennett notes that such a basic goal as creating more offspring is not exactly an uplifting purpose in life. Often times, for women in past centuries and sometimes today, it can become a type of bondage and prison. I myself agree that our purpose for ourselves exceeds the physical and is much more psycologically based in nature.
So do I consider myself to have a purpose? Nothing in particular as of yet really. Maybe if I get married or have children, purpose will be more easilly defined, but for now, mine is to simply enjoy life indulging in it's opportunities.
Within the French education system in which I was schooled, the last year of secondary education included the study of philosophy. For those of us in Philo. lettres this meant 7 hours of philosophy each week. I recall a 7-hour exam during which we were expected to write an essay on a single question. This goes far beyond what my Marxist friends called the "petty bourgeois and personal".
we need to understand in order to understand that what we know but do not know.
Philosophy shoudl not pain us but often does because we do not understand, Philosophy can be useful but once understood it is useless i guess.
You spend years trying to understand it then when u do.. its most wisest point is that everything is what it is.. and u realise that infact you've wasted a lot of time..
you know that feeling.The answer is what you weren't looking for but was in your face all along.
Couldn't see the forest for the tree's...
According to Schopenhauer and imo also accordining to the Buddha, we would never philosophize if our lifes weren`t dukkha. Evil tonuges say that the old Greeks started to philosophize because the the got individually old, that is, their libido was still there but could not enable the body any more to satisfy their drives.This is were the term sublimation [of drives] comes in. My take is that of Schopenhauer and Freud. Will / drive is primary. Where there is not sex and food, there is sublimation. Some try literature, others politics, some architecture, others poetry, some are not able of all that and cannot play an instrument either, so they try their luck with logic and philosophize.
But that I should not be impious to the gods
We might substitute Theos/God with Brahma. I justify this from the Tevijja Sutta which describes the proper way to Brahma in which the Buddha says:
Of course the harsh din of this, which the nihilist ear hates, means there is something which transcends biological man; that perhaps man is more than the sum of biological matter.
_/\_
We might wish to substitute Hierokles' words about Theos with the Buddha's words about Brahma, but in the process we might miss an important part of the Buddha's teachings. More precisely, we might miss the entire goal of the holy life. It is important that we do not mistake everything that is presented to us in Western Philosophy with what is presented to us by the Buddha.
We must be careful not to misrepresent the Dhamma or its purpose. While the discourse given to the brahmins in the Tevijja Sutta concludes with the Buddha declaring that the four Brahmaviharas will lead to a 'union with Brahma', it is imperative that we do not forget another passage found later in the Digha Nikaya where the Buddha's converses with the gandhabba Pancasikha:
Sincerely,
Jason
Getting back to the topic, the real question that keeps being avoided by many modern Buddhists is what is the adequate criteria of knowledge? It is easy to attack the self (attâ), which gives the impression of being valid. But then when we get down to the bare bones of what criteria is permissible to use, this is when the real battle begins.
I have always contended that modern Buddhists have made a colossal philosophical blunder by taking as their criteria the five aggregates. This, I should mention, is the central defect of Abhidhamma, itself.
These Buddhists have, in this same vein, totally ignored much of the actual canon which doesn't make the criteria the khandha. In fact, the only adequate criterion the canon demonstrates is the self or attâ. Implicit, or otherwise, self's invariable antecedence to any an all psychical facts and aggregations, which is proven by direct introspection, is impervious to any attack coming from the side of the khandhas. I also find it astonishing that anyone would be so unimaginative as to use veritable 'illusions' as criteria! And here is such criteria.
Stopping here, and harking back to the topic, true knowledge can only be acquired by a true, unchanging criterion.
Oh, before I forget. Here are two interesting passages with regard to Brahma.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
My apologies if I got you wrong.
metta
_/\_
An interesting thread. Emerson once wrote, I am informed by the jacket of my second-hand old copy of Great Dialogues of Plato tr. by WHD Rouse, that "Plato is philosophy, and philosophy Plato." I bring up Plato because his (Socrates') notion of Philosophy was rather different from a great deal of what is called Philosophy today, and indeed Jason's observations about the defiling influence of the three poisons, and the unreliability of the senses for knowledge seem to hearken back to Plato's picture of what philosophy really is.
In this way, and I think Bobby is really trying to suggest this, is that Buddhism is philosophy in the ancient sense, philosophy in the sense that Plato strove for, and in a very palpable way it seems to me the Buddha's path of direct knowledge and his repudation of the opinionated views of the various heterodox teachers is virtually analogous to Plato's low regard for what he called "philodoxers" (lovers of opinion) and "sophists" (those whose knowledge and reason are fruitless spiritually).
The following is only a part from a section in the dialogue Phaedo that I love (and very well may have quoted elsewhere)...when I first understood it, it struck me "this is Buddhism!":
"Philosophers understand," said he, "that philosophy found their soul simply imprisoned in the body and welded to it, and compelled to survey through this as if through prison bars the things that are, not by itself through itself, but wallowing in all ignorance; and she saw that the danger of this prison came through desire, so that the prisoner himself would be chief helper in his own imprisonment. As I say, then, philosophers understand that philosophy, taking possession of their soul in this state, gently encourages it and tries to free it, by showing that surveying through the eyes is full of deceit, and so is perception through the ears and the other senses; she persuades the soul to withdraw from these, except so far as there is necessity to use them, and exhorts it to collect itself together and gather itself into itself, and to trust nothing at all but itself, and only whatever of the realities each in itself the soul itself by itself can understand; but that whatever of what varies with its environs the soul examines through other means, it must consider this to be no part of truth; such a thing, philosophy tells it, is a thing of the senses and of the visible, but what it sees itself is a thing of the intellect and of the 'unseen.' So the soul of the true philosopher believes that it must not oppose this deliverance, and therefore abstains from pleasures and desires and griefs and fears as much as possible, counting that when a man feels great pleasure or fear or pain or desire, he suffers not only the evil that one might think (for example, being ill or squandering money through his desires), but the greatest and worst of all evils, which he suffers and never counts.".....(goes on to some length in discussion suffering and rebirth!)
in friendliness,
V.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
KoB,
I don`t want to be spiteful, but since you adressed "provincial philosophical knowledge" elsewhere, may I suggest that you just sayed the following:
- If i do not like a massage I won`t give my girlfiend one, even if she loves it
- Your ethical view suggests you would side with the cannibal of Rotenburg.
- You came to point where the existentialist tautology "the meaning of life is life" appeals to you
Metta
I agree. I can only speak for me, but my quest for truth and the love of it (philo) has turned into a cynical babbling, an entanglement of which I could not free myself despite my efforts until now.
Metta
It's not spiteful in the least. Not sure about the cannibal reference, but I will be happy to address your points.
When I say that life has no meaning, I mean that in the absolute sense. There is no absolute 'purpose' in human existence. There is no destiny, no fate, no 'meant to be', no providence. I did not say however that my life personally has no meaning. I find meaning in lots of things. I find music, friends, families, and writing to be important and 'meaningful' to me.
This one is tricky, I must say. 'Don't do as you would not like' is an old Confucian saying, one that has never presented itself to me any moral dilemma. But I always imagined the quote referring to negative things.
Intentionally hurting people, lying, cheating. Massages on the other hand are usually neutral or positive things we do to each other. That's really a matter of personal taste.
I don't know, I view the golden rule in the sense that I would like others to cater to my likes and avoid my dislikes and more generally to act in my best interest when possible. This gives a broader, more functional interpretation to this guideline which doesn't give masochists a loophole to abuse people
metta
_/\_
Well yes, my answer was deliberatly pedantic in order to demonstrate that even the most widely accepted simple rules need footnotes when some smartass comes along. With intention/volition, one catches almost everything but still I could demonstrate that KoBs first rule can be read (or deliberatly distorted) as egoistic
But still, even the cannibal problem remains from an ethical point of view. Ok let`s keep our minds clean from that example and state it more generally: The first precept forbids us to hurt sentinent beings. Only if we interpret hurting as acting against a sentinent being`s will are we able to ... from masochism to euthanasia... you name it. But I do not know if this interpretation can be justified, since ignorant sentinent beings often later regret their wishes, so we are on the maybe boring but safe side if we take non-viloence literally
Metta
Yeah .. I agree ... I like this , " God is the condescendsion of the infinite to the mind of man".
It's the best we can experience as human beings. I can't help but think this is the same as "Zen Mind".
Good Day ...: winkc:
Philosophy: Derived frim the Greek Philos[Love] and Sophia[Wisdom], thus Philosophy is most clearly understood as "love of wisdom", or Prajna to us Buddhists.
I've made a personnal study of Western philosophy for many years and it essentially runs in three phases:
Ancient (Greek and Roman)
Middle-Ages (Christian dominated)
Modern (Enlightenment to the present)
I notice that after the First World War (1914-1918) Philosophy pretty much fell apart in the West and became a kind of "Philosophy of meaninglessness", especially after the influence of Nietzsche with his now famous declaration that "God was dead" in his book Alzo Spratz Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zatathustra). This trend continued under the rise of the Logical Positivists, and subsequently the Existentialists under Sartre and Camus.
Now that we are well into the 21st century it seems that Western philosophy is just as irrelvent as it has been for almost a century, and this is largely why I have embraced the Buddha Dharma. In many ways, Existentialism to me seems like a kind of "kindergarden" version of Buddhism...a good place to start perhaps, but one cannot really live an existentialist life. Kierkegaard declaired almost two centuries ago that it would be impossible to create an existential system and he was right. Likewise the Buddha was not concerned with systems, but with Dukkha and how best to cope with it. "Systems" are what to this hour concern the Hindus, and to little avail in the face of human suffering.