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.
Why is Buddha so recognized when there are other philosophers like Plato? No Platoists?
,
0
Comments
I definitely think more attention should be paid to his ideas, particularly in the West, which are arguably more coherent and pragmatic than anything Plato ever wrote. That's not to denigrate Plato, however. He's by far my favourite Western philosopher.
While I don't always agree with Plato, his dialogues tackle some difficult and important, sometimes even taboo, topics during his time; and in doing so, he makes some passionate and convincing arguments. But more importantly, I think his dialogues were meant to spark dialogue and debate (mainly for his students), not have the final say on these matters. And seeing as how many of them, especially the Republic, have been sparking dialogue and debate for over 2,000 years, I'd say he was pretty successful.
Another thing I like about Plato is the fact that he expressed his ideas in dialogue form, which makes them more enjoyable to read. While philosophers like Hegel wrote long and difficult to read works, which I find difficult to read, let alone finish, Plato presents his ideas in a lively and entertaining way. I read Plato just for the sheer pleasure of it.
Maybe its because he solves most of the problems of philosophy.
Problem of mind. Check
Personal identity. Check.
Problem of knowledge. check
Free-will. Check.
Is-Ought problem. Check.
Classical paradoxes. Check.
And on...
one of the problems of Plato is the format... another the content, overly simplistic and not conducive to anything worthy.
I'm not really a fan of western philosophies... with the stoics almost as an exception (still, the Dharma is a better approach).
better leave science to the west and philosphy to the east
I am by no means a platonist but he is one of the greatest philosohers who ever lived, without any real doubt. Up there with the Buddha!:)
High-5
I cann't respect a philosopher if the basis of it philosophy is flawed.
it will be like following Buddhism without accepting the 4 noble truths.
"he is one of the greatest philosohers who ever lived"
because a textbook says so?
What amazes me more than anything about the founding of Buddhism is that the Priestly Brahman class didn't use their influence to have Buddha and his followers stomped on soon as it was clear he preached a personal liberation that did not require Gods or sacrifices. He must have had some powerful political protection from his father and family.
it may have to do with the tradition in ancient India to accept or respect other philosophies if they were more coherent than the one practiced before.
the west have had an inquisitional approach that wasn't part of ancient india.
I've not read Plato to any extent but hey.....I've not read any of Buddha's teaching either.
I have, however, read interpretations and dialogues of others on Buddha's teachings.
Therein may be an important distinction between Buddha and Plato......
Anyways, I'm not here to play top-trumps with opinions, I was just curious as to your rather drastic response a few lines posts back.
have fun!
what I see as weak is the "world of ideas" worldview.
He was the first to do everything.
All ideas and philosphers came after Buddha. So Buddha will always be known and recognized more than any other. He is the master! The jedi.
(Dont get me wrong other philosphers are amazing. (Im not just a Buddhist, Im alittle everything)
But oldest, wisest, Truest!
In my country pretty much everyone with an education heard something about Plato´s work..about buddhism, nothing.
As far as ppl following the word of Plato as some kind of salvation, i dont think a lot of people are. But his ideas have influenced western history. Not to mention there is a huge history of western philosophy.
hi
Buddha was a spiritual doctor, a healer, who found spiritual medicine to end human suffering & problems. Buddha was not a philosopher
for example, if we are drowning & someone saves our life, who would we praise or recognise more? the one who saved our life or the one who wrong some stimulating books for us to read in our spare time?
regards
Alan
I can understand why people can claim, Buddha believed in rebirth or Buddha did not believe in rebirth....
But, I have never understood the motives of claims such as Buddha was not a philosopher or Buddha was not a skeptic or buddhism is not a philosophical system. Mystery abounds!:)
However, I agree with Dhamma Dhatu that Buddha was not a philosopher--not a Western Philosopher anyway. I was taught by my philosophy professors that philosophy in the West is the pursuit of wisdom where wisdom is defined as the capacity for sound judgment. This suggests some similarities between Buddha and Western philosophers, but Plato (and Socrates as far we know) did not teach the end of suffering through liberation of mind. Dhamma Dhatu's "spiritual doctor" is much more accurate. Furthermore, Plato's theory of the forms is entirely incompatible with what the Pali tradition (and subsequent Theravadin teachings throughout history) indicates Buddha taught about knowledge through direct experience. :buck:
(2) Part of the problem is the ancient Greece was kind of on the cusp of the east/west division as we understand it now. Eg., Greece is close to Asia Minor, Is Asia Minor eastern or western?
(3) Another problem is that the east/west distinction post-dates Buddha & Plato.
(4) Another problem is it's difficult to dismiss the mutual influence/cross polination of ideas in the "ancient" world.
:buck:
the buddha taught to do this and that and see what happened. then if you did it you get some kind of insight/wisdom. from there you see if the insight holds true in relation to scriptures, the buddha, various teachers.
philosophy deals with metaphysics and intellectual theories. buddhism is not about gather theories or metaphysics. buddhism is about experientially insight from our practice. it is one thing to know what the buddha taught and another to realize them and implement them throughout our whole experience.
But if not, pick one, any one, i'll show:)
Still...in the spirit of debate,
The problem of personal identity arrises by the various duplication possibilities (teleportation without initial destruction or split brain thought experiments). I assume you must know these because of your apparent assuredness regarding the matter.
Dharma solves them simple: There is no problem because there is no person, just a process. If my brain is split, both halves may think they are me, but neither are, neither were, there is no me. It is illusion. There is no thinker only.....
Incidentally, I have spent more time than most pondering personal identity problems, parfittain survivors, nozickian threads etc etc. Had I known understood emptiness back then.... Anyways... I have done as you asked...
Now your turn:
Can you find a problem with the Buddha's solution to this philosophical problem?
Oh we have a misunderstanding then. I don't think Plato solved these problems at all. I was saying Buddha did, not Plato.
So you agree that Buddha solves these central problems of Philosophy?
To me, Buddhism is perhaps the earliest form of psychology. Both deal with the mind, not the body, although the body is greatly effected by the mind.
Psychologists try to deal with our mental suffering and alleviate it... Does not Buddhism do the same?
Another that comes to mind is the man in question, Plato. For example, 571d-572a of the Republic sounds similar to the Buddha's advice regarding the practice of virtue, restraint and moderation and the cultivation of meditation and discernment in an effort to 'touch the deathless' (amata): Or an alternate translation by Paul Shorey (1935): Of course, I'm not under any illusions that their messages are identical. But I do think that, in some regards, Plato and the Buddha are ultimately saying something very similar; although to me, the Buddha seems more confident, like he's pointing you towards the experience instead of trying to stumble upon it through reason alone. Plato, on the other hand, seems like he's coming at it from a more theoretical, less experiential point of view, almost as if he's unsure it's completely possible.
Alan