Interesting insight, I think it is true that narcissism can be attractive, provided it comes in a reasonably attractive package. — Bitter Crank

Donnie was reasonably attractive when he was younger.

We do like to believe in people who believe in themselves.

Of course, and this preference is a potential vulnerability that others can exploit.
Hence: Nihil admirari!

I struggle with it because of the stakes. — Xtrix

The problem aren't those other people and whatever stances they hold or the things they do. The problem is that you take for granted that you're entitled to live in a safe world that is obligated to accomodate you.

ay, there's the rub:

The meaning is the use. — Banno

Millennia of philosophy of language settled in one short passage.

- - -

Meaning isn't use. That one can assign different meanings to a word doesn't, in any way, imply that all there is to words is how we use them. — TheMadFool

Indeed. For use to have the potential to define the meaning of a word, the word must already have some previous definition (the result of a previous use?). (Except for true novums where an entirely new, non-onomatopoetic, non-abbreviating sequence of sounds is produced; such words are extremely rare.)

It seems that the meaning of a word consists of two components: a relatively static one and a relatively dynamic one, and that the two are in a temporal mutual relationship.

For example: mouse, as in computer mouse. The relatively static part is the meaning of mouse, as in mouse the animal. The dynamic part is in using this word to also name a part of computer equipment which in shape and movement somewhat resembles mouse the animal.


The other point is that for a particular use of a word to become its meaning, it must gain enough social traction. We have a computer mouse, but not a computer turtle.


(But it seems that the actual question that such inquiries are trying to answer is something like, What came first: use or definition?)

I think in the first place this may have to do with the fact that it is impossible to establish with 100% certainty which quotes can be attributed to the historical Buddha.
/.../
Fourth, Buddhist teachings may also have been distorted for political reasons. — Apollodorus

Certainly, there are text-critical issues, as with any text, and esp. with older ones. I am in no way suggesting that the authorship and authenticity of the Pali Canon (or any other religious scripture) is a matter that can easily be resolved, a trifle.

But the issue is this: If someone says "The Bible says X", or "The Koran says Y", it is perfectly normal to expect them to provide a reference to the Bible or the Koran, respectively, by name of book, chapter and verse. But this standard of reference is so often ignored when it comes to Buddhism. And with such confident ease!

(Granted, I've observed similar with Hindus and the Vedas: They confidently insist that the Vedas say this or that, but couldn't provide a reference if their life depended on it. Not to mention how deeply offended they feel that someone would request an actual textual reference, rather than just taking their word for gold.)

Second, the Buddhist texts form a large corpus that few Westerners bother to read.

And possibly don't even know about.

What you are saying is: If Jesus was a magical person as stated in the Bible, then all miscreants go to hell. — Olivier5

I'm not the one saying that, Christianity (most schools of it, anyway) are saying that.

Do you want to divorce the Jesus of the Bible from Christianity, as well as divorce the Bible from Christianity?

None of that detracts from her work. — Banno

It detracts from how useful her work is for different strata of people. For some, it could be detrimental.

- - -

Taken out of context, you can apply anything to anything else. — 180 Proof

But what exactly is the context here?

Remember, Bertolt Brecht tried to uplift the working class. In the spirit of solidarity with the workers, his shirt was tailored the way the shirts of workers were. Except that his was made of silk.

Thriving possibly requires different standards of ethics, depending on one's current socioeconomic status.
— baker

I think this can be overstated. I have worked a lot with people experiencing homelessness and I am often surprised by the level of virtue - generosity, courage and selflessness I see in their behavior. But you need to know them to know this. This is especially true with Aboriginal people. — Tom Storm

Ever heard the saying "Nice girls don't get the corner office"?

Strata of society that are for one reason or another excluded from working for a living (or at least excluded from having to work hard for a living) can enjoy practicing a vastly different extent of virtues (without this having bad consequences for them) than those who aren't thusly excluded.

On principle, Dharmic religions (notably, Buddhism and Hinduism) are not expansive, evangelical religions, the notion of religious conversion is foreign to them
— baker

Yes, I wonder why that is. However, I've heard of buddhist kings like Ashoka dispatching missionaries to Sri Lanka. — TheMadFool

Indeed, there have been Buddhist missionaries. But on the whole, they seem to function as a defense of Buddhism against the expansion of other religions; or they focus on spreading Buddhism for lay people (and monasticism only as an adjacent or auxiliary option); ie. the aims for such missionary work are worldly. (And some Buddhist missionary organizations seem to be intent primarily on making money ...)

As to your first question, the concepts of rebirth/reincarnation and karma play a central role in Dharmic religions. With them, among many other things, also the person's religious/spiritual status is explained, and their religious/spiritual prospects. With an outlook like that, there's not much that an outsider could see themselves do for another person.

The other factor is that in Dharmic religions, there is no threat of eternal damnation, there is no urgency of "get it right this time around or suffer forever, no second chances", so there is no metaphysical impetus to get people to convert, unlike in Abrahamic religions.

With Jesus there's rather more at stake.
— Tom Storm

Would you like to expand on this? What more is at stake with Jesus? — Olivier5

If Jesus was a real person, and has the power as stated in the Bible, then, if you don't accept him as your lord and savior, you will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of salvation.

Nagarjuna's Tetralemma — TheMadFool

We've been over this.

There is the problem of sourgraping, presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is.
— baker

There is, but there is a difference between presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is and first hand experience that it is not all that there is. There is a point at which more is not better, despite how it may appear. — Fooloso4

Certainly. Some of the numbers I've seen is that a person needs to easily enough make 20,000 USD per year in order to be happy; a more recent number is 75,000 USD. The idea is that making more money than that doesn't increase a person's happiness, but that earning less than that can be detrimental to it.

I agree that there is a point at which more is not better, despite how it may appear. But here's the crux: Are those who are not past that point (or nowhere near it) justified to value wisdom over socioeconomic success?

We're talking here specifically about people who work for a living, not about populations like monks who live off of alms. Monks have chosen not to work for a living and they live in a very specific socioeconomic niche, so what "works for them" cannot and should not be uncritically transposed onto the working population.

Actually not. — ssu

As things stand, I'm focusing on who the beneficiaries of the incident are.

Start with finding people who have absolutely no connection and focusing on totally different aspects noting the conspiracy. Learn the history. Above all, real conspiracies do leave traces.

Then think it through yourself. Does Slovenian politics resort to such antics? Who would artificially create this pseudo-group?

In this case, I don't think the group was artificially created, but that at some point, it could be that someone (a prospective beneficiary) infiltrated it and guided it to extremism.
But I don't see how any of this could be proven (at least not without using illegal surveillance techniques). Or perhaps things will come out later in time, when the infiltrator can't help but brag.

Political infiltrations have been known to happen here. Notably, someone from a leftist party would infiltrate a rightist party and vice versa.

Slovenia is a very small country. What goes around comes around.

Actually, the situation here in the past 20 years made me lose faith in the law of karma; or at least leads me to believe that karma, like God, loves rightwingers.

In 1995, the GIA declared all Algerians to be takfir, or apostates.

The last sentence sounds absolutely bizarre, but it's true. Algerians weren't worthy of them!

It doesn't sound bizarre to me. For example, European rulers and upper classes have a long history of expressing contempt for the ordinary folk. The idea that it is the citizens who are wrong (and should be replaced), and not the government, can be heard at pretty much any election.

Of course this is sidestepping the actual topic, but I'm trying to make the point that if there is really a conspiracy, then there will be real traces of it. Nonexistent events don't leave them.

Actually, "conspiracy" isn't the right concept. "Strategy", "divide and conquer". "PR stunt".

That's why any old shit can be spun into a perfectly fine conspiracy. — Tom Storm

It's not just that. Think of old monocultures where there is a culture of "public secrets", ie. there are things that everybody knows (and talks about them in private with people whom one trusts), but in public, will never admit to them (and will consider it outrageous that anyone would think of them).

For example, in traditionally Catholic countries, the priest's girlfriend and his children are such a public secret. Everyone knows who the woman is and who the father of those children is, but nobody will publicly admit to it and will claim that the priest is chaste and celibate, as it behooves a Catholic priest.

This isn't denial (because in confidential settings, people openly talk about the matter), and it's not hypocrisy/duplicity (because there seems to be no evil motive involved).

It seems that even though this system of public secrets has worked well for centuries (it helped maintain relative social stability and harmony), it can be exploited in what is now the post-truth era. It seems for two reasons: one is that there are fewer confidential settings, and more uncertainty about what makes for a confidential setting and what doesn't (so it's hard to know which narrative to go with in which setting); and two, because audio and video recording devices are so readily present and used, and in the face of such hard evidence it's hard to maintain the old system of public secrets.

Of course, this is a problem that younger people and those in multicultural societies don't face. Although we dinosaurs do ...

In short, the type of society seems to play a role in how a conspiracy theory comes about, what public traction it gets, and so on.

It seems to me that foundations for paranoid thinking are partly built into some political frameworks. — Tom Storm

Certainly. It helps the ruling party to demoralize the population at large, because if they are demoralized, they won't rebel, and the ruling party will attain its goal -- to stay in power (and obtain more of it).

Why does a self reference lead to paradoxes so many times? — VincePee

Because there are actually two statements in place, but just one of them is put into words, while the other one is implied or otherwise needs to be discerned from the context of the first.

They are just some quotes that someone attributed to the Buddha.
— baker

Nonsense. — Ross

Oh dear. This is the standard problem with Buddhism: the pitifully low standard of quotation.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10232/the-motivation-for-false-buddha-quotes

The problem with it is that she has not arrived at her high socioeconomic status by following virtue ethics; she didn't start somewhere at the bottom of society and then worked her way up with the help of virtue ethics.

Thriving possibly requires different standards of ethics, depending on one's current socioeconomic status.

Cut to the chase and judge folk by what they do, not by what they profess. — Banno

How do you account for cunning?
Note that cunning is something that can also help people thrive.

Virtue ethics seeks to find a way for folk to thrive. — Banno

Oh, I think Nussbaum's upper middle class status is helping her thrive, not virtue ethics.

And it's a fundamental problem for those who seek to somehow derive universally applicable moral principles. — Banno

How do you save ethics from drowning in a sea of individuality?

Those are not canonical references. They are just some quotes that someone attributed to the Buddha.

Yes, I know what win-win means. I'm saying that in the culture I live in, it is largely unknown. In the last 20 years or so, it has gained some popularity, but for the most part, people seem to operate from the premise that it is inevitable that there are winners and losers.

There is the problem of sourgraping, presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is.

I don't conflate, or confuse, "about" with "central to" – Jesus' "Love thy neighbor as thyself" plus his "Beatitudes" are just as morally central to Christianity as the sila of the "Noble Eightfold Path" is to Buddhism, yet these 'codes of conduct' are only means and not the ends, or goals (i.e. what about), of these religions. — 180 Proof

Granted.
It depends on how much there is to a religion, in one's opinion. In my opinion, there isn't much more to either of the two religions than morality, so to me, they are about morality. That's an interesting assumption I have been making but wasn't aware of until now.

I asked you for a canonical reference, ie. an actual Buddhist source.

I've been having a keyboard problem that appears only in some reply windows here: the written text appears _after_ the cursor.

This doesn't happen in other programs on the same computer, not even in all reply windows here at the forums.

Pressing either of the Insert keys changes nothing.

Must be, because in my native language, we don't even have a native phrase for "win-win".

The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness.
— baker

Why do you say that. — Ross

Because the happiness of an enlightened being is not about having agreeable food to eat, good family relationships and friends, satisfaction at one's job, and so on, all the things that ordinary people find happiness in and psychologists promote as "normal".
An enlightened being has no desire for sex, for example.

The Buddha's happiness is nothing like the happiness of ordinary people.

So compassion, love, kindness which the Buddha teaches you think psychologists don't think that those values improve happiness. — Ross

You need to be more precise here and source your claims about Buddhism.

Provide a canonical reference that says things to the effect that "compassion, love, kindness improve happiness".

Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.
— praxis

I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts though it is a fact that buddhist sanghas lack an evangelical wing. — TheMadFool

On principle, Dharmic religions (notably, Buddhism and Hinduism) are not expansive, evangelical religions, the notion of religious conversion is foreign to them.

True. Buddhism does seem to be closer to psychology than other traditions. — Apollodorus

Only superficially.
We'd need a whole thread for this.

Could this be why it is less popular? In India, at least, after some initial successes it got nearly wiped out by Hinduism (and to some extent by Islam) and it has never recovered.

Buddhism (the kind that strives for the complete cessation of suffering), is, essentially, a death project. It can't possibly be popular in the world that is interested in the perpetuation of life.

If you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the last thing we should be discussing, no? — TheMadFool

Yes, absolutely.

- - -

I agree Buddhism is a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. And that's why I believe it contains wisdom which if practiced in ones life seems to me to be in line with modern psychologists description of a happy life. — Ross

The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness.

By the way what's wrong with feeling better about yourself. That's the consequence of happiness. People normally feel better when they are living a better life.

What is your source for Buddhism? Jack Kornfield?

Neither religion is "about morality" IMO. Christianity is mainly concerned with eschatology and Buddhism is mainly concerned with soteriology. And yes, Christianity consecrates suffering like Jesus and Buddhism practices ways to reduce suffering. 'Moralities' have been derived from these premises, respectively, but that is not their functions (re: the first few centuries of each religion, respectively). — 180 Proof

Morality, sila, is central to Buddhist practice.


Sila (virtue, moral conduct) is the cornerstone upon which the entire Noble Eightfold Path is built. The practice of sila is defined by the middle three factors of the Eightfold Path: Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/index.html

The salient difference between the Christian conception of morality and the Buddhist conception of morality is that in Christianity, the moral commandments are supposed to be followed by everyone, under threat of immediate human punishment and eternal divine punishment, whereas in Buddhism, moral precepts are seen as optional, and undertaken and adhered to as a means to an end (ultimately, nirvana). Which is one of the main reasons why Buddhist morality doesn't seem like morality (it lacks the coercive feature typical for Christianiry), and why Buddhism seems more like a philosophy than a religion.

Pali metta is the equivalent of Sanskrit maitri which seems to be more like friendliness, goodwill, or benevolence, the opposite being ill-will.

In the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, maitri is supposed to be practiced together with other attitudes like compassion (karuna), happiness (mudita), and indifference (upeksanam). — Apollodorus

In Early Buddhism, there are four Brahamaviharas (or four sublime attitudes, or four divine abodes) (see here in the index for links at the entry Brahmaviharas. [/quote]

It is debatable how to best apply this in practice, though. For example, when coming across a tiger in the forest. I think the idea is that when practiced properly, the object of your metta, in this case the tiger, will be moved to respond in kind and be nice to you instead of having you for breakfast or lunch. But I don't know how many Buddhists have developed their metta to the degree that it would work out as intended.

Universal metta is supposed to be univeral goodwill, meaning one would have goodwill for everyone, ie. for the tiger, for oneself, and for everyone else. Note: for oneself. Sacrificing oneself to the tiger would not be an act of goodwill for oneself.

In the Buddhist traditions that don't rely closely on the Pali suttas, the emphasis is usually on one brahmavihara (at the expense of others); so, for example, in general in Mahayana, there is an overwhelming focus on karuna/compassion, while Zen focuses on upekkha/equanimity.

Buddhist traditions that rely more closely on the Pali suttas have a more systematic approach (such as some traditions within Theravada) and practice all four brahmaviharas.

So in the example with the tiger, a Thai Forest Tradition Buddhist teacher Thanissaro Bhikkhu would advise to practice the four brahmaviharas in the order starting with metta, goodwill. This means, to first have goodwill for the tiger and for oneself, meaning, one wishes oneself and the tiger to be happy; then, observe as the situation develops, wish that neither oneself nor the tiger would suffer (karuna, compassion, is a wish for living beings not to suffer), and that includes not acting with hostility toward the tiger; then appreciate the good things about the tiger and oneself (mudita, sympathetic joy); and at the end, if the tiger should be the rare man-eating kind, reflect on kamma (upekkha, equanimity, is not simply indifference; the reflection on kamma is crucial for it).

This just in brief, there's a lot more to this. The issue is not as debatable as mainstream Buddhism likes to portray it.

On the other hand, if the ultimate objective of metta is to eradicate selfishness, then perhaps offering yourself as food to the tiger may be the quickest way to achieve it.

In the Jataka Stories, the Buddha in a previous life met a starving tigress that was about to eat her own cubs, and offered himself to her as food out of metta and karuna (Āryaśūra's Jātakamālā, Vyāghrī-jātaka).

The salient point of the Jataka tales is that they are accounts of the actions of an _un_enlightened being. Some Theravadans see them as cautionary tales about what not to do.

Naikan is about another person not oneself. — Fooloso4

It's peculiar you'd say that. The Naikan questions are about what one did to others, so they are very much a matter of self-examination.

An interpretation of 'virtue ethics' (re: Philippa Foot, Martha Nussbaum) in a Spinozist-Peircean sense:
Moral character (ethos) consists of habits of eusocial judgment (phronesis).

Virtues (arete) are adaptive skills acquired and developed through applying them in various practices (praxes) which gradually habitualize and thereby, in positive feedback loops, are reinforced by moral character (ethos).

Flourishing, or reduction of self-immiserating habits (eudaimonia) is the 'categorical imperative' (telos) of moral character (ethos).
In sum: inhabiting a habitat with others (from etymology of ethos) is cultivated by exercising eusocial habits through adaptive conduct contra maladaptive conduct (agon). — 180 Proof

You do realize that the above description can be applied to obedience?

Obedience is eusocial, adaptive. It helps people flourish.

In my native language, we have a saying: Kdor ne uboga, ga tepe nadloga. 'He who doesn't obey gets himself into trouble.'

A virtue is a personal attribute.

Virtue ethics is about developing ethical personal attributes. The list usually includes things such as integrity, honesty, courage, fairness.

Deontological ethics is following rules.

Consequential ethics is about looking at the results of one's actions. — Banno

A problem with the discipline of virtue ethics is that it does not operate with a definitive list of virtues.

Why not consider obedience to be a virtue? Many people consider obedience to be a crucial virtue.

Quidquid agis, prudenter agas et respice finem. Looking at the results of one's actions has also been considered a virtue.


I don't understand, and maybe you can explain, whence the usual distinction between the various theories of ethics. Because to me, they all seem to be about virtues, it's just that the prioritization of particular virtues differs from one ethics theory to another.

Basically you really have to find links that would approve that there's a conspiracy and not options a) or b) would be likely. — ssu

Well, proving a conspiracy can be next to impossible, or entirely impossible, that's the whole point of a conspiracy.
It's hard to know what is really going on, and there seems to be no way to find out. It's an insecurity that is hard to live with.

Are you familiar with the history of the Algerian civil war?

Only vaguely. It seems very complex. Are you referring to the roles of Les éradicateurs and Les dialoguistes?

But, Baker, if we bear in mind that in Platonism the true individual is the nous, etc. as explained above, then I think there should be less doubt about it.

Unless you have a better suggestion .... — Apollodorus

It's not about me having a "better suggestion".

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a nagging suspicion that people like Plato would dismiss me as living an unexamined life. While I think that I lead an examined life, I seriously doubt they would. I know Christians and some other religious/spiritual people who tell me, with great ease and a considerable dose of contempt, that I "barely know myself", that I "don't know how things really are", that I "should sit down and finally look at myself", that I'm "not honest with myself (or others)", and so on.

I know first hand what people who advocate "to look inside" tend to be like, and it doesn't fill me with enthusiasm for the project of "self-examination". Too often, I've seen the proponents of the "examined life" simply championing their ideology, and dismissing everything else as "unexamined life". So I've become rather bitter and distrustful for the project of "self-examination".

This is not to say that every proponent of the "examined life" is like this. At this point, I'm just not sure there is an objective, ideologically neutral way to "examine one's life". But that instead, "living an examined life" goes hand in hand with embracing a particular ideology.

There are? What is on those lists? Where can they be found? Are the questions unquestioned? — Fooloso4

Some examples:

The Catholic examen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_conscience

Naikan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naikan

The questions/items in the High Performance Planner
https://www.highperformanceplanner.com/

The millions of self-help books like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Question-Yourself-Questions-Explore-Reveal/dp/B089J17DN5/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1631040204&refinements=p_27%3ADave+Edelstein&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Dave+Edelstein

So Donald Trump, seriously put forward as an example of narcissism, is less infatuated the "real" DT and more infatuated with the DT he imagines himself to be. — Bitter Crank

Or the whole thing is a PR strategy and he's not a narcissist at all, he only plays one, as an actor. It's feasible to do so, because in our society, people tend to succomb to narcissists one way or another and narcissits can take advantage of that. Directly, by doing what the narcissist wants, or indirectly by freely giving them their time of day (instead of spending it on more productive pursuits).

The utter irrelevance of other people, envious or pitying is the essence of Narcissus. — unenlightened

But he was just a literary character. A literary construct, constructed by the author to make some point.


- - -

But Narcissus was sooo beautiful, people could not resist him--even if he'd just as soon they go bother somebody else. Maybe such people are born for real who are irresistibly beautiful and who do not need the help of agents and PR to attract admirers. I think these characters are more fictional vehicles than real. — Bitter Crank

In highschool, I knew a boy who looked like Snow White: a pale, fair complexion, perfect skin, sparkly blue eyes, pitch black straight shiny hair, red lips, perfect white teeth, slim, tall, well-proportioned body. He was so beautiful that it was hard not to stare at him. (But he stopped being so attractive once he opened his mouth and sounded exactly like every other teenager.)

I met him about ten years later, I could hardly recognize him. The pale complexion turned reddish, his hair was already thinning, the lustre of his eyes was gone.

Time ... is a sobering agent.