When I die, and that’s obviously not that far off any more, there’ll be one child born to carry on. — Wayfarer

You're so confident that you're going to get a human rebirth??

But I would hesitate to claim that all children must acquiesce to what they are being taught. — Janus

Some children acquiesce and some don't. Not all children are equally well acculturated into the religion they are born to and raised in. For some, it's a traumatic experience (like being beaten by their religious parents and teachers), for some others, it's apparently a fairly joyous one. Families and communities are different and have various approaches to the teachings (esp. in terms of which teachings they emphasize more and in the context of what particular family and social dynamics etc.). (I've known Christians who are apparently really happy about the Gospel. I think that's bizarre. I've no idea how the do it.)

Language does not strike me as a good analogy since it is a tool not a belief; one does not accept or reject it but rather one learns to use it.

I think it's similar with religious doctrines. They function as cognitive tools. The point of religious belief isn't merely to hold it, but to do something with it, to have it inform one's thoughts, words, and deeds.

My reason for not believing in any form of personal rebirth or afterlife is not that there is any definitive evidence against it, but simply that I cannot make rational sense of the idea, and I cannot believe something I am incapable of even making coherent to myself. — Janus

I don't believe in any form of afterlife (such as in Christianity or Islam), not in reincarnation, not in rebirth.
Yet I know enough about them that they all make sense to me.
I surmise that the reasons why I don't believe in any of them are:

1. Given that I am familiar enough with several afterlife/reincarnation/rebirth doctrines to the point that they all make sense to me, they very fact that this is so makes it impossible to prefer one over the other. They can't all be right, but how could one choose?

2. Conceptually, afterlife/reincarnation/rebirth doctrines (and religions in general, as a whole) are about things that precede me or contextualize me. Choosing one would be like attempting to choose my parents or the land where I was born. It's an unintelligible, impossible choice.

3. I am not a member of any religious community. I think that if I would be, this would change things for me entirely.

As you know I am not against people believing in rebirth or whatever. Obviously there can be no definitve evidence either way. — Janus

I think that most people who believe in reincarnation/rebirth don't believe it on account of "evidence". Most of those believers were simply raised into such religions, so it's never been an active issue for them. But I also know Buddhists, some of them even monks of many years, who use Stevenson's work as a basis for their belief in rebirth (which is actually very un-Buddhist).

What I am curious about is why people care about it, since it obviously cannot be understood to personal survival of death. Is it an irrational fear of annihilation?

I think it has to do with a nagging concern that can be summed up as "Is this all there is to life?"
The unsatisfactoriness and fleetingness of life makes them wish for something more.

Then there is also the question of justice. If one lifetime is all there is, then how can it be fair that some children die of cancer, while some criminals get to live long, happy lives. And if we are to accpet that life isn't fair, then what does this mean for our sense of morality? The topic of this thread is also "the problem of evil".

, I'm advocating for semantic holism.
— baker

I've been unable to see any such advocation. Perhaps if you were to set it out more explicitly, I'd be able to follow. — Banno

Notice how I talk about not taking concepts out of their native contexts?

Unfortunately including sacred cows and the existence of the dalet. If we are to treat Hinduism holistically, such must also be taken into account.

Of course.
In contrast, ask yourself why you want to even think about reicarnation at all.

Interesting. There's a tension between placing emphasis on autonomy while maintaining that one is culturally embedded, as you did in your reply to Joshs, ↪baker.

I am well aware of this tension. I actually keeps me up at night.

And yet the vast mass of humanity have no such recollection. — Banno

Indeed, and as the doctrine of reincarnation says, this is because most people are under the influence of maya, illusion, where they don't know who they really are.

We have a congenital difference, you and I, that leads me to think of you as credulous. I won't be able to show you - it's not just that the evidence is insufficient, but that it is incoherent.

To be clear, I'm not using Stevenson's work as some kind of evidence for reincarnation. In fact, I think it's misleading, I dismiss it. I think it's irrelevant to what Hinduism and Buddhism teach on reincarnation/rebirth.

Population growth also seems to be a problem for reincarnation: according to defenders of reincarnation, souls migrate from one body to another. This, in a sense, presupposes that the number of souls remains stable, as no new souls are created, they only migrate from body to body. Yet, the number of bodies has consistently increased ever since the dawn of mankind. Where, one may ask, were all souls before new bodies came to exist? (Edwards, 1997: 14). Actually, this objection is not so formidable: perhaps souls exist in a disembodied form as they wait for new bodies to come up (D’Souza, 2009: 57). — IEP Immortality

That's a good example of what happens when a concept is taken out of its native context.

In Hindu and Buddhist teachings, the "number problem" is addressed thusly:
a living being is reincarnated/reborn
1. across various species (sometimes as a human, other times as an animal, yet other times as a deity, etc.)
2. also sometimes on other planets, not just on Earth.

I absolutely am not drawing a parallel between ancient Israel and the modern world, but The Final Solution was also intended to root out future generations of the hated Jew. — BC

A study of Jewish scripture is in place, to get to know whom you're talking about.

Of course, barely anyone is going to do that now, conveniently polarized and fixed in their stance.

Such justifications can only fool their like and not atheists like me — universeness

Oh, you did get fooled.

@universeness

You seem to think that Israel is doing what it is doing (the overkill) as a less-than-wise reaction to the terror/horror they feel because of Hamas?

Is this your stance?

It's doubtful any involved party believes there is such a thing as "innocent civilians". Warfare is essentially tribal: any member of a tribe will do.
— baker

I don't think this is true at all. — universeness

It's not like the civilians get to decide. The people who order the pulling of triggers do.

I am an atheist. — universeness

Irrelevant to the wars at hand.

Perhaps a better question to ask you is why do you think some in positions of authority/power choose to use/fully sanction, butchery and torture, horror and terror, against their enemy? — universeness

This is where the taboo sets in. But you can read the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, to get some ideas.

So, do you think that we can develop responses, that will prevent a group like Hamas, from EVER achieving such a goal, by using the kind of horror and terror tactics they have employed here?

That would require that some religio-ethnic group gives up its claim to a divinely special status. Which is not likely going to happen.

It's telling how the theme of religious exceptionalism is barely ever brought up in discussions of war. Even though it is this exceptionalism that so often drives the conflict, provoking it in the first place.

Horror and terror, imo take on a much deeper and far far more nuanced sense of morality and injustice, when it is contemplated or applied to other members of the same species. — universeness

The relevant unit here is tribe, or at most, nation, not species.

You keep jumping to these extremities of possibility, in an almost knee-jerk manner imo.

It's not rocket science.

In this under 2 min clip from Babylon 5, the character Marcus, talks a little about his Minbari training.
What do you think of his brief mention of 'terror'?

Fear is a tool. Parents and teachers have used it for a long time.

How can we better defend a population against the nefarious use of horror and terror?

People are more reslient than official psychology and the media give them credit for.

I think the answer lies in learning how to be much better at surgical removal, as opposed to being very good at using a blood axe or a large bludgeoning war hammer, on anyone who has the same or similar religious/race/societal etc, profile, to your perceived 'enemy.' Is this not happening in Gaza right now?

But for that, people would need to give up their religious or national identities. Which isn't likely going to happen.

As a classroom teacher, of over 30 years, I had many such positive 'mutual trust' experiences with individual pupils.

Really? They didn't mostly just suck up to you in order to get good grades, recommendations, etc.?

Could she have had better results and outcomes, if she had taken wiser actions?
— universeness
And what would such "wiser actions" be? Submitting to the Romans?
— baker

There was no notion of nationhood in the Island of Britain, during the days of Boudica. She is described as leading the Iceni. I doubt that is what they even called themselves. Iceni is a Latin/Roman name.
Many other local tribes joined her resistance against the Roman invaders, yes, probably to protect their own areas, resources and people, but, the fact that their tactics were ultimately totally defeated by Rome, for me, demonstrates not that they were wrong to resist Rome but that their method of doing so, proved wrong headed.

Wrong how exactly?
And you didn't answer my question.

I speculate here, but it seems the natives decided they were in a position of "live on your knees, or die fighting" and they decided that fighting to the death was better than living subjugated to the Romans.

That's the main point I am making, and the main question I was asking, is, did Boudica make too many mistakes, because her leadership was blindsided by her need for personal vengeance against Rome? Is there not an important lesson for us all to understand about such stories, even though they are mostly mythical and based on the unreliable reports, produced mainly by historians, who came from the side of the victors?

What lesson might that be? That's it's better to preserve the life of your body than your identity?

Can we not establish a better way to combat these abuses and deliberate attempts to manipulate human fear? — universeness

As long as natural resources are limited and hard to obtain, probably not.

It's not like people are living in a land of plenty and fight over nothing other than honor.

You lose the moral high ground, every time, if you kill the innocent along with the guilty, imo. — universeness

It's doubtful any involved party believes there is such a thing as "innocent civilians". Warfare is essentially tribal: any member of a tribe will do.

I have heard people describe what they would do to punish those they hate most. It normally lies somewhere on a rage from slow vivisection to tortured every moment of every day, ETERNALLY, in hell-style imagineered manifestations. Has such intent, ever been sated? Those who have tried, always end up destroyed themselves, after they have achieved their vengeance, or during the pursuit of such. They never achieve 'closure,' do they? — universeness

As for statement of intent:

Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.
As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
He hath delivered my soul in peace from the battle that was against me: for there were many with me.
God shall hear, and afflict them, even he that abideth of old.

https://biblehub.com/kjv/psalms/55.htm

And then there are other ones about wanting to wade knee-deep in an enemy's blood and such.

One can learn and unlearn horror.
/.../
Terror, on the other hand, is too overwhelming a condition to be unlearned. One can become desensitized to terror, but this is not a desirable goal.

Terror and horror can be similarly bad experiences, except that horror does not normally involve actual physical threat. Terror IS threat, both physical and psychological. — BC

How do you comment on the use of horror and terror in this psalm?

Listen to my prayer, O God,
do not ignore my plea;
hear me and answer me.
My thoughts trouble me and I am distraught
because of what my enemy is saying,
because of the threats of the wicked;
for they bring down suffering on me
and assail me in their anger.

My heart is in anguish within me;
the terrors of death have fallen on me.
Fear and trembling have beset me;
horror has overwhelmed me.
I said, “Oh, that I had the wings of a dove!
I would fly away and be at rest.
I would flee far away
and stay in the desert;
I would hurry to my place of shelter,
far from the tempest and storm.”


https://biblehub.com/niv/psalms/55.htm

Are we always doomed to respond to the nefarious use of horror and terror tactics, by resorting to the same or similar horror and terror tactics, in our pursuit of vengeance? Can we do no better than that? — universeness

Where then would be the drama of life ...

What was it do you think that made Viking and Mongol warriors okay with being "horror-ible"? — schopenhauer1

It seems they weren't just "okay with being horror-ible", but that at the time, being that way was considered being manly, or even just a proper human.
And much later, too.







The problem with this topic is that it is mostly tabooed in modern society, and only a superficial discourse is allowable. Trying to discuss it anyway is a high tightrope balancing act.

How important do you think it is for all of us to understand what's really going on, better than we do at present? — universeness

The problem is when we don't have a philosophy of life worked out.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

And most people seem to stick to the level of discussing people, or at most, events.

All the facts of a situation aren't likely to be known; this is simply the nature of events and people. I don't think there is a media conspiracy, or even a political one.

In order to get peace of mind, we'd need to address things on the level of ideas, which are largely independent of the facts of a situation. (That's why we have philosophy.)

I didn't advocate for health and happiness - of course I would, if it were a question of advocacy. But I do think they're more worthwhile goals than wealth and power, if those are the available options. — Vera Mont

Health and happiness are impossible without wealth and power.
Especially if worldwide economic disparity is to be ended, it seems this could only be done through wielding wealth and power.

As previously noted, this is an opinion. If you believe that being ill, anxious and miserable are preferable, that's also an opinion.

That's a false dichotomy, focusing only on the extremes.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them.
— baker

Since I don't believe life has a purpose beyond itself, or that quality of life needs justification, that question simply has no meaning for me, no matter how many times it's repeated.

Societies that focus on health and happiness go in a well-known direction:



This same trend can be observed in modern societies (which also tend to be "more equal") where health and happiness are held to such a high standard that the state has legalized ways for people to be eliminated from society if they can't live up to that standard by giving them the option of "euthanasia" or "assisted suicide".

Don't forget that the Nazis started off their murdering spree by killing their own people whom they deemed "unworthy of life" -- and it was all fully legal.

If we get the AIs working for us cleaning, washing, writing, cooking, gardening ... etc etc, we will have plenty of free time for sure. — Corvus

To do what with all that free time? Play videogames? Watch films, preferrably consisting of nothing but deep fakes?

It seems to be in the interest of the stakeholders in the AI business that people consume and dumb down. What is more, it seems to be somehow evolutionarily advantageous to be an avid consumer and to dumb down, as this is the way to adapt to modern society, and adaptation is necessary if one is to survive.

If you took the time to read what I wrote and at the linked dialogue with ChatGPT, I don't see why you would say it is a waste of time. — Wayfarer

That's in your mind. I never said it was a waste of time. I think it's a luxury very few can afford. And you're apparently among the lucky few. I've never even visited the ChatGPT website.

I did call something a waste of time today (if that is what caught your attention), but it wasn't about AI.

And I don't think I accused you of trolling.

Like here, and in private.

You responded to an OP I created on idealist philosophy with the accusation that I wanted to enjoy the fruits of Buddhism without paying any dues, or something along those lines.

Of course. I think you are approaching Buddhism from a safe distance. It's very common for Westerners to do so. This isn't a personal criticism against you, it's pertinent to religious epistemology.

I think you can be a very insightful and smart contributor but I think sometimes you tend to shoot first and ask question later, if you know what I mean.

This is a philosophy forum. Sapere aude!


And back on topic!

So the topic becomes that of individuation — Banno

Autonomy.

Do you agree with my prediction? — Judaka

No.

The situation with slavery shows that even though it is officially condemned, new forms of slavery are springing up all the same, perhaps even more pernicious, more insidious than the traditional forms.

This pattern can be observed elsewhere as well: there is an official, hyper-tolerant, politically hyper-correct doctrine about how we are supposed to think about things, and then there is the actual way people think about things and what kind of thinking they actually value. In regard to things such as racism, obesity, age, mental illness, ecology, traffic laws.

It doesn't seem it could be any different when it comes to meat, especially given the current foodie and general consumerist trends.

I was raised Catholic and educated for twelve years by Franciscans & Jesuits; most, if not all, of the "doctrines" I had "internalized" stopped making sense to me by age of fifteen (and still don't forty-five years later). — 180 Proof

What is the case for you isn't necessarily the case for everyone else. Your case doesn't prove anything much about the general pattern (which is what I'm talking about).

Nonsense, baker, is nonsense

I suppose externalizing like that can be really helpful.

But there are more ways to gain distance from something religious/spiritual other than declaring it nonsense.
I maintain that my way of distancing is less confrontational; certainly not as egoically aggressive and satisfying as declaring something religious/spiritual to be "nonsense". I like my way, it makes the religious/spiritual problem into a non-issue. It makes it into an "other people's problem".

whether "religious doctrine" or not – whether "internalized in childhood" or not. For instance (a famous historical example), Spinoza was excommunicated for not keeping to himself that the "doctrines" of Torah, which no doubt he had "internalized", did not make sense to him.

Lack of diplomacy and lack of pragmatical insight on his part.

All that by way of saying, folk can make stuff up? — Banno

You know it's more complex than that.

"Reincarnation" simply does not make sense, except as an article of faith (i.e. figment of imagination), without publicly specifying what exactly is allegedly "reincarnated". — 180 Proof

Religious doctrines, in order to "make sense" to a person, need to be internalized early on in life, or perhaps can be assimilated later only if the person is undergoing a psychologically intense period in their life.

It's not clear that it is possible to accept and internalize any doctrine/teaching/philosophy/ideology simply by reading a syllogism.

Not from scratch, though. A person born and raised into a religion that teaches reincarnation will have internalized it even before their critical cognitive faculties have developed. So such a person doesn't actually "make stuff up".
— baker

So, instead of making their own stuff up, they accept and introject the stuff that others have made up; stuff that has been canonized in their culture? — Janus

It cannot be said that what children do when they internalize the religious teachings of their parents and their community is an act of "choice" or conscious acceptance. Given that for children born and raised into a religion the exposure to religious teachings begins to take place even before the child's critical cognitive abilities have formed to the point of consciously being able to a make choices, to consciously accept or reject things, it's remiss to say that this is what is happening.

It's like with one's native language: it's not subject to one's choice, it "just happens".

How is it that old you is the same as young you - directly contradicting Leibniz’ Law
Chrysippus’ Paradox
101 Dalmatians
The ball of clay
Theseus' ship
London and Londres — Banno

The idea you both are suggesting is that it's not what one commonly calls one's self that is reincarnated, but a something else, a sort of essence...

But what that is remains undefined, or defined only by hand-waving. — Banno

This just illustrates what happens when one takes a concept out of its native context and tries to understand it and work with it regardless of said context. It's nonsense, and a waste of time.

To be clear, I'm not "advocating for reincarnation". In a broad sense, I'm advocating for semantic holism.

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone.
— baker

Could you plug it in? I'm not sure what to do with that! :smile: — creativesoul

First about gratitude:

It's a popular sentiment that children don't owe their parents anything, e.g.


Yet bearing in mind the premises in your OP, it's clear that one couldn't be where one is today were it not for one's parents, and that some akcnowledgement of this debt is in order.
Similar for one's teachers.

Another popular sentiment is to think of oneself as independent, as not having needed anyone in order to succeed, and taking pride in this. Similarly as above with parents and teachers, it's clear that such is not possible, and that a million things need to come together in order for a person to succeed, a million things over which the person has no control.

*sigh*
You accused me of trolling several times. I actually don't have much time at the computer, even less for the forum. Which is, apparently, not something you'd understand.
Your accusations made me feel like shit and made me doubt myself. And I've come to admire you and envy that you have so much time for all the topics I don't. On your throne, judging. Must be great.

Zombie nature is Buddha nature: empty. — praxis

And when the power runs out ... you won't even hum.

Most people truth it because they do not know what it is, once it's newness dies off people will quit caring. — Isaiasb

The question is whether the cognitive tendencies made worse by the use of technology will abate once they stop using the technology (so much).

Here I mean that those cognitive tendencies made worse by the use of technology like increased distractability, poor focus, lesser working memory, a decrease of learning abilities. Someone who relies a lot on technology will at some point become unable to function without it.

This is an ignorant take on the value of meditation. — Nils Loc

Serious Buddhist meditators meditate in order to realize nibbana, the end of suffering, through realizing paticcasamuppada. Statistically, this appears to be extremely rare.

In contrast, what usually goes on under "meditation" in popular culture is an act of zoning out, distracting oneself. And of course, distracting oneself, mentally checking out for a while can have positive effects. It's just not conducive to liberation from suffering.

If one can't escape being a robot, one might as well strive for robotic bliss (if it is real).

That's a horrible way to underestimate life.

I'm amazed by people who manage to get all their work done and still have time for things such as Chat GPT.

I signed up for ChatGPT the day it came out, used it every day since. — Wayfarer

Where on earth do you find the time for it??

It should start with dismantling it's apartheid regime and stop it's continuous well documented human rights violations. — Benkei

But Israel are God's chosen people! They are justified to do whatever they want.

Are you suggesting that self-awareness precedes awareness of the environment?

My point with the opiates, alcohol etc. is that it's not just any calm that will do for actually having peace of mind, but that it has to be the right kind of calm, arrived at the right way.
Drugs are not the right way.

Both actions are tolerated and respected by me. — javi2541997

It's possible to be so open-minded that one's brain falls out.

Let's see what happens when we 'plug in' something a bit more interesting/compelling.. — creativesoul

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone.

However, AI devices will never be able to operate like humans do in terms of biological, social and mental life. — Corvus

But humans are very much on the way to operate like AI devices.

What if I imagine myself — Joshs

Can one really define oneself?

Your default notions of who you really are are not your own, but inherited from the society/culture you grew up in. So you cannot define your starting point, as that has been done by others already.

At some "personal defining juncture" however you choose to define yourself anew, possibly in contradistinction with your old, inherited idea of "who you really are", that new definition is still going to be in relation to your old one. So it seems that one cannot actually chose one's identity.

I think the concepts of "soul" and "disembodied consciousness" are similar, if not exactly the same. — Art48

They can't be, because one is from a religious context (pulling along all the connotations), and the other one is not.