Thanks for making my point. — synthesis

Not at all. Your point is that it's only some (young) people who "believe that their rights supersede others rights" etc. etc.
I'm such such beliefs are common.

This is an age-old, superstitious problem that few have spoken about: an overestimation of the power of words. One can see it everywhere once one notices it. — NOS4A2

And then there's that striking similarity between a zombie and an individualist ...

in the final analysis there is no objective proof, nor can there be if neither objective nor subjective reality exists. — Apollodorus

But teeth do rot, hair does grey, skin does wrinkle.

You're still rationalizing 'immunity from critical examination' for religious discourses. — 180 Proof

Good luck to you and Witti with explaining advanced math or engineering to preschoolers!
The issue at hand is jargon, not private language.

Yep.

There's no philosophical content here. — Banno

*sigh*

What I've been saying is that "philosophy" and "religion" are two categories. This isn't intended to rationalize immunity from critical examination for religious discourses. It's intended to show that attempting such a critical examination is a waste of time for an outsider to said religious discourse.
One would think people value their time more highly.

That's because we're uneducated worldlings, what Plato would designate the hoi polloi. — Wayfarer

And using the definitive article before "hoi polloi" makes one a real uneducated worldling. :razz:

I feel like that didn't come off well. What I mean is that, within any spiritual, social, or political circle, that a person would think that, what to me, would be the most vexing code of conduct that a person could possibly adopt, as I am so inclined to be willing to invoke that pride is a cardinal sin, aside from that self-righteousness is just generally infuriating, as somehow requisite to survive within it is just indicative of that it isn't the a set of society that that person should even want to take part in. — thewonder

There is no place for idealism in religion or spirituality.

Evolution could just has easily ended with blue-green algae if survival was the sole criteria. Conversely, if survival is the only aim, then man’s ability to question its meaning is utterly superfluous. — Wayfarer

Enter random mutation and evolution being a non-purposeful process.

We can still insist that survival is the sole criteria, it's just that in the face of random mutation, beings adapt. Such as by philosophizing.

Is English the easiest language to learn?

I think a lot depends on the prospective learner's native language and how it differs from or how similar it is to English.

Similarity is tricky because it can lead to mistakes that the learner isn't even aware of.


English is probably one the easiest languages to learn in the sense that there are so many (free) resources for learning it (textbooks, courses, online stuff).

What can I do to address my own cultural bias? — Tiberiusmoon

Be a hardcore motherfucker.
Jesus, the virtue signalling!

There are [...] people out among the masses who believe that their rights supersede others rights because "their side" knows the truth. They can utter whatever absurdity supports their narrative, but others cannot do the same because it infringes on their rights (to feel safe and secure). — synthesis

IOW, the history of mankind. Duh.

I'm asking if you're bothered by any of it.
Remember, my point that started this was that happiness and value "need to come with a sense of being apriori or else they lose their lustre", ie. a person must have a sense that happiness and value must have something inexplicable about them, must be perceived as axiomatic, otherwise, there's a sense of unsatisfactoriness about them.

Perhaps this doesn't apply to you. But it seems to me that for most people, "peeking behind the courtain" has a demoralizing effect on them.

My question was: Can you complete the sentences in a way that doesn't feel like something is lacking or remiss?
You've completed the sentences. Are you fully satisifed with the way you did it?

Apportioning blame is often a power strategy, and when used that way has nothing to do with actual causation. If one can successfully pin the blame on others, then one gets the upper hand.

which is no doubt made in China — Wayfarer

And of course there are good quality products made in China. It's just that they cost as much as those made in Switzerland.

There you go. And by now, the issue has become systemic, so that for the individual person, it would often be socio-economic suicide to try to buy only ethically produced products and services.

As a society, we've lost the sense of both the worth of things and of the price of things.

It’s completely unrealistic to avoid Chinese production altogether, they’re ‘the world’s factory’, but the campaign against their totalitarianism has to continue. — Wayfarer

No. That's shortsighted.

What we should campaign against is the desire to get more for less. Against greed. Against the desire to keep up the appearance of a rich or at least middle class person while not actually being one.

Countries that produce low or lower quality goods and export them cheaply to first world countries are feeding precisely these Western desires. If Westerners wouldn't be so damn greedy, those poor countries wouldn't ruin their own people and their own land, as there'd be no demand for those cheap low(er) quality goods and unethical means of production.

You can point out how dirty the industry in those mostly poor countries is, how unethical their means of production, how totalitarian their governments. But are you willing, and more importantly, are you able to live your current lifestyle without buying their products?

Otherwise, what is nirvana? — Apollodorus

How can one hope to understand a term without immersing oneself in the field of expertise from which this term originates?

What I meant was that the Buddhist explanation may be OK to Buddhists, but it seems less satisfactory to Platonists and Hindus, for example. — Apollodorus

Why is German "unsatisfactory" to people who want to speak Italian?

It's bizarre that one religion should employ concepts that another religion finds acceptable.

And it looks like some Buddhist traditions do accept something that comes close to the soul of Platonists and Hindus.

Yes, they do. What's your point?

Plus, as your Wikipedia article says, there seem to be issues of interpretation, etc. and several scholars have identified inconsistencies in this theory of “dependent origination”.

Yes, "Buddhism" can mean a lot of things ... There's an air of Humpty-Dumpty about it.

It may be true that the soul or individual mind/consciousness is not eternal and changeless in its normal everyday aspect, but it may still be eternal and changeless in essence. Otherwise, what is nirvana?

I'm curious about what you say above, and earlier. You seem like a semantic atomist.

Pointing out that different religions mean different things, even though they might be using the same terms, is not an act of rationalizing immunity from critical examination for religious discourses.
It would be such a rationalizing if we started off with the premise that all religions are, aspire to, or should talk about the same thing. It's not clear how such a premise can be defended, much less that it is self-evident. Without such a premise, we're left with numerous potentially incompatible religious discourses, even though they sometimes use the same or similar terms and concepts.

I think that to pursue an answer to this question will necessarily lead to an unsatisfactory result, because both happiness and value need to come with a sense of being apriori or else they lose their lustre.
— baker

Kindly expand and elaborate. — TheMadFool

Consider completing the following sentences:
"My happiness is based on ..."
"What I value is based on ..."

Can you complete the sentences in a way that doesn't feel like something is lacking or remiss?

*sigh*
Suit yourself. I'm leaving you to heavens and to the thorns that in your bosom lodge to prick and sting you.

If examining presuppositions and implications of a so-called "answer" for, at minimum, intelligibility is "looking for an opportunity to press my metaphysics", then I'm guilty as charged. To prefer sense over nonsense is a proven adaptive preference, y'know.
Why should we yield to special pleading for religious discourse to be granted special snowflake immunity to philosophical inquiry or critique? Why shouldn't we push back on dogmatists like baker who "press their otherworldly metaphysics?" Why do any of you bother discussing your "religions" on public fora only to balk at actually discussing it with those of us who don't believe what you all believe in?
We're not here to be proselytized at; and when fideistic sermonizing transforms a dialogue into a monologue, a friendly fuck off is warranted which either spurs the dialogue galloping onward or spooks a jackass to bolt away to bray (pray) imponderable monologues elsewhere. — 180 Proof

Fuck you for this.
You don't read posts. I'm not going to defend claims you merely imagine I made.

If an insider can't explain or at least clarify for an outsider, it's more likely than not that discursively the insider doesn't understand it or the discourse itself is unintelligible. — 180 Proof

Oh?
Would you say that if you cannot explain, say, advanced math to someone who totally isn't into math, or to a small child, this means that " it's more likely than not that discursively you don't understand it or the discourse itself is unintelligible"? And that it deserves to be called bullshit?

It's like this for any specialized field, whether it's advanced math, or cooking, or engineering, or hair-styling.

The prospective understander needs to have the required basic knowledge of the field, or he won't understand what the other person is saying.

People sometimes say "If you can't explain it to a 5-year-old child, you just don't understand it". Yet this is patently wrong. Small children simply can't understand anything about advanced math, or how to make a proper souffle, or how to cut a bob, and so many other things, no matter how much things are dumbed down for them. (But one thing small children might be good at is keeping up the appearance of understanding.)

I've been an "insider" of Biblical discourse and Zen Buddhist teachings. Over decades I've had many productive, informative, discussions with scholarly & thoughtful insiders of quite a few religious traditions.

Like you say -- you're an insider in those fields. So no surprise that you had "many productive, informative, discussions with scholarly & thoughtful insiders of quite a few religious traditions".
Although I wonder what you mean by "productive discussions".

I have no idea what you mean when you're glossolaling (or whinging) about "the epistemic and normative nature".

And you think that your attitude that you display here is conducive to a productive exchange?

Yeah, religious discourses are language games grounded in forms of life which when interpreted in terms of non-religious language games tend to generate – degenerate into – (polemical) misunderstandings & nonsense. I won't put words in Banno's mouth, but I've not reduced any religious language game to, say, a philosophical language game; I've been quite charitable and repeatedly asked you insiders wtf gets reincarnated in "reincarnation" that belongs to, or travels with, a self from incarnation to incarnation? and, if some quality / property belongs to a self, how does that square with the doctrine of "anatta"? or, if "no self", then why should any non-self be concerned with her "karma" reincarnated to afflict some other non-self incarnation somewhere else, somewhen else?

You didn't read the sources that we referred to.

Just questions, Mr. Insider, not evaluations or reductions to exogenous terms or anything misguided or sinister.

But not questions asked in good faith, as you yourself noted earlier that you engage in these discussions because you're bored.

how does an insider know he discursively understands something if he can explain, or convey it intelligibly, only to other insiders?

In the same way that there is a special linguistic understanding among the native/fluent speakers of a language, an understanding that outsiders characteristically lack.

That's groupthink, right? Preaching to tf choir? Blowing sunshine (or smoke) up each others' arseholes, no?

*sigh*
Looks like you're having some hangups about the social nature of knowledge.
Also, note the emic-etic distinction.

However, some Buddhist traditions claim that imprints of past experience are stored in a “store-consciousness” (ālayavijñāna) from where they arise in the form of memories like plants germinating from seeds. But that doesn’t explain where the store-consciousness itself is stored. Even if we grant that the store-consciousness is nothing but the totality of imprints or seeds, we still need to explain how the seeds are held together and where. The same applies to the chain-of-consciousness or chain-of-causation theory. — Apollodorus

Paṭiccasamuppāda explains these things. Unless you think that paṭiccasamuppāda requires an additional explanation/context/foundation?

People differ in how much need for cognition they have, from Wiki:

The need for cognition (NFC), in psychology, is a personality variable reflecting the extent to which individuals are inclined towards effortful cognitive activities.[1][2]

Need for cognition has been variously defined as "a need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways" and "a need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world".[3] Higher NFC is associated with increased appreciation of debate, idea evaluation, and problem solving. Those with a high need for cognition may be inclined towards high elaboration. Those with a lower need for cognition may display opposite tendencies, and may process information more heuristically, often through low elaboration.[4]

Need for cognition is closely related to the five factor model domain openness to experience, typical intellectual engagement, and epistemic curiosity (see below)./.../
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_for_cognition

LMFAO, just be a sanctimonious chauvinist. You must've just fallen into the wrong the Buddhist circles. — thewonder

Not at all. I'm just a Western female who happens to have an innate interest in Early Buddhism. A very bad combination with very bad consequences.

But then why do people try to prove there is a God instead of keeping it in personalistic terms? — Gregory

Because the prospect of ruling over the world is so attractive.

The two of you don't seem to understand the epistemic and normative nature of religious claims. There's a reason why "philosophy" and "religion" are two categories.

A religious claim isn't intended to be analyzed by outsiders by their own standards (that are extraneous to the religion). One is supposed to "take it or leave it". One either understands it, or one doesn't. One either agrees with it, or one doesn't. That's it. The only action one is intended to take in regard to a religious claim is to try to make oneself see the truth of it.

Religious people and texts will usually not spell this out so clearly. (The Buddha did once.) One usually discovers the above truth the hard way -- when the religious person becomes so exasperated by one's questioning and attempts at discussion that they verbalize it like I did above, or else one can infer that this is what they mean when they assassinate one's character (like when they say things like, "How can you be so foolish that you don't see that this is the truth?!").

This is one of the reasons why outsiders' attempts at discussing religious claims are bound to be abortive.

Do you mean by this that there is 'pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine of re-birth'? — Wayfarer

No, I mean in general, about anything.

In the Buddhist circles I have interacted with, I've never experienced anything like that. I've given introductory talks at a Buddhist Library over the years, and the idea of re-birth comes up from time to time. My view is that nobody should be under any pressure to believe it, or to believe anything, for that matter.

You're flying first class, I'm flying coach. I have no doubt that your experience with Buddhism was markedly different than mine. You're an educated, classy person, people tend to naturally give you a measure of respect. And you're male, which is often really really helpful in religion/spirituality.
(Bear in mind that if I want to speak to a monk, I, on principle, need to have with me an adult male chaperon who understands the topic at hand.)

The 'secular Buddhist' organisation (yes, there is such thing) generally deprecates or rejects the idea of literal re-birth. They have long philosophical articles against it, saying that the belief was imported into Buddhism from the sorrounding culture. I don't agree with them, but there's nothing and nobody stopping them from saying it.

I know. One such secular Buddhist once asked me what my favorite Buddhist book was, and I said "the Pali Canon". He never spoke to me again. Ha!

Personally, I think Buddhism has some interesting theories but it doesn't seems to contribute much to the discussion because its explanation of reincarnation is too nebulous. — Apollodorus

"Nebulous" is certainly not the word I would use. I think the Early Buddhist take on rebirth is so complex and requires one to keep in mind so much doctrine that it's just too much for the ordinary person to bother with it.

You sound ... confused. — 180 Proof

You externalize.

It can often be an understandable response to experience. — Tom Storm

A psychologist saying this?? Surely you don't mean it. Else they'll draw and quarter you!

I imagine also we sometimes use the word apathy to describe someone who doesn't share our enthusiasms.

Yeah. Externalizing rocks.

Is it possible to be fascinated by everything? Is it possible to sustain a lifestyle of total curiosity? — Benj96

So that unless one is blessed with great intelligence to master advanced math and such, one is stuck in being Amelie? Oy vey.

The Hedonic Question: Do things have value because they make us happy or do they make us happy because they have value? — TheMadFool

I think that to pursue an answer to this question will necessarily lead to an unsatisfactory result, because both happiness and value need to come with a sense of being apriori or else they lose their lustre.

I was talking to a member of the Shaolin and they told me that Buddhism at least as practiced by the Shaolin is not so much a religion as a method of discovering the true nature of the world. — TiredThinker

It's not uncommon for religious/spiritual people to claim that theirs is "not a religion" but that it "is the truth".
I've seen Christians do this, and Buddhists, too.

I generally think of Buddhism as focused on reincarnation and karma which presumes things about life after death, but his definition made it sound more scientific.

Some proselytizers try to appeal to Western secular people, so they introduce some pseudoscientific vocabulary. I've seen Christians, Hare Krishnas, Buddhists, and Bahais do it.

Can a religion be used as a scientific method in terms of at least only accepting things that can be proven through our senses?

Or is the methods of actual scientists superior in that arena?

Presuming that science and religion have different goals, the question becomes moot.

Yay!!!!

Or look at the Republican states denying medicaid expansion or federal unemployment funding. It's truly insane. — Xtrix

I think the whole idea of there being Red and Blue states within one country is insane. It's a miracle the US has any semblance of functionality at all, given the political principles by which it is governed.

And then this whole notion of the president being a member of a political party! How could things not go wrong?! Sure, it's a system that keeps people on their toes all the time (as in, "Now we have 4 years of peace and prosperity, but in the next presidential term, we could be looking at the end of times if we don't make sure that our candidate win again!"), and it keeps them divided. But beyond that? Unless, of course, this system was specifically designed for controlling the population, making it impossible for the people to rebel in any effective way, and even making them lack the motivation to do so.

I realize more and more the importance of power in numbers, and that almost anything worth achieving can be done easier (and sometimes only) with groups of people working together. After writing this down, it feels like a truism -- and while that may be accurate, I don't see it showing up in our society (the United States) to the degree it does in others. — Xtrix

A fish stinks from the head.

The American political system is, in most states, based on the motto "winner takes all". As long as this is in place, in law and in popular culture, there's just no reason to place much value on working together with others.

Another thing that is bound to divide a nation is that the president of the country (which is the most powerful position in the country) can be / must be a member of a political party. In contrast, in some European countries this is impossible, and the person who is the president cannot also be a member of a political party, because they're supposed to represent all people in the country, not just a particular party.

And something else that's pretty neat from the Tractarian:

5.64, Wittgenstein asserts that “Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.” — Shawn

Yes. Neither the solipsist nor the realist have any notion of "perspective" (other than in the sense of 'wrong/faulty', as in "People who see things from their own perspective don't see things as they really are, but only from their narrow, wrong viewpoint").
A sentence like "Things are the way I see them" is unintelligible to a realist, and if the solipsist is also a realist, then to such a solipsist as well. IOW, it's impossible to get through to such people and to meaningfully communicate with them, at least as far as metadiscussion goes.

So, trying to connect this with your earlier post on trusting experience: are you saying that in a spiritual community, one has to be cocky enough to trust their own experiences so as not to be influenced by the thoughts, opinions, criticisms etc of others? — TLCD1996

Yes.

If so, I'm wondering what this might look like, or how it might manifest.

As (right-wing) authoritarian mentality.

Cockiness to me conveys an attitude of mistrust toward others (based on one's own conceit), which isn't all that healthy in a small spiritual community as far as I know.

The thing about noble friendship (kalyanamittata) is that it bears very little resemblance to ordinary friendship. There's no (need for) mutual respect and trust. It's all about one person assuming superiority over the other person in terms of the Dharma, and that's pretty much it. "If you don't like it, leave" is the motto.