"Enemy of my enemy is my ally" — 180 Proof

:razz: That proverb came to mind when reading along with the Streetlight drama.

Watched this last night on Netflix, quite fascinating.

Even though it involves faith, it's hard to call it a religion (noting that blind attachment to precepts/practices/rites/rituals is abandoned at some point); even if it involves reasonable inference or reflection, it's hard to call it a philosophy (noting that ideas, concepts, arguments are not our refuge). — TLCD1996

Of course I agree that it would be misleading to call a religion a philosophy.

It is the promise that must necessarily be taken on faith that correctly identifies it as a religion and not the fulfillment of the promise. You appear to believe as all religious followers believe: that their religion delivers on its promise and all others are false (no other religious practice can be abandoned because they’re all false).

What do you suppose the problem is in accepting the fact that Buddhism is a religion?

They can't join an atheist philosophy forum to discuss love, because that conversation doesn't happen here. — Hippyhead

https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Love&expand=yes&child=&forums=&or=Relevance&discenc=&mem=&tag=&pg=1&date=All&titles=1&Checkboxes%5B%5D=titles&Checkboxes%5B%5D=WithReplies&or=Relevance&user=&disc=&Checkboxes%5B%5D=child

TLCD1996 wrote:

I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both [application of reason and utilization of faith]

If neither of you think that it doesn’t apply reason, well, I suppose there wouldn’t be much point in argument. It is unclear if TLCD1996 believes that faith is utilized.

My biggest problem with Trump is that he lacks any leadership qualities and instead just fans the flames where ever there is conflict in order to create a stark choice for the voters. — Hanover

Rather euphemistically put, but anyway, four more years of that, yay! :cheer:

A well written and informative post, TLCD1996. I will cut to the chase as it relates to the topic.

I think from the Buddhist perspective, the question of "philosophy or religion" isn't really all that important. As evidenced here, it leads to a lot of debate (one could say that the conclusions aren't necessarily worthy of attachment). But I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both, if we see philosophy as being oriented around an application of reason, and religion as a utilization of faith. As Ajahn Geoff often suggests, these and other things (e.g. morality) are used for the sole purpose of realizing freedom from suffering. — TLCD1996

Assuming you haven’t fully realized freedom from suffering, are you not utilizing faith that full liberation is possible?

That's why I'm not voting for Biden. — Hanover

Since you brought it up, are you skipping this part of the ballot or voting for Trump... or Kanye?

(Just a small correction: the outlet that reported on the emails was the New York Post, the paper of Hamilton.) — NOS4A2

Oh wow, the paper of Hamilton. Must be reliable reporting then!

Religion arises from the inherently divisive nature of thought itself. — Hippyhead

Undeniably true, but then what doesn’t arise from this creator of worlds, oh wise one?

Yes, the believer is more likely to believe that they are moral beings due to their affiliation with ultimate authority, but that is an unfortunate illusion because it stifles moral development.

Believers must be kept dependent so the development of virtue is never seriously pursued. Sinners are forgiven, and in so doing kept dependent on a forgiver.

The development of virtue leads to independence. The nonbeliever may base their development on principles.

the nonbeliever does not believe in God, thus there is no internal source to compel his morality. The nonbeliever lacks the transfigured judge which is lurking over the shoulder of the believer at all times. — Merkwurdichliebe

Both believer and nonbeliever have the same internal moral intuitions. Their justifications (after the fact) differ, merely.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium.
— praxis

That's an odd thing to assume. Maybe he doesn't want to throw his pearls in the wrong direction. — frank

Is it odd? Maybe it seems that way because you don't know him as well as I do.

He can keep his damnable pearls. This pig ain't interested.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium.

Why do we seek such stories? What is the need which causes us to go looking for stories? Yes, we want meaning. But why? Why do we seek meanings?

Keep digging... — Hippyhead

You seem to suggest that you have answers to your four questions but for some weird reason aren't saying.

Don't worry, I promise no one will make fun of your answers.

I know of one fan.

Bringing religion to an end would require understanding the fundamental human need which gives rise to religion and then providing, at massive scale, some manner of meeting that need which users find more effective than religion. — Hippyhead

In a word, the need is meaning and people best find this for themselves. The necessary cultural shift would be towards the pursuit of meaning rather than materialistic goals and tribal solidarity.

You appear to be buying the myth that he’s a 4-D chess player or whatever. Grated he’s an accomplished con-man, but the self-beneficial accomplishments he has are owed to inherited wealth and the freedom of not being burdened with any principles.

He’s a right-wing populist, as traditional in the US as white bread or apple pie. Think stupid Nixon.

I'm voting for Trump because of this amazing accomplishment. He's made us long for traditional politicians! — Hippyhead

He couldn't be more traditional, merely a different brand.

Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced — James Baldwin

Yet another word from the Dune universe, this one from The Duke of Caladan. While listening to the audiobook last night there was a part in the story where the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen informed a visiting guest that some such thing would be arriving presently. The word 'presently' had apparently triggered in my mind the latent thirst for exotic words and within less than a minute a new beauty blossomed from the narrative.

Feyd-Rautha gave the Baron's guest an insouciant glance as he walked away.

I like the sound of the word, and its meaning, but I can't imagine using it in day-to-day language, unfortunatly.

Not to me. If it were I wouldn’t have asked.

What is the logic applied to impermanence that answers the question of how to live well? And, btw, the question is ‘how to end suffering?’ and not ‘how to live well?’

a system of recommended practices which is, at its core, an answer to the question that greek philosophers were grappling with, to wit, how to live well? — TheMadFool

Why can’t we say this about any religion?

As chance would have it, shortly after my last post I received a book that I had preordered from Amazon. It's a new book fresh off the presses titled: Hidden Zen, by Meido Moore. Meido Moore is a highly respected Zen teacher from Korinji Monastery in Madison, Wisconsin. @Wayfarer has visited this monastery in recent years, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, there's a part in the introduction that made me think of you.

It must be noted that there is today a common kind of Buddhist modernism in which the fruition of Zen is conceived to be a primarily psychological revolution. According to this view, the intent of Zen practice is attainment of a kind of acceptance of samsaric existence — a short-term (that is, for the duration of on’s life span) psychological resilience in the face of life’s inevitable suffering — rather than liberation from samsaric existence as classically understood in Buddhism; the dispelling of delusion and the final dissolving of the body-mind karmic obstructions (jikke) with which we have been entwined for endless lives and eons.
…
… a purely psychological realization is mostly conceptual and so inevitably shallow. It is a mirage, lacking sufficient power to cut the roots of ignorance in a lasting manner. More bluntly: it is not the awakening of Zen and is unworthy of comparison with the profound attainment for which the great Zen masters labored so exhaustively. — Meido Moore, in Hidden Zen

No this is false, the main thing is to realize emptiness.
— praxis

Which is what happens in the effort of trying to understand how your mind works — khaled

I can't say what happens when you try to understand how your mind works because I don't know what that means. What does it mean?

Brain science has come a long way in recent years, by the way. Buddhist conceptions of how the human mind works are rather antiquated.

It is a way of saying that fundamentally Eastern “religions” and western religions are different in how they present “salvation”. Eastern religions try to fix your attitude towards life while western religions claim that there is a fixed version of life that you can go into if you pass this “test” that is this current life. — khaled

Both promises fixed salvation.

You don't seriously think that Buddhism only promises an attitude adjustment, do you? You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but by the same token, I could say the same thing about Western religions.

there are other schools of Buddhism that say that reincarnation isn’t a literal reincarnation after death but more like a metaphor for change. — khaled

Such as?

I don’t know if you can really count meditation as “mysticism” though. I don’t buy incarnation or reading the stars if that’s what you’re alluding to. — khaled

Reading the stars is not mysticism unless you're doing it on peyote or something.

I noticed the new topic titled "Is Murder Really That Bad?" but didn't read because it doesn't interest me. A little surprised by the title, though I recall thinking that this is a philosophy forum where everything should be questioned so sure.

Yup, life can be dissatisfying.

Nevertheless, life is not disorder. It requires order and chaos.

That's how the left typically portrays the right, quite like the classical view of the bourgeoisie as a willing partner of the elite in suppressing the lower classes, especially the working class. The view has roots in traditional leftist thinking. — ssu

This is how the left portrays left-wing populism. I specifically mentioned the underclass (immigrants or minority populations).

Yet in societies people rarely displace others... — ssu

Really? I've been displaced from two jobs by offshoring myself.

I think the main reason is now days more about transfer payments and income distribution, then fears of crime etc. Few might fear immigrants taking their jobs or corporations using cheaper foreign labor. However I think it's better to view as a separate agenda as not only populists can have those opinions. — ssu

Well, I was talking about right-wing populism.

Populism seeks to divide people into two categories: "the elites" and "the common people" and that these are inherently against each other. A common definition would be: "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." — ssu

Right-wing populism also positions the common people against the underclass or anyone who may threaten to displace their socioeconomic status, such as immigrants or minorities, and utilize ‘law & order’ to help suppress them.

I guess you could clear up any confusion by pointing out the media outlets that tell it like it is and report more than crumbs.
– praxis

The reasonable thing to do is judge reporting on its merits, not on where it comes from. — NOS4A2

The thrust of your comment is that most don't have access to anything besides 'crumbs'.

I said anti-Trump media, not left and right. Nevertrumpers run the spectrum of right/left media. — NOS4A2

I guess you could clear up any confusion by pointing out the media outlets that tell it like it is and report more than crumbs.

The problem is most are not aware of everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth, — NOS4A2

Thankfully unaware, I might add.

... and are basing everything on whatever crumbs the anti-Trump media lets them hear. — NOS4A2

I have a habit of looking at both left and right leaning news headlines and they cover pretty much the same material but with their own spins on it. For instance, if Trump says that virtually nobody is effected by the coronavirus, both sides will report on it, but the right-leaning media will try to put a positive spin on it. So it basically amounts to crumb bashing and anti crumb bashing. Same crumbs, different recipes that cater to their respective audiences' appetites. They're in the game to make money, you understand.

You can’t even be bothered to capitalize letters so the inconvenience of having to explain yourself beyond three letters must truly be an outrage.

But seriously, I think that the value in the OP of this topic is in its promotion of the idea that we need to make the effort to dig beneath the surface in order to find common ground in which to connect.

NOS is here for comic relief, not to tell the truth.

Justice can apply to individuals, when it applies to entire groups it is more suspect. — BitconnectCarlos

So when justice applies unfairly to one group we should try to do something about that. Earlier you wrote, "I support justice, and that includes justice for everyone regardless of race, class, gender, etc.
so in that sense I obviously support 'racial justice' or 'social justice.'" There's no doubt that 'racial justice' can be politicized or used as a political tool to manipulate public opinion, but then practically anything can be politicized these days, even something as simple as wearing a mask to help prevent the spread of a deadly pandemic. So I suppose that we agree in a need for ever-vigilant suspicion and support for racial justice.

I think what's happening here is that you're regarding "racial justice" as a sub-category of justice and I'm regarding the term more in its modern social usage. Racial justice in its modern usage generally refers to redressing historical wrongs through perks or advantages today that apply to only one group, e.g. reparations and affirmative action. Easier grading for minorities could easily fall into this category.

Of course I support justice, and that includes justice for everyone regardless of race, class, gender, etc. so in that sense I obviously support "racial justice" or "social justice." But the actual meanings of these terms today are quite different from just an extension of the conception of justice. — BitconnectCarlos

It sounds like you're more concerned with ideology than with extensions of the conception of justice or sub-categories of justice. If concerned with fair and equal justice, and a belief that that is a goal worth pursuing, it's easy to see how some approaches may be better than others, or that some approaches may even be corrupt. If an ideology doesn't value fair and equal justice then it may well consider the whole enterprise suspect.

If someone is willing to prioritize their own ethnic group before justice/fairness then I just find it impossible [to carry on fruitful discussions]. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think that you can win over a racist with reason. Their sense of fairness has to overcome the privileges of being part of the majority, if nothing else.

And I agree with you about how atheists can still have a sense of the sacred. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the environmentalism/conservation debates today are at its core clashing conception of the "sacred." — BitconnectCarlos

Does this mean that you're a science denier?

Profiting off knowing what the stock market will do prior to its tweet induced fluctuations?