The only thing you do sometimes that annoys me is failing to state your case while claiming that if your interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see that what you are saying is true. — Janus
The most I claim is that if my interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see what I'm seeing. — baker
So what exactly is the issue? That you resent being lectured by someone inferior/junior to yourself?
Or lectured altogether?
— baker
That it’s inappropriate in this medium. I’m happy to debate ideas and I am open to criticism but I don’t want to be told what I should think. — Wayfarer
In a manner, a person is more in correspondence with the laws of causality in nature with the natural dispositions of human nature in mind. — Shawn
I think that was a sentence worth finishing. I certainly think scientific methodology is incredibly useful, but other processes lead me to opinions and my sense of reality.That's skipping a lot of Buddhist doctrine and enshrining Western science as the highest ... — baker
I don't think one has to get one's emotions under control and that's a statement that needs some support, especially in this context, where the Buddhist form of control and disidentification is generally not turned to by poor people, especially if we look at people who might turn to it. And most Eastern Buddhist, iow those raising in the tradition are much like Sunday Christians. They are not intense meditators. Their priorities are elsewhere. And as I say later, the poor in the just don't seem attracted to Buddhism. The middle and upper classes are vastly more likely to join/participate/convert.And in order to improve the situation, one has to get one's emotions under control. For example, children are taught early on not to indulge in their anger, hostility, dislike, feeling down, in order to do their homework and studies. — baker
Well babies have emotions and small children well before they have such things to condense. I would see them as a spectrum or facets of the same thing. Nevertheless one can suppress emotional expression without suppressing thinking. One can suppress that aspect of that one thing without suppressing the other end.I haven't been "trained" to think this way, so I cannot really relate.
I think that that which is usually called "emotions" is inseparable from one's thoughts. I think a person's emotions are this person's condensed ethical and ideological stances or attitudes. (I think the dichotomy head vs. heart is misleading.)
Well current scientific theories don't see them as separate. And, yes, people who have certain values or proclivities then to be attracted to spiritualites and philosophies that fit with those value and ps. This doesn't make them objective, but it sure can make it seem that way.Like I said, I'm not "trained" that way, and it has nothing to do with my exposure to Buddhism, I was like that long before. I also don't subscribe to the current mainstream scientific theories about emotions.
Then you statements about what a child must do, is odd in what is left out and what it emphases. I talk about emotions in general. And your reation is to say that a chlld should not indulge in emotion when learning. I see the statements where you say you don't believe there is a split and then I see what your attitudes are and they seem to clearly have that split. The idea of expressing and not disidentifying with emotions leads to responses from you that one will be indulging in emotions, not attitudes. And you list the emotions.We are taught there is a need to choose emotions or reason.
I was never taught that. I know people often talk that way, but I don't. If anything, to me, it's all one. I don't differentiate between "head" and "heart".
Support someone else pursuing trying to reach the state they want to achieve? As long as they are not hurting me or someone else or something I value, I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't want those horrible ear rings or nose rings in my face. But if that is what someone else wants, go for it.
I respect the fact that they are making a choice that fits their values. If it does no harm to me I would not want them stopped. I prefer a world where people can do that. if people follow their subjective choices as long as it does not harm others. But it's a very large digression to flesh out why I prefer that world and I am already writting too much.I'm not like that. I wouldn't openly oppose them, but I wouldn't be supportive either.
If someone wants to disidentify with their emotions, well, then fine. I object to them saying or implying that it is objctively better to do this or it is simply being realisitic. Or that, really, deep down is what would be best for me - which most Buddhists do seem to believe. I think they are incorrect. And I do think they are judging and not accepting. What is outside them is accepted, but certain natural flows are not accepted. That is their free choice to make. If it becomes the state religion, than I am a rebel. But that's unlikely in the extreme where I am.
It's not what they believe, it is what they communicate, for example in philosophical forums, or in workplaces or other settings where I still encounter them often regularly. If they present it as objective, I disagree. If the judgments seep out of them or are stated directly then I react to that. This thread is talking about Buddhism simply being realism and also here and elsewhere the idea that certain Buddhist ideas are objective truths that I do not think are objective truths.There certainly are preachy and bossy Buddhist types who will go out of their way to tell you how wrong you are. But unless you make a point of talking to them, seeking them out even, then what does it matter to you what they believe about this or that?
How do you even know what Buddhists (of whichever kind) believe, unless you actually go out of your own way to find out, going into their territory?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.