If you mean that doing so doesn't diminish your own suffering or make it easier to handle and relate to, then yes I agree. But I only use it as an analogy - in the sense of "you never know if or when your situation may suddenly get better if you just hang on". That thought helped me the most when I was at my lowest moments in fact. — Agustino
I don't know haha - could you explain this? — Agustino
Augustine didn't actually fuck prostitutes. He fucked bitches though >:O - more specifically only one bitch got that honour - and many times at that :P — Agustino
?? What do you mean what will be "better" than the suffering you are currently experiencing?I'm usually more pensive about what "better" will be than the suffering I already am experiencing, >:O — Heister Eggcart
I agree about those who "incessantly" do so - that's a defence mechanism for them. But I believe there are more balanced views - not praising, nor being overly pessimistic about life.The people who incessantly sing the praises of life have always been the most broken, shattered, and devastated of people in my experience. It has merely taken me a lot of patience and work in order to getting under someone's heart and realize that truth. — Heister Eggcart
What indication do you have that Augustine engaged in sex with more than one woman? This is certainly not mentioned in the Confessions, but it is certainly plausible. His grief was certainly not directed towards his promiscuity but rather towards his attitude of lust towards his partner. Given his struggle and his later evaluation of monogamy, I highly doubt that he engaged in sex with more than one woman.I believe Augustine was, for a while, a member of a Platonic commune, so men and women were not limited to exclusive sex partners, and children were children of the commune rather than children of specific parents. — Metaphysician Undercover
Feynamn can say what Feynman will, what does Bitter Crank say? :PRichard Feynman says... "nothing is mere" — Bitter Crank
?? What do you mean what will be "better" than the suffering you are currently experiencing? — Agustino
What indication do you have that Augustine engaged in sex with more than one woman? This is certainly not mentioned in the Confessions, but it is certainly plausible. His grief was certainly not directed towards his promiscuity but rather towards his attitude of lust towards his partner. Given his struggle and his later evaluation of monogamy, I highly doubt that he engaged in sex with more than one woman. — Agustino
I'm asking you, conceptually, how is it possible to speak of transcendence? — Agustino
Through the round of many births I roamed
without reward,
without rest,
seeking the house-builder.
Painful is birth
again & again.
House-builder, you're seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole destroyed,
gone to the Unformed, the mind
has come to the end of craving.
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
So in what sense is the transcendent a separate, instead of merely different, side of existence? — Agustino
Viktor Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning — Agustino
The human spirit is referred to in several of the assumptions of logotherapy, but the use of the term spirit is not "spiritual" or "religious". In Frankl's view, the spirit is the will of the human being. The emphasis, therefore, is on the search for meaning, which is not necessarily the search for God or any other supernatural being. Frankl also noted the barriers to humanity's quest for meaning in life. He warns against "...affluence, hedonism, [and] materialism..." in the search for meaning.
Surely, but once again, at least I myself saw no indication that he was ever unfaithful to his mistress (whom he engaged in much sexual relations with before even becoming a Manichean). He was troubled by the fact the he could not give up his sexual desire, and was ruled by it - that much is for sure. Also the Neoplatonism Augustine got interested after his Manichean phase already had a Christian tinting, so I would doubt that he suddenly became promiscuous in that phase when he had never been before - and I would also doubt that that community encouraged him to be promiscuous.You know that Augustine had a very strong sexual appetite don't you? He spoke of that a few times. — Metaphysician Undercover
Hmm - personally I tend to just be open to the future, hopeful, but not expecting. But I would say I'm certainly hopeful in my attitude towards the future. But if it doesn't go my way, it doesn't go my way - in certain situations, there's not much you can do. I don't expect it to go my way. In fact my approach is quite strange - I hope for the best, but expect the worst :-ONo, no, no. I just meant that I'm more apprehensive about the good things of the future, and less so about the bad. — Heister Eggcart
So are animals aware of death, and if so, do they fear death, the same as humans do? Or is fear of death a particularly human affair? — Agustino
Yes, but given the Mahayana non-duality of Nirvana and Samsara - one is already enlightened, otherwise they could never "become" enlightened. It's just about becoming who they already are. The cycle of birth, growth, decay and death - one has already escaped the cycle, one is just ignorant of it. For if they had not escaped, there would be no possibility of escape.In the Buddhist context, 'the Buddha' is one released from the cycle of birth, decay and death. That is what his 'awakening' consists of. Even though the Buddha's conception of Nirvāṇa is unique to him, it is arguably a form of what is called in Hinduism mokṣa, release or liberation, which is understood as the awakening from the spell of māyā and the realisation of the higher self. — Wayfarer
I don't buy this. It depends how the boundary is known - if the boundary is known from the inside, then one just knows the boundary - and can only use the boundary to infer what "outside" would be. Consider the eye - do you see the limits of your visual field? Of course not! You don't perceive even boundaries, I was wrong before. So I disagree with the notion that there is any such "outside".Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it – in other words, to have already transcended it. — Wayfarer
But it's not just ultimate reality - it's just simple reality which is like this. Concepts are mental divisions and categorisations of phenomena - they're never the phenomena themselves - a map is never the territory.And in this place of cognitive stillness, one discovers in a direct experiential way an ultimate reality that cannot be conceptualized or made into an object of study. — Wayfarer
So ontologically there is no transcendent - nothing that is beyond this reality.Rather, one encounters it in the way one experiences. — Wayfarer
I share your admirationI admire Frankl, there was always a copy of that book in the home I grew up in.
Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
We have freedom to find meaning in what we do, and what we experience, or at least in the stand we take when faced with a situation of unchangeable suffering. — Wayfarer
I disagree that the word spiritual has transcendent meaning. I do agree that there is a spiritual side to life, but it is immanent, within reality. Consider that if it wasn't so - then we would never be able to access it, for we would never be able to "escape" our own reality. We can access it precisely because Nirvana IS Samsara. That's why I don't appreciate your bashing of materialism and atheism - those two are actually not contrary to enlightenment at all... at least they aren't necessarily so. The way they are understood today in the West is a different story though - instead of trying to get rid of them, you should try to re-evaluate them, and bring back original atheism and materialism.I think Frankl's philosophy is implicitly spiritual, but that it is necessary to differentiate it from religion, because of the way religion is understood, defined and fought over in Western culture. To say something is 'religious' is to immediately embody it in a particular matrix of meaning with all of the associated baggage; he had to keep it out of that domain. — Wayfarer
one is already enlightened, otherwise they could never "become" enlightened. — Agustino
I disagree that the word spiritual has transcendent meaning. — Agustino
From the Mahayana point of view, beings are divisible into two heads: those that are enlightened and those that are ignorant. The former are called Buddhas including also Bodhisattvas, Arhats, and Pratyekabuddhas while the latter comprise all the rest of beings under the general designation of bala or balaprithagjana—bala meaning "undeveloped", "puerile", or "ignorant", and prithagjana "people different" from the enlightened, that is, the multitudes, or people of ordinary type, whose minds are found engrossed in the pursuit of egotistic pleasures and unawakened to the meaning of life. This class is also known as Sarvasattva, "all beings" or sentient beings. The Buddha wants to help the ignorant, hence the Buddhist teaching and discipline.
....
Life as it is lived by most of us is a painful business, for we have to endure much in various ways. Our desires are thwarted, our wishes are crushed, and the worst is that we do not know how to get out of this whirlpool of greed, anger, and infatuation. We are at the extreme end of existence opposed to that of the Buddha. How can we leap over the abyss and reach the other shore?
The Mahayana diagnosis of the conditions in which all sentient beings are placed is that they are all nursed by desire (trishna) as mother who is Accompanied by pleasure (nandi) and anger (raga), while ignorance (avidya) is father. To be cured of the disease, therefore, they must put an end to the continuous activities of this dualistic poisoning. When this is done, there is a state called emancipation (vimoksha) which is full of bliss. The Buddhist question is thus: "How is emancipation possible?" And here rises the Mahayana system of philosophy. — Suzuki
How could they become enlightened if they aren't so already? Do they jump from one reality to another transcendent one? They are ignorant of the fact that they are enlightened - their very seeking for something special is the problem.That is an 'urban myth' based on a misreading. It is used by lots of pseudo-gurus to sell new-age books. — Wayfarer
Yes and rightfully so... What emancipation?! There's nothing to be emancipated of. It's their IGNORANCE which makes them think there is something to be emancipated of. They are raising the dust themselves and then complaining that they cannot see... Rather the question is how can they awaken to reality - as it is right here and now, and stop being trapped by their own ignorance? They are seeing demons because they are creating them.Whereas you say - what 'emancipation'? There is only ordinary existence, those who think there is something beyond it are deluded — Wayfarer
There's nothing to be emancipated of — Agustino
We are "saved " not by leaving the world, but rather by living a world which was better than before — TheWillowOfDarkness
Why do you think this follows? We need a criminal code, police, army etc. for practical reasons of protecting ourselves. I honestly think that if the transcendent world mattered, we wouldn't be needing any of these because this world is an illusion and we should all be looking to transcend it anyway, so why would we even bother with it? We'd all become hermits like Buddha, abandon our family, and go live in isolated places among ascetics. But we do need them, precisely because Samsara isn't an illusion. I mean if Samsara was an illusion, maya, why would we need them?Of course! That explains why there is really no need for a criminal code, or police for that matter, or the army, come to think of it. — Wayfarer
Well what use fearing death? It's going to come whether you fear it or not. Sure, that sucks, but there isn't anything we can do about it. We can meditate until we're blue in the face, that isn't going to change whether we're going to die or not, is it? Maybe practical things will change that - research etc. but certainly not meditation. That's why I tell you that I don't understand how you expect the transcendent to help in these practical matters...There ought not to be any fear of harm, death, illness or disease, because these things aren't real, right? Why can't we simply see that? What is stopping us? — Wayfarer
Why do you think this follows? We need a criminal code, police, army etc. for practical reasons of protecting ourselves. — Agustino
We'd all become hermits like Buddha, abandon our family, and go live in isolated places among ascetics. — Agustino
From other people, from animals that may attack our communities, etc.From what? — Wayfarer
Because they are ignorant, as I have said. But how would their ignorance imply or necessitate a transcendent to cure? Ignorance is an immanent issue, just as understanding is. Why do you think they are issues of transcendence?The truth is obvious to everyone. That is what you keep saying. So, why doesn't it follow that everyone simply recognises this fact and acts accordingly? — Wayfarer
No, according to me, there is nowhere to arrive with regards to the transcendent. We can improve things in the world - for example I can improve my relationship with my wife, or with my kids, or whatever - but such improvements require worldly methods - my relationship with my wife won't improve just because I sit cross-legged 5 hours a day, would it? Where is the transcendent needed? This is my question to you - what problems would the transcendent help us solve (that nothing else can help us), and how would it help us?Although, of course, according to you, nobody needs that, either, because we've already arrived. — Wayfarer
Where is the transcendent needed? — Agustino
So the transcendent is a state within reality then. If so, how is it transcendent?'The transcendent' here is a cypher for 'the most excellent state of being'. In traditional philosophy, attainment of that state was the summum bonum, the highest good, and our 'raison d'être'. It is what all beings are striving towards, the fulfilment of existence. — Wayfarer
But why are they practically and pragmatically needed? What is there more in the transcendent except do good and do no evil?Such ideas from the ancient traditions became subsumed into Christianity and thereafter depicted in accordance with dogmatic formulae of the faith. But they nevertheless were still thought to underwrite the social contract as well as individual morality.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, man is 'imago dei' and so fulfilling the requirements of the faith was also fulfilling the divine plan, and one of the characteristics that differentiated man from animals. — Wayfarer
Now I know you'll tell me that's not the correct interpretation — Agustino
Why do you think the progressives are latching onto Buddhism? Because Buddhism is fertile soil for their nihilism — Agustino
Tell that to these Buddhists:That is certainly true. — Wayfarer
What's not true? That progressives are latching onto Buddhism? Just try typing "buddhism" and "sexuality" into google, and let's have a look together in, say the top 10 results. In fact, even your favorite book "To Meet the Real Dragon" makes no notice - no notice at all - in the chapter "not to do wrong" in any of the 10 precepts of not doing wrong that it gives about sexual morality. But of course most traditional forms of Buddhism have a principle to do with sexual morality even in a list of FIVE precepts! Let's see, why is that? Is it because Buddhism is trying to appeal to a decadent mass of the public and thus doesn't want to tell the truth lest it scares them off? Is that how it is then? We'll masquerade the truth to gain adherents and followers! In fact scratch that! We'll change the truth if that's what it takes to get more followers! Sounds like a great idea to me - keep it up! (Y)Well, that's not true — Wayfarer
Not you personally, but some of the views you recommend.yet, strangely, I am the one accused of 'nihilism' — Wayfarer
The very idea of a "higher truth" vitiates all the lower truths of meaning. That's why I say that it is nihilistic. If there is a higher truth, then these lower truths don't matter.I would say that the idea of such 'higher truth' is represented in various philosophical traditions - Greek, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist amongst others. — Wayfarer
Well let's see why are you not being understood? Is it because I'm acting in bad faith and despite your attempts to clarify and answer my questions I still refuse to engage with you? Or is it because you have repeatedly not answered even a single objection except by brushing it off?But obviously I am not being understood — Wayfarer
Well do as you wish, but packing your stuff and going is certainly not going to solve any of your problems. This is very childish behaviour. If your philosophy is worth anything then it needs to withstand criticism - so far it seems that at the weakest objection it's crumbling - and when it's crumbling you pack your bags and run away. I don't mean to be harsh with you, but you have to understand that these are important matters, so we have to discuss them seriously. It's not my fault that you're getting easily upset. I'm not responsible for your inability to deal with criticism. You should be upset at yourself first of all, because it is you who is failing to adequately engage with all the questions and objections that are placed to you.and another timely reminder to myself to stop wasting time arguing with strangers. So, bye for now, taking time out from Forums, may or may not be back in future. — Wayfarer
Okay yes.What is perceived by the intuitive intellect is not determinate or objective in the way that what is perceived by the senses or conceived by the rational intellect is. — John
How does this follow? What does being determinate or objective have to do with (1) being finite, and (2) being immanent?What is determinate or objective is finite or immanent; what is indeterminate or subjective is in-finite or transcendental — John
But in what sense is this the case? Hearing for example is also another dimension of experience compared to seeing. Why isn't one of these transcendent then?It is truly another dimension of experience, a transcendent dimension, compared to what can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched and measured — John
Okay so if the transcendent doesn't refer to something that is ontologically separate, in what way, again, is it transcendent? And what notion of transcendence are you employing? The Cartesian one, or?Of course the immanent realm of sensory experience and rational intellection is suffused with this transcendental dimension, and would be literally nothing without it, so it is certainly not a question of "separation" — John
Wayfarer, did you plagiarise this from Wikipedia?Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it – in other words, to have already transcended it. — Wayfarer
Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it – in other words, to have already transcended it.
I read the entry. On that basis, not the kind of writer I'm going to study. Life's too short. — Wayfarer
Wayfarer, did you plagiarise this from Wikipedia? — Agustino
I don't understand. Hasn't Wayfarer stolen the language, words, ideas and expressions found in that Wikipedia sentence and attributed it as part of his own post, without making note that it's not his?...wait....what have I just done? :-# — Heister Eggcart
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.