The sophistic BS part was a separate issue to me: pivoting on the issue of ego and its desires for fame, fortune, power, etc. by mimicking (but not emulating) what good faith philosophers do — javra

Actually, those are references to standard Buddhist doctrine.
See the Index at Access To Insight, under "desire", for example. — baker

OK, why not, as well as references to common sense decency where some semblance of humility holds. (You wann'a go all Western religion/tradition about it, it's also what JC seems to have meant by "meekness" ... as in "the meek shall inherit the earth"... kind of like those small, warmblooded and furry rodent-like creatures did after the last great extinction of them oversized, pompous dinosaurs :grin: :wink: )

Lotuses that get drowned out in filth on account of the filth having far more connections. — javra

Lotuses grow in the filth, and they kill everything else in the bodies of water where they grow. — baker

Well, as far as poetic metaphors go, add some Hindu context to the expression and, yea, that's kind of part of the main point. Wouldn't it be swell if a nice lotus were to emerge from the swamps of filth so as to benefit all of humanity without exception, hence each human within their own perfectly individual contexts of existence (such that their own individual wants and needs get optimally satisfied), this rather than having humans suffer the swamps of filth (wherein nothing pleasing to anyone ever takes place) ad nauseam?

Put differently, is philosophy writ large about every ego perpetually being at odds with all other egos such that only filth results from the endeavor and interactions, as per in a mad house where everybody whats out? ... Or is it about best arriving at a communally-endorsed understanding of the world, of being itself even, which is accordant to all known facts while assisting all sapient beings in actualizing their individual purposes? This such that the filth no longer occurs due to this new understanding's growth. Yes, yes, the latter can all to easily be misinterpreted as endorsing and requiring authoritarianism; but, then, this would not only be contradictory to what was just explicitly stated in this paragraph but also to the aforementioned notion of common sense decency in the face of the first quote within this post. And yes, we all at times have our cockish authoritarian turns (some a hell of a lot more than others), but this too speaks to the same ideal of philosophy to me.

Of course, feel free to disagree. But, if so, I am curious to learn on what grounds.

I wasn't satisfied with your comment implying that i'm only a "would be" philosopher. — ProtagoranSocratist

I can get that, but, on the other hand, none of us here have yet passed the test of time in terms of being a substantial philosopher … this generally happens well after one’s passing away from this world. :grin: As for myself, I'm not holding my breath.

OK, why not, as well as references to common sense decency where some semblance of humility holds. (You wann'a go all Western religion/tradition about it, it's also what JC seems to have meant by "meekness" ... as in "the meek shall inherit the earth"... kind of like those small, warmblooded and furry rodent-like creatures did after the last great extinction of them oversized, pompous dinosaurs — javra

I don't know the Buddhist book about dating that you mentioned earlier, but from what you said, it seems to be a humorous approach to explaining Buddhist teachings.

You said earlier:

The sophistic BS part was a separate issue to me: pivoting on the issue of ego and its desires for fame, fortune, power, etc. by mimicking (but not emulating) what good faith philosophers do

I'm not sure what you mean here.
What do good faith philosophers do in regard to the ego and its desires for fame, fortune, etc.?

In what way do you think that Buddhism is sophistic here?
Here is a scriptural reference to the eight worldy conditions: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html

I really want to understand this; I want to know how an outsider sees this Buddhist teaching.

Well, as far as poetic metaphors go, add some Hindu context to the expression and, yea, that's kind of part of the main point. Wouldn't it be swell if a nice lotus were to emerge from the swamps of filth so as to benefit all of humanity without exception, hence each human within their own perfectly individual contexts of existence (such that their own individual wants and needs get optimally satisfied),this rather than having humans suffer the swamps of filth (wherein nothing pleasing to anyone ever takes place) ad nauseam?

Put differently, is philosophy writ large about every ego perpetually being at odds with all other egos such that only filth results from the endeavor and interactions, as per in a mad house where everybody whats out? ... Or is it about best arriving at a communally-endorsed understanding of the world, of being itself even, which is accordant to all known facts while assisting all sapient beings in actualizing their individual purposes? This such that the filth no longer occurs due to this new understanding's growth. Yes, yes, the latter can all to easily easily be misinterpreted as endorsing and requiring authoritarianism; but, then, this would not only be contradictory to what was just explicitly stated in this paragraph but also to the aforementioned notion of common sense decency in the face of the first quote within this post. And yes, we all at times have our cockish authoritarian turns (some a hell of a lot more than others), but this too speaks to the same ideal of philosophy to me.

One of the Eastern ideas about lotuses is that they need filth, mud in order to grow; lotuses don't grow in the neat conditions that many other flowering plants do. What is more, the lotus plant has such a surface that the filth and mud it grows in doesn't stick to it.

Of course, feel free to disagree. But, if so, I am curious to learn on what grounds.

On the grounds of the lotus analogy above, I'm inclined to disagree. Conflict is the way of the world, a given, the natural state (also see agonism). The solution isn't to overcome conflict, or to banish it; but rather, not to be affected by it. Like a lotus, which grows in the mud, but mud doesn't stick to it.

You said earlier:

"The sophistic BS part was a separate issue to me: pivoting on the issue of ego and its desires for fame, fortune, power, etc. by mimicking (but not emulating) what good faith philosophers do"

I'm not sure what you mean here.
What do good faith philosophers do in regard to the ego and its desires for fame, fortune, etc.? — baker

From where I stand, good faith philosophers pursue philosophy for its intrinsic worth and mostly if not wholly shun its potential instrumental values for the ego, such as those of becoming famous, becoming financially wealthy, or gaining greater powers over others within society. Socrates, the homeless bum wanderer, certainly fits this description. Although not as humbly, many others do as well. Nietzsche as just one example of the latter.

In what way do you think that Buddhism is sophistic here? — baker

I don't. As for the book on dating I've mentioned, you seemed to have overlooked the beginning part of the paragraph from which you pulled out your quote:

Well, to start off, what I was saying is that there is philosophical fluff that drowns out the good quality non-fluff philosophy in today's connected world. Fluff, then, is not sophistic BS but merely superficial and in due degree inconsequential. — javra

Nor do I understand the entailment between the book "If the Buddha Dated" and Buddhism per se as philosophy. The first is relative fluff, the second ain't.

Here is a scriptural reference to the eight worldy conditions: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html

I really want to understand this; I want to know how an outsider sees this Buddhist teaching. — baker

In short, the eight worldly conditions are aspects of samsara and hence of inevitable dissatisfaction given time. And btw, as an outsider, I find great value in a great portion of Buddhist teaching.

Conflict is the way of the world, a given, the natural state (also see agonism). — baker

As is harmony and happiness. Or are these somehow unnatural? And who ever even once mentioned "overcoming", to not even mention "banishing", conflict per se in general??? This would be projecting things into what I've said that were never there. Here, to put it in Buddhist terms, not until Nirvana is actualized on a global scale for one and all--in other words, not till the literal end of cosmic time--will there ever be a time when we're not knee-deep in existential conflicts. And the end of time is nowhere on the horizon. One swims/navigates the waters of life; one doesn't overcome them.

But, that said, I would like to presume that, when it comes to "conflict", you too would rather that those conflicts which occur as aspects of rapes and murders don't proliferate but, instead, cease occurring sooner rather than later. Notice, this has nothing to do with a cessation of wars and such; it wouldn't be world peace. It would only entail a cessation of wars where rapes and murders occur, rampantly so, and are in no way punished. I mention this because I've talked to some who view rapes and murders, such as in times of war, as innately ordained into our human nature (either by genes, by God, or by both). And I'm now curious to know your own stance on the matter. (And, no, a solder killing an adversary solder in a time of war is not of itself murder, this since all stated parties acknowledge and partake in the conflict of war.)

I don't know the Buddhist book about dating that you mentioned earlier, but from what you said, it seems to be a humorous approach to explaining Buddhist teachings. — baker

Nope, that's because you didn't read the book or look up information about it...

The buddha dating book isn't even remotely about buddhism, how to go on dates, or how the buddha would have dated anyone. In other words, the book is a scam, it's not buddhist humor unless you're referring to how the author was probably laughing all the way to the bank.

There are tons of books like that out there: the title is misleading and has completely different content. Here are some negative reviews of that book if you don't believe me:

"If the Gullible New Age 21st Century Person Dated"

The title is deceptive as it gives the impression of focusing on a Buddhist perspective or as main inspiration but that's not the main idea. This book contains a mish mash of pseudo science and new age talk like energy vibrations, asking the universe for manifestation, horoscopes, reiki, etc. It contains a small portion of buddhism and it is heard to stay interested with all the new age talk. While I have no doubt the author earned her Ph. D. It has always bothered me when such titles show up in the covers of books full pseudo science and new age unproven claims (yes, I'm looking at you Deepak Chopra). If you wanna read on some Buddhist or mindfulness related authors that touch on the subject I'd recommend Pema Chodron, Sharon Salzburg, Mark Epstein, Jack Kornfield, etc.
Avoid this book

I really tried. Seriously, I tried. But this book is simply horrible. I could only read a third of it. She hardly mentions Buddhism at all let alone its teachings. It was mainly this tarot-card-crystal-reading bullshit without any substance at all. She mainly says, "Pay attention to your inner feelings." "Be true to yourself." Thanks, I'll just save the money and go elsewhere.

ah: if that's what you're going for, you might want to read about this particular school of philosophy...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Megarian-school — ProtagoranSocratist

A nice read, thanks! :)

You keep bringing up being "objective", but that's more in line with the realm of research science and mathematics. — ProtagoranSocratist

I view good philosophy as being a foundation for math and science. When you establish what the definition of good is, then you can measure it. Now its science. When you can objectively define knowledge, you can study it and apply it. Good philosophy over the years evolved into the sciences we use today. The philosophy we study are its failures. Attempts at finding the answer to a problem that came close, but ultimately did not give the solution to the problem it covered.

For example, consider this statement: "I am a liar". Let's say, i'm telling the truth, that i make a habit of lying, but then this would automatically reveal the statement as a lie as well, canceling it out because for once i've told the truth. But then let's say this isn't true, and i actually am an honest person...so then the statement I made about me being a liar is a lie, which confirms that i'm not honest, and the logic circle repeats again. — ProtagoranSocratist

Examining why its a paradox is philosophical. Just solving the paradox alone isn't. Good philosophy is about seeing a problem, setting up definitions that we can all understand and use, and demonstrating how those definitions lead to solving the problem at hand. This requires writing, imagination, and logic.

The difference for each type of writing is the intent. For example, a novelist doesn't care about presenting an argument or house of ideas, they just want to please the imagination of the reader, and keep them flipping pages till the end of the story. A poet's individual poems aren't necessarily connected in the structure of their book, but each poem is a miniature structure of their own, them wanting to say as much as possible with only a few words... — ProtagoranSocratist

Agreed 100%.

Good philosophy over the years evolved into the sciences we use today. — Philosophim

i think this is mostly true: the logical truths uncovered by primitive philosophers were used by researchers today to improve lab testing and engineering...and the mathematics has relevance for philosophy. I'm pretty sure Pythagoras studied in a philosophy school in ancient greece and invented western geometry. In turn, philosophers update their knowledge with the scientific discoveries. However, it's also just a personal form of entertainment and a form of thought exercise which for me personally has practical purposes. I think it was Bertrand Russel who said that philosophy is like plumbing, i interpret that as him saying that philosophy is a way to analyze and put the dirty gunk in your brain into perspective...