A 'positive' theory states that Reality is 'this' as opposed to 'that',It is the idea that one or more of the categories of thought are fundamental. For instance, we might conjecture that Reality is Mind as opposed to Matter or vice versa — FrancisRay
These questions are undecidable in dialectical logic because both their available answers are logically indefensible — FrancisRay
What creates this problem is not the failure of these theories but the assumption that no other kind of theory is possible. This assumption is popular because the only other kind of theory is the one endorsed by the mystics. — FrancisRay
The solution is obvious. It is to assume all positive theories are false and this is why they are absurd. Then we are forced to adopt the neutral metaphysical theory endorsed by Nagarjuna, who is famous for explaining the philosophical foundation of Buddhism. When we assume a neutral theory is true we immediately dispose of all undecidable metaphysical problems. The solution is instant and comprehensive. — FrancisRay
A useful problem to study is the 'Something-Nothing' problem. Which came first? This is an undecidable question and the source of endless angst in philosophy. Mysticism says the answer is neither, and if we see how this is possible then we have understood the problem and solved it. — FrancisRay
So, the first proposition for a solution for metaphysics would be 'All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible'. — FrancisRay
So while getting beyond "yes-no" thinking is arguably quite important (especially since it helps us attend to nuance and avoid getting trapped in our own ideas), it is not the essence, which is dispassion and release. — TLCD1996
The origin of "problems", the Buddha said, is just our ignorance. Meaning, we don't pay attention to the processes of our life, especially the process of suffering. — TLCD1996
The idea that mysticism is 'illogical' or logically unclear is a misunderstanding. It's answer for 'this or that' metaphysical questions is the same in every case. It is to reject both for a middle way. — FrancisRay
You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding and perhaps regain some semblance of credibility.
— praxis
Patiently awaiting receipt of your payment. Take your time. Or ignore, as you wish. — Hippyhead
write a thread which doesn't reference other people's idea
For this clarity we would have to grok Nagarjuna's theory of two truths or worlds, by which all selective statements about reality are inadequate. This is a double-aspect theory by which reality has a Conventional and Ultimate aspect, both of which have to be taken into account. Thus the endlessly (seemingly) self-contradictory nature of the language of mysticism and non-duality. It is logically rigorous and precise but takes effort to some understand. — FrancisRay
Are you referring to my quote just above? — Hippyhead
Could you perhaps expand on dispassion and release? If this is a bottom line, I'm interested in bottom lines. — Hippyhead
This could be a key point of divergence between Buddhism and whatever we want to call my perspective. As I may have said too many times, I see the origin of human suffering as the nature of that which we are made of psychologically, thought. The evidence for this is that psychological suffering is universal in all times and places, and thus must arise from something we all have in common. That can't be anything within culture, as there is huge diversity among cultures. — Hippyhead
Yes; I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but am not totally certain. Are you saying that thinking itself is the cause of suffering — TLCD1996
or that the problems that philosophy tries to solve are totally imagined? — TLCD1996
Except for the last, it is possible for one to grow intoxicated with each one and thus "pass over the heartwood" (or miss the point) of practice. In this sense, one must not rest content merely with comfortable or pleasant living, a virtuous or "good" life, the peace of meditation, or even insight itself. — TLCD1996
This is because if one sees things as they are, one "sees all things as worthy of non-attachment", Thus, one lets go. — TLCD1996
One gets a taste of release each time one gets into a state of meditation — TLCD1996
The thing is, you need to pay attention and understand it to make it go deeper, otherwise it comes and goes like any other form of happiness and you have little understanding of how it can be used or cultivated; — TLCD1996
Sure, but what says "we are made of thought" and why is suffering limited to that? — TLCD1996
Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both. — FrancisRay
Good grief. Do you not ever listen? By your defintion of religion Buddhism is not one. I toid you this some time ago. — FrancisRay
How is Buddhism not a religion by my definition? — praxis
There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding. — praxis
In philosophy there is no ultimate or supreme authority and in Buddhism there is. — praxis
The "perennial philosophy" is in this context defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality. — Edward Conze
These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.
Thus Western thinkers find metaphysical questions both undecidable and intractable, while 'mystical' philosophers find them undecidable and easily answerable. They are answered by denying their extreme answers and endorsing a third alternative. — FrancisRay
So Wordsworth's 'spirit that rolls through all things', which no doubt you sense as you walk through the woods, leads us beyond dialectical logic to Unity and to the idea that reality is 'advaita' or 'not-two'.. This is called 'non-dualism' because it takes us beyond the dualism that renders metaphysical questions intractable — FrancisRay
But a philosophical understanding requires getting ones hands grubby and dealing with the intellectual details. — FrancisRay
The fact that you call Hippyhead a nutcase is a reflection on you and has nothing to with him I find he speaks nothing but good sense — FrancisRay
but it seems in your view, religion is bad, so the point you always seem to laboring is that insofar as Buddhism is a religion, then this is a bad thing. Religious authority is to be rejected, religious experience not to be trusted. — Wayfarer
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.