Fuck you for this.If examining presuppositions and implications of a so-called "answer" for, at minimum, intelligibility is "looking for an opportunity to press my metaphysics", then I'm guilty as charged. To prefer sense over nonsense is a proven adaptive preference, y'know.
Why should we yield to special pleading for religious discourse to be granted special snowflake immunity to philosophical inquiry or critique? Why shouldn't we push back on dogmatists like baker who "press their otherworldly metaphysics?" Why do any of you bother discussing your "religions" on public fora only to balk at actually discussing it with those of us who don't believe what you all believe in?
We're not here to be proselytized at; and when fideistic sermonizing transforms a dialogue into a monologue, a friendly fuck off is warranted which either spurs the dialogue galloping onward or spooks a jackass to bolt away to bray (pray) imponderable monologues elsewhere. — 180 Proof
Paṭiccasamuppāda explains these things. Unless you think that paṭiccasamuppāda requires an additional explanation/context/foundation? — baker
Why is German "unsatisfactory" to people who want to speak Italian?What I meant was that the Buddhist explanation may be OK to Buddhists, but it seems less satisfactory to Platonists and Hindus, for example. — Apollodorus
Yes, they do. What's your point?And it looks like some Buddhist traditions do accept something that comes close to the soul of Platonists and Hindus.
Yes, "Buddhism" can mean a lot of things ... There's an air of Humpty-Dumpty about it.Plus, as your Wikipedia article says, there seem to be issues of interpretation, etc. and several scholars have identified inconsistencies in this theory of “dependent origination”.
I'm curious about what you say above, and earlier. You seem like a semantic atomist.It may be true that the soul or individual mind/consciousness is not eternal and changeless in its normal everyday aspect, but it may still be eternal and changeless in essence. Otherwise, what is nirvana?
Otherwise, what is nirvana? — Apollodorus
How can one hope to understand a term without immersing oneself in the field of expertise from which this term originates? — baker
↪baker Your extensive reply is appreciated. Prolix bullshit nonetheless. You're still rationalizing 'immunity from critical examination' for religious discourses. In other words, baker, you've nothing of philosophical interest or intellectual consequence to say on this topic :point: TLP Prop. 7. — 180 Proof
So, essentially, man consists of (1) a pure spiritual core (nous or pneuma), (2) the soul proper (psyche) which is the psycho-mental apparatus attached to embodied spirit and (3) physical body. — Apollodorus
So these neat schemes are devised, 'physica' and 'mental' and 'soul', which purportedly describe different things, but they're simply reifications and abstractions in which you then get enmeshed. — Wayfarer
Yes, but that's how the human mind works, by classifying and organizing experience and trying to make sense of it all. But one can equally get enmeshed in denying everything. — Apollodorus
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." — Sabba Sutta SN 35.23
"The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the intellect is to be abandoned. Contact at the intellect is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned. — Pahanaya Sutta, SN 35.24
Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?"
[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
[Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?"
[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
….
[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?'objectifies non-objectification.The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification. — Kotthita Sutta, AN 4.174
However, that would be mistaken, for the Buddha, having established the identity of ‘the All’, then advises the monks to abandon it: — Wayfarer
. The vast majority of the Buddhist population seems to be going about their daily life just like the rest of us without concerning themselves too much with Buddhist doctrine. — Apollodorus
'The many live each in their own private world, while those who are awake have but one world in common' ~ Heraclitus — Wayfarer
*sigh*Yep.
There's no philosophical content here. — Banno
But teeth do rot, hair does grey, skin does wrinkle.in the final analysis there is no objective proof, nor can there be if neither objective nor subjective reality exists. — Apollodorus
Even if, we could prove one does reincarnate, if one does not remember his / her past life, how could one ever know that one has reincarnated?
Is then reincarnation without past life memory, a reincarnation? — Corvus
Well, people don't remember what they did or who they were in early infancy. This doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time. Absence of memory is no proof of nonexistence. — Apollodorus
Physical existence is not the issue here. The souls (mental entities, most significance being memories) are?? — Corvus
That's what I'm saying. The soul's memories. Absence of memories isn't evidence of absence of existence. Temporary or partial amnesia is not unheard-of. — Apollodorus
It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember. — Apollodorus
OK, you talk about someone remembering their previous lives, but how many of the whole human population are they? And they could have been having day dreams or some fantasy? Sometimes, I seem to remember my time in the garden of Eden, but don't believe it ever existed in real world. — Corvus
You don't seem to have followed the discussion or read the OP. — Apollodorus
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.