I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. — The Myth of Sisyphus

I stand by my first post on this thread: reincarnation is only a metaphor, an existential reminder to live each day, not as if it's your last day, but to live so completely and mindfully as if it each day is an entire lifetime. Thus, Cicero's maxim: "To study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one’s self to die." And so we blind ourselves to the insight when we take reincarnation literally as most believers, I suspect, have done since the Upanishads or the Phaedo.

Human beings are not born once and for all on the day their mothers give birth to them, but that life obliges them over and over again to give birth to themselves. — Love in the Time of Cholera

"What get's reincarnated?"

One has to pay dearly for immortality; one has to die several times while one is still alive. — Ecce Homo

"NowHere."

:death: :flower:

reincarnation is only a metaphor, an existential reminder to live each day, not as if it's your last day, but to live so completely and mindfully a whole lifetime in each day. Thus, Cicero's maxim: "To study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one’s self to die." — 180 Proof

There is no doubt that reincarnation has been used metaphorically. But the more prevalent view was religious, including in relation to preparation for death. So, both are possible.

As I pointed out on the other thread:

"The ancient Egyptians viewed death as a temporary transition into what could become everlasting life in paradise. The Egyptian outlook on death was not focused on fear as much as it was preparing and transitioning into a new prosperous afterlife.

The Egyptian Gods judged the merits of human character and deeds when deciding who was permitted to be immortal. As a result, much of human-life was centered on the hopeful attitude that if one is moral, one will live forever in a blissful afterlife. (This is somewhat comparable to Christian conceptions of religion.)

So, basically, for the Egyptians – at least the wise or the initiated into wisdom traditions – life was a preparation for death. It seems to me that Greek philosophy was influenced by the Egyptian outlook.
There are traditional accounts of Pythagoras going to Egypt in search of secret knowledge which he apparently obtained from Egyptian temple priests.

“[Pythagoras] was also initiated into all the mysteries of Byblos and Tyre, and in the sacred function performed in many parts of Syria […] After gaining all he could from the Phoenician mysteries, he found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt […] This led him to hope that in Egypt itself he might find monuments of erudition still more genuine, beautiful and divine. Therefore following the advice of his teacher Thales, he left, as soon as possible, through the agency of some Egyptian sailors […] and at length happily landed on the Egyptian coast […] Here in Egypt he frequented all the temples with the greatest diligence, and most studious research […] After twelve years, about the fifty-sixth year of his age, he returned to Samos …” - Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras

I've heard no reason to consider reincarnation true, nor do I much care, but what difference do you suppose it is meant to make to a life lived? Why should we care?

I've asked those questions of the so-called "literalist believers" and they've nothing to say. I infer from that: None and We shouldn't.

It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember. — Apollodorus

Another point I would like to add is that, immaterial objects such as souls cannot be used with concept such as existence. The word "exist" only applies to material objects. Using "exist" with immaterial mental properties is a categorical mistake. Mental properties don't exit. They process and emerge.

The concept of "Existence" applies to concrete physical objects with weight, dimension and texture, or at least one of them (e.g gas). It also must have temporal continuity of the existence prior to transforming to another material object. No matter how the physical objects transform, they will always exist as another form of physical object or substance e.g. you burn the woods, and it will become ashes. You burn the propane gas, and it will emit CO2. It can be trapped physically in a bottle.

Mentalities? Nothing like that is possible. Because they are not any form of existence. They are properties, states and tendencies emerged from the matter called "Brain".

Another point I would like to add is that, immaterial objects such as souls cannot be used with concept such as existence. The word "exist" only applies to material objects. Using "exist" with immaterial mental properties is a categorical mistake. Mental properties don't exit. They process and emerge. — Corvus

I think you've copied that from Wikipedia or some other materialist source. The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there.

I think you've copied that from Wikipedia or some other materialist source. The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

I am afraid your conjecture and thought are wrong.

That is 100% from my opinion. What is the point, copying ideas or texts from Wiki or some dodgy internet site, and bringing here? That would be a waste of time. I will say clearly and ALWAYS, where I got the ideas or quotation, if I were using them.

I come here to read other people's ideas on the philosophical issues, and then debate from my own ideas. I could be wrong of course, but if someone convinces me with his / her logic, reasoning and ideas, so be it. That is the whole point of being here, and worth time and effort of all.

The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

When you die, it evaporates forever too. Don't be afraid to admit that you won't know where it has gone to.

When you die, it evaporates forever too. — Corvus

That's exactly what you don't know. The OP is about how believers in reincarnation justify it in philosophical/rational terms as opposed to purely religious/faith-based arguments. It doesn't ask non-believers to "disprove" it.

Personally, I am sympathetic with regards to beliefs in rebirth, due to logical reasons connected to the temporal philosophy of presentism that ontologically prioritises the present to the extent of rejecting the literal existence of the past. The implication is that memories aren't so much the recordings of bygone and static states of existence, but are part of the very meaning of what the past presently is.

Essentially by this view, the first-person subject is static and exists only "in a manner of speaking", with the concept of change applying only to presently observed things.

The OP is about how believers in reincarnation justify it in philosophical/rational terms as opposed to purely religious/faith-based arguments. — Apollodorus

Of course, if one says that he just believes in reincarnation, then it is problem of faith, and doesn't need justification.

But I was saying that, the OP is rather a religious and faith topic, which lies out of the boundaries of objective theoretical and logical verification.

The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

Another highly doubtful and debatable statement. Problem of Self is a big topic of its own. It has many arguments and theories on the issues.

Problem of Self is a big topic of its own. It has many arguments and theories on the issues. — Corvus

Nobody disputes that. But that's not what the thread is about.

Nobody disputes that. But that's not what the thread is about — Apollodorus

You are the one who brought it into the thread.

You are the one who brought it into the thread.[/quote]

It's been discussed because others questioned the existence of soul or self.

It's been discussed because others questioned the existence of soul or self. — Apollodorus

In that case, you shouldn't have said, "But that's not what the thread is about".
Everything and anything can be related to each other, and I was just commenting on your statement, because you uttered it.

Great

Great — Apollodorus

You are welcome.

Yep. Faith as belief despite any conceptual problems will do that. All you are doing is putting your hands over your ears and humming loudly. — Banno

*sigh*
You do realize that I'm not religious, have said so, and am fiercely critical of religion, which I have also made clear, extensively (to the point that I alienated some people right when I got here)?

What the fuck do I need to do to get your head out of your ass and stop talking to me and about me as if I were religious?

God fucking damn it, there's no room for a lady here.

What the fuck do I need to do to get your head out of your ass and stop talking to me and about me as if I were religious? — baker

You just can't win, can you? Atheists have their own religion and superstitions, it seems. But, should Buddhists not try and be a bit more relaxed about attacks from their detractors?

I'm not a Buddhist, so I wouldn't know. But from what I've come to know of Buddhists, being a hardcore motherfucker is perfectly in order.

The point is, if you can't explain X in translatable terms Y then you do not sufficiently understand X yourself. — 180 Proof

Something is only understandable to someone, to a person, not somehow per se.
People differ vastly in what they are able and willing to engage in and what they can understand.

Btw, I have somewhat recently explained advance math (axiomatic set theory) to my math-phobic english major nephew (why he took elementary logic as an elective is still a mystery to us both) — 180 Proof

Ie. you were explaining it to someone who has a preexisting knowledge and an interest (or at least an obligation) in the topic. Not to a total outsider.

and decades before engineering to a nonengineer (when I was a mechanical engineering undergrad and my mother the trauma nurse wanted me to explain what she had been (partially) paying for and why after such expense I was changing my major).

Of course, we don't know if she understood what you were saying nor is it clear what she could do with what she learned from you there.

If this is not so, baker, then account for libraries of scholarly studies and texts on comparative religions, the philosophy of religion, scriptural hermeneutics & classical philology.

What of them? Sure, people have attempted to translate/transfer discourses from one into another.
But such translations/transfers don't say anything about the translated/transferred discourse. They say nothing about its relevance, veracity, value. They are simply testaments to people's love of translation and mediation, and love of cognition.

Your cognitive defects, sir, are not to be confused with cognitive limitation as such.

If only you'd apply this to yourself, sir.

I asked this two weeks ago. Jesus, how time flies!

However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincingly justify it in philosophical terms?
— Apollodorus
First answer why it would be necessary to "convincingly justify it in philosophical terms". — baker

My question still stands.

I thought I had already answered that. But anyway, (1) to exercise our gray cells or mind and (2) to show believers in reincarnation that their belief isn't irrational.

Additional answers may emerge as the discussion proceeds at its own pace.

Personal identity isn't a topic that science is able to investigate, because identity relations are part of logic and ontology rather than empirically deducible matters of fact, and science is compatible with any set of identity relations, provided they are consistent.

Given any assumed set of identity relations, science only has the power to decide whether or not a given observable process conforms to those relations. For example, if a caterpillar is defined as being identical to the resulting butterfly, then scientific experiments have the potential to confirm whether or not a given caterpillar is identical to a given butterfly. But the result can neither confirm nor deny the reality of the assumed identity relation.

There a multiple cultural and practical factors as to why western culture has converged onto an assumed set of identity relations that makes rebirth not merely physically impossible but logically impossible. I think part of the reason is that scientific theories are initially easier to understand relative to an atomic ontology, such as periodic tables and subatomic particles, than holistic process ontologies. This is also reflected in logic and mathematics, where most students find set theory with elements easier to understand than category theory without elements.

Ah, well. I guess confession is good for the soul, as they say. Or for anatta. So hollow, all you've offered are vacuous echoes. I get it now: there's no there there with whom to even discuss there being or not being a there there. :sparkle: :yawn:

The distinction between faith and believe does not just apply to religious faith. You've posited this notion of reincarnation while being unable to explain what it is that is reincarnated. That strikes me as pretty fundamental.

One is supposed to "take it or leave it". One either understands it, or one doesn't. One either agrees with it, or one doesn't. That's it. The only action one is intended to take in regard to a religious claim is to try to make oneself see the truth of it. — baker

That looks like a description of faith.

You've posited this notion of reincarnation while being unable to explain what it is that is reincarnated. That strikes me as pretty fundamental. — Banno

I just want to come back to this. The soul could be explained any which way. It's a blob of idea-stuff, whatever.

A language community uses the word correctly. "The soul reincarnates" is true IFF the soul reincarnates. All is well.

You've got no basis for calling it false.

You've got no basis for calling it false. — frank

...and no basis for calling it true. Reincarnation becomes a form of life that does not make contact with truth or falsehood. It's use - meaning - can only be in its social function.

Reincarnation becomes a form of life that does not make contact with truth or falsehood. — Banno

I don't know what you mean by this.

It's use - meaning - can only be in its social function. — Banno

So?