So? — frank

Yes, Frank.

:up:

I stand by 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 a whole lifetime. — 180 Proof

That's a good interpretation. But the problem is, I think, the obvious fact of the karma that we're born with. Even if it's a metaphor, in effect it's indistinguishable from the consequences of a previous life (which we will often say in a jocular way, 'in my last life I was a....'). So it might be a metaphor, but it's not only a metaphor, or rather, even if it is a metaphor, the message is bracing - whatever unfinished business you leave at the end of this life, will have to be picked up by another, it will play out in 'some other life'.

..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. — Banno

Scientifically speaking, I agree, but of course, your argument also applies to the "you only live once" position, so it's a moot point.

But i don't agree that scientific truth and metaphysical truth are synonymous, due to the fact the latter directly concerns the logic of first-person experience, whereas the former is precluded from coming into contact with first-person experience due to the public semantics of scientific discourse , where identity relations are decided by public agreement with respect to propositions stateable in the third-person. Hence it is possible, imo, to accept the public meaningless of the scientific question, whilst accepting the private question to be metaphysically meaningful, and even potentially answerable in some philosophically critical sense.

To give a related example, if i awaken from a coma then I am said to have been "previously unconscious" by definition of the circumstances i am presently in, which includes such things as medical opinions i hear from loved ones around me, a brain-scan i am presented with showing an absence of critical neurological activity, and my self-observed tendency to abstain from memory recalling behavior (amnesia). As with the question of reincarnation, it is logical for me to ask "But was I really unconscious previously", or only in the tautological sense decided by public convention, where my "previous unconsciousness" is ironically decided by present observations that make no actual reference to a non-existence of first-person experience per-se?

I baulk at having a different sort of truth for science than for religion. Truth is truth. The you that awakes forma coma has the very same body as the you that entered the coma. There is a publicly available way to asses the meaning of "I" in "But was I really unconscious previously". It's missing from reincarnation.

But anyway, (1) to exercise our gray cells or mind and (2) to show believers in reincarnation that their belief isn't irrational. — Apollodorus

And you really think they care about such help?

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. — Banno

The fundamental mistake you've been making all along is assuming that I'm speaking in favor of religion. When in fact, all along, I've been making the case for why there cannot be a philosophical justification for reincarnation/rebirth. Philosophically, the matter can only be addressed on a metalevel, metaethically and metaepistemically (like I did, in the crude terms you cite above). It's how I finally learned to stop worrying about religion and love the bomb!

You owe me an apology for insisting in this mistake.

That's a good interpretation. But the problem is, I think, the obvious fact of the karma that we're born with. Even if it's a metaphor, in effect it's indistinguishable from the consequences of a previous life (which we will often say in a jocular way, 'in my last life I was a....'). So it might be a metaphor, but it's not only a metaphor, or rather, even if it is a metaphor, the message is bracing - whatever unfinished business you leave at the end of this life, will have to be picked up by another, it will play out in 'some other life'. — Wayfarer

Something about the appriopriate time and place for discussing Dhamma comes to mind.
And then that about the Dhamma being likened to a water snake.

...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. — Banno

It's jargon. Why concern yourself or even just think about the jargon terms of a social group of which you're not part?

You probably don't concern yourself with souffles, bob haircuts, or some fancy engineering term that is hard to spell correctly, so why concern yourself with reincarnation? What's so appealing about it? Can you tell?

The fundamental mistake you've been making all along is assuming that I'm speaking in favor of religion. — baker

I've merely been responding to what you wrote. Whether you are in favour or against religion is of no relevance. was your supposed answer to my "What is it that is reincarnated", but is nothing beyond a recitation of dogma - indeed, two dogmas, Buddhist and Hindu. It is you who frames the discussion in religious terms, not I.

It's jargon. — baker

This is not about jargon, it's about how one is to make use of talk of reincarnation. If it has no truth value, it cannot be about what happens. Instead its role is myth or ideology.

I baulk at having a different sort of truth for science than for religion. Truth is truth. The you that awakes forma coma has the very same body as the you that entered the coma. There is a publicly available way to asses the meaning of "I" in "But was I really unconscious previously". It's missing from reincarnation. — Banno

Are caterpillars identical to butterflies?

"Theology as grammar" - Wittgenstein.

You point is obscure. The caterpillar becomes a butterfly.

You point is obscure. The caterpillar becomes a butterfly. — Banno

So by analogy, is personal identity over time an illusion? How should persons being counted?

So by analogy, is personal identity over time an illusion? How should persons being counted? — sime

Well, these are the unaddressed questions in this thread.

I'll go with Wittgenstein's rope; we treat it as a single rope, despite no single thread running through the whole. The "I" is memory, body, intent, narrative...

None of which survive death.

Only the existance of Soul could make recarnation's arguments kind of stronger. In a sense of an infinite type of energy that contains all elements of human personality and how it gets transformed each time it reacts with the "recarnated" person. And every time someone dies this type of energy could get immediately at a new born baby the very exact moment it is born from its mothers belly. The time it takes its first breath that breath to be the soul recarnation of the other person who dies. His last breath. Though i believe in soul I don't believe in recarnation by the way

The soul as a cloud of magic energy. Not for me.

Yeah but don't ever drain your life out of magic totally

The issue is not magic, but attempts to talk about stuff that is not understood.

It's OK to say "I don't know"; more, doing so is better than making shit up.

Talk about stuff that is not understood? That's the history of filosophy. To approach things that aren't understood.Talk about the obvious is boring

The "I" is memory, body, intent, narrative...

None of which survive death. — Banno

But are these things even persistent during the course of a single lifespan?

I cannot for instance remember my childhood before the age of 5. So does this childhood belong to somebody other than I?

But are these things even persistent during the course of a single lifespan? — sime

we treat it as a single rope, despite no single thread running through the whole. — Banno

we treat it as a single rope, despite no single thread running through the whole. — Banno

presumably in that case we can treat any consecutive processes as being a single rope, in which case we have arrived at the Buddhist position of rebirth

You, not we. There's nothing in the list of things that constitute the self that continues past death

You, not we. There's nothing in the list of things that constitute the self that continues past death — Banno

What is the ontological justification for us treating an individual as being the same person throughout the course of single lifespan?

Dunno. What do you think?

I think the central question concerns the elasticity of the rope. For liberally minded persons who only believe in "death by definition", the rope is infinitely elastic. For conservatively minded persons however, the rope is very taut.

What do you think? — Banno

I've merely been responding to what you wrote. — Banno

And operated on several assumptions of your own.

Whether you are in favour or against religion is of no relevance.

It is of relevance when you talk to me as if I was religious.

↪baker was your supposed answer to my "What is it that is reincarnated", but is nothing beyond a recitation of dogma - indeed, two dogmas, Buddhist and Hindu. It is you who frames the discussion in religious terms, not I.

Standard question, standard reply. What did you expect? A non-religious/areligious answer to a religious question??

Asking "What is it that is reincarnated?" and then refusing the standard religious replies, is like asking "How much is 2 + 2?" and stipulating "But you may not say 4."

This is not about jargon, it's about how one is to make use of talk of reincarnation. If it has no truth value, it cannot be about what happens. Instead its role is myth or ideology.

Of course it's jargon.
An outsider to religion has no meaningful context for talk of reincarnation. Similarly as someone who has no knowledge of chemistry or physics has no meaningful context for talk of molecular bonds. Etc.

Your suggestion is that differing areas of discussion - you have listed chemistry, mathematics and religion - are incommensurable?

And yet chemistry makes use of mathematics. It's really only religion you would segregate from critique. You are apparently indulging in special pleading. I don't buy it.

I'll go with Wittgenstein's rope; we treat it as a single rope, despite no single thread running through the whole. The "I" is memory, body, intent, narrative...

None of which survive death. — Banno

Except for this body, you presume to know what you don't; the definition of a dogmatist.