How schizoid can one handle to be? — baker

Simply pointing out that people quite merrily live by keeping two sets of books. Schizoid is the wrong word. Hypocritical or inconsistent may be closer.

There is no "final" or complete solution to the problem of suffering. Animals in the wild suffer, just as humans do. Both humans and animals suffer from natural events; earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, fires, landslides, bacterial and viral infections and so on.

The suffering inflicted on humans and animals by humans would be eliminated or at least diminished within the bounds of practical possibility if we could all embrace and act on the "morally vacant view" that @180 Proof set before us.

Which is a view that can be held without negative consequences only by a Buddhist monk.
— baker

Says who? — Wayfarer

The whole project of the complete cessation of suffering as worked out by Early Buddhism is actionable only for people who can live in sufficient renunciation (which is, for all practical intents and purposes, reserved for monks).

It is often said that (Early) Buddhism has no metaphysics. Indeed, we can say that the Buddha was not interested in a doctrine of how _all_ things really are. But he was only interested in how things really are as they pertain to complete cessation of suffering (the analogy with the handful of leaves).

Hence the view that "you never see outside of the mind-created world within which all the objects of perception exist" is part of the project of the complete cessation of suffering (Sabba Sutta), but isn't intended as some disinterested, objective, metaphysical claim about "how things really are" (the way philosophers and psychologists tend to try to look at the matter).

The final solution to the problem of suffering is widely known and readily available, it's just that people "do not embrace it and act on it"? — baker

Can you tell me what it is? I was away that day.

There is no "fianl" or complete solution to the problem of suffering. — Janus

You deny the Buddha? You know better than the Buddha?

The suffering inflicted on humans and animals by humans would be eliminated or at least diminished within the bounds of practical possibility if we could all embrace and act on the "morally vacant view" that 180 Proof set before us.

No, his proposal is not viable because it does not aim to uproot the cause of suffering. It only attempts to address some of the symptoms.

Simply pointing out that people quite merrily live by keeping two sets of books. Schizoid is the wrong word. Hypocritical may be closer. — Tom Storm

Quite merrily?

Well, as long as health and wealth last, one can do many things. But is keeping two sets of books a viable plan for happiness, regardless of external circumstances?

Note the question mark.

Quite merrily? — baker

Yes, I think not living according to your beliefs is often an easier way of going about one's business. But sometimes the fault line's between belief and practice do rub up against each other and cause tremors and quakes.

Of course selectively quoting me out of context renders the content inadequate in whatever way suits your bias or intellectually "vacant" purpose.

No, his proposal is not viable because it does not aim to uproot the cause of suffering. It only attempts to address some of the symptoms ... — baker

Facticity are not "symptoms". Suffering is not problem to be solved, or illness to be cured, (pace Buddha et al) but a happenstance hazard to be reduced or mitigated like e.g. hunger, bereavement, fear, etc (vide Epicurus or Spinoza).

Possibly I'm mistaken; you can prove this: do tell o sage – what is "the cause of suffering" and how ought we "uproot" it? :mask:

Really? The final solution to the problem of suffering is widely known and readily available, it's just that people "do not embrace it and act on it"? — baker

You're not reading carefully; I said there is no final solution to the problem of suffering,

You deny the Buddha? You know better than the Buddha? — baker

I don't accept any man as a final authority on anything, Baker. If you do, that's your choice.

No, his proposal is not viable because it does not aim to uproot the cause of suffering. It only attempts to address some of the symptoms. — baker

At least one of the causes of suffering caused by human attitudes and actions has been identified. What possible solution could there be to suffering caused by natural events? Do you really believe that the behavior of the natural world is going to change, or that humans could cause it to change?

Gautama suffered old age and death just as we all will. Do you really believe he felt no pain whatsoever?

:up:

You deny the Buddha? You know better than the Buddha?
— baker

I don't accept any man as a final authority on anything, Baker. If you do, that's your choice. — Janus

I asked you whether you knew better than than the Buddha. Do you?

At least one of the causes of suffering caused by human attitudes and actions has been identified. What possible solution could there be to suffering caused by natural events? Do you really believe that the behavior of the natural world is going to change, or that humans could cause it to change?

If you had read what the Buddha said, you'd have some ideas.

Ok, you meant Buddhism. I withdraw my earlier question.

At least one of the causes of suffering caused by human attitudes and actions has been identified. What possible solution could there be to suffering caused by natural events? Do you really believe that the behavior of the natural world is going to change, or that humans could cause it to change?

If you had read what the Buddha said, you'd have some ideas. — baker

This could be an interesting thread.

I asked you whether you know better than than the Buddha. Do you? — baker

I may or may not have a different opinion than Gautama. What do you think? Do you know exactly what he thought?

If you had read what the Buddha said, you'd have some ideas. — baker

I have read Buddhist works a fair bit. Works in Zen (Dogen, D T Suzuki, Shunryu Suzuki, Hui Hai, Kaplan (I think) Thich Nat Hanh, Tibetan Buddhist works by authors whose names I can't remember and I've read some of the sutras (the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra are two I can remember the names of) I've read a little Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna and some early discourses of the Buddha, and lots of other stuff I can't remember the titles of. I'm familiar with the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path and the idea of interdependent origination and so on.

Obviously much of it is open to interpretation, and there are and have been many schools of Buddhism. I understand the idea of the truth of suffering, that it is caused by craving and attachment, the idea that suffering can be ended, and the proposed way of ending it.

The question is as to whether any of that is proposed as the way to end just individual suffering, or whether it is proposed as the way to the final end of all suffering. I have some sympathy for the former, as I think there is some truth in it, but the latter is an unattainable goal, unless you were to destroy the world entirely. To be born into this world is to be subject to inevitable suffering.

there's only one world, there's not a separate world for philosophers and psychologists. I don't lay any claim to any kind of attainment of Buddhist wisdom but I think the philosophical stance that is implicit in Buddhism is quite intelligible if studied diligently.

Gautama suffered old age and death just as we all will. Do you really believe he felt no pain whatsoever? — Janus

The 20th century Indian guru, Ramana Maharishi, died of a cancerous tumour on his upper arm which according to all accounts was extremely painful. But when asked, he said, 'I feel the pain, but it doesn't hurt.' Being able to rise above pain is not the same as being merely insensitive to it.

Actually, the very first 'spiritual book' I ever read was called Relief Without Drugs, by an Australian doctor by the name of Ainslie Meares, in about 1972. It was about that principle. There was a well-known speaker on the motivational circuit, Ian Gawler, who had suffered and recovered from bone cancer, who used to speak about those principles. (That said, I make no claim to have mastered those abilities myself, I'm as afraid of pain as the next man. )

Do you really believe that the behavior of the natural world is going to change, or that humans could cause it to change? — Janus

According to Buddhist teachings, beings are born into the world that is to all intents created by their karmic proclivities. So a hell being's world is full of unending torment and pain, while a heaven-being's world is full of bliss and light. But in the end, none of them are truly existent, even though the beings that are subject to those states might dwell in them for 'aeons of kalpas'. This is actually conveyed in some Tibetan teaching through the 'meditation on peaceful and wrathful deities' which arise at the time of death, according to your karma. However, again, these are the same deities, but manifest according to the karma of the percipient.

unless you were to destroy the world entirely... — Janus

...it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos. — The Buddha, Rohitassa Sutta

The contemporary Indian guru, Ramana Maharishi, died of a cancerous tumour on his upper arm which according to all accounts was extremely painful. But when asked, he said, 'I feel the pain, but it doesn't hurt.' Being able to rise above pain is not the same as being merely insensitive to it.

Actually, the very first 'spiritual book' I ever read was called Relief Without Drugs, by an Australian doctor by the name of Ainslie Meares. It was about that principle. That said, I make no claim to have mastered those abilities myself, I'm as afraid of pain as the next man. — Wayfarer

Yes, I'm familiar with the idea that we can be detached from pain. When my mother gave birth to me she was 37 hours in labour and in the end I had to be dragged out with forceps, or so the story goes. (Apparently I didn't wish to enter this world :wink: ). My mother told me that she was in terrible pain (this was her first experience of giving birth) and she was given morphine. I asked her whether the morphine eliminated or reduced the pain, and she said that it didn't, the pain was still intense, but it didn't bother her at all. Perhaps whatever can be achieved using drugs can also be achieved by "natural" methods.

I have had what seemed like profound experiences when under the influence of hallucinogens, when listening to music, during sex and also when writing, when painting and when playing piano, both when under the influence of hallucinogens and when not under their influence. I've had even profounder experiences (although very brief in duration) when meditating. I draw no conclusions from those experiences.

I'm pretty familiar with all those ideas. I have never been able to accept the idea that all the suffering in the world is

is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect — The Buddha, Rohitassa Sutta

; I think it's just false. I have never had any intimation of such a thing in any altered or exalted state, whether induced pharmaceutically or not.

I see Buddhism as presenting some useful ideas about the kinds of attitudes and dispositions, and techniques to achieve them, that could help us to accept the side of life that we are so afraid of, and perhaps even be able to detach form those fears and even pains entirely; but I don't imagine for a moment that my doing that would have any effect whatsoever on the suffering of other humans and animals, except insofar as it might stop me from being the cause of said sufferings.

As another example, apparently Hume, who died of stomach cancer was extremely kind, cheerful and apparently not bothered by the great pain involved in the process of his dying or by fear of death. And yet he rejected the very idea of anything transcendent. If we can achieve a good death and the ability to suffer pain and physical decline cheerfully, what more could we ask?

I imagine animals are naturally gifted with the ability not to be attached to their suffering.

You deny the Buddha? You know better than the Buddha?
— baker

I don't accept any man as a final authority on anything, Baker. If you do, that's your choice.
— Janus

I asked you whether you knew better than than the Buddha. Do you? — baker

I do. If I don't "know better" than an Iron Age philosopher, given all that humanity has learned in the interim, then God help me. Old Siddhartha believed in the "soul" and in reincarnation (and most certainly in the pantheon of Hindu gods to one or another extent), both obvious fallacies, and the latter an obviously ridiculous fallacy, to a logical positivist like me.

He didn't actually believe in the soul. I don't see what possible empirical evidence there could be that they are "fallacies". That said, I don't see what possible evidence there could be to justify believing in them either, so I remain uncommitted and unconcerned. It has nothing to do with me, and I nothing to do with it.

Actually, the very first 'spiritual book' I ever read was called Relief Without Drugs, by an Australian doctor by the name of Ainslie Meares, in about 1972. It was about that principle. — Wayfarer

That brings back some memories. Digression. My father was able to switch pain off. He would have all dental work done without any anesthetic and this included drilling, extractions and a root canal work. He also at one point almost cut off two fingers with a chainsaw. He drove to the hospital with his fingers hanging off on one hand and was whistling in the Emergency Department when the doctors saw him. I asked him how he did it. "It only hurts if you let it," he explained unhelpfully.

:scream: Exact opposite of me, I'm a terrible patient. My dear one's step-father, now deceased, was like that - incredibly high pain threshold - tough as a mulga stump.

Obviously asceticism has often fostered indifference to pain (and pleasure) as part of spiritual praxis. It is said the Buddha opposed asceticism, but Buddhist monks are still very ascetic by our standards. But then the whole aim of our lifestyle is to foster pleasure and dispell pain, there's no concept of the transcendence of it.

He didn't actually believe in the soul. — Janus

Having not studied or deeply investigated Buddhism, I have no knowledge of whether this belief was overtly stated, but it is certainly implied, in my view. I think that a belief in reincarnation must be preceded by a belief in some incorporeal aspect of the person ("soul"), which inhabits the various carnations, no? If not, then what can one given carnation possibly have to do with another; how can they be differing carnations of the same "being"? In this way, the idea of reincarnation seems dependent upon that of "soul". Note that I do not mean to insinuate that Gautama's conception of such a "soul" bears any resemblance to the Christian concept, but it appears equally fallacious, anyways.

I call them fallacies because there appears no evidence for them. The burden of providing evidence is an incumbency of the claimant of a supernatural claim. The indirect object of an act of supernatural claiming, the hearer of the claim, has no similar onus to provide evidence for his doubt. A supernatural claim unsupported by evidence has assumed the character of fallacy ab initio, and retains such until evidence is proffered.

...I don't see what possible evidence there could be to justify believing in them either, so I remain uncommitted and unconcerned. It has nothing to do with me, and I nothing to do with it. — Janus

That is precisely my stance regarding such claims (which, btw, include the claim that "there is s God"). I have no evidence > these are apparent/assumed fallacies > I remain, as you have well said, "uncommitted and unconcerned".

I know that such a stance takes a bit of the romance out of one's worldview, but I have learned that it is necessary in the evaluation of the multivarious supernatural claims with which we are bombarded even in our scientifically oriented age. To not maintain this stance appears to entail dangers to one's material and psychological welfare. I have personally seen people suffer psychic damage, greatly damaging disappointment, by involving and investing themselves in various types of Christian "charismata", for instance. Because of this, I feel it best that we retain a certain rigor in evaluating the claims that are thrust upon us.

I'm not sure that what we clumsily call the "belief" that there are "external objects" is up to us, no matter how much physicists futz with the definition of "object". Ditto for space, time, who knows what else.
— Srap Tasmaner

Actually there's been some very interesting work by Susan Hespos on exactly what else. She's been trying to work out what laws of physics babies take to be innate and what they don't — Isaac

All "external objects" are the products of experience based upon the shortcomings of our human sensibilities, and so lie within the realm of subjective reality. These "objects" have no "objective" reality as they appear to us. I would love to read the findings of Hespos' research...

We're stuck playing tennis in our heads between 'object' and 'subject' with an invisible, or non-existent, ball called 'metaphysics'. There is no clear winner and it just might be that there actually isn't even a game being played at all.

If a poorly constructed building fails to meet certain criteria, we call it bad. We decide for ourselves what those criteria are depending upon the utility we seek from the building. There are no objectively good or bad buildings. It's just a matter of preference. On the other hand, the building itself exists regardless of my preference or opinion. — Hanover

I don't know much of anything about the history of architecture, but I suspect there were no "buildings" in ancient Athens, perhaps not even before the 20th century. Instead, there were temples, markets, homes, and so on. The idea of a "building" seems to be a function of our modern, industrial, impermanent man-made environment, in which buildings are easily repurposed or torn down and replaced. Many years ago, Stewart Brand wrote a book called How Buildings Learn; here's the first sentence of the Wikipedia summary:

Brand asserts that the best buildings are made from low-cost, standard designs that people are familiar with, and easy to modify. — W

He's offering a sort of "meta" definition of "best" as modifiable, not as fit for some purpose, but fit for, if not quite any, then certainly many purposes.

We have here an economic model that is agnostic about utilities and preferences, as it needs to be to accommodate the great variety of human beings. Our recognition of that variety does separate us from ancient cultures and from smaller, homogeneous societies. But at the same time, that model seems to leave utilities and preferences completely unmoored. That is, we are all expected to think of ourselves as the temporary vessel of some preferences, we are each of us an "anyone" of the model, and just happen to be this anyone. As any one person might have different preferences from any other, so we might have different preferences, and value utilities accordingly, from moment to moment.

We think of ourselves like the building, maybe a church today and condos tomorrow. Whatever we believe and whatever we care about, is only what we happen to believe and happen to care about at the moment. Is it any wonder that we require convoluted justifications for saying anything -- any belief or value, any utility or preference -- is better than anything else?

On the other hand, the building itself exists regardless of my preference or opinion. — Hanover

I don't think that quite addresses the anti-realist's position, though. Let's say that we in the UK abolish the monarchy. Does the Queen of England exist? Well, Elizabeth Windsor exists, but as there is no monarchy there is no Queen of England, and if there is no Queen of England then the Queen of England doesn't exist.

The existence of the Queen of England doesn't (just) depend on the existence of a particular material entity, but also on something more abstract than that – social customs/conventions/attitudes, or whatever you want to call it. The same might also be said of buildings. They might not be simply reducible to whatever mind-independent things exist without us (e.g. the fundamental particles of the Standard Model).

A bunch of sticks and leaves is just a bunch of sticks and leaves to us, but it's a house to a bird. In a world without birds we wouldn't (and shouldn't?) talk about houses of sticks and leaves. And perhaps in a world without humans we shouldn't talk about buildings of bricks and mortar. But then how far do we take this? Should we even talk about bricks and mortar in a world without humans? Perhaps it's just photons and electrons. Although if you're an instrumentalist about science then even that is a step too far. There's just some incomprehensible noumena – the stuff that explains why we see what we see, but that isn't really the stuff we see and talk about.

I don't think that quite addresses the anti-realist's position, though. Let's say that we in the UK abolish the monarchy. Does the Queen of England exist? Well, Elizabeth Windsor exists, but as there is no monarchy there is no Queen of England, and if there is no Queen of England then the Queen of England doesn't exist. — Michael

This just seems to be indirect realism, but maybe that's what's meant by anti-realism, I don't know. If you're committed to the idea that there is some underlying structure that makes it real (i.e. having some independence from the observer) then that is realism to me. I accept that everything is interpreted within a person's mind and don't believe there is some sort of raw feed of data into someone's consciousness. So, you can interpret Ms. Windsor as queen, as just a kind old lady, or as a pounds of flesh and bones for whatever your purposes you might have, but that's realism to me. It's not direct realism, but I wasn't arguing for that.

As to moral realism, I'd hold to the same rule, which is that there must be something separate from the observer for the moral to be real. If I say "there is a building" and all I mean is that I see what appears to me a building, which may or may not exist at all, I am not a realist. If I say "rape is wrong" and all I mean is that its wrongness is only what I feel and believe, then I'm not a moral realist.

This just seems to be indirect realism, but maybe that's what's meant by anti-realism, I don't know. If you're committed to the idea that there is some underlying structure that makes it real (i.e. having some independence from the observer) then that is realism to me. I accept that everything is interpreted within a person's mind and don't believe there is some sort of raw feed of data into someone's consciousness. So, you can interpret Ms. Windsor as queen, as just a kind old lady, or as a pounds of flesh and bones for whatever your purposes you might have, but that's realism to me. It's not direct realism, but I wasn't arguing for that. — Hanover

As I said to @khaled earlier, if Descartes' thought experiment were true and the world we see is an illusion created by some evil demon then even though something exists regardless of what we say about it (the evil demon), it would be wrong to be a realist about the world we see. The same with something like the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis. In both cases some underlying structure exists that is responsible for triggering in us certain kinds of experiences. But should we think of this as realism (whether direct or indirect)?

We need to be more specific than that. We need to be a realist about something in particular. A moral realist believes that a statement like "it is wrong to murder" is true and made true by mind-independent features of the world. A bird-house realist believes that a statement like "those stick and leaves are a house" is true and made true by mind-independent features of the world. A Queen-realist believes that "there is a Queen of England" is true and made true by mind-independent features of the world.