, ,
So the topic becomes that of individuation - what is it that makes something this and not that? The question applies more broadly than to self, so let's have at it.

Historically there were two approaches. In the Bundle theory, what makes an individual is the bundle of properties that make it up. Change the properties and the identity changes. In the Essences theory, the properties are like pins stuck in a blob of essence. Change the properties and the individual remains the same, that essence.

The idea you both are suggesting is that it's not what one commonly calls one's self that is reincarnated, but a something else, a sort of essence...

But what that is remains undefined, or defined only by hand-waving.

At least since Kripke, there has been a third option, that there need be no essential characteristics of an individual, nor some bundle, but that being an individual is constituted more by the way we treat stuff than by any characteristics the stuff has. Precursors to such a view are also found in both Wittgenstein and the German Phenomenologists.

You can get an idea of what is at play from the SEP article on Relative Identity.

For my purposes here, I don't need to advocate one of these views over the other. Instead I'll just draw attention to the options, and point out that what the two of you are advocating is one choice amongst several, and perhaps not the best one.

comes at the issue from some imagined, internal, solipsistic position. "What are the minimum requirements for finding our way about?" Well, being able to find your way about! As points out, you are already embedded in a community, so much so that your attempts to imagine yourself apart from the world carry the world with them. Basically, Joshs, you can't build the private language you need in order to formulate your solipsism.

So the topic becomes that of individuation - what is it that makes something this and not that? The question applies more broadly than to self, so let's have at it. — Banno

Isn’t there a fundamental principle in Aristotelian metaphysics that it is the material that constitutes the particular? That the form is universal - Socrates is a man - but his features (or accidents) inhere in the material body. Form and matter. I find that intuitively appealing.

Buddhist views of re-birth are very complex. On the one hand, the early Buddhist texts resolutely deny that there is an individual self that migrates from one life to the next. There are several texts where errant monks are given a thorough dressing down for propagating such nonsense. But then, in Tibetan Buddhism, there is a long tradition of incarnate lamas, who are often identified because they’re able to point to things they owned in their previous incarnation. So what gives? The doctrinal interpretation is that whilst there is no solitary or unified self that migrates life to life, there is a mind-stream (with the musical Sanskrit designation of ‘citta-santana’) which continues to manifest life to life. It is sometimes compared allegorically to a fax machine (or used to be, when fax machines were things) - different paper, same information.

It is also said that your state of mind at the moment of death is of paramount importance, as it will influence your destination. (I corresponded briefly with a philosopher who’s wife was an East Asian Studies scholar who had written a book on Japanese Pure Land practices for the moment of death.) And there are many possibilities - in the traditional view there are six realms of rebirth (gods, demi-gods, human, animal, ghost and hell realms.) It is widely understood that to suffer a poor rebirth might mean being consigned to the woes of saṃsāra for ‘aeons of kalpas’ (and as Carl Sagan knew, Indian astronomy contemplated quite realistic time-scales for the birth and death of cosmic cycles.)

The major difference between Buddhist and Hindu views of rebirth is that the latter believe in ātman, ‘higher self’. That said, the dialectic between Buddhist and Hindu views of re-birth played out over many centuries and there is a vast amount of detail which is impossible to condense into a forum post.

Isn’t there a fundamental principle in Aristotelian metaphysics that it is the material that constitutes the particular? — Wayfarer

So what.

I supose a bit more detail might not hurt.

What Aristotle thought is of some historical interest, but certainly no longer authoritative - I hope. One likes to believe that there has been at least some progress over the millennia.

And much the same goes for that some cultures make up stories about reincarnation. Sure, they might be right.

But you don't actually know. Just-so stories.

You like that stuff. Be my guest, but I'll decline the offer.

↪Joshs comes at the issue from some imagined, internal, solipsistic position. "What are the minimum requirements for finding our way about?" Well, being able to find your way about! As ↪baker points out, you are already embedded in a community, so much so that your attempts to imagine yourself apart from the world carry the world with them. Basically, Joshs, you can't build the private language you need in order to formulate your solipsism. — Banno

There can also be a kind of solipsism, or rather, essentialism, built into assumptions about how a community embeds individuals. That’s why I asked about your minimum requirements. Perhaps I should ask what the minimum requirements are to be able to speak of a community. During the period when I am alone writing in my room, I suggest two things are the case. First, I bring to my writing my history as an embedded member of an interpersonal community. Second, over the course of my writing I am capable of thinking beyond the conventions of that history and that community. The language I use to accomplish this is not private because at first it draws from the resources of that remembered community. And as I continue writing I draw from my ‘self’, or more properly, community of selves, to transform the sense and vocabulary of my language relative to my starting point. So I draw from both an inter and intra-personal community to produce a language that exceeds cultural conventions, all the while avoiding the solipsism of a self-identical self and the essentialism of a strictly interpersonally defined notion of community.

What Aristotle thought is of some historical interest, but certainly no longer authoritative - I hope. One likes to believe that there has been at least some progress over the millennia. — Banno

The stereotypical attitude of modern philosophy is that everything that happened in the past has been superseded by 'progress'. Even if one of its gurus said 'We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.' And why ask the question if the predictable response is that you don't want to know the answer.

Sure. All that by way of saying, folk can make stuff up?

My apologies.

You are not presenting any arguments of worth here — Banno

It's a forum discussion about a topic of interest, not a peer-reviewed academic paper. I was going to add, Aristotle and others of that era are 'axial age philosophers'. Much of it is of course archaic due to the historical period in which it was written but it still plays a foundational role in culture. (Although I feel as though your motivation for participating is just to confirm your own views to your own satisfaction.)

~~

The OP was a rather idiosyncratic but nevertheless sincere post about something like re-birth or reincarnation. I simply pointed to two cultural traditions which accomodate the idea of re-birth -as Western culture generally does not - as a reference to ways of thinking abut the topic. The fact that it provokes such reflexive hostility is the interesting philosophical and cultural point.

~~

Interestingly, adopting relative identity might offer some solace to and . If identity is indeed context dependent then the hurdle is lowered for the identity of souls, and of disembodied consciousnesses. The case is perhaps stronger for Baker, who has the backing of the traditions of India.

:fire:

A passive-aggressive front allows you to hide behind the pretence of innocence, even victimhood. Meh. I think your arguments are just poor. — Banno

:up:

By the way, I mentioned Aristotle’s metaphysics because one of its major points is how something maintains its identity whilst changing. Also because hylomorphism remains current.

Not from scratch, though. A person born and raised into a religion that teaches reincarnation will have internalized it even before their critical cognitive faculties have developed. So such a person doesn't actually "make stuff up". — baker

:up:

Anyone like to venture a theory, as distinct from an expression of personal animus, as to why reincarnation is taboo in Western culture?

Why do you believe it's "taboo"?

I think the reasons are as follows:

1. Christian Dominance: Western culture has been heavily influenced by Christianity, which emphasizes a linear progression of the soul—life, death, and then either heaven or hell. Reincarnation, which posits multiple lifetimes, contrasts with this view. Reincarnation (strictly speaking, belief in the pre-existence of souls) was anathematised in the 6th century c.e.
2. Cultural Origins: Reincarnation is usually associated with Eastern religions and philosophies, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Because of this, it’s viewed as “foreign” or “exotic” in Western contexts.
3. Fear of the Unknown: The idea that one could return as a different being in a different circumstance can be unsettling to some people (this dread actually caused a very well known academic in Buddhist Studies, one Paul WIlliams, to abandon Buddhism and convert to the RC Church).
4. Materialism: Modern Western culture relies on science as a guide to what is real. There seems to be no feasible kind of physical or scientifically-understood medium through which memories or experiences can be transmitted life to life.

However, it’s worth noting that not everyone in the West dismisses or is uncomfortable with the idea of reincarnation. Many individuals and groups do believe in it or are open to the possibility, especially as Eastern philosophies and spiritual practices have gained traction in the West.

None of that amounts to a cultural "taboo" as the growing pervasiveness of various Western "New Age" subcultures since the 1950s shows. "Reincarnation" simply does not make sense, except as an article of faith (i.e. figment of imagination), without publicly specifying what exactly is allegedly "reincarnated". It's an Eastern version of the so-called "afterlife" that's just as incoherent an idea as "disembodied subject", "north of the North Pole", etc. :sparkle:

None of that amounts to a cultural "taboo"...."Reincarnation" simply does not make sense... — 180 Proof

What would a 'public specification' comprise?

Not from scratch, though. A person born and raised into a religion that teaches reincarnation will have internalized it even before their critical cognitive faculties have developed. So such a person doesn't actually "make stuff up". — baker

So, instead of making their own stuff up, they accept and introject the stuff that others have made up; stuff that has been canonized in their culture?

What would a 'public specification' comprise? — Wayfarer

Demonstrating ...

... what exactly is allegedly "reincarnated". — 180 Proof

one of its major points is how something maintains its identity whilst changing... — Wayfarer

There's a few problems, such as -

How is it that old you is the same as young you - directly contradicting Leibniz’ Law
Chrysippus’ Paradox
101 Dalmatians
The ball of clay
Theseus' ship
London and Londres

But sure, Aristotle...

:up: The best it can be is an intuitive belief that "somehow" we live on in the sense of being reborn in this realm or some imagined other. The part that escapes me is why, given that we don't remember who we purportedly were prior to this life. it is considered that it would be important, even if it were true. The same would seem to apply to Nietzsche's eternal recurrence idea, especially if the idea is that the recurring lives would be exactly the same.

why, given that we don't remember who we purportedly were prior to this life. it is considered that it would be important, even if it were true — Janus

Yes. Sure, we're reincarnated; the bits that make up one's body once made up another body. Dig dead people into the compost, use the result to grow carrots so as to ensure theur reincarnation...

Nietzsche's eternal recurrence — Janus

That is quite close to what seems to have in mind. Eternal recurrence strikes me as rather silly. After all, one doesn't know one is a recurrence, and has no memory of such... it's not as if we will get bored...

...reincarnation is taboo in Western culture... — Wayfarer

Taboo?

Levels of belief in reincarnation are more comparable across the region. In most Central and Eastern European countries surveyed, a quarter or more say they believe in reincarnation – that is, that people will be reborn in this world again and again. In many Western European countries surveyed, roughly one-fifth of the population expresses belief in reincarnation, a concept more closely associated with Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism than with Christianity. — Pew

Seems not.

The fact that a proportion of the populace accepts it doesn’t mean it’s not a taboo.

:meh:

Those who believe in reincarnation show it is not a taboo for them, and in the case of those who don't, the more likely explanation in many if not most cases in my view, is that they either haven't thought about, or find the idea unconvincing.

It seems likely to me that only those who have a firm belief in resurrection would consider the idea of reincarnation somehow "taboo", on account of it being counter to their own dogma. I think it pays to remember in regard to claims for which there can be no evidence that the default would be to simply believe in what is evident; that we simply die and cease to exist.

I think both Spinoza and Epicurus, neither of whom believed in an afterlife, had the most sensible attitudes towards death; simple acceptance and seeing that there is nothing to fear in death itself. Ironically it seems that attachment to the idea of rebirth is an egoic attachment counter to the central idea in the very religions who incorporate it into their system of beliefs.

It seems likely that the idea was incorporated to give motivation to those who are not inclined to think deeply about death.

Spinoza pointed out a similar dynamic with the "carrot and stick" of heaven and hell in Christianity, using desire and fear as motivators to believe.

As I understand it, Spinoza said that the liberated soul had no reason to fear death and no fear of the afterlife, and I'm sure in that, he was in perfect accord with both the Hindu and Buddhist understanding of the matter.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Reincarnation exists only so long as there is ignorance. There is really no reincarnation at all, either now or before. Nor will there be any hereafter. This is the truth.

[Note: Comments by David Godman: “Most religions have constructed elaborate theories which purport to explain what happens to the individual soul after the death of the body. Some claim that the soul goes to heaven or hell while others claim that it is reincarnated in a new body.

"Sri Ramana Maharshi taught that all such theories are based on the false assumption that the individual self or soul is real; once this illusion is seen through, the whole superstructure of after-life theories collapses. From the standpoint of the Self, there is no birth or death, no heaven or hell, and no reincarnation.

"As a concession to those who were unable to assimilate the implications of this truth, Sri Ramana would sometimes admit that reincarnation existed. In replying to such people he would say that if one imagined that the individual self was real, then that imaginary self would persist after death and that eventually it would identify with a new body and a new life. The whole process, he said, is sustained by the tendency of the mind to identify itself with a body. Once the limiting illusion of mind is transcended, identification with the body ceases, and all theories about death and reincarnation are found to be inapplicable."]

Source

Eternal recurrence strikes me as rather silly. After all, one doesn't know one is a recurrence — Banno

I know the notion is quite ancient but Nietzsche conceives of 're-experiencing – consciously re-living – one's exact same life eternally' as a psychological (i.e. conative) thought-experiment, or test, of the degree which one affirmatively lives (i.e. becomes). Existentially, IMO, not a "silly" exercise at all.

I have not found any idea or conception of "soul" (i.e. immortality) in Spinoza. I think you're mistaken, Wayf.