You never need a gun. If it is a question of kill or be killed, choose 'be killed'. But the difference is that a banana doesn't look right, and you can never find the trigger.

1. Is unenlightened enlightened? No! Out goes everything about unenlightened - none of it is the mark of a buddha. — TheMadFool

But by your own hypothesis this is not true. unenlightened is enlightened; he just doesn't realise/hasn't realised it. In which case, unenlightenment is a 'mistake' that one is continuously making.

we fail to realize — TheMadFool

verb: realise
1.
become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly.
"he realized his mistake at once"

2.
cause to happen.
"his worst fears have been realized"

Kind of like we all - well most of us - have legs, but if you are not fully aware of them, you won't cause much walking to happen.

Perhaps.. it's as simple as being able to question what it is to be unenlightened? And no, not @unenlightened, not necessarily that is. — Outlander

If there are many ways to be unenlightened, as there seem to be, why do we expect that there is only one way to be enlightened? Are there perhaps some who do not accumulate followers, do not make like social reformers and teachers. Perhaps most of them are no bloody use to us, and not even recognisable; living in barrels or monk's cells, or begging on the street, or working in a cat's home.

If I feel love for someone, do I need to be attached to that love in order to act lovingly towards them?
— Janus

In non-attachment, why would you love any particular person? — praxis

1. This 'union of knower and known' is frequently encountered in non-dualist philosophies. — Wayfarer

I prefer the term "identification" to "attachment". As in "I identify (as half of a couple) with my wife." So I see enlightenment as the 'seeing through' the whole process of identification.

Curiously perhaps, the scientific viewpoint is a depersonalised one, so that for example, my feelings and desires are no more significant than anyone else's; they are phenomena on an equal basis. Perhaps that is why the beginnings of the scientific project are known as 'The enlightenment'. Materialism is the foremost non-dualist philosophy.

The main function of identification is that it is a process of time binding, and of the creation of the idea of a continuous self. But supposing one did not make any identifications so as to project the idea of oneself into the future, still I imagine one would eat. Why one food rather than another? I guess it's a matter of convenience. One still would like food, though it would have little importance, and I think one would still have affection for one's wife. One might have equal affection for others too, and that too is not important.

Time-binding is what gives desire its bite. People get confused about this, and suppose that it is the sweetness of sugar that makes one desire it, but of course this cannot be, because the cause has to precede the effect. Rather it is the idea and memory of previous sweetness that is projected into the future and identified with that forms the desire. Fear is the negative of desire, and suffering is the negative of pleasure. These are all aspects of the time-binding of identification: - "I" will have pleasure/ will suffer.

my only purpose was to encourage the moderators to take a more compassionate line in cases like this; — Janus

I think they are being compassionate to the female philosophers on the site. Perhaps you could be more compassionate to the moderators; it is thanks to their unpaid efforts that the site is not overrun with conspiracy theorists, proselytisers of all flavours, haters of various sections of the membership, trolls and idiots. They get far more criticism than praise or thanks, and willingly subject themselves here to the public complaints of the very people they work to keep the site bearable for - the contributors. They are not perfect, but if you find a better free site for philosophical discussion I'll join you there.

The CCP invaded Hong Kong discreetly. They'd be just as violent and malicious on a grander scale given the chance; proven bogeymen. — The Opposite

You know Hong Kong was invaded and occupied by the British during the opium war, right? And held under a forced "lease" for 100 years. The Chinese had the temerity not to want us to flood China with opium in exchange for their tea and porcelain. Like I said, I'm not defending their record, but comparing it with the Western powers record. But I agree, they'd probably be just as violent and malicious as we are, given the chance.

I've little wish to defend China's record on human rights, and it is clear that the whole culture takes a very different attitude to individuality from the western tradition. But if you compare China's strategy abroad with either the US or God help us, the British Empire, then it looks highly benign, superficially. I'm not seeing many bombs, drones, troops, tanks, gunboats, at least. I'm not noticing many governments being subverted, peoples being enslaved and transported, revolutions being fomented, coups being subsidised. You know - the routine of government diplomacy.

he would have been banned? — Leghorn

He would on my watch. I always used to ban unrepentant sinners.

Other echo chambers are available.

Only Superman has superpowers, but Commieman is everywhere at once.

If one is a "freethinker", it should be possible to step out of the mythology of one's culture of origin, but perhaps the myth of the freethinking individual is the hardest myth to step out of. Should we consider the end of the US as a superpower, as the triumph of the free individual, or his defeat?

Now, I'm liberal, to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'd let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door or marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy
I wouldn't let him do it for all the farms in Cuba. — I Shall be Free no.10

A philosopher might question whether it is even coherent that The Land of the Free is the dominant superpower. Or is that part of the doublethink by which control is maintained?

Philosophy is the UNFETTERED love of wisdom, and that means asking ANY question, however forbidden it be. Socrates wasn’t prevented by Athens from pursuing philosophy, nor are we by Modernity — Leghorn

Indeed, but a question was not asked. On the contrary, equality was ruled out absolutely. Thus it was the love of received dogma and prejudice, not the love of wisdom, that was censured.

In this thread we debate what constitutes excretion in the debating chamber. But when it happens, someone has to clean it up, and the cleaners are the rulers as they should be everywhere.

Other emotions are available.

If folks will just back off from the universalisms a little, it does seem that philosophy is somewhat macho and combative. The language of 'argument' 'strong' or 'weak' or 'knock down' or 'winning' must be familiar to everyone. And if you research sexism in academic philosophy you will find it. Men tend to compete and spar verbally to impress the females and show their dominance {according to tedious evolutionary psychologist man}, and men are in the majority here.

But there are other things one can do with language and philosophy. Discussion can be cooperative as well as combative; teaching and learning can be a mutual and shared activity. Personally, I find myself getting angry quite often, but when I notice it, I tend to stop posting for a while, because I learn little when angry.

Beyond logic, Jack, there maybe something but it would be incomprehensible nonsense to our minds. — TheMadFool

Hence a thread about music, or a thread about poetry. Most advertising for example is deliberate nonsense because it aims to bypass the logical analyst and appeal to a nonlinguistic non rational aspect of humanity. You surely do not claim to be unaffected by anything but logic?

There is much difficulty in separating nature and nurture. Here for example is a traditional tune in the melodic minor, normally associated with melancholy, set to a very jolly Mayday song.



We are likewise so en-cultured in the tempered scales, that natural harmonics sound a bit off in many circumstances

As I recall, I was quite content in my darkened room until I was expelled from it by a nightmare squeezing that left me beached on a bloody sheet gasping for breath. Breath was the second surprise. Darkened rooms are unavailable for a longer lease than about 9 months. Thereafter, minimising surprise involves seeking out surprise, aka novelty, in order to familiarise oneself with it. I think this is known as "learning|".

Always keep-a hold of nurse - for fear of finding something worse! — Hilaire Belloc

Good advice, but impossible in the long run.

I'm not that familiar with Carnap, so first I went here, for a quick crib-sheet. and followed a link to the dude himself - http://www.ditext.com/carnap/carnap.html

Logical positivism is out of favour by and large, and I am not the expert, but the game is to try and separate fact from fiction as it were, in an indubitable once and for all manner. Material statements are about the world - which is to say they are about what exists. So cats and mats come to mind. "The cat is on the mat" is material, and has ontological, or existential import. Carnap likes this kind of thing. Similarly, he has no problem with "there are two cats on the mat."

But then there are things like "2 is a prime number." which don't seem to be about cats or mats or anything material, but which don't seem to be quite fictional either. Hence 'abstract propositions'.

He's trying to formalise a scientific language devoid of ambiguity and fully rigorous in terms of being tied down to pure logic on one side, and pure observation on the other. I don't think he can do it, but I cannot articulate why not at the moment. Maybe head to the SEP for more detail but the distinction between real and ideal is a very old one that concerned Plato and continues to plague and confuse better minds than mine. I'm not sure where you should start.

I want to know whether the Buddha was sourgraping, so I question everyone who claims or implies that he was. — baker

Firstly, wrong thread, and secondly, nothing I have said is sceptical of Buddhism or its founder. I am sceptical of much of the Western interpretation of Buddhism, and perhaps of the beliefs of some Buddhists that have a supernatural or magical turn. I lean more towards the Zen schools and a practical, psychological understanding of an end to the narrative self as a projection from memory to imagination, or past to future, a thought construction of the self that creates desire and suffering.

I asked you to sketch out how "appearances deceive us". I've never felt "deceived" by an appearance, I don't know what that would be like. — baker

If you look back, you will see that I was commenting on another's comment making a claim that science had 'discovered' that our senses were unreliable. I pointed out that though this might appear to be the case, by its own claim, the claim cannot be relied on. Just to be clear, because it seems important to you for some reason, I am arguing throughout for direct realism, and thus not in disagreement with you about not being deceived in general. I thought this was made clear by my previous repetition of that claim first as the other's quote and then as my ironic comment on the claim. Obviously, that wasn't as clear as I thought it was, but hopefully, this will make it clear enough.

In religious doctrines, terms have definitions. — baker

Think you may find that religions argue about definitions all the time and have schisms over them on a regular basis. Philosophers are somewhat inclined to do the same. But what is your beef? I quoted the cybergod definition and observed that it is a real thing but extremely rare. If the op wanted a doctrinal definition, a buddhist website would be the place to go for no doubt several lengthy ones. But I suspect he wanted an account. He's not going to get that either. Meanwhile, lighten up dude, I'm not trying to steal your throne.

We can surmise you beat your spouse, so that they can appreciate your tendernesses. — baker

We can surmise you're just jealous. :scream:

(in Buddhism) a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism. — Google, aka the CyberGod

This goal, by hypothesis, or by dogma, was attained by Gautama Buddha after meditating under a fig tree. One must therefore surmise that it is a human condition, and primarily a state of mind. Judging by the replies so far, we have not been graced with one who has attained this state, and I, of course am proudly not the exception.

So any attempt to answer the op's question is as theoretical as this one, and not based on experience. So there is a jolly little game that goes on of calling each other out over various issues and expertises about stuff that bears some relation to what none of us knows from experience. But it sure sounds like a lot of fun.

you wouldn't say that they make life worth living. They just don't. — baker

I do say something rather like it. The terrible is also meaningful. Death is part of life and inseparable from it. So if life is worth living, it's worth the dying too. There can be no up without down, and no value without cost.

You haven't actually done an actual analysis as to whether our life is unique, have you? — baker

I'm not actually trying to actually do actual analysis. I'm handwaving to a chap who seems to be drowning. And try to keep breathing yourself through the beautiful tsunami.

there’s nothing I want. — Nicholas Mihaila

I’m hoping to get input — Nicholas Mihaila

Do you want some input, or is there nothing you want?

If you pick a bunch of flowers for your love, she will not reject them because they will wilt and die in a few days. Au contraire, it is the ephemerality that makes them precious. Plastic flowers last much longer, but your love will not appreciate plastic flowers.

We are all like flowers, doomed to wither and be forgotten, but this does not make life meaningless - it would be meaningless if it lasted forever - but it is precious and meaningful because it is unique and fleeting.

But probably you cannot understand this, because you are too focussed on yourself and your own happiness and eternal fame and so on. You cannot find it there, because it lies in relationships with the world:-

Naive realism simply isnt backed up by recent research in perceptual psychology or the more sophisticated thinking in A.I.
— Joshs

That may appear to be the case, but appearances in this if not in every case are deceptive. :death: — unenlightened

Then sketch out how it is appearances that deceive us. — baker

Naive realism simply isnt backed up by recent research in perceptual psychology or the more sophisticated thinking in A.I.

But when the candle is all there is, snuffing it is the only game to play.

Naive realism simply isnt backed up by recent research in perceptual psychology or the more sophisticated thinking in A.I. — Joshs

That may appear to be the case, but appearances in this if not in every case are deceptive. :death:

I hesitate to question your historical expertise, but it seems to me that the impulse against realism is a religious impulse in the first instance. The inversion that makes the idea more real than the mere corporeal is certainly a thread in Plato, and is absorbed into Christian doctrine in the guise of the eternal spiritual realm, opposed to this vale of tears.

But as a naive realist I would admit that our senses and our understanding and our recollection are all imperfect, and this leaves plenty of room for disagreement - though in practice arguments about how many legs a particular chair has are pretty rare. and tend to turn on semantic niceties such as whether a leg that has fallen off the chair still counts as a leg of the chair which is a conflict of ideas, not of realities.

What I wonder is how there can be evidence that the senses are false that does not rely on those very senses.

It usually helps if you address the definitions used in the OP and recognise analogies when used — I like sushi

You are undoubtedly right, but I have difficulty believing in kinds of people whether they be goodies and baddies or stupids and intelligents.

I wouldn't be able to communicate via the internet with you — I like sushi

I don't think we are communicating, alas, so I'll leave it there.

We all underestimate the number of Stupid people there are in the world and the most Stupid people tend to think they are Intelligent. — I like sushi

I think everyone is stupid - that's an underestimate?

Compassion towards a hungry man-eating tiger won't stop it from eating you. — I like sushi

A hungry man-eating tiger is not stupid.

Think of it like this. If someone is walking around with high explosives attached to them - which they believe are expensive jewelry - that have various flashing lights and switches that could sent the explosives off if toyed with. What would happen if you got close enough to tell them they should remove said explosives? Do you put yourself in danger or not? Can they be reasoned with if they have either no concern or comprehension of what situation they are currently in. — I like sushi

That is a difficult situation. A stupid man in control of nuclear weapons is also a difficult situation. A group of stupid people destroying the environment by burning fossil fuels is also a difficult situation. Nobody said intelligence was easy or comfortable. I am saying stupidity cannot be avoided, and has to be dealt with intelligently, or it will indeed destroy us. Perhaps the best one can do with the chap with expensive jewellery is to try and conduct him to a quiet spot where only he and thee will be killed. Perhaps nothing can be done, perhaps macho-man can shoot him without setting off the explosives, or perhaps if we all ignore him he will stop thinking his jewellery is desirable and remove it. Who knows?

People who behave in a Stupid way are unpredictable and therefore dangerous. — I like sushi

But the only way to avoid them is to kill oneself, because one behaves stupidly oneself. IOW, It is stupid to try and avoid stupidity.
Take care of stupid therefore, and educate stupid, and understand stupid and be compassionate towards stupid. That is intelligence in action.

every "intelligent person" is also (habitually) self-afflicted with stupidity to varying degrees at different times in his / her life. — 180 Proof

Indeed. :up: Actions are intelligent or stupid rather than actors.
Self concern is by definition short-sighted, because in the long run, we are all dead. However, "think global, act local." is the natural result of having good long distance vision and short arms.

One can avoid stupidity by inaction - but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?.

A rational being will come to a conclusion that is logic, and act on it despite their emotional and personal misgivings or dislike of the solution. — Philosophim

Logic provides no reason to act. Logic may tell you that if you walk off the edge of a cliff you will fall and likely die. It cannot tell you whether or not to do it.

I have read a few Rand books recently — OscarTheGrouch

I read one once, but I have almost completely recovered. There is still hope for you, but try not to talk about it so much.

I wouldn't say that at all. Well, live simply by all means, but vote -always vote unless the vote is rigged. Vote for the decent candidate, or the least sleazy one. vote for the most honest, the least proud and boastful Change your vote if the smile turns out to be fake. Prioritise the qualities of the candidate over the policies of the party.

Is it because Starmer is more centrist? — The Opposite

Vacuous, rather than centrist. Obviously labour is divided, and Corbyn is an old school socialist. And the other half is Tory-light and campaigns for the tories whenever there is a socialist trend in the labour party. Michael Foot got the same treatment.

Minorities can rule because they prevent solidarity amongst the poor. They infiltrate and undermine, they sow dissent, they foster racism, and factional disputes. This is how the i% controls the 99%. Don't over-personalise it.