Mahayana Buddhism represents an interpretation for quantum mechanics and a solution for all philosophical problems. It is about truth and knowledge and can easily defend itself as a method for acquiring it. — FrancisRay

Ok, that's interesting. Further explanation will be welcomed as your time permits. Again, I know very little about Buddhism, which means that pretty much anything you say might be useful here.

Well, clothed differently, as I am shy. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, you obviously know nothing about virtual reality, which will inevitably be dominated by porn.

Wait, was that you on shy-porn.com ? Ok, sorry, I didn't recognize you at first. :-)

You can find me on stupid-joke-porn.com!

Ooh, cool thread!

==============

Everything and Nothing: What is Everything?


==============

Everything and Nothing: What is Nothing?

Not sure about this, but the mods might be willing to change your screen name without deleting your account. And you could also remove your photo if desired.

It could be worse. You could be branding your reputation with a ridiculous name like Hippyhead, easily confused with Dippyhead. :-)

There is no remedy in the virtual, because there is no real novelty there; the virtual is inevitably an extension of the known. — unenlightened

Ok, that makes sense, thanks. Hmm....

My theory so far, just an exploration, is that the virtual may expand our imaginations beyond what we currently feel is possible. So now my dreams are small, but maybe with virtual they grow wider.

Trying to ask, if we can have essentially anything we want, what might we discover about ourselves?

Lots of questions here. No answers. I have no idea.

But dangling the carrot of enlightenment may help keep the donkey moving forward, just as the carrot of future good health may motivate us to manage our diet. . . . . — FrancisRay

I hear you, that's a good point. But what happens if the donkey never gets the carrot?

I don't wish to be dogmatic and redundant, but it might be helpful for us to further investigate the "moving forward" concept.

I do not see myself as an enemy of the state but I do feel fearful because I need to apply for jobs and don't want future employees to have instant access to my own private world. — Jack Cummins

Yea, that's understandable. Well, if your concern reaches the breaking point you could ask the mods to delete your account, and then rejoin with an anonymous screen name. I haven't seen you write anything you should be embarrassed by, but yea, if applying for jobs is in your future, better safe than sorry. It's hard to tell what might offend someone.

The real issue is that we substitute actual socializing with net & social media use, and those are not the same thing. — ssu

Indeed they aren't. The challenge seems to be that the digital environment often does a better job of delivering what we actually want, control over our experience.

Another example. Why are dogs so incredibly popular? Because they are great friends, whom we can control. When they become inconvenient we don't have to listen to their boring stories, we can just put them in the backyard. We can leave them in the backyard all day while we're at work so that they're bored out of their minds and desperate for companionship. And so when we arrive home we are greeted by a very enthusiastic friend. We can do what we want. We can get what we want. We are in control.

It's hard for real life human beings to compete with that, because engaging with real life humans involves all kinds of compromises.

Yeah, the immiseration and effective murder of millions. Just things I'm 'spouting about'. No biggies. — StreetlightX

As a mod could you perhaps lead by example and start a thread which explains your issues with Biden in a detailed, reasoned, and at least somewhat objective manner? You know, minus the clever snarky superiority poses and such as example. So far it seems you're just spouting emotional slogans, and that is indeed no biggie.

It appears we may soon be handing Biden something like 1500 massive hydrogen bombs, plenty enough to utterly destroy Western civilization at the least. So if any of us have well documented claims which should cause us to question Biden's morality or judgement, it seems entirely appropriate to bring them forth, put them on the table, and subject them to reasoned review.

In an anonymous site it is hard to make the difference who is talking. — ssu

Yea, true that. And it matters. In real life I would relate to someone 50 years my junior in a more patient manner than I may online when I have no idea of their age. Well, I suppose I could grow up myself and relate to everyone in a more patient manner. Bummer! :-)

The author saw that it was meaningless to continue discussion — ssu

Yes again. This is one of the big drawbacks of the forum/social media publishing model which prioritizes inclusiveness over quality. Those we might most wish to talk to are bored by the discussions and have largely left the medium long ago. Back in the nineties when all of this was new some of the most interesting people engaged, until they realized what the signal to noise ratio was going to be. Many or most users today don't even realize what has been lost.

Hence people will be more impolite, rude and judging and just fixated on themselves. — ssu

That seems to be a pattern which transcends the Net. My Dad (1925-2000) used to talk about this even before the Net took off. People really did used to be more polite in general (assuming we ignore blatant racism, sexism, homophobia etc), but that came in part from a more confining and controlling social environment where people were trained to worry about things like "what will the neighbors think?" Nobody gives much of a #%^ what the neighbors think these days, a form of social liberation, which comes at a price.

If social media moves more from text to video, perhaps that will restore some of the social clues we need to stop acting like animals?

In my pompous opinion, commentary which treats religion as if it were a single thing is immediately suspect and probably not meriting further time investment. Religion is this, religion is that etc, mostly bunk.

Religion encompasses billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the globe. It comes in too many forms and flavors to begin to list. Even within single denominations there is typically substantial ideological diversity. Individual congregations contain a multiple of people who are in attendance for a multitude of reasons. Even within the minds of a single individual one's relationship with their religion can change from day to day.

Look, I get it, people need a bit of warming affirmation for the fact that they're voting for a dude covered in blood and stench of drone death — StreetlightX

Perhaps you could make a careful, reasoned, hopefully somewhat objective case for what you see to be Biden's crimes? Apologies if I've missed that above, very long thread. Time for a dedicated Biden thread too?

Perhaps it helps to note that all politicians, especially national leaders, have to deal with the world the way it actually is, not the way it should be. At best they can hope to nudge the world a bit towards what should be, but given the persistently perilous state of the human condition even that is quite ambitious. Avoiding chaos should probably be considered success.

My challenge to Biden would be the highly predictable remark that he's somehow managed to get through an entire presidential campaign without saying anything at all interesting about nuclear weapons, or barely anything at all.

Even looked at through a purely political lens, this failure seems an act of inexcusable political strategy insanity to me. The clown currently in the White House is widely considered, even by many of his supporters, to be unpredictable, unreliable, impulsive, uninformed on many important topics etc. And the Democratic Party can't figure out how to tie these well known personality traits to Trump's almost exclusive control of the nuclear arsenal???

I listen to NPR pretty much all day long, and I can't at the moment recall Biden making this point even once. Hopefully I'm wrong about that.

If we've learned anything from this campaign it might be that we're all totally nutzo, incapable of reason, frigging out of our looney tunes little minds. Not a pretty picture, but it's either that or back in to the dream.

For me Buddhism would be a religion, a science, an art and a philosophy, same as all the 'mystical' traditions. To see them as just one of these would be to miss their significance and sell them short. — FrancisRay

Like this too! It seems that all the major religions at least are a bit like reality itself, a container for all things. Thus, attempts to say religion is this or religion is that seem inevitably doomed to failure. Religion expresses the best in us, the worst in us, and everything in between.

If you approach Buddhism as a religion then it will be one. If you approach it as a science then it will be one. — FrancisRay

I like this, thumbs up from here.

but whatever it is, has to be something that puts demands on you, that requires your attention, not something that simply pleases you. — Wayfarer

Well, maybe. Not really arguing or suggesting another "one true way", but maybe challenging your statement a bit can lead to further useful discussion?

The effort you suggest would seem to be related to a path, a goal, a desire to be there instead of here, an agenda of growth, change, transformation, essentially a rejection of what already is. Ok, not really complaining with this or trying to tell anybody else what they should do, but maybe we can try to put such "becoming trips" (as I so ungraciously tend to put it) in to a larger context?

Have you noticed that, generally speaking, we tend not to relate to other mechanical functions of the body in a "becoming trip" manner? As example, we don't go looking for some kind of food which will end our need to eat. Instead, we are realistic and practical, and accept without complaint that living will require eating pretty much every day of our lives. We satisfy the physical hunger as needed, take care of business, and then get on with our lives. Doing so typically doesn't become part of our identity.

I want to push back against the grow, change, transform, effort required for enlightenment etc notion a bit, just a bit, because it seems to me that we should at least be aware that becoming trips run the risk of feeding the very problem we are attempting to solve, ego, the endless obsession with "me". I know that you are so aware, so I'm addressing readers in general here.

It seems to me that there is a rational middle ground between glamorous becoming trips and status quo complacency. And that's why I'm always going on about management. To continue with the eating example, I can manage my hunger by eating. I can manage a bit better by eating more nutritious foods. Ok, good, I'm not arguing against reasonable change and improvement. But a management paradigm doesn't lend itself that easily to further ego feeding (recent vegetarian converts a possible exception :-) )

Even for those seeking enlightenment, better mind management is where that journey begins, right? So it seems rational to focus on management first, and leave the possible enlightenment until somewhere later down the road.

And a simple fact of life, that I suspect you will acknowledge, is that most of us are never going to reach a fundamental transformation of psychology no matter what effort we might invest. And so it seems we might be wary of waving something around that few will ever reach, a form of fairy tale, fuel for a near inevitable disappointment, another failure, and more suffering.

So ok to effort. Within reason. I'll do some homework and learn how to buy organic foods instead of factory foods. I'll invest some effort to upgrade my eating habits to something more healthy. But I won't get caught up in a dream that there's anything I can eat that will solve all my problems. People who eat healthy can get fat too, and I can prove it! But I'm not posting that photo. Too scary! :-)

Anyway, it's not my intention to start yet another dualistic either/or war, and I'm content that "to each their own" should rule the day. Just suggesting that management is yet another way to look at such topics.

What I don't see is what solution you have in mind — Echarmion

Ditto. Second the complaint. Less outraged whining, more constructive specifics please.

Years ago I did a stint as a political activist, organizing public meetings etc. It was educational. I came to realize that, generally speaking, politicians who succeed in getting elected to do because they are realistic about the public they serve. And, we the public are mostly full of crap. Again, and again, and again times ten I saw people stand up in public meetings before the cameras and yell, "Somebody needs to do something!" But the somebody they had in mind was almost never them.

The people who did the actual work of that cause we're typically the nice little old ladies who sat way in the back at the public meeting and never said anything. That's who showed up to do the work when the cameras weren't rolling.

Professional politicians understand that we in the public are mostly child-like creatures who are full of crap, and so they talk down to us in the language that we deserve. And they do so largely without cynical hostility, they're just being realistic. We are what we are, and so they deal with the reality.

Politicians are a mirror in which we can see ourselves. When we don't like the image that appears, we yell at the mirror.

One thing that the internet has brought amongst us is loneliness — Konkai

The Internet allows us to zero in on exactly what interests us in a manner the real world typically can't match. Like this forum for example, MUCH more convenient and accessible than trying to find a philosophy club which meets once a month across town somewhere.

But then, having found what we're looking for in a very convenient and accessible form, we get sucked in to it. Gradually we spend more time online and less with offline friends, because online we can do exactly what we want to do when we want to do it. The offline friends fade away over time, to be replaced by an endless horde of anonymous strangers.

Ten minutes after I leave this forum for the last time I'll be forgotten forever. None of you will be sending me a card on my birthday. :-) The price we pay for getting what we want can be steep.

Oh, and wait, here's the "good news". It's going to get worse. Way worse. Do you think text is compelling? Wait until the Net can deliver virtual reality. Digital characters customized to your exact specifications, projected in to the 3D space of your living room, or um, perhaps bedroom.

We're headed down the rabbit hole folks. Well, you are, I'll probably be dead before the big time loneliness poop hits the fan.

Your argument, presumably by design, says absolutely nothing about anything. — Kenosha Kid

Ha, I wish my arguments said absolutely nothing about anything. Then, being nothing, my arguments would be aligned with the vast majority of reality.

Western culture is very hung up on religion - same as Victorian culture used to be about sex - because of the history of religion in the West. There were massive conflicts fought over religion in European history. Arguably the Catholic Church was a model for authoritarianism in some important respects. So this has lead to a massive cultural back-lash along the lines of 'anything but God'. Ideas associated with religion are rejected or suppressed, and the West continually tries to re-invent itself without reference to them. — Wayfarer

Yes, and it's not rational to focus too much time on automated rejectionism of that which doesn't work for someone. It's more rational to note that XYZ is not working for a person, then put XYZ down, and focus on finding what does work for that person. A few examples to illustrate...

Christianity contains a number of ideological assertions which many people find they are allergic to. Ok, no problem, so dump that which isn't working. In the dumpster the ideology goes, and we walk away. Christianity also has a lot to say about the experience of love. One could explore that without believing in God, without joining any club, without labeling oneself as Christian or anything else.

Love not working? Ok, so let's dump that too. How about service? This doesn't have to have anything to do with love, but can instead be a purely rational act of shifting one's focus from oneself and one's own problems on to others who have bigger problems. One's own problems are then seen in a larger context. Not love, not religion, not God. Just reason. Nothing but reason.

My sense is that many forum atheists are angry because they know in their hearts that there are things going on that they don't know how to access, and so they feel left out, which perhaps they are unable to admit, to themselves. If true, the things they're missing out on don't require religion. Say it again, do not require religion.

As example, a key principle of atheism is observation of reality. That's a great principle, and a very effective methodology for many of the same experiences religious people talk about.

Not observation of our thoughts about reality. Observation of reality. Note the difference. Take your own perspective seriously, and literally, and explore from there.

It works! But you have to actually do it. Not just whine about it.

Didn't run into Rousseau there by any chance? Or Margeret Mead? — Wayfarer

Didn't see them, but I did get bitched out by a squirrel sage. :-) He came down the tree until he was about 10 feet off the ground, and then hung there upside down as they do, and began yelling at me. After being so entertained for a few minutes I got a clue and looked around and realized the ground was covered with nuts. I was sitting on his breakfast. Don't do that, it's rude! Or so he says.

Truly, a lot about Buddhism is putting aside that kind of idealism; we're not so much trying to be like The Buddha or Ajahn Mun as much as we are trying to investigate what "being" is; not in terms of a definition, but the actual experience (and it turns out what we "are" is informed by our tendency to define things conceptually). It's important that we investigate that tendency to want to "be" like "somebody" and work with what we've actually got right here; meditatioj isn't easy when you're trying to be something different than what you already "are". Meditation is best done with an attitude of contentment, though contentment with a sense of aspiration and dispassion. — TLCD1996

This is agreeable too, I like it. For instance, you say, "we are trying to investigate what "being" is; not in terms of a definition, but the actual experience".

I think a lot of similarities can be found between Buddhism and what you describe in your post above about nature — TLCD1996

I suspected as much, which is why I'm interested in your posts. Please note that I'm not well read nor a serious student of any particular established discipline so when it comes to categorizing my interests or comparing them to something else I'm not of much use.

I don't really think it's my responsibility to prove it (enlightenment) — TLCD1996

I agree. Nor is it really my place to try to disprove it. To each their own and whatever works seems useful enough guidelines. And there's not really that much of a conflict between our perspectives. If someone manages so well that they reach some kind of permanent solution to suffering, so much the better.

Perhaps there is a kind of delicate balancing act which you can relate to as a Buddhist. On one hand, one can be serious and determined about reaching for one's goals, while at the same time doing so with a shrug, a laugh, a twinkle in the eye. Taking it seriously and not, at the same time. Hard to explain, and perhaps even harder to do, but perhaps a realistic approach. We reach for the stars, and when we fall in the mud, we laugh, get up, and try again. The reaching and falling a kind of dance one enjoys for itself, you know, an embrace of our imperfect humanity.

The only reason I have faith besides my own practice and views is the fact that I have met people who I would call good examples. — TLCD1996

I hear you. It's certainly true that some people are more psychologically sophisticated than others and that there can be a power in that which transcends logical analysis. Some people just feel saner than others, and when in their presence it's natural to want to get in on the action.

At some point, one's just got to go for it and see what happens. — TLCD1996

Yea, it's called exploring. Go for it. Enjoy the adventure.

What do you suppose the problem is in accepting the fact that Buddhism is a religion? — praxis

Well, Buddhism is huge so we probably can't nail it with any one label. But to try, how about a "self help methodology"?

So really the most it says is that something either does or doesn't exist. — Kenosha Kid

Why should we assume that anything can only exist or not exist when most of reality (space) does not follow that rule?

It is the promise that must necessarily be taken on faith that correctly identifies it as a religion and not the fulfillment of the promise. — praxis

Do you have ironclad proof that philosophy will take you where ever it is you wish to go? If not, does that make you religious too?

That suffering is best left managed isn't exactly bad, but in Buddhist thought it's quite limiting and unfortunate, and is particularly unfortunate when coming out of a teacher's mouth. — TLCD1996

Well ok, but as Praxis might reasonably squawk, get back to us when you can prove that enlightenment is possible. Not just in theory, not just for you or somebody else, but for us too. Until such a time, a focus on management seems the most rational and practical approach. Management of suffering by Buddhist methods or something else is not necessarily in conflict with a possible permanent solution. Maybe one could lead to the other, I really can't say.

So really the most it says is that something either does or doesn't exist. — Kenosha Kid

The inconvenient fact you seem to be avoiding is that the vast majority of reality can not be said to either exist or not exist, one or the other. So, should you be an atheist who bases your philosophy on observation of reality, you might consider observing that.

But nevertheless, it is the position of some Buddhists (especially Thai Forest reformers like Ajahn Mun) that total realization is indeed possible. — TLCD1996

I'm open to the possibility that a radical transformation of psychology may be possible for some. In every field there are people with rare abilities who go places the rest of us can not.

However, based on 50 years of interest in such topics, my best guess is that such transformations are so rare as to be largely irrelevant to most people. You know, while Mozart could teach me how to play piano, he could never teach me to be another Mozart.

Hi again Bitconnect, continued thanks for your engagement.

I'm wary of hijacking this thread any further, so perhaps we could continue here if you have continued interest? Until then, here's a brief reply...

Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that reason alone will not be sufficient to avoid nuclear disaster, and that little of significance is likely to happen until after the next detonation. Hopefully that will be an accident and not an act of war. Human beings learn primarily by pain, and not reason, so the best we can probably hope for is a manageable dose of pain which wakes us up.

I don't necessarily demand that philosophers advocate policy positions, though they often seem happy to do so on other subjects. Instead, philosophers might use nuclear weapons as an entry point in to an examination of our relationship with knowledge, the source of nuclear weapons. Surely our relationship with knowledge is an appropriate topic for philosophers to explore, yes? I can expand on this significantly if it interests you, but probably shouldn't do so here.

For this thread my point is that children should be taught that when it comes to philosophy professionals, the emperor is not wearing very many clothes. In the true spirit of philosophy, they should be taught to think for themselves, and not just blindly accept badges of authority.

Pre- moderns had a different mindset and relationship with the world, as they intuitively felt a kinship to it — Wayfarer

Yes. Imho, that's what religion arises from. It's an attempt to recover that previous intimate relationship with reality which was largely lost as thought became more prominent in the human experience and our focus substantially shifted from the real world to the abstract realm between our ears. So for example, we see concepts like "getting back to God" which is an attempt to recover that lost relationship by translating reality in to a relatable human-like figure.

The good news is that an intimate personal relationship with reality is still available. It just doesn't come as naturally as it once did, so we have to work at it more now. It's not that complicated really, it's just a matter of what we turn our attention to. If we shift our focus to the actual real world, instead of our thoughts about the real world, that intimate personal relationship with reality is still there patiently waiting for us.

This isn't a philosophical theory for me, but personal experience. It's a real thing, not just an idea. I've spent about a billion hours over the last 20 years in a nearby state park exploring this experience. It's not for everybody, but it's available to anybody who wants it enough to do the work.

What's the work? Again, not so complicated. It's just like building a relationship with a fellow human being. You put in the time, and open yourself up emotionally to the relationship. You show up, do the work, and trade your tiny little tinkertoy human thoughts for the amazing glory of the real world.

I spent most of yesterday in a place much like this:



Once you find the groove you can sit there for hours doing nothing at all, totally satisfied, at peace, experiencing the bounty of enoughness the real world is happy to provide, if only we will shut up and listen. Huh? Me? Shutting up?? I know, it seems impossible :-) but it does happen.

Experiences like this tend to put philosophy in a quite different context. It starts to dawn on you that you're not going to be able to think your way to what you really want.

As for "do unto others", that is said in every religion and believing only one religion has God's truth is not a good thing. — Athena

Ok, but nobody has to believe in that advice as a matter of faith. Everyone can try it for themselves, do their own experiment, come to their own conclusion. And THAT process is what really drives religion more so than belief.

This is not complicated, except to philosophers. Everyone has experienced love in their life, and everyone has experienced hate. Some people very rationally conclude that they like love better than hate, and so they gravitate towards communities where like minded people are discussing love.

They can't join an atheist philosophy forum to discuss love, because that conversation doesn't happen here. So they go where such conversations are happening.

As someone who has spent a bit of time in academic philosophy, I wouldn't expect a group of philosophers to be able to give great insight into nuclear proliferation. — BitconnectCarlos

Thanks for engaging Bitconnect. I can hardly disagree based on the experiences I've reported, but there's really no reason why this has to be true. As example....

Nuclear weapons seem to be a near perfect representation of the human condition. They combine in one easily understood tool (a box that goes boom) both the genius and insanity of the human condition. The genius and insanity both arise from the same source, the way that thought operates by dividing reality in to conceptual parts. This division process allows us to rearrange the parts in our mind to create new visions of reality, that is, to be creative. This very same division process creates a human experience of being divided from the rest of reality, a perception which gives rise to fear, and from there most other human problems, such as war and nuclear weapons.

I'm asking academic philosophers to reflect upon what nuclear weapons can teach us about the human condition. As example, the fact that we can't be bothered to discuss nuclear weapons even in a presidential campaign teaches us that either 1) we are incurably stupid, or 2) we don't really give a shit about civilization and each other no matter what we say, or 3) perhaps both.

Nuclear weapons can teach us that there's really no point to further philosophy or science, because whatever is learned will all be swept away in the inevitable coming firestorm if we don't get our heads out of our butts. Yes, this is debatable, so how about some expert level rational debate from the people we are paying to perform such a function?

I'm not demanding that academic philosophers become technical or political experts, which I agree is best left to others. I'm asking them to be philosophers, and to focus their attention on what is arguably the single most pressing threat to the further existence of human civilization, and thus philosophy.

I'm asking them to reflect upon what nuclear weapons can teach us about the human condition. As example, the fact that we can't be bothered to discuss nuclear weapons even in a presidential campaign teaches us that either 1) we are incurably stupid, or 2) we don't really give a shit about civilization and each other no matter what we say, or 3) perhaps both.

Nuclear weapons can teach us what a delusional dream we are living in when we can contently ignore a huge gun aimed right down our mouths. If we were powerless homeless people, the nuthouse paddy wagon would already be on it's way.

I'm only asking academics to be activists to the degree this should be asked of any citizen, well, except that to the degree they posses some cultural authority perhaps they carry a large burden of responsibility than Joe the Plumber etc.

Philosophers, especially academic philosophers, largely shut themselves off from the world to place exclusive focus on theoretic rationality. — BitconnectCarlos

The great irony is that, THIS IS NOT RATIONAL!! Would we consider an academic philosopher rational if they gave their lecture to students with a loaded gun in their mouth?? And what are nuclear weapons other than a huge loaded gun?

Ok, so I'm being hysterical again, gotta agree, but that seems a more rational response to nuclear weapons than sweeping it all under the rug and pretending that doing so is an example of expert level rationality.

I think a lot of philosophy is bullshit, but good philosophy is generally too rational and abstract to have much of relevance to a child's future in a world where history is anything but rational.

Philosophy which doesn't serve a civilization living on the knife edge of total destruction is not good philosophy. It may be very sophisticated, clever and articulate, but such philosophy is not a product of reason.

Here's an idea. No offense will be taken if you decline. If you still have contacts, invite them here to debate me on this subject, in a new thread. They can do so anonymously, so no threat to their careers.

I installed wallpaper for living until age 45, and I will happily take on as many academic philosophers as you can bring to the table. Me against entire departments, the more the merrier, bring them on if you can.

Can I weigh in here? — Athena

Of course!

Religion is based on mythology not facts that have been validated — Athena

That's ONE of the things that religion is based on. Here's an example...

Jesus suggested things like "love your neighbor like yourself". That's not a mythology, that's a practical suggestion which one can experiment with and come to one's own conclusions based on one's own experience.

To believe one can know absolute truth and that there is one source of that truth, is just wrong, and those who believe that are absolutely dangerous. — Athena

Generally agree, and would add that such phenomena are not limited to the religious.

It is unclear if TLCD1996 believes that faith is utilized — praxis

Ok, fair point, perhaps he will clarify further.

As Ajahn Geoff often suggests, these and other things (e.g. morality) are used for the sole purpose of realizing freedom from suffering. — TLCD1996

Is freedom from suffering possible? I don't claim to know, but my best guess is that if it is possible it's so rare as to be largely irrelevant to the human experience. It is however entirely possible that I don't fully understand what Buddhists mean by the phrase "freedom from suffering", and of course, different Buddhists may mean different things.

While awaiting further clarification I would propose that as I understand the phrase, if I do, "freedom from suffering" is just another glamorous becoming trip like becoming wealthy, famous or popular etc.

It seems more realistic and practical to focus instead on better managing suffering, an admittedly less glamorous agenda, but one that is clearly possible and available to just about anyone who is at least a little bit serious.

Assuming you haven’t fully realized freedom from suffering, are you not utilizing faith that full liberation is possible? — praxis

Didn't he already admit that when he said...

Any way, I think from the Buddhist perspective, the question of "philosophy or religion" isn't really all that important. As evidenced here, it leads to a lot of debate (one could say that the conclusions aren't necessarily worthy of attachment). But I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both, if we see philosophy as being oriented around an application of reason, and religion as a utilization of faith. — TLCD1996

The key is that religious belief is a conviction, impossible to change by any other notion or reasoning. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ok, sorry, not really meaning offense or trying to start a food fight, nothing personal intended, but this is just rubbish.

So what is that common thing that makes something religious, and another thing not religious? — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, words have whatever meaning we assign them. But, to address your question, as a start I would offer that religion is about our relationship with reality, whereas other methodologies such as science concern themselves with facts about reality.

Your answer to your question was...

It is the capacity for doubt in the believer; that is, if a person does not test his belief with a necessary measure of doubt and examine it through an established criterion in order to determine its viability as actual knowledge, then that belief can be said to be religious. — Merkwurdichliebe

First, discussion of religion can be greatly improved on philosophy forums if we can get past the extremely common assumption that religion is almost exclusively about belief, ideological assertions.

Next, it seems to me that, generally speaking, there is considerable more acceptance of doubt in religious communities than is typically demonstrated by atheists and philosophers.

A reminder, all religious people are not fundamentalist Baptists or Jehovah's Witnesses.

As one example, the Catholic saint Mother Teresa spoke honestly about the deep doubts that she experienced. I don't see that happening too often with atheist philosophers.

BTW, in case it matters, I'm not religious.

IMO, Trump has shined a light on some of the big issues in our society — Relativist

I give him credit for educating me regarding how many, gotta say it, stupid people we have in America. Yea, I already knew that intellectually, but I didn't really get it until Trump. Given that I'm 68 I should have gotten it long ago, but um, I guess I'm one of the stupid people.

But wait, I have a lame excuse! I've spent my entire adult life in a college town, and so fell in to the dream of thinking this is what life in general is like, when really it's just a very small sample of what life is like.

But really, no one should need Trump to teach them about stupid people. All you need to do is get in your car and drive a few miles. 80% of your fellow drivers will tailgate you, one of the stupidest acts a person can commit.

Well, anyway, thanks to Trump I'm slightly less stupid than I used to be.

As for drug reform, I would start here...

Nationalize the tobacco industry. This industry has been killing 400,000 Americans a year for decades, plus millions more around the world. It's a far too dangerous an enterprise to be in private hands.

Once nationalized, all the money which now goes to advertising and profit can be redirected to further public education and treatment. The product can be gradually re-engineered to be far less addictive.

Everyone who wants to can still smoke, but the only legal source is either the government, or growing tobacco on your own property for your own personal use.

Any private person or entity which attempts to go in to the tobacco business should receive the strictest possible penalty available under the law.

Be rational. Focus first on where the greatest harm is being committed.

400,000 dead Americans a year, deliberately killed for profit.

If we are unable to grasp why such carnage needs to be addressed with decisive action, there may be no point in concerning ourselves with any of the other drug issues, as in such a case we'd clearly be too stupid to have hope of any real success.

To put this in context, 400,000 Americans may die from the corona virus before the epidemic is behind us. But that's just once. Not every year for decades. We're very whipped up about the virus, as we should be. We should be even more whipped up about a much larger death toll.

To stand way back and view the question from the most philosophical perspective...

Every decision we make will eventually lead to death, and much sooner that we typically realize.

And so one decision we might focus on is...

What is our relationship with death?