For all practical intents and purposes, we agree that the Pali Canon is "the word of the Buddha". — baker

Yes, and like any text open to interpretation.

I'm not a Buddhist and my relationship with Buddhism is rather complicated. But when someone claims to know better than the Buddha (or better than the Pali Canon), this catches my attention and I am very curious as to whether the person can live up to their claim. — baker

I haven't said I know better than the Buddha. I said that I may disagree with aspects of what is taken to be his teaching.

Your two paragraphs contradict eachother. — baker

That statement is useless without accompanying explanation.

You said you read all those Buddhist sources, but you still have those questions?? — baker

Those questions are not directed at the Buddha's teaching. They are general questions. You seem to be stuck in your strawman view of me as thinking I know better than the Buddha. I don't accept that the Buddha was perfectly enlightened, so for me the Buddha is just another man that I might agree or disagree with, depending on interpretation; so it's not a question of knowing better or not knowing better.

A.k.a. "The Third and a half noble truth: Suffering is manageable".
No, this is not part of the Buddha's teaching. — baker

So explain what you think is meant by extinction of suffering, given that the pains and afflictions of the body cannot be extinguished without extinguishing the body, and that would mean its death.

Of course all of this is, at least in regard to the sense in which I think the OP intended to question the idea of Realism, way off topic. Perhaps it should be moved to a thread of its own.

But these guys (extremists) think they're the good guys. — TheMadFool

Does it matter what they think? Wasn't it Jesus who said "By their fruits shall ye know them"?

Also, no one seems to be able to explain what it could even mean to say that abstractions are real independently of the human mind, other than to posit a universal mind, but Wayfarer refuses to posit that, if I have understood him right.

My best guess is universals are abstractions, for them to exist, immaterial, nonphysical as they are, is to open the gates and welcome into our ontology whatever immaterial, nonphysical thing one fancies. God? Soul? — TheMadFool

Yes, but how does belief in God or the soul necessarily make us better people. Apparently it has the opposite effect in the case of Muslim and Christian extremists. It is arguable that belief in and concern about an afterlife can undermine concern with the injustices of this life, thus making a person morally worse, not better. So, at best it is a neutral proposition.

Sure, you've said over and over that something has been lost and forgotten in our secular culture, you've said it has to do with believing universals have an independent existence, and I've said I can't see how that belief would make anyone a better person than another who didn't believe that. What other beliefs do you think necessarily would follow from this belief and why do you think believing in the reality of universals would necessarily, or even on average, make people morally better (if that is what you believe)?

I doubt your position is clear to anyone who has read through this thread, but I invite anyone who thinks they do understand it, and cares to explain what they think you are referring to. I mean after all this is a philosophy forum the purpose of which, as I understand it, is to discuss and critique ideas isn't it? Or do you have some other idea about what the purpose of a philosophy forum is or should be? I'm only asking you to clarify your position.

It's not because it's a deep topic. That's a facile cop out. I'm as familiar as you are with metaphysical ideas. It's because you can't or won't explain yourself. I'm ready to listen.

I think that makes a profound point - about the nature of universals, the nature of reality, and the sense in which metaphysics has become entangled in religion, and, so, tarred with the same brush. — Wayfarer

I hear you on all that, but I'm just not convinced that it makes any significant difference, ethically speaking (which I think is the thing of paramount importance) whether one believes in the independent existence of universals or not. I also don't think it makes any significant practical or scientific difference or really any significant difference at all.

As you know, I'm convinced that metaphysics cannot be anything more than a (valuable in itself as a creative consideration of the possibilities we can imagine) speculative exercise. So, in other words I think it is more important to have an interest in and intellectual grasp of the metaphysical possibilities we can imagine than it is to hold any particular metaphysical position. I see holding a particular position as being a matter of personal preference, taste or assessment of plausibility. So, I'm struggling to understand you on this.

So they're the only choices? It's either nothing, or a religious dictatorship? — Wayfarer

There are far more choices of religion today in our culture than there ever were in the past. Anyone who wants to practice any religion can source all the information about it they want and find a religious community to practice with. If you don't want to practice a religion you don't have to. So it is an individual choice now, would you prefer that one particular religion, or a couple, or a few should be imposed on everyone?

If it's not that, then what are you lamenting?

It's certainly nothing I've ever managed to convey to you, although not for want of trying. I suppose there's a lesson there. — Wayfarer

If there really is something that's been lost apart from what I've outlined above then you should be able to say what that is. In what alternative way would you have society culturally and politically structured vis a vis religion? What other option do you see other than those I've described?

Perhaps there is indeed a lesson there.

The secular city walls off anything regarded as religious as being essentially an individual matter. That is of course preferable to any form of religious government, but it also leads to an impoverished culture which is technologically advanced but spiritually empty. Something has been forgotten so thoroughly that we've forgotten that it's been forgotten. — Wayfarer

The only difference between a so-called secular culture (in which various religions abound) and a (what's the right word for its antithesis?) theocratic culture is that one particular religion is not mandated, or ta least advocated politically advocated over other religions, or the absence of religion.

So "what has been lost and forgotten" is not much of a loss at all and not worth remembering (other than as an undesirable political, cultural and historical difference), unless you'd prefer to live under theocratic rule. Would you prefer that?

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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,

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.

It seems to me that to most people, good and bad are as plainly obvious as tables and chairs. People typically don't lose sleep over right and wrong, good and bad, but are as certain of them as they are of the chair they're sitting on. — baker

On this we agree.

Which is a morally vacant view as it does not address the cause of suffering and does not uproot the cause of suffering. — baker

It's not "a morally vacant view": the problem is that (some? many? most?) people do not embrace the view and act on it.

I'm obviously on-board with this to some degree, but 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

"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts." C S Peirce

:up:

You are gravely missing the point. It's conveninent to harp on people's risk aversion because that's a simple truism.

But the actual issue isn't risk aversion. It's a simplistic, zombified outlook on life that promises people a good life, but sooner or later lets them down, and then blames them, or, at most, shrugs its shoulders.

Also, see my comments about luck in my reply to Mr. Storm. — baker

I don't know what point you think I am missing unless it is that I don't share your cynical view of what I imagine you take to be the "normal outlook" as expressed in "It's a simplistic, zombified outlook on life that promises people a good life, but sooner or later lets them down, and then blames them, or, at most, shrugs its shoulders."

I can see a certain "caricaturistic" sense in which things could be looked at that way but I think that characterization is simplistic, and completely unhelpful when considering any real world issues.

Why are high government officials, epidemiologists, public advertisements, and so on telling us that the risk of something going wrong is low, and that therefore, we should get vaccinated? — baker

Because those opposed to the vaccine are spreading misinformation suggesting that the risk is high?

Do you ever reflect on risk before crossing the road or eating seafood? I'm pretty sure you don't. — baker

You don't have to reflect on risk when you get vaccinated either.

Exactly!

Indeed, the people who ended up with strokes or dead from the vaccine experienced hardly much of an inconvenience.


Perhaps you don't see it, but you yourself are using the language of liberals and rightwingers. — baker

No, I am not. There are such risks with other vaccines and with all or most medications. Everyone is required to accept some risk in order to participate in work and life. What about the risks on construction and mining sites? What about the risks to health from the air-conditioning systems in high rise buildings? Or the risk of fire in such buildings? Or vehicle exhausts in the cities? The risks of air flight and indeed the risks of driving and traveling on public transport? There is always going to be some small percentage of unlucky people. But exactly the same is true of the natural world. We and the other animals we share this planet with are potentially subject to natural disasters. In fact we are by far the greatest risk to the other animals, unfortunately.

What justification do we have for demanding that life is absolutely risk free? On the other hand it doesn't seem unreasonable to require people to do everything they can to minimize risk if there is most likely to be little personal cost involved in doing so. I took the vaccine and I felt like shit for about 24 hours, but I'm not complaining. Most people I have spoken to didn't suffer even that, but just had a mildly sore arm for a day or two.

For me, probably not Banno, there is a kind of mystical experience in poetry, music, art, and even prayer, that transcends language to a point, not completely. So, the mystical can be seen in, for example, an act of prayer, and it's not about being true or false, it's about what the experience shows us. Wittgenstein admired some of the writings Kierkegaard (I don't put that much value in Kiekegaard), but I think it had to do with admiring the transcendent reach, right or wrong. The mire I'm referring to is confusion, but I don't think poetry escapes this - depending on what you mean by the mire. As long as we use language, in whatever venue, we are in the mire. Don't think I'm saying something against clarity, because I'm not, I'm just saying that language is a muddled approach to reality. I do think that Wittgenstein's thinking helps to bring us one step closer to clarity, if clarity is the objective.

I'm not sure I communicated my point well, but there you have it. — Sam26

I agree with you about the mystical element in the arts and religion. I also like what I have read of Kierkegaard's work. As I understand him he's more about the immanent than the transcendent; in other words he's more about the existential leap of faith than he is about advocating the idea of any transcendent realm. Of course as with any thinker whose writings are dense and allusive, various interpretations are possible.

I think poetry escapes confusion because it is not trying to arrive at clarity, or at least any definite propositional kind of clarity, lacking any ambiguity. Perhaps by "confusion" you mean more uncertainty, and if this is the case I would agree with you because I see (at least much of the best) poetry as a celebration of uncertainty. Would you include the other arts in this judgement as well?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say language is a muddled approach to reality. And again I'd ask whether you would include the language of music and the language of the visual arts in this. Perhaps you mean that what we say about reality is never reality itself? But then the very idea of reality would seem to be impossible without language.

People are being suspended or fired from their jobs for not being vaccinated. As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal. — baker

The legality of requiring vaccination in certain industries is open to question and will be determined in courts if it is challenged. Whether such requirements are ethically reasonable is another question. The Right has generally supported the right of proprietors of businesses to hire and fire, for whatever reasons they like, as they see fit. And now it is mostly the Right that is squealing about it and calling it an infringement of individual rights.

But it is unreasonable to expect people to practice solidarity after beating into them for decades the doctrine of rugged individualism. — baker

It is mostly the Right that has promoted the idea of rugged individualism; not everyone has swallowed it, though.

It does, precisely because in the current situation, some (many?) governments are not acting in accordance with laws. (Or else, existing laws have been found to be unconstitutional.) — baker

Here in Australia it is (some) industries and business who are mandating vaccination and our Liberal (Rightwing) prime minister has issued statements warning businesses who do that that they may be subject to legal action for doing so. Such actions by businesses and industries may or may not be tested in court, but beyond that, the actions seem reasonable enough, since having a vaccination is hardly much of an inconvenience.

If people have serious problems with it (mental or physical) they may be able to obtain medical exemptions, and I believe some people here already have done so. The downside there will be that some people who simply don't want to be vaccinated will rort the system and obtain unwarranted medical exemption. I know of at least one case of that and also one case of a person gaining an unwarranted exemption from wearing a mask in the workplace.

This isn't to promote a kind of skepticism, although there are things to be skeptical about, but only to point out that language traps us into a kind of mire from which we cannot escape. There is a kind of mysticism to my point, and I think to Wittgenstein's thinking. — Sam26

I think this is right: it is only the language of poetry that can escape the mire; because it doesn't aim to be propositional but rather allusive and evocative.

:up:

A realist will say that either there is water at the poles, or there isn't - that either the statement or its negation is true.

An anti-realist may say that the statement "There is water at Mercury's poles" is neither true not not true, until the observation is made.

Which is the better approach? — Banno

The anti-realist could say that the situation is such that if we were to observe Mercury's poles we would either find water there or not. The idea would be that water is a relational thing; it only exists when whatever is out there interacts with us such as to produce a perception of water. So water is not "out there" absent our perceptions, but whatever is out there is in either a condition such that a perception of water would be produced or not.The question then becomes: must the anti-realist non-committedly say there is no truth or falsity about there being water out there, or must she commit to saying that it is false that there is water out there since water is only relationally real? This seems to be a conceptual problem for the anti-realist.

On the other hand. if the realist says there is either water out there or not, she is not thereby committed to claiming that water, as such, has anything more than a relational reality, so I would say the realist locution is the less problematic.

How would anyone go about doing that without simply getting into a second level of some scientists saying one thing, some saying another and having to decide who to trust? That route doesn't seem to get us anywhere. — Isaac

If he said the things it is claimed that he said, then there should be documentary evidence, no?

Why? — Isaac

Why not? If ten people say that the truck involved in the accident was at fault and two say the car was at fault, who would you believe? The opinions of ten experts is more likely, although obviously not guaranteed, to be correct than the opinions of two who disagree. It's called scientific consensus, the basis of peer review. It's not infallible, obviously, but it's the best we have.

If you're interested, heres a response in the BMJ (a considerably more reputable journal that 'sciencebasedmedicine.org, but as I say, each to their own). — Isaac

I read that article and I have no argument with it. I haven't suggested Ioannidis should be vilified or de-platformed. I don't care whether sciencebasedmedicine.org is more or less reputable than the BMJ, all I would care about, if I cared about what he says, is whether the claims made about Ioannidis' claims are true. If sciencebasedmedicine.org has made false claims about Ioannidis then he, or his supporters, should be able to expose their falsity.

I can't be bothered trying to find that out because I don't rely on him for advice anyway; but I would say that anyone who does rely on him for advice would be well advised to find out if the claims about his claims are true.

I follow the consensus, or at least what I perceive to be the consensus because I, as a non-expert, simply have nothing else to go on and I believe that if the majority of experts believe a certain thing then that is most likely, although obviously not guaranteed, out of the suite of opinions out there, to be correct.

But here's what I just don't understand about the argument you're making (and Janus). If all the psychotics stopped taking their medicines there'd be a crisis in the mental health institutions. Should we all take anti-psychotics in solidarity, because some must? If all travellers refused the vaccination appropriate to their destination there'd be a massive increase in tropical diseases in returnees, must we all take such measures out of solidarity? If all diabetics stopped taking insulin hospitals would be overwhelmed, must we all take insulin? — Isaac

These seem to be poor analogies to me. Psychosis and diabetes are not infectious, so there;s that. And as to taking vaccines to protect against tropical diseases that may be caught in certain regions, what would be the point of those not traveling to such regions taking them?

If the claims made in that article about the claims Ionaddis made early on about the likely number of deaths due to covid and his dismissal of the idea that covid was anything more than a bad flu are true, then I don't think he's a reliable source of good insight. Anyway I was not making any claim. one way or the other, about the status of Ionaddis as a reliable source of advice, I was just presenting an alternative view to the one AJJ obviously has about the man.

In any case was there anything in that article you disagree with, any criticism of the actual article as opposed to focusing on the author's credentials? Although I have said I follow what I perceive to be the advice of the majority of experts, it doesn't follow that when considering what two individuals have to say that I will automatically default to believing the one who seems to be the more qualified. Highly qualified individuals can and do lose the plot, even in relation to their chosen professions.

Yeah I forgot to include the link: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/

OK, thanks for your reply. I don't share your confidence in those sources you mention, or in your ability to form a rationally justified opinion that contradicts the experts, and reading your posts has convinced me that arguing further would be wasting my time and effort, so I'll leave it there.
You might want to look at this critique of Ionaddis...or not.
Good luck.

Temporary hospital crises no worse than what we’ve had. — AJJ

You seriously beleive that this hasn't been improving as more and more people have been vaccinated?

My opinions are formed partly from listening to some experts over others. John Ioannidis and Sunetra Gupta being two good examples. — AJJ

You believe two experts against how many others? On what basis? Because you like what they say more?

If your opinions are only "partly formed" by listening to those, then what else contributes to forming them?

Have you accepted yet that you might be wrong? — AJJ

Of course it's logically possible that the expert consensus is wrong. Can you give any good reason for thinking that it is likely to be wrong?

My compassion is for those who have lost their livelihoods, their lives and lives of their children to authoritarian measures implemented and advocated for by people too stupid to have done otherwise. — AJJ

What do you think would happen if we let it rip and didn't bother with vaccination or lockdowns ? when people started dying like flies, you don't think panic would ensue and people would lock themselves down?

Have you accepted yet that you might be wrong, and that you are in a much less qualified position to judge the likely outcomes than the experts?

This isn’t particularly alarming when you consider that worldwide about 60,000,000 people die each year. This virus principally affects those who are elderly and in poor health, i.e. those who would constitute a significant portion of that number anyway. — AJJ

A remarkable display of compassion; well done!

The current case fatality raise is just over 2%, so based on that if we just let 'er rip and everyone were to contract the virus, we could expect a death toll from covid alone of 160,000,000. Add to that deaths from the medical facilities being overrun and economic collapse and it looks like a pretty grim scenario.

You don’t think a side has ever fought a battle that for the world would be better lost? — AJJ

If this battle is lost the whole world loses.

In my view those disastrous consequences will be effected by mistaken people incapable of admitting fault; people who will never truly accept that they might be wrong. — AJJ

If there were enough recalcitrants to cause the vaccination program to fail, yes, and of course I wouldn't expect them to admit they had been wrong. I can't see any evidence to suppose the vaccination program itself will result in disastrous consequences, but of course that, however unlikely, is not impossible. There are always risks involved in any course of action.

:rofl: