Mahayana emptiness is not the same as Theravada emptiness. Normally, when Buddhists talk of emptiness, they mean it in the Mahayana sense ("nothing has any inherent existence or nature"). But that's not what it means in Theravada, e.g. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/integrityofemptiness.html

What do you mean 'some background'. You were brought up as a buddhist? How does that make it easier to think about suffering? — I like sushi

I've been around Buddhism in one way or another for more than twenty years. I've studied some of the Pali Suttas, and I can find my way around Theravada doctrine, and also in roundabout other Buddhist schools.

Especially in the context of Early Buddhism, it is often said that the Buddha taught only one thing: Suffering and the end of suffering. With all this talk about suffering, one becomes comfortable enough to think and talk about it.

; in fact, they see the whole point of life in them.
— baker

That has nothing to do with AN.. — schopenhauer1

Did you not speak of pursuing other pleasures, apart from having children?

And the resemblance to Buddhism is the life is suffering aspect. Agreed about the solution to the problem.

The AN does not usually need karma, reincarnation or similar ideas,

Which is why antinatalism is so impotent. ha.

unless some kind of metaphor (which just makes it a Western version something similar to cause/effect/contingency). Buddhism, like Pessimism sees the system suffering of desire.. Schopenhauer had some great parallels he mentions in The World as Will and Representation. You should read passages from Book 4. The 8 fold path and such is interesting, but no such prescription except wholesale asceticism, compassion, and aesthetic contemplation is offered by Schop and I believe he thought that only certain character-types will be able to endure the path of asceticism.

Yes, character-types like these:

I conclude that you are not familiar with Christian theology then, and especially have not read Thomas Aquinas. He explicitly states (Summa Theologica, Q.2, Art.2) "Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us." — Metaphysician Undercover

And you have not read the Catechism of the RCC, I presume?

And look, even in the passage you quote, it is said first: "Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us."

Aquinas assumes the existence of God can be self-evident to us. Making inferences based on His effects is only a secondary epistemic method.

Monotheists frequently demonstrate their knowledge of God with other monotheists; they form an epistemic community.
— baker

These two statements directly contradict each other. Suppose I approach you, and insist "God can only be known directly". Then I say, "let me demonstrate my knowledge of God to you." Or, in the inverse order?

For monotheists who are part of the same monotheistic epistemic community, this is not a problem.

You keep insisting on approaching the topic of knowing God on your own terms that are extraneous to monotheism (and you interpret standard monotheistic references to suit this agenda of yours).

You wouldn't approach mathematics or chemistry on your own terms, would you? No, you comply with the demands of the field of knowledge. It's pretty much only when it comes to religion/spirituality that so many people insist on their own terms. As if religion/spirituality wouldn't be a field of knowledge in its own right.

↪baker I don't see it that way at all: I see it as knowing yourself better with the added benefit of others' experience. — Janus

Really? When, say, Evangelical Christians tell you who you really are, do you deem yourself as "knowing yourself better"?

If there were someone who knows, how could she demonstrate her knowledge such that everyone would be able to see that in fact she does know?
— Janus

Why everyone?

Can you explain?
— baker

Any knowledge which is reliably transmissable is intersubjectively corroborable; so if anyone understood what consciousness is in a way which was demonstrable it would have already been demonstrated.

You didn't answer my question.

So, the notion that some people could, together or independently, know what consciousness is, even though nobody else knows what they know, or even that they know, seems nonsensical.

And yet some people can, together or independently, know fancy stuff in, say, advanced mathematics or nuclear physics, even though nobody else knows what they know, or even that they know -- and nobody frets about it!!


How is it that only when it comes to religious/spiritual topics, that the vocal opponents of those fields of knowledge demand that said knowledge either be accessible, demonstrable to everyone, indiscriminately, regardless of their age, intellectual prowess, education, interest -- or we must claim there's nothing to it?!

The idea that God can be known directly is nonsensical.

And you display this same kind of confidence about other things you don't know?

That's why the enlightened don't go around preaching to the unenlightened.

By definition, special knowledge is the prerogative of the specialists. The masses must remain unenlightened unless they make an effort to acquire special knowledge.

On their part, the enlightened must compromise and externally adapt to the world of the unenlightened.

But inwardly, that is, intellectually and spiritually, they have been set free from ignorance. — Apollodorus

Yes.

My intention was to formulate a simple argument that demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is the only moral end, in order to stimulate discussion over what other moral ends there might be. I believe this argument also demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is always the highest-prioritized ethical end. — darthbarracuda

Sure, suffering is okay -- as long as it's not you who has to suffer.

Let's say life starts,idk, 8 weeks after conception such that abortion after that point is wrong. Now, say the genetic modification was done on week 0. Does that make it ok? Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right? — khaled

No, "idk" is not good enough. In your scenario, everything hinges on where you place the beginning of life/personhood.

Secondly, your scenario is partly analogous to putting poison in a well and claiming that as long as nobody drinks from the well, there is no injustice. But what if you don't warn people about the poisoned water? What if people have no other well to drink from, except this one?

I never viewed the Stoic as a Carpe Diem entity. I always thought Jordan Petersons lobster eating SSRI taking bloke was closer to what can be conceived as a Stoic. — Shawn

No. You must envision a proud and capable military general as an exemplary Stoic.

They [modern-day stoics] have abandoned the metaphysical underpinnings of Stoicism, which, however, are of vital importance for contextualizing Stoic ethics, making them actionable, without too much difficulty and regret.
— baker

This isn’t a very objectionable claim, being so oddly expressed, but it feels like I should object, so I will object, and demand that you at least try to substantiate it. — praxis

I'm pretty sure we've been over this at least once. E.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543997

Not sure how else to respond to the claim that Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness. — praxis

They don't. "Emptiness" is not part of Theravada doctrine. Individual Theravadins, even many of them, believe all kinds of things, such as lucky charms or praying to Quan Yin. But that doesn't make those things part of Theravada doctrine.

In other languages the addition of “to be” and “to do” is less exaggerated as maybe they believe to “do” is a form of “to be” and perhaps vice versa, therefore doesn’t have to be reiterated. Instead of “I am going” it’s more equivalent to “I going” or “I currently go” — Benj96

You seem to be talking about grammatical aspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect

Also in other languages we express these same sentiments with the possessive verb “to have” or the action verb “To do”.

You seem to be talking about auxiliary verbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verb

And yet we're also as polarized and tribal as ever before. — Xtrix

Not everyone is like that; and not everyone who isn't in one or the other camp is a "fence sitter".
But those who think in polarized, dichotomous terms don't see that; to such polarized thinkers, a person is either in one camp or another, or a deplorable fence sitter, and that's it.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix

It's not possible to meaningfully and without hostility address this while thinking in the above-mentioned polarized terms.

The question I have for you at this point is, "does (4) deserve to be part of our notion of weakness, or should it be cast out as unnecessary?" What is good about (4) in relation to the other three we have here? Just another reminder that these four don't constitute and exhaustive list, only what we've managed to cobble together here. — kudos

I have to admit I have to read most of your posts more than once, because I can't follow your train of thought.

The topic of weakness is something I myself am keenly interested in. I wouldn't frame it in the way you do, though, but in terms of looking into the idea of might makes right, like I did in several of my threads.

I think the salient point of weakness are its moral implications, including actions based on them. If a being is weak, does this mean that it is not unjust to destroy it (simply on account that it is weak)? If a being is weak, is it possible to wrong it, to commit an injustice in regard to it, or is any act against such a being justified?

I used to play some amateur soccer. I liked the dynamics of the game, the tactics, the precision. But I never could relate to other players' obsession with winning. Why they were elated when they scored a goal, or why they were depressed when they failed to do so.

If they are in it for winning, then why bother with soccer and with the rules by which it is supposed to be played?? Why not just get into a fist fight and settle the score once and for all??

Doing sports, or politics, for that matter, when what one really wants is a fist fight, makes sports or politics a sick joke.

It requires enough faith in people that you can allow them to discover their own way.

Every generation faces challenges to that faith. People who want to destroy that faith abound. You're an example of a person who's never had that faith.

It's not for everyone. That's for sure. — frank

Wow. Just wow. Jesus.

to accept loss — frank

You speak like a right-winger. Formulating things in terms of winning and losing, while caring nothing about the problems at hand that politicians are supposed to solve.

It doesn't appear to me that you understand what democracy is. You have to have the emotional maturity to accept loss. — frank

Eh?

Where is the "emotional maturity" of doing politics primarily or even solely on the level of whose will prevails??

Again: Define "suffering". — baker

The general AN position is against 'suffering' which we all understand (no need to redefine the word). — I like sushi

Actually, not having a precise definition of "suffering" is part of the problem. Often, it's understood so broadly that it becomes a meaningless term.

Either way it's nice to see people thinking about stuff like this even if some of it makes almost no sense to me and what I say makes almost no sense to them

It's interesting for me to see what people say on this topic. I have some background in Early Buddhism, so it's easy to for me to think about suffering, but I can now better appreciate people who don't have such a background and how they approach the problem of suffering.

It's difficult to keep this discussion distinct from the antinatalism discussions elsewhere. I'm trying to avoid critiquing arguments in favor of antinatalism, and focus on why it's unpersuasive. Maybe this post makes it clearer how closely connected I think our experience of moral life is to what we find persuasive in moral discussion. — Srap Tasmaner

In some ways, antinatalism is, basically, a stunted Buddhism, or even more a stunted Jainism. Both of these religions question the project of life itself and seek or propose an end to it, on account of suffering.

Antinatalism is putting forward some ideas that can, to some extent, be found in those religions, but antinatalism does away with most of the other ideas and practices of those religions. This is one of the reasons why antinatalism has such a poor persuasive power. It doesn't have its own metaphysics, nor much of a system of ethics, except for that one aspect of not brining new people into the world. Their idea of not bringing new people into this world kind of "floats in the air", only loosely connected to some ideas of injustice, suffering, hardship, but without any concrete underpinnings -- which, however, a theory would need to have if it successfully wants to go against the flow of life as it is usually lived (the way Buddhism and Jainism go against this flow).

What AN ultimately does is question the project of life itself, and this is scary itself. But it's not much more than Buddhism, just taken to a practical level. — schopenhauer1

I've been waiting for you to mention Buddhism.

The resemblance between AN and Buddhism is very limited and merely superficial. You formulate that idea nicely -- "What AN ultimately does is question the project of life itself". So does Buddhism. But Buddhism goes about it very differently than AN, and most importantly, Buddhism proposes a way out of suffering -- while alive. Also, the reason why a category of Buddhist practitioners doesn't engage in sex (and thus doesn't produce children) is not motivated by the desire to not cause an injustice to potential future beings, but out of a general committment to not indulge in sensual pleasures. In contrast, AN still pursue sensual pleasures; in fact, they see the whole point of life in them.

Many people think in black-and-white terms. They are not interested in understanding things, but in taking sides. So even when they read a (would-be) philosophical text, they do so with an intention of taking sides. If it turns out that they can't do so easily (because they agree with some things in the text, while disagree with others, and some they don't understand), they take this as a cue to oppose the text/the author.
— baker
How do you deal with such people? — Wheatley

You throw rocks at them, or shoot Hellfire missiles at them, whichever is more handy for you. Barring that, you leave their presence.

You've got to hide your love of wisdom away.

I'll say this: Your way of describing philosophy can be very useful for communication on the Philosophy Forum, but there's no god-like figure that can decree that this way is the correct way of doing philosophy. — Wheatley

Hence this should be the preferred method of philosophizing:

The request for clarification remains cogent. — Banno

It depends on how it's formulated.

"You're not making any sense!"

vs.

"I don't understand what you mean here. Could you explain it a bit more? What is the relation between your A and B?"


But I suppose no self-respecting philosopher would ever utter the latter, at least not meaning it genuinely.

My memory commands me not to desire or fear too much as things are happening as they do with or without my influence on their happenings. — Shawn

That's not a Stoic stance, although it's a stoic one.

In regards to Stoicism, and this will come off as trite; but, modern day living is taxing on the Stoics mind. — Shawn

No, that should be: Living is taxing on the modern stoic's mind.

The problem with so many modern-day stoics is that they are just that, stoics, with a lower key. They have abandoned the metaphysical underpinnings of Stoicism, which, however, are of vital importance for contextualizing Stoic ethics, making them actionable, without too much difficulty and regret. In contrast, the modern stoic lives in a cold, indifferent universe, believes it to be chaotic at some basic level, and he sees himself as a product of this universe. No wonder he has a lot of troubles and is apathetic.

One cannot believe in modern science and still be a Stoic.

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

1. They see no use in those ideas.

2. They see no use in the challenge.

3. They don't want to accept the challenge as proposed by a particular person (but maybe they would if it were done by someone else).

4. They don't want to accept the challenge as proposed at a particular time and place (but maybe they would if it were done at some other time, some other place).

In such a system, what matters the most is whose will prevails
— baker

Yes. Believe it or not, democracy is about power. — frank

Then you shouldn't fret when Trump and co. win.

Once you hold that what matters is whose will prevails, you can quit the pretense of being intelligent and just grunt.

He'll ride in on a flying pig and open the world's first fission reactor. — Wayfarer

Sorry, but as always, you underestimate him and the support he has.

I'd prefer that by "democratic", the EU would follow the will of most of its participants when it comes to policy. — Manuel

And let right-wingers win?

Here’s an interesting challenge concerning Joe Biden. But the challenge is for you, not him.

See if you can watch this entire compilation video of Joe Biden’s love of hair sniffing. — 0 thru 9

Oh god.

Would you think it’s wrong if someone genetically engineered a severe disability into their child? Because in this case, similar to the birth example, at the time the act is done there is no one to suffer an injustice by it. Yet it’s clearly an injustice no? — khaled

When do you believe that life/personhood starts? At conception, birth, 18 years of age ...?



Suppose there would a Lebensborn kind of maternity camp for prospective mothers. A new building, ready for use, and a couple of buses of women of childbearing age on the way to said camp. These women are already pregnant, or intend to become pregnant at said camp (which has all the facilities necessary for that). Schopenhauer2, resentful of the maternity project, poisons the drinking water at the camp with a poison that would make the women abort, become infertile, or give birth to defective babies. Yet he gets caught, as Hilda the Chief of the Maternity Ward catches him in the act.

What injustice did Schopenhauer2 do? Remember, the women are still on the way in the buses.
He committed acts against public health, he committed attempted manslaughter, attempted grave bodily harm. But he did not commit manslaughter, murder, or grave bodily harm. The law has a special category for _attempted_ criminal acts. And this is the extent of Schopenhauer2's injustice, nothing more.

You would like me to think that this state of affairs is somehow off the table as far as evaluation. I don't see how. It is good that X prevented a baby from being born in horrible conditions. — schopenhauer1

The only person who benefits in any way from this is the antinatalist.

Antinatalists are people who seek happiness in life from other people not being born. Antinatalists get an ego boost when other people aren't being born.


Which is a rather shitty way to pursue happiness.

But the alternative strikes me as far worse; allowing nonsense to propagate. — Banno

Nonsense isn't like weeds, so that once you pull or dig it out, it would be gone for a least a while.

Nonsense is something far more systemic, complex, eluding direct action.

I a lot folks dismiss ideas because they claim it lacks "clarity". The assumption seems to be that if an idea, or concept, is not easily comprehended it is therefore dishonest. There are some issues with this line of thinking. — Wheatley

Many people think in black-and-white terms. They are not interested in understanding things, but in taking sides. So even when they read a (would-be) philosophical text, they do so with an intention of taking sides. If it turns out that they can't do so easily (because they agree with some things in the text, while disagree with others, and some they don't understand), they take this as a cue to oppose the text/the author.

Again: Define "suffering".

So far, it seems that you're focusing on life's hardships and equating those with suffering.

Where do you draw the un-crossable line between human weaknesses and animal ones still remains a mystery. Surely it would be unbelievable to say humans and animals are the same thing, but it would be equally unbelievable to say we share nothing in common with the animals when there are some obvious similarities, depending on your religious beliefs. — kudos

It seems the problem at hand is of a more general nature (and has nothing to do with animals, or comparing humans and animals). Namely, it's that it is hard to meaningfully, comprehensively define "weak" and "strong", while at the same time, both these terms play important, even vital roles in how we understand the world and ourselves.

There is a fundamental instinct that humans have regardless of their social personalities. "Weakness" is a relative social term, which may or may not play a role in an instinct that would kick in a given situation. — Caldwell

What instinct?

Please re-read the below quote again, and see how the switch from animal instinct to "weak relative to their potential" happens. Is there not a fallacious argument here?

In natural predator-prey relationships if a predator is so strong a hunter it proliferates and the prey population declines, their group gets equally wiped out. Would you say in this sense that weakness is necessary for survival, and thereby there is some good in weak people just in lieu of the fact that they are weak relative to their potential?
— kudos

This isn't an argument. It's two sentences, the latter of which is a question. A syllogism yet needs to be derived from this, and doing so requires some discussion to clarify the premises (as I've been asking all along ...).

How did you determine that someone who gains philosophical truth must educate the others? — Tom Storm

+1

Then I think we were talking about different things, and what you said was not relevant to the point that I was making, which you replied to.

I was talking about knowing a cause (God for example), through its effects (the physical world He created). We have no capacity to directly observe the cause, but we can observe the effects, and infer the necessity of the cause. If you cannot relate to this way of knowing God, I could switch it for an example from quantum physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the way to know God is not the way to know tables and chairs, or atoms, or anything else.

Remember, we started with this:

We know God through His effects, the reality of physical existence, but we cannot see Him directly as the cause, His existence is inferred.
— Metaphysician Undercover

No. Every self-respecting Christian has a personal relationship with God. — baker

You started with the example of knowing God. But God is not known through its effects. God is supposed to be known directly.

How can you possibly know it's pretense?
— baker

Because "knowledge" in the epistemological sense is justified, and "justified" implies demonstrated, which means shared with others. So if an individual claims to know something, but what is known cannot be demonstrated, or shared with others, it is not "knowledge" in epistemology, which is where the accepted definition of "knowledge": is derived from, and it is therefore just a person claiming to have knowledge, which is not real knowledge, but a pretense.

Monotheists frequently demonstrate their knowledge of God with other monotheists; they form an epistemic community.

Do you think that because monotheists can't/don't/won't demonstrate their knowledge of God with just anyone, or, in this case, you, this means that they are pretending?

Remember, in Plato's cave allegory, the philosopher, having seen beyond the reflections, toward understand the true reality, is compelled to return to the cave to teach the others. Without doing this educating, the person would just be someone assuming I am right about reality, and they are all wrong about reality, and such a person would not be a philosopher at all, but a poser.

Again, monotheists are sharing their knowledge outside of their epistemic community as well. It's called proselytizing. It's hardly outrageous to expect that the audience does some work as well.