So. I maintain that a certain American businessman/politician who sometimes gets branded as a narcissist, is not a narcissist, but that he only plays one.

Are you agreeing with Humpty or with me? You can't have both. — Banno

Both of you say that the meaning of a word is in its use. Except that Humpty Dumpty goes further and specifies which use (the one of his choice; the one that prevails).

You're looking at things from the perspective of one who is birthed into and thereby embedded within, at the very least, one language, and from this vantage I of course agree with you. I looked at the "which came first" question a bit more literally in the ontological sense. — javra

Unless you subscribe to a kind of biblical "and then God gave man language", you're always looking at matters of language as someone who is birthed into and thereby embedded within, at the very least, one language.

I assume that just like there is unbroken evolutionary continuity that spans through time to our present state, from our ancestors who lived in the sea to ape like creatures to H. sapiens, so there is unbroken evolutionary continuity of language, where at each t + 1 we use what was already there at t and make other things out of it (but which cannot rightfully be called "new"). It's not recycling, but it's also not invention.

I don't see how the "which came first" question can be asked meaningfully.

f you are saying we should not disregard the importance of socioeconomic needs out of some lofty notion of wisdom then I agree. — Fooloso4

Absolutely.

You seem to hold a rather naïve view of life. Which is probably why it seems everything always comes down to powerplays for you. Thoughts? — Tom Storm

A sigh.

Having worked closely with people who live 'dysfunctional' and distressed lives - who suicide and overdose and slash themselves with broken glass and tend to be dead by 40 - I see little evidence of strategizing and play acting.

Duh. Not everyone who gets branded as a narcissist is one.

shouldn't this be: What came first: use of pre-established symbols or the intentional creation of symbols we use? — javra

True novums are extremely rare. Normally, we use existing language material (or, more generally: symbol material) and make something other out of it.

Hence, the "which is to be master" part:

Humpty Dumpty is refering to which particular meaning of the word is the relevant one, the one that prevails.

words that create the limits of concepts with which we think or the agency to express concepts we choose to think via words.

I think this is a misleading dichotomy. I think the relationship between the two is mutual, they are mutually interdependent, and that we cannot meaningfully talk about one without the other, nor assume that one came first and is the condition or requirement for the other.

Don't agree.

It's probably easier to think of some other people as "flawed" or "mentall ill", rather than to consider the possibility that humans are capable of this level of strategizing and play-acting, and more, that one is oneself capable of this level of strategizing and play-acting.

Interesting insight, I think it is true that narcissism can be attractive, provided it comes in a reasonably attractive package. — Bitter Crank

Donnie was reasonably attractive when he was younger.

We do like to believe in people who believe in themselves.

Of course, and this preference is a potential vulnerability that others can exploit.
Hence: Nihil admirari!

I struggle with it because of the stakes. — Xtrix

The problem aren't those other people and whatever stances they hold or the things they do. The problem is that you take for granted that you're entitled to live in a safe world that is obligated to accomodate you.

ay, there's the rub:

The meaning is the use. — Banno

Millennia of philosophy of language settled in one short passage.

- - -

Meaning isn't use. That one can assign different meanings to a word doesn't, in any way, imply that all there is to words is how we use them. — TheMadFool

Indeed. For use to have the potential to define the meaning of a word, the word must already have some previous definition (the result of a previous use?). (Except for true novums where an entirely new, non-onomatopoetic, non-abbreviating sequence of sounds is produced; such words are extremely rare.)

It seems that the meaning of a word consists of two components: a relatively static one and a relatively dynamic one, and that the two are in a temporal mutual relationship.

For example: mouse, as in computer mouse. The relatively static part is the meaning of mouse, as in mouse the animal. The dynamic part is in using this word to also name a part of computer equipment which in shape and movement somewhat resembles mouse the animal.


The other point is that for a particular use of a word to become its meaning, it must gain enough social traction. We have a computer mouse, but not a computer turtle.


(But it seems that the actual question that such inquiries are trying to answer is something like, What came first: use or definition?)

I think in the first place this may have to do with the fact that it is impossible to establish with 100% certainty which quotes can be attributed to the historical Buddha.
/.../
Fourth, Buddhist teachings may also have been distorted for political reasons. — Apollodorus

Certainly, there are text-critical issues, as with any text, and esp. with older ones. I am in no way suggesting that the authorship and authenticity of the Pali Canon (or any other religious scripture) is a matter that can easily be resolved, a trifle.

But the issue is this: If someone says "The Bible says X", or "The Koran says Y", it is perfectly normal to expect them to provide a reference to the Bible or the Koran, respectively, by name of book, chapter and verse. But this standard of reference is so often ignored when it comes to Buddhism. And with such confident ease!

(Granted, I've observed similar with Hindus and the Vedas: They confidently insist that the Vedas say this or that, but couldn't provide a reference if their life depended on it. Not to mention how deeply offended they feel that someone would request an actual textual reference, rather than just taking their word for gold.)

Second, the Buddhist texts form a large corpus that few Westerners bother to read.

And possibly don't even know about.

What you are saying is: If Jesus was a magical person as stated in the Bible, then all miscreants go to hell. — Olivier5

I'm not the one saying that, Christianity (most schools of it, anyway) are saying that.

Do you want to divorce the Jesus of the Bible from Christianity, as well as divorce the Bible from Christianity?

None of that detracts from her work. — Banno

It detracts from how useful her work is for different strata of people. For some, it could be detrimental.

- - -

Taken out of context, you can apply anything to anything else. — 180 Proof

But what exactly is the context here?

Remember, Bertolt Brecht tried to uplift the working class. In the spirit of solidarity with the workers, his shirt was tailored the way the shirts of workers were. Except that his was made of silk.

Thriving possibly requires different standards of ethics, depending on one's current socioeconomic status.
— baker

I think this can be overstated. I have worked a lot with people experiencing homelessness and I am often surprised by the level of virtue - generosity, courage and selflessness I see in their behavior. But you need to know them to know this. This is especially true with Aboriginal people. — Tom Storm

Ever heard the saying "Nice girls don't get the corner office"?

Strata of society that are for one reason or another excluded from working for a living (or at least excluded from having to work hard for a living) can enjoy practicing a vastly different extent of virtues (without this having bad consequences for them) than those who aren't thusly excluded.

On principle, Dharmic religions (notably, Buddhism and Hinduism) are not expansive, evangelical religions, the notion of religious conversion is foreign to them
— baker

Yes, I wonder why that is. However, I've heard of buddhist kings like Ashoka dispatching missionaries to Sri Lanka. — TheMadFool

Indeed, there have been Buddhist missionaries. But on the whole, they seem to function as a defense of Buddhism against the expansion of other religions; or they focus on spreading Buddhism for lay people (and monasticism only as an adjacent or auxiliary option); ie. the aims for such missionary work are worldly. (And some Buddhist missionary organizations seem to be intent primarily on making money ...)

As to your first question, the concepts of rebirth/reincarnation and karma play a central role in Dharmic religions. With them, among many other things, also the person's religious/spiritual status is explained, and their religious/spiritual prospects. With an outlook like that, there's not much that an outsider could see themselves do for another person.

The other factor is that in Dharmic religions, there is no threat of eternal damnation, there is no urgency of "get it right this time around or suffer forever, no second chances", so there is no metaphysical impetus to get people to convert, unlike in Abrahamic religions.

With Jesus there's rather more at stake.
— Tom Storm

Would you like to expand on this? What more is at stake with Jesus? — Olivier5

If Jesus was a real person, and has the power as stated in the Bible, then, if you don't accept him as your lord and savior, you will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of salvation.

Nagarjuna's Tetralemma — TheMadFool

We've been over this.

There is the problem of sourgraping, presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is.
— baker

There is, but there is a difference between presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is and first hand experience that it is not all that there is. There is a point at which more is not better, despite how it may appear. — Fooloso4

Certainly. Some of the numbers I've seen is that a person needs to easily enough make 20,000 USD per year in order to be happy; a more recent number is 75,000 USD. The idea is that making more money than that doesn't increase a person's happiness, but that earning less than that can be detrimental to it.

I agree that there is a point at which more is not better, despite how it may appear. But here's the crux: Are those who are not past that point (or nowhere near it) justified to value wisdom over socioeconomic success?

We're talking here specifically about people who work for a living, not about populations like monks who live off of alms. Monks have chosen not to work for a living and they live in a very specific socioeconomic niche, so what "works for them" cannot and should not be uncritically transposed onto the working population.

Actually not. — ssu

As things stand, I'm focusing on who the beneficiaries of the incident are.

Start with finding people who have absolutely no connection and focusing on totally different aspects noting the conspiracy. Learn the history. Above all, real conspiracies do leave traces.

Then think it through yourself. Does Slovenian politics resort to such antics? Who would artificially create this pseudo-group?

In this case, I don't think the group was artificially created, but that at some point, it could be that someone (a prospective beneficiary) infiltrated it and guided it to extremism.
But I don't see how any of this could be proven (at least not without using illegal surveillance techniques). Or perhaps things will come out later in time, when the infiltrator can't help but brag.

Political infiltrations have been known to happen here. Notably, someone from a leftist party would infiltrate a rightist party and vice versa.

Slovenia is a very small country. What goes around comes around.

Actually, the situation here in the past 20 years made me lose faith in the law of karma; or at least leads me to believe that karma, like God, loves rightwingers.

In 1995, the GIA declared all Algerians to be takfir, or apostates.

The last sentence sounds absolutely bizarre, but it's true. Algerians weren't worthy of them!

It doesn't sound bizarre to me. For example, European rulers and upper classes have a long history of expressing contempt for the ordinary folk. The idea that it is the citizens who are wrong (and should be replaced), and not the government, can be heard at pretty much any election.

Of course this is sidestepping the actual topic, but I'm trying to make the point that if there is really a conspiracy, then there will be real traces of it. Nonexistent events don't leave them.

Actually, "conspiracy" isn't the right concept. "Strategy", "divide and conquer". "PR stunt".

That's why any old shit can be spun into a perfectly fine conspiracy. — Tom Storm

It's not just that. Think of old monocultures where there is a culture of "public secrets", ie. there are things that everybody knows (and talks about them in private with people whom one trusts), but in public, will never admit to them (and will consider it outrageous that anyone would think of them).

For example, in traditionally Catholic countries, the priest's girlfriend and his children are such a public secret. Everyone knows who the woman is and who the father of those children is, but nobody will publicly admit to it and will claim that the priest is chaste and celibate, as it behooves a Catholic priest.

This isn't denial (because in confidential settings, people openly talk about the matter), and it's not hypocrisy/duplicity (because there seems to be no evil motive involved).

It seems that even though this system of public secrets has worked well for centuries (it helped maintain relative social stability and harmony), it can be exploited in what is now the post-truth era. It seems for two reasons: one is that there are fewer confidential settings, and more uncertainty about what makes for a confidential setting and what doesn't (so it's hard to know which narrative to go with in which setting); and two, because audio and video recording devices are so readily present and used, and in the face of such hard evidence it's hard to maintain the old system of public secrets.

Of course, this is a problem that younger people and those in multicultural societies don't face. Although we dinosaurs do ...

In short, the type of society seems to play a role in how a conspiracy theory comes about, what public traction it gets, and so on.

It seems to me that foundations for paranoid thinking are partly built into some political frameworks. — Tom Storm

Certainly. It helps the ruling party to demoralize the population at large, because if they are demoralized, they won't rebel, and the ruling party will attain its goal -- to stay in power (and obtain more of it).

Why does a self reference lead to paradoxes so many times? — VincePee

Because there are actually two statements in place, but just one of them is put into words, while the other one is implied or otherwise needs to be discerned from the context of the first.

They are just some quotes that someone attributed to the Buddha.
— baker

Nonsense. — Ross

Oh dear. This is the standard problem with Buddhism: the pitifully low standard of quotation.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10232/the-motivation-for-false-buddha-quotes

The problem with it is that she has not arrived at her high socioeconomic status by following virtue ethics; she didn't start somewhere at the bottom of society and then worked her way up with the help of virtue ethics.

Thriving possibly requires different standards of ethics, depending on one's current socioeconomic status.

Cut to the chase and judge folk by what they do, not by what they profess. — Banno

How do you account for cunning?
Note that cunning is something that can also help people thrive.

Virtue ethics seeks to find a way for folk to thrive. — Banno

Oh, I think Nussbaum's upper middle class status is helping her thrive, not virtue ethics.

And it's a fundamental problem for those who seek to somehow derive universally applicable moral principles. — Banno

How do you save ethics from drowning in a sea of individuality?

Those are not canonical references. They are just some quotes that someone attributed to the Buddha.

Yes, I know what win-win means. I'm saying that in the culture I live in, it is largely unknown. In the last 20 years or so, it has gained some popularity, but for the most part, people seem to operate from the premise that it is inevitable that there are winners and losers.

There is the problem of sourgraping, presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is.

I don't conflate, or confuse, "about" with "central to" – Jesus' "Love thy neighbor as thyself" plus his "Beatitudes" are just as morally central to Christianity as the sila of the "Noble Eightfold Path" is to Buddhism, yet these 'codes of conduct' are only means and not the ends, or goals (i.e. what about), of these religions. — 180 Proof

Granted.
It depends on how much there is to a religion, in one's opinion. In my opinion, there isn't much more to either of the two religions than morality, so to me, they are about morality. That's an interesting assumption I have been making but wasn't aware of until now.

I asked you for a canonical reference, ie. an actual Buddhist source.

I've been having a keyboard problem that appears only in some reply windows here: the written text appears _after_ the cursor.

This doesn't happen in other programs on the same computer, not even in all reply windows here at the forums.

Pressing either of the Insert keys changes nothing.

Must be, because in my native language, we don't even have a native phrase for "win-win".

The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness.
— baker

Why do you say that. — Ross

Because the happiness of an enlightened being is not about having agreeable food to eat, good family relationships and friends, satisfaction at one's job, and so on, all the things that ordinary people find happiness in and psychologists promote as "normal".
An enlightened being has no desire for sex, for example.

The Buddha's happiness is nothing like the happiness of ordinary people.

So compassion, love, kindness which the Buddha teaches you think psychologists don't think that those values improve happiness. — Ross

You need to be more precise here and source your claims about Buddhism.

Provide a canonical reference that says things to the effect that "compassion, love, kindness improve happiness".

Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.
— praxis

I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts though it is a fact that buddhist sanghas lack an evangelical wing. — TheMadFool

On principle, Dharmic religions (notably, Buddhism and Hinduism) are not expansive, evangelical religions, the notion of religious conversion is foreign to them.

True. Buddhism does seem to be closer to psychology than other traditions. — Apollodorus

Only superficially.
We'd need a whole thread for this.

Could this be why it is less popular? In India, at least, after some initial successes it got nearly wiped out by Hinduism (and to some extent by Islam) and it has never recovered.

Buddhism (the kind that strives for the complete cessation of suffering), is, essentially, a death project. It can't possibly be popular in the world that is interested in the perpetuation of life.

If you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the last thing we should be discussing, no? — TheMadFool

Yes, absolutely.

- - -

I agree Buddhism is a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. And that's why I believe it contains wisdom which if practiced in ones life seems to me to be in line with modern psychologists description of a happy life. — Ross

The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness.

By the way what's wrong with feeling better about yourself. That's the consequence of happiness. People normally feel better when they are living a better life.

What is your source for Buddhism? Jack Kornfield?

Neither religion is "about morality" IMO. Christianity is mainly concerned with eschatology and Buddhism is mainly concerned with soteriology. And yes, Christianity consecrates suffering like Jesus and Buddhism practices ways to reduce suffering. 'Moralities' have been derived from these premises, respectively, but that is not their functions (re: the first few centuries of each religion, respectively). — 180 Proof

Morality, sila, is central to Buddhist practice.


Sila (virtue, moral conduct) is the cornerstone upon which the entire Noble Eightfold Path is built. The practice of sila is defined by the middle three factors of the Eightfold Path: Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/index.html

The salient difference between the Christian conception of morality and the Buddhist conception of morality is that in Christianity, the moral commandments are supposed to be followed by everyone, under threat of immediate human punishment and eternal divine punishment, whereas in Buddhism, moral precepts are seen as optional, and undertaken and adhered to as a means to an end (ultimately, nirvana). Which is one of the main reasons why Buddhist morality doesn't seem like morality (it lacks the coercive feature typical for Christianiry), and why Buddhism seems more like a philosophy than a religion.

Pali metta is the equivalent of Sanskrit maitri which seems to be more like friendliness, goodwill, or benevolence, the opposite being ill-will.

In the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, maitri is supposed to be practiced together with other attitudes like compassion (karuna), happiness (mudita), and indifference (upeksanam). — Apollodorus

In Early Buddhism, there are four Brahamaviharas (or four sublime attitudes, or four divine abodes) (see here in the index for links at the entry Brahmaviharas. [/quote]

It is debatable how to best apply this in practice, though. For example, when coming across a tiger in the forest. I think the idea is that when practiced properly, the object of your metta, in this case the tiger, will be moved to respond in kind and be nice to you instead of having you for breakfast or lunch. But I don't know how many Buddhists have developed their metta to the degree that it would work out as intended.

Universal metta is supposed to be univeral goodwill, meaning one would have goodwill for everyone, ie. for the tiger, for oneself, and for everyone else. Note: for oneself. Sacrificing oneself to the tiger would not be an act of goodwill for oneself.

In the Buddhist traditions that don't rely closely on the Pali suttas, the emphasis is usually on one brahmavihara (at the expense of others); so, for example, in general in Mahayana, there is an overwhelming focus on karuna/compassion, while Zen focuses on upekkha/equanimity.

Buddhist traditions that rely more closely on the Pali suttas have a more systematic approach (such as some traditions within Theravada) and practice all four brahmaviharas.

So in the example with the tiger, a Thai Forest Tradition Buddhist teacher Thanissaro Bhikkhu would advise to practice the four brahmaviharas in the order starting with metta, goodwill. This means, to first have goodwill for the tiger and for oneself, meaning, one wishes oneself and the tiger to be happy; then, observe as the situation develops, wish that neither oneself nor the tiger would suffer (karuna, compassion, is a wish for living beings not to suffer), and that includes not acting with hostility toward the tiger; then appreciate the good things about the tiger and oneself (mudita, sympathetic joy); and at the end, if the tiger should be the rare man-eating kind, reflect on kamma (upekkha, equanimity, is not simply indifference; the reflection on kamma is crucial for it).

This just in brief, there's a lot more to this. The issue is not as debatable as mainstream Buddhism likes to portray it.

On the other hand, if the ultimate objective of metta is to eradicate selfishness, then perhaps offering yourself as food to the tiger may be the quickest way to achieve it.

In the Jataka Stories, the Buddha in a previous life met a starving tigress that was about to eat her own cubs, and offered himself to her as food out of metta and karuna (Āryaśūra's Jātakamālā, Vyāghrī-jātaka).

The salient point of the Jataka tales is that they are accounts of the actions of an _un_enlightened being. Some Theravadans see them as cautionary tales about what not to do.

Naikan is about another person not oneself. — Fooloso4

It's peculiar you'd say that. The Naikan questions are about what one did to others, so they are very much a matter of self-examination.