It would help if the flag/report function would allow for some explanation for why the post is being flagged, in order to make moderation easier (such as a number of preset options to choose from).


For example, a while back, I flagged an OP post because a significant portion of it was a direct copy-paste from Wikipedia, but the post contains no reference to it, no link. It's plagiarism.
Nothing happened.

Of course, what we can talk about is therefore only what can be said clearly. Really? Do you think this is right? — Constance

Of course.

If one has the feeling that one is talking about a topic in a blind-men-and-an-elephant manner, then one is, clearly, not talking clearly. It doesn't matter what the topic is, although the blind-men-and-an-elephant manner seems to be more common when talking about philosophical, religious, or spiritual topics.

Read what I said.

I wonder, "where" do you think Thich Quang Duc was when he set himself ablaze? — Constance

Deep in martyrdom. His self-immolation was a political protest, similar to others of this kind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations .
People are willing to die for their ideas, it's nothing new.

Based on how you talk down to me, and that you see fit to comment on my posts without even reading them.

Perhaps I shouldn’t use this word. In essence I was pondering the existence of some “opposite/contrasting” state (That I will now leave unnamed haha) to that of suicide. One that is not typical to the average Human experience just as suicide is not typical of the average human experience but is an extreme end.

I might instead describe parameters without naming the phenomenon. Suicide once committed is permanent. So this alter ego state would also be (once established) permanent for the remaining lifespan of the person.
Instead of losing all hope, this state would be a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences. Instead of suffering one is in a state of tranquility despite circumstances. — Benj96

In terms of early Buddhism, what you're describing in roundabout fits what is called bhava tanha and vibhava tanha: the craving for becoming (for existence) and the craving for non-becoming (for non-existence, annihilation).

Nirvana is neither of them. A "self generating state of full hope/optimism" is consistent with bhava tanha; the desire for suicide is consistent with vibhava tanha.

It's not clear whether "a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences" is even possible in early Buddhist thought.

A buddha isn't optimistic or hopeful, though he is unperturbed by bad luck and negative experiences and he does not suffer.

I see you're learning the basic lesson of religion/spirituality: becoming authoritarian.

Whenever one speaks beyond one's competence, one is bullshitting.

Yes, I think that it all comes down to recognising the limits of our knowledge during discussions. We are moving in an age where so much information is available to us. Personally, I read many books on a daily basis, and enjoy this, but I am aware that understanding of profound ideas needs to be supported with the experiential level. Information does not transform us into qualified teachers and I think that this is the main thing which people have to remember when we are in the exploration and discussion of ideas which are of an esoteric nature. — Jack Cummins

And they are so "esoteric" to a large extent because people feel so free to share all kinds of opinions about them, even though they don't have the required attainment. It's what gives those ideas that characteristic air of hocus pocus.

Thanks for providing a link and a long passage which I will read. — Jack Cummins

If you think that was a long passage ...
And if you're replying to a post without having read it ...

But really i would have been more interesting to hear your view or understanding of the idea of nirvana.

Not for me. What use are the opinions of the unenlightended about topics that are far beyond their scope?!

I actually edited my reply to you because I realised that it was from a book. I knew that it was not your own writing and I really can't see the point of you just quoting a whole passage from a book. The idea of Nirvana is complex and needs to be understood in terms of the perspective it comes from. Otherwise, it becomes extremely concrete information gathering and not an actual philosophy discussion at all.

My own view is that the idea of Nirvana points to a possibility of freedom from earthly suffering, but that to understand the fuller picture we need to see it within the framework of that spiritual tradition, otherwise it cannot be appreciated in its truest sense. Spiritual knowledge is rather different from concrete information gathering. — Jack Cummins

The idea that people who have not even attained stream-entry can meaningfully discuss nirvana based on their personal experience, is patently absurd.

This is why, when one is below that level of attainment, it makes sense to refer to established sources.


Further, the passage I quoted is about cultural and historical knowledge, not about first-hand experience of nirvana.
Peeople from the West tend to interpret the fire imagery in old texts in accordance with their own modern (or popular) notions of fire and burning, disregarding that people back then possibly had a different understanding of fire and burning.

Is the extract your own writing and interpretation or is it taken from the link you have provided because the source is not clear. — Jack Cummins

??

I prefaced the part in italics with:
"From Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:"
and provided a link.

Usually, this means it's a direct quotation.

Those who don't evidently find the alternative superior. — Pfhorrest

In the West, we're used to thinking like that, and to think those are the alternatives.

In contrast, in some other cultures, the relevant dichotomy is living an honorable life vs. not living an honorable life. Considerations of wealth and material wellbeing are secondary or even irrelevant to this.

But why bother with such things though? Why not choose to "not play the game" so to speak? — Darkneos

But do you know what that actually entails?

Heaven help the person who jumps off that bridge, with certain death imminent, and who, in those five seconds of falling, realizes he hasn't thought things through as thoroughly as he first assumed he did before jumping.

Not playing the proverbial game is much harder than just offing yourself. If you think that by offing yourself, you'll exit the game, then you're still giving supremacy to others, still letting others dictate your life, and you're even devoting those last few seconds of your life to them. To people who don't care enough about you to be there for you. Now that's a shame.

From Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

We all know what happens when a fire goes out. The flames die down and the fire is gone for good. So when we first learn that the name for the goal of Buddhist practice, nibbana (nirvana), literally means the extinguishing of a fire, it's hard to imagine a deadlier image for a spiritual goal: utter annihilation. It turns out, though, that this reading of the concept is a mistake in translation, not so much of a word as of an image. What did an extinguished fire represent to the Indians of the Buddha's day? Anything but annihilation.

According to the ancient Brahmans, when a fire was extinguished it went into a state of latency. Rather than ceasing to exist, it became dormant and in that state — unbound from any particular fuel — it became diffused throughout the cosmos. When the Buddha used the image to explain nibbana to the Indian Brahmans of his day, he bypassed the question of whether an extinguished fire continues to exist or not, and focused instead on the impossibility of defining a fire that doesn't burn: thus his statement that the person who has gone totally "out" can't be described.

However, when teaching his own disciples, the Buddha used nibbana more as an image of freedom. Apparently, all Indians at the time saw burning fire as agitated, dependent, and trapped, both clinging and being stuck to its fuel as it burned. To ignite a fire, one had to "seize" it. When fire let go of its fuel, it was "freed," released from its agitation, dependence, and entrapment — calm and unconfined. This is why Pali poetry repeatedly uses the image of extinguished fire as a metaphor for freedom. In fact, this metaphor is part of a pattern of fire imagery that involves two other related terms as well. Upadana, or clinging, also refers to the sustenance a fire takes from its fuel. Khandha means not only one of the five "heaps" (form, feeling, perception, thought processes, and consciousness) that define all conditioned experience, but also the trunk of a tree. Just as fire goes out when it stops clinging and taking sustenance from wood, so the mind is freed when it stops clinging to the khandhas.

Thus the image underlying nibbana is one of freedom.
/.../

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibbana.html

Does the existence of a state of mind that actively pursues it’s own death - (suicide) ie. has no hope left, is in endless suffering/ misery, has exhausted all effort to endure and ultimately believes life is not good
, prove, that a contrary pole exists to the spectrum of the mind - one of persistent peace, contentment, hope and one that ultimately sees only good in the world? A nirvana like state. — Benj96

It's not clear that such is the case.

We know the bad side exists for definite because death is fairly definitive evidence.

Bad for whom? Certainly not for bacteria and fungi that will feast on the corpse, and not bad for the undertaker's business either.

But I think it’s reasonable to believe that like many things in nature the mind is a spectrum and if there is one extreme there must exist the other.

But what if the mind is, say, like a tree? There's no opposite to a tree.

And if you believe the existence of suicide is no reason to suppose the existence of nirvana then would that not imply that life is ultimately skewed towards the negative/bad - and that states of permanent joy are impossible?

More like life being skewed toward eating, consuming. Consider: life is all about consumption.

In conclusion, because of their contingent natures, the true significance of Descartes' Cogito and even of his indubitably certain Sum, is their inherent existential tenuousness and triviality. — charles ferraro

Of course. Whatever philosophy Descartes devised, it's always is reference to RCC doctrine. The moment one divorces Descartes' thoughts from the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, is the moment when they're rendered trivial.
Per RCC doctrine, the individual person/soul is contingent upon God and has no existence on his own.

The OA hasn't been refuted in a way that silences its proponents or satisfies its opponents. — TheMadFool

Because it's never been about the OA argument itself.

It's always about the social hierachy, power games, one-upmanship. IOW, about the argument from power, which is the most powerful argument.

A glimpse of divine karmic justice! :p

P-zombies are entities physically identical to normal human beings except that they lack consciousness. It's said or the argument goes that if p-zombies are possible physicalism is false. — TheMadFool

Why do you want to figure this out?

I'm asking because sometimes, getting clarity about one's motivation to solve a problem can be more useful than solving the problem itself.

Both those points are false. Life is not worth it. Nor is it fun. It just is. There is no logic to doing something because it is fun. Why can’t people see that? — Darkneos

If your basement hasn't been flooded, why would you worry about your basement becoming flooded?
IOW, a problem only has relevance to a person by its relative proximity to a person. I'm not so sure most people ever think about their "reason for living", unless they experience some traumatic event.
Ignorance makes for blissfully happy campers.

I want to show that there is no reason for living so that when I eventually take my life people won’t call my illogical or clouded — Darkneos

That is such a crappy reason to engage in such a discussion and figure things out.

And yes, there will be many who will say that your reasons were "illogical or clouded". Don't count on them.

As things stand, you're on the trajectory of a self-fulfilling prophecy, nothing more. That's lazy. You need to put in more effort.


I suggest reading William James' Is life worth living?, if you haven't already:

/.../
These, then, are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. The 'scientific proof' that you are right may not be clear before the day of judgment (or some stage of being which that expression may serve to symbolize) is reached. But the faithful fighters of this hour, or the beings that then and there will represent them, may then turn to the faint-hearted, who here decline to go on, with words like those with which Henry IV. greeted the tardy Crillon after a great victory had been gained: "Hang yourself, brave Crillon! we fought at Arques, and you were not there."

This isn't merely about competing desires. It's about being sure that one is doing the right thing, the ethical, moral thing.
— baker

What you're describing is a competing desire: a desire to be moral or, hopefully, to act upon a moral impulse. — Kenosha Kid

No. I'm talking about actually being certain about one's sense of right and wrong. I'm talking about being certain that A is morally right, and that B is morally wrong.

When a person reflects on the morality of a particular prospective action of theirs, and is unable to come to a definitive conclusion as to whether said action is morally right or not, this is when their motivaiton falters.

Look at this, for example:

I don't think I need an especially elevated moral ground to not be okay with throwing acid in women's faces. I'm sorry you're not there yet. — Kenosha Kid

So there are Western feminists who severely criticize some men for how they treat women, saying how those men are oppressing women. Yet these same Western feminists are, in terms of principle, doing the very same thing they criticize others for.

Or maybe women are supposed to be so happy because Western feminists are not throwing acid into their faces, but are, instead, only seeing themselves as the arbiters of women's reality?

This is why I don't share in the fierce moral indignation that some Western feminists display. Because they still consider themselves to be the ones who get to define what a woman's thoughts are, what a woman's intentions are, what a woman's words and actions mean. They get to act in bad faith, they get to jump to conclusions and think the worst of some woman. They get to consider the woman guilty until she proves herself innocent, on their terms.

There seems to be asymmetry that needs to be made explicit: we don't need a reason to live as much as we need one to die. — TheMadFool

THERE is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether
or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.
These are games; one must first answer.

This is how Camus opens his Myth of Sisyphus. (I'm surprised nobody brought it up yet.)
He formulates the matter as such: It's not about having a reason to live, it's about having a reason not to kill yourself.

However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it
— baker

Except it isn't the default. It's a choice. — Darkneos

I suppose it is so for some people, but I'm not sure it was a choice for them for as long as they can remember.

Since religion seems to be an emotional subject, it appears like most people cannot drop these prejudices, so philosophy of religion discussions, amongst the undisciplined, tend to be very bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not just about prejudice:
It's that the religious/spiritual resent to ever live up to what they preach. They resent to be called on to fulfil their promises. They want to be respected, they want to be trusted, they want to be submitted to. And they want to get money. But they don't want to do any of that for others. They expect that the others, the non-religious and the non-spiritual must take the first step, be the first ones to show compassion, generosity, charity. Because the religious/spiritual sure as hell aren't going to. The religious/spiritual demand to be acknowledged, but they don't want to acknowledge others. They have a "You owe us" attitude.

This reflects in the way that communications on the topic of religion/spirituality usually take place. Of course it's frustrating to try to have a two-way conversation with someone who believes he's your boss and that you owe him.

Remember, the thread is about 'bad theology'. And theology presents a specific problem, which is that atheism often doesn't think that there could be anything about it that's worth understanding. — Wayfarer

Given the way that theists tend to treat others, this is no surprise.

In other words, to even consider the subject of theology on its own terms, requires some degree of willingness to consider that it contains a valid subject matter.

This is simply shifting the responsibility onto the atheists.

It's the theists, or more generally, the religious/spiritual, who expect that everyone else will play by their rules and take for granted that they have something of value to offer.

It's more like they took the appeal to emotion fallacy to it, which is what most of these reasons for living are, fallacies. — Darkneos

In one sense, it all comes down to emotions, one way or another, depending on how one defines "emotion". I already mentioned Matthew Ratcliffe earlier. He talks about "existential feelings" and he offers a broader understanding of emotions than we're used to from mainstream psychology. So that's one source to look into to get an alternative perspective on the matter.


However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it.

Here's a thing to keep in mind: it's the laws of particular countries that are wrong, not the clothing they command.

Sometimes this gets mixed up. — Banno

What gets to me in these discussions is that feminists (be they women or men) propose to have so much concern and compassion for women somewhere on the other end of the world, but muster none for the woman they're talking to right there on the spot.

So these feminists bring up some obvious point of injustice or abuse, and then harp and hammer on it. And when there are others who don't join them in a "muh tribe" manner, those feminists ostracize those others as The Enemy and The Misogynist.

It's a surefire way to prevent any discussion of the matter and to maintain the status quo. While in the meantime, the plight of women, once more, goes unnoticed.

I can generally spot the spiritually illiterate (who are numerous) from a sentence or two.
— Wayfarer
/.../
I strongly disagree with this. — Metaphysician Undercover

On the other hand, spirituality/religion is not a charity organization. The religious/spiritual are not here to help people; they're just "doing their thing". The religious/spiritual are not going to teach anyone the "basics of spirituality". Apparently, one has to learn this somehow on one's own, there's no school for it.
The religious/spiritual don't stoop to the level of newbies and the otherwise "spiritually illiterate".



-- I agree with you. I used to think the way you describe above, and in my more optimistic hours, I still think this way. But I learned the hard way that spirituality/religion, is, essentially, a kind of snobism, and that if one isn't able to be that kind of snob, one will never make spiritual/religious progress.

So eating an icecream simply because eating an icecream brings forth happiness is not a good reason? I dont get that. — DoppyTheElv

Is it morally right to eat ice cream?

This has already been covered in the above discussion, e.g.

Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise.
— Kenosha Kid — Kenosha Kid

No, read on what I said:

One also has to desire the _right_ thing. The thing that is morally, ethically right.
It's at this point that the whole idea of the will to pleasure breaks down. — baker

This isn't merely about competing desires. It's about being sure that one is doing the right thing, the ethical, moral thing. It's about believing, for example, "Yes, it is morally right to eat ice cream".

If one doesn't have that moral certainty that the thing one desires to do is also the morally right thing to do, and is aware of this lack, then the motivation for acting on the desire will diminish.

(This is how people who don't think about the moral dimension of their desires and their actions characteristically don't have problems in this department, nor are they able to emphatize with those who do.)

I blame Start Trek for popularizing a false understanding of the term "logic".

I still maintain that you are using the term bad faith to justify a whole process of seeing the bad in others. Sometimes, when we see bad in others it involves psychological projection. — Jack Cummins

Then you maintain wrongly.

Seeing the bad in others: focusing on the facts that the person has a criminal record, is in a wheelchair, is Jewish, female, whatever. Seeing the bad in others is about certain facts about the other person.

Thinking the worst about people is only inspired by some facts, and the rest is extrapolation/projection.
As in, "Oh, this person is black. Surely he'll try to white guilt me!" or "Oh, this person is in a wheelchair. Surely he'll try to extort me for help!"

Ultimately the only reason for doing anything is that you desire it to be done — Kenosha Kid

Think about desiring to do drugs or rob banks. Or bite your fingernails.

Desiring to do something (and knowing one enjoys it) is not a sufficient reason to do it, nor to want to do it.
One also has to desire the _right_ thing. The thing that is morally, ethically right.

It's at this point that the whole idea of the will to pleasure breaks down.

Awww.

I am not sure that what you are talking about under the guise of 'bad faith' is not really a misuse of the term bad faith. I certainly don't think you are using it in the way Sartre intended. — Jack Cummins

Sartre can go suck on a lemon.

Read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

You speak of the importance of looking for the bad in someone. — Jack Cummins

Read again: I'm talking about approaching interactions in bad faith, in ill will. Not about looking for the bad in people.

I was replying to KK talking about the "automatic reaction to think the worst of people". And I pointed out that those who think the worst of people tend to be better off: they win, they prevail.

What's helping you win arguments and prevail?

Is there anything as real as words?