[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Come on guys lets give Ephrem some breathing room. He has been honest in his answers, and we need to respect that.
Unless Ephrem you are ok with all the questions then I will just shut up and stay out of this.[/quote]
…it’s my day off and i have nothing else to do at the moment, so it’s all good…
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Come on guys lets give Ephrem some breathing room. He has been honest in his answers, and we need to respect that.
Unless Ephrem you are ok with all the questions then I will just shut up and stay out of this.[/quote]
I don’t think your response is to me since I am only defending a position I took on a certain philosophy.
Past that I would hope he isn’t feeling attacked since as far as I can tell this has been a very fair exchange from all sides.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Come on guys lets give Ephrem some breathing room. He has been honest in his answers, and we need to respect that.
Unless Ephrem you are ok with all the questions then I will just shut up and stay out of this.[/quote]
…it’s my day off and i have nothing else to do at the moment, so it’s all good…
[/quote]
I will shut up and go back to lurking again. This a great thread. I am learning new ideas and philosophies that I never imagined.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]
How am I arriving at a preconceived destination when I am just following the logic of it.
[/quote]
…because your destination is the opposite of what the philosophy aims for: the cessation of suffering through understanding the human condition. Perhaps that’s the difference: if empathising is feeling another’s emotion, then understanding why that person feels like that with detachment may appear foreign to you. Okay, now i understand…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<<…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. >>><<<
<<< …now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the success of it’s society, >>>[/quote]You really don’t see that this entire line of reasoning is mortally dependent on presupposed content for terms such as “suffering” and “success”? That as soon as you deny the absolute nature of that content you by that very intellectual act also deny any real substance to “C” and “D”? You honestly do not recognize this?[/quote]
…what has that to do with morality? We might disagree what a succesful society constitutes and what a failing society constitutes, but in- and of itself this has nothing to do with morality…[/quote]
So then there can be successful immoral societies and unsuccessful moral societies? Or there is simply no such thing as right and wrong at all and whatever the highest number of people decide in a given geographical area is acceptable is? Maybe I should have read some more of the other thread first.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]
How am I arriving at a preconceived destination when I am just following the logic of it.
[/quote]
…because your destination is the opposite of what the philosophy aims for: the cessation of suffering through understanding the human condition. Perhaps that’s the difference: if empathising is feeling another’s emotion, then understanding why that person feels like that with detachment may appear foreign to you. Okay, now i understand…
[/quote]
two points.
I would say the philosophy is at odds with itself. While it might have an aim its one of its core truths puts it at odds with that aim.
I don’t have a destination when I am reviewing the philosophy. I am only looking to come to a conclusion of what it actually implies. I think I have been very open about that.
I don’t have an agenda. It is a presentation on evil\pain using Epicurus logical argument as the antagonist point of view. That one piece concerning buddhism is barely in there and just as a passing part of a greater point. The point being “do we consider indifference to others pain to be good”?
I am not forcing the view, just merely raising the question. I prefer my audience to think.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<<…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. >>><<<
<<< …now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the success of it’s society, >>>[/quote]You really don’t see that this entire line of reasoning is mortally dependent on presupposed content for terms such as “suffering” and “success”? That as soon as you deny the absolute nature of that content you by that very intellectual act also deny any real substance to “C” and “D”? You honestly do not recognize this?[/quote]
…what has that to do with morality? We might disagree what a succesful society constitutes and what a failing society constitutes, but in- and of itself this has nothing to do with morality…[/quote]
So then there can be successful immoral societies and unsuccessful moral societies? Or there is simply no such thing as right and wrong at all and whatever the highest number of people decide in a given geographical area is acceptable is? Maybe I should have read some more of the other thread first.[/quote]
…i don’t know what you would consider immoral, but there have been societies and civilisations that existed for thousands of years and accomplished many wonderful things, and also did stuff us modern folk may perceive as immoral. It depends on your definition of immorality, and what you think consitutes a succesful society…
…but personally can’t think of a thoroughly immoral succesful society or civilisation. The Egyptians, the Greek, the Mongols, the Chinese or south-american cultures, were they in your opinion immoral?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<<…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. >>><<<
<<< …now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the success of it’s society, >>>[/quote]You really don’t see that this entire line of reasoning is mortally dependent on presupposed content for terms such as “suffering” and “success”? That as soon as you deny the absolute nature of that content you by that very intellectual act also deny any real substance to “C” and “D”? You honestly do not recognize this?[/quote]
…what has that to do with morality? We might disagree what a succesful society constitutes and what a failing society constitutes, but in- and of itself this has nothing to do with morality…[/quote]
So then there can be successful immoral societies and unsuccessful moral societies? Or there is simply no such thing as right and wrong at all and whatever the highest number of people decide in a given geographical area is acceptable is? Maybe I should have read some more of the other thread first.[/quote]
We were talking about values in a general sense - that is why I kept using very broad language: “values/principles.” Once he saw where that was leading, he began to slip in the word “moral” in order to narrow the question and confuse people.
The inclusion of the adjectival “moral” really doesn’t change anything essential though. It does, however, complicate it.
More later…
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]
How am I arriving at a preconceived destination when I am just following the logic of it.
[/quote]
…because your destination is the opposite of what the philosophy aims for: the cessation of suffering through understanding the human condition. Perhaps that’s the difference: if empathising is feeling another’s emotion, then understanding why that person feels like that with detachment may appear foreign to you. Okay, now i understand…
[/quote]
two points.
I would say the philosophy is at odds with itself. While it might have an aim its one of its core truths puts it at odds with that aim.
I don’t have a destination when I am reviewing the philosophy. I am only looking to come to a conclusion of what it actually implies. I think I have been very open about that.
I don’t have an agenda. It is a presentation on evil\pain using Epicurus logical argument as the antagonist point of view. That one piece concerning buddhism is barely in there and just as a passing part of a greater point. The point being “do we consider indifference to pain to other pain to be good”?
I am not forcing the view, just merely raising the question. I prefer my audience to think.
[/quote]
…well, you haven’t told me what it was you are writing, and what your are writing it for? Let’s start there. But you compare detachment to indifference; they are not equal. The difference is: do i cry with you for comfort, or do i offer a solution? In western society, emotion is seen as important and meaningful. In Asia not so much. I also think that we’ve attached way too much importance to emotion in general in the west…
…iow, my detachment will not stop me from consoling you if you’re in emotional turmoil, but i wouldn’t “feel” your pain, or cry with you. Instead, i’d ask, “what’s wrong?”
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<<…this means that one society acts in a way they think is moral, while that same act is deemed immoral in another society. That is all. >>><<<
<<< …now, set D wasn’t inferior because of C but because the society following D suffered. So the value of D was determined by the success of it’s society, >>>[/quote]You really don’t see that this entire line of reasoning is mortally dependent on presupposed content for terms such as “suffering” and “success”? That as soon as you deny the absolute nature of that content you by that very intellectual act also deny any real substance to “C” and “D”? You honestly do not recognize this?[/quote]
…what has that to do with morality? We might disagree what a succesful society constitutes and what a failing society constitutes, but in- and of itself this has nothing to do with morality…[/quote]
So then there can be successful immoral societies and unsuccessful moral societies? Or there is simply no such thing as right and wrong at all and whatever the highest number of people decide in a given geographical area is acceptable is? Maybe I should have read some more of the other thread first.[/quote]
We were talking about values in a general sense - that is why I kept using very broad language: “values/principles.” Once he saw where that was leading, he began to slip in the word “moral” in order to narrow the question and confuse people.
The inclusion of the adjectival “moral” really doesn’t change anything essential though. It does, however, complicate it.
More later…
[/quote]
…how devious of you, not surprisingly though. It does not matter if you substitute the word morality for “values/principles”, you still fail miserably at argueing your case comprehensively [and honestly]…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
…will a new set of rules benefit society? [/quote]
But before I go…
Let’s just stop here. You are already changing your terms. That was NOT how we defined your “yardstick.”
You are trying to disembowel the value you expressed in hopes of creating a great deal of wiggling room.
I didn’t press you on the deeper content of that value for good reason. However, you expressed it well enough (reducing suffering, sickness, and hunger) to serve - for the time being - as an expressed value that you apply to assess the relative merit of ideas/principles, regardless of the culture - meaning that you proceeded thereafter as if it were an absolute value.
Let me add something else: it is impossibe - logically - to assess the relative value of two or more idea/values/principles, without reference to a third reference point. In your case, it was the reducing of suffering, hunger and sickness. This is your “yardstick.”
Is it such a crime to admit that you believe this yardstick to be universally applicable and not relative?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]
How am I arriving at a preconceived destination when I am just following the logic of it.
[/quote]
…because your destination is the opposite of what the philosophy aims for: the cessation of suffering through understanding the human condition. Perhaps that’s the difference: if empathising is feeling another’s emotion, then understanding why that person feels like that with detachment may appear foreign to you. Okay, now i understand…
[/quote]
two points.
I would say the philosophy is at odds with itself. While it might have an aim its one of its core truths puts it at odds with that aim.
I don’t have a destination when I am reviewing the philosophy. I am only looking to come to a conclusion of what it actually implies. I think I have been very open about that.
I don’t have an agenda. It is a presentation on evil\pain using Epicurus logical argument as the antagonist point of view. That one piece concerning buddhism is barely in there and just as a passing part of a greater point. The point being “do we consider indifference to pain to other pain to be good”?
I am not forcing the view, just merely raising the question. I prefer my audience to think.
[/quote]
…well, you haven’t told me what it was you are writing, and what your are writing it for? Let’s start there. But you compare detachment to indifference; they are not equal. The difference is: do i cry with you for comfort, or do i offer a solution? In western society, emotion is seen as important and meaningful. In Asia not so much. I also think that we’ve attached way too much importance to emotion in general in the west…
…iow, my detachment will not stop me from consoling you if you’re in emotional turmoil, but i wouldn’t “feel” your pain, or cry with you. Instead, i’d ask, “what’s wrong?”[/quote]
I am working on a school year long set of topics for the highschool group at my church. Philosophy of evil\pain is just one of the topics.
The rest of this has nothing to do with my lesson, just us discussing the topic.
Yes I used the words interchangably and perhaps that is a mistake on my part. Once again I am examining the philosophy and making a logical conclusion.
They have based their path upon the four noble truths, but the second truth states
“The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception”
So we should lose all attachment for our loved ones if you follow the logic. The less you are attached to someone the more free you are from suffering.
In essence to avoid pain don’t care about anyone. Now most buddhist would say that is not what the whole philosphy teaches fair enough, but that truth does teach that.
So they have a philosophy that is at odds with what they consider truth.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
…will a new set of rules benefit society? [/quote]
But before I go…
Let’s just stop here. You are already changing your terms. That was NOT how we defined your “yardstick.”
You are trying to disembowel the value you expressed in hopes of creating a great deal of wiggling room.
I didn’t press you on the deeper content of that value for good reason. However, you expressed it well enough (reducing suffering, sickness, and hunger) to serve - for the time being - as an expressed value that you apply to assess the relative merit of ideas/principles, regardless of the culture - meaning that you proceeded thereafter as if it were an absolute value.
Let me add something else: it is impossibe - logically - to assess the relative value of two or more idea/values/principles, without reference to a third reference point. In your case, it was the reducing of suffering, hunger and sickness. This is your “yardstick.”
Is it such a crime to admit that you believe this yardstick to be universally applicable and not relative? [/quote]
…katzie, katzie, katzie; why do you do this? Can’t you go back a few pages and check for yourself that i haven’t said any of those thing? In chronological order:
[quote]
Okay, good. So, via the imagination (and reason too - why not reason?) we can discover something (a principle, a value) outside of (independent of) A. by which to judge (assess, consider, reflect upon, criticize) A. Correct?
Correct.
Okay. So let’s say you discover B. (principle, value, whatever) via reason/imagination. And you’ve spent your whole life believing A; but you now believe B. to be far superior. Moreover, everyone else in your community still believes A.
Now, let’s take the first step. How did you judge B. to be superior to A.?
…if i had to judge B’s superiority over A i’d take in to account the consequences of B for all people involved, and where it might take my society on a whole in the future…
I really think we both might learn something here Eph. Let’s see where this ends up.
Okay, so in judging the relative merits between A. & B., you would consider where A. versus B. might take your society as a whole towards the future.
How would you judge whether that direction/goal is a good or bad one?
…will it improve the quality of life for all of my people? Will it make my society prosper? If the answer is “yes” in favor of B over A, we should try to move towards making B reality. If the answer is “no” it was a bad idea…
Fair enough. “Quality of life for all your people” is the ultimate yardstick then?
…more or less. I can imagine a kindhearted person like me would not want that quality to be dependant on the misery of others, so we’d have to take in to account aswell. I have errands to run, but i’ll be back…
Indeed. Okay, so let’s call it (“quality of life”) your “Yardstick.”
Now suppose you met another tribe. That tribe believes in C. Using your trusty Yardstick, you discover that, in fact, C is even better. Would you now adopt C. as the preferred principle/value?
…i guess i would, sure…
okay. And suppose you came upon another tribe, where disease and hunger were rampant because they unfortuantely practised and believed in D.
Would you introduce them to C, so as to improve their “Quality of life”?
…i’d have to take in to account whether they’d pose a threat to my tribe if they became more succesful, but if they were not and open to suggestions, sure why not? I certainly wouldn’t try to convince them of C against their wishes though…
Right, of course, not against their wishes.
Okay, so, you would say to this tribe, “hey, just some friendly advice guys, ‘why don’t you try C. because look at how your quality of life will improve?’”
Assuming** that the tribe is filled with reasonable human beings who care about their own quality of life, they would embrace C. as their principle/value/practice so that their sickness and hunger might be alleviated, reduced or even nearly eliminated.
And given our assumptions, that would make sense, right?
**Along with the potential threat you mentioned, above; let’s grant this assumption and deal with it in a moment, okay? [/quote]
…and from here it all turned to shit. What constitutes a succesful society is relative to your desires and needs. One society may think it’s succesful when it’s people have 10.000 square feet houses, 3 cars and all the latest gadgets. Other societies think plenty of vacation time and socialized healthcare consitutes a succesful society. These values may even be subject to change over time and can’t therefore be absolute…
…the only thing that can be construed as absolute is the succes of a society, but what constitutes a succesful society is relative to its needs and wants. No matter how you try to spin this katz, victory eludes you…
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…well, you haven’t told me what it was you are writing, and what your are writing it for? Let’s start there. But you compare detachment to indifference; they are not equal. The difference is: do i cry with you for comfort, or do i offer a solution? In western society, emotion is seen as important and meaningful. In Asia not so much. I also think that we’ve attached way too much importance to emotion in general in the west…
…iow, my detachment will not stop me from consoling you if you’re in emotional turmoil, but i wouldn’t “feel” your pain, or cry with you. Instead, i’d ask, “what’s wrong?”[/quote]
I am working on a school year long set of topics for the highschool group at my church. Philosophy of evil\pain is just one of the topics.
The rest of this has nothing to do with my lesson, just us discussing the topic.
Yes I used the words interchangably and perhaps that is a mistake on my part. Once again I am examining the philosophy and making a logical conclusion.
They have based their path upon the four noble truths, but the second truth states
“The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception”
So we should lose all attachment for our loved ones if you follow the logic. The less you are attached to someone the more free you are from suffering.
In essence to avoid pain don’t care about anyone. Now most buddhist would say that is not what the whole philosphy teaches fair enough, but that truth does teach that.
So they have a philosophy that is at odds with what they consider truth.
[/quote]
…detachment does not mean ‘unfeeling’. Detachment means that any emotion arises and subsides like the ebb and flow of the sea, without ‘me’. It is the accute experience of emotion untainted by desire, frustration, doubt, fear or longing. The cessation of ‘self’, which is the ultimate goal, is a concept foreign to most westerners, and yes, its premiss does seem to be a selfish one…
…it takes too long to delve deep into buddhist philosophy for you to understand that, eventhough that on the surface you are right in your conclusion, the ‘sacrifice’ is made for each and everyone of us. It sounds all too… hippie-esque, i know. I don’t even like sugar that much (: but eeemmm… so yeah, that’s about it really…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
…will a new set of rules benefit society? [/quote]
But before I go…
Let’s just stop here. You are already changing your terms. That was NOT how we defined your “yardstick.”
You are trying to disembowel the value you expressed in hopes of creating a great deal of wiggling room.
I didn’t press you on the deeper content of that value for good reason. However, you expressed it well enough (reducing suffering, sickness, and hunger) to serve - for the time being - as an expressed value that you apply to assess the relative merit of ideas/principles, regardless of the culture - meaning that you proceeded thereafter as if it were an absolute value.
Let me add something else: it is impossibe - logically - to assess the relative value of two or more idea/values/principles, without reference to a third reference point. In your case, it was the reducing of suffering, hunger and sickness. This is your “yardstick.”
Is it such a crime to admit that you believe this yardstick to be universally applicable and not relative? [/quote]
…katzie, katzie, katzie; why do you do this? Can’t you go back a few pages and check for yourself that i haven’t said any of those thing? In chronological order:
[quote]
Okay, good. So, via the imagination (and reason too - why not reason?) we can discover something (a principle, a value) outside of (independent of) A. by which to judge (assess, consider, reflect upon, criticize) A. Correct?
Correct.
Okay. So let’s say you discover B. (principle, value, whatever) via reason/imagination. And you’ve spent your whole life believing A; but you now believe B. to be far superior. Moreover, everyone else in your community still believes A.
Now, let’s take the first step. How did you judge B. to be superior to A.?
…if i had to judge B’s superiority over A i’d take in to account the consequences of B for all people involved, and where it might take my society on a whole in the future…
I really think we both might learn something here Eph. Let’s see where this ends up.
Okay, so in judging the relative merits between A. & B., you would consider where A. versus B. might take your society as a whole towards the future.
How would you judge whether that direction/goal is a good or bad one?
…will it improve the quality of life for all of my people? Will it make my society prosper? If the answer is “yes” in favor of B over A, we should try to move towards making B reality. If the answer is “no” it was a bad idea…
Fair enough. “Quality of life for all your people” is the ultimate yardstick then?
…more or less. I can imagine a kindhearted person like me would not want that quality to be dependant on the misery of others, so we’d have to take in to account aswell. I have errands to run, but i’ll be back…
Indeed. Okay, so let’s call it (“quality of life”) your “Yardstick.”
Now suppose you met another tribe. That tribe believes in C. Using your trusty Yardstick, you discover that, in fact, C is even better. Would you now adopt C. as the preferred principle/value?
…i guess i would, sure…
okay. And suppose you came upon another tribe, where disease and hunger were rampant because they unfortuantely practised and believed in D.
Would you introduce them to C, so as to improve their “Quality of life”?
…i’d have to take in to account whether they’d pose a threat to my tribe if they became more succesful, but if they were not and open to suggestions, sure why not? I certainly wouldn’t try to convince them of C against their wishes though…
Right, of course, not against their wishes.
Okay, so, you would say to this tribe, “hey, just some friendly advice guys, ‘why don’t you try C. because look at how your quality of life will improve?’”
Assuming** that the tribe is filled with reasonable human beings who care about their own quality of life, they would embrace C. as their principle/value/practice so that their sickness and hunger might be alleviated, reduced or even nearly eliminated.
And given our assumptions, that would make sense, right?
**Along with the potential threat you mentioned, above; let’s grant this assumption and deal with it in a moment, okay? [/quote]
…and from here it all turned to shit. What constitutes a succesful society is relative to your desires and needs. One society may think it’s succesful when it’s people have 10.000 square feet houses, 3 cars and all the latest gadgets. Other societies think plenty of vacation time and socialized healthcare consitutes a succesful society. These values may even be subject to change over time and can’t therefore be absolute…
…the only thing that can be construed as absolute is the succes of a society, but what constitutes a succesful society is relative to its needs and wants. No matter how you try to spin this katz, victory eludes you…[/quote]
Ephrem, you are truly amazing. LOL. Thou art a glorious, perpetual spin machine.
I can’t wait to continue this.
What I find absolutely hilarious, however, is how you keep referring to “fairness” and other such standards in the very course of this argument.
Don’t you have even the slightest shiver of a blush when your’re appealing to an objective sense of, say, fairness in the midst of an argument about the objectivity of values?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
I understand it doesn’t mean unfeeling, but to actually accomplish requires you to become unfeeling and that is what I am getting at. Where does buddhism lead when it is fully practiced. The cessation of self(which is a delusion in buddhism) must also encounter the truth that no one else is a real self either. So you mother and your father are really just ideas and those ideas in essence need to be let go if you are to be free of suffering. So you need to lose the attachment of your mother and father because in the end it will cause suffering. The idea that you are positing is acceptance with out emotional change, but that doesn’t exist with out becoming unfeeling towards that object.
You seem to think I am missing the philosophy. The truth is to understand it you have to accept dialectic philosophy. Which is “it is this and that”. I don’t accept dialectic philosophy.
I accept the law of non contradiction philosophy and that is what I am using to come to these conclusions.
The argument really should be which do we use to evaluate buddhism
If you are good with ending the conversation so am I. It was interesting to actually have to defend my logic on it. Philosophy is the area that I always feel the most uncertain about.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
…will a new set of rules benefit society? [/quote]
But before I go…
Let’s just stop here. You are already changing your terms. That was NOT how we defined your “yardstick.”
You are trying to disembowel the value you expressed in hopes of creating a great deal of wiggling room.
I didn’t press you on the deeper content of that value for good reason. However, you expressed it well enough (reducing suffering, sickness, and hunger) to serve - for the time being - as an expressed value that you apply to assess the relative merit of ideas/principles, regardless of the culture - meaning that you proceeded thereafter as if it were an absolute value.
Let me add something else: it is impossibe - logically - to assess the relative value of two or more idea/values/principles, without reference to a third reference point. In your case, it was the reducing of suffering, hunger and sickness. This is your “yardstick.”
Is it such a crime to admit that you believe this yardstick to be universally applicable and not relative? [/quote]
…katzie, katzie, katzie; why do you do this? Can’t you go back a few pages and check for yourself that i haven’t said any of those thing? In chronological order:
deep sigh …i can’t find the word “fairness” anywhere in our exchange katz, please point it out to me if you will. Also, please refute my points or concede defeat, altough you never will do both ofcourse…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]I doubt this will mean too much to you, but I came to pretty much the same conclusions about Buddhism when 98% of the world still didn’t have computers in their houses and it required books to study anything.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
I understand it doesn’t mean unfeeling, but to actually accomplish requires you to become unfeeling and that is what I am getting at. Where does buddhism lead when it is fully practiced. The cessation of self(which is a delusion in buddhism) must also encounter the truth that no one else is a real self either. So you mother and your father are really just ideas and those ideas in essence need to be let go if you are to be free of suffering. So you need to lose the attachment of your mother and father because in the end it will cause suffering. The idea that you are positing is acceptance with out emotional change, but that doesn’t exist with out becoming unfeeling towards that object.[/quote]
…no, not unfeeling but observant. Everything is felt, and everything is seen [for what it is]. Yes, the notion that the ‘self’ does not exist independantly is universal, and applies to everyone. Again, detachment does not result in not-feeling feelings. The feelings will be there, but you won’t…
[quote]You seem to think I am missing the philosophy. The truth is to understand it you have to accept dialectic philosophy. Which is “it is this and that”. I don’t accept dialectic philosophy. I accept the law of non contradiction philosophy and that is what I am using to come to these conclusions.
The argument really should be which do we use to evaluate buddhism
If you are good with ending the conversation so am I. It was interesting to actually have to defend my logic on it. Philosophy is the area that I always feel the most uncertain about.[/quote]
…how is dialectic philosophy different from christian philosophy [for instance]? I’m good continueing, but if you don’t feel like it, okay. This little talk actually inspired me to revisit buddhist philosophy…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]I doubt this will mean too much to you, but I came to pretty much the same conclusions about Buddhism when 98% of the world still didn’t have computers in their houses and it required books to study anything.[/quote]
…i got the impression that haney wanted his conclusion to negatively reflect on buddhism, but yes; buddhism has a goal, Nirvana, and its philosophy is aimed at achieving that goal…
Edit: i got my first Atari 600 [i think it was] in '84. Books only until then…