Buddhism

[arkain101]

Not to purposely jump in the middle of things, but to answer a request I present this.

 

Wisdom can be helped to grow by, always assuming you could be incorrect in any situation a posistion is taken and by placing yourself in as many shoes of a situation as possible in a efficient catagorical order.

 

To explain the question on, 'catagorical order'. By this I mean to place yourself in as many shoes possible related to the situation. But not in each individuals posistion/shoes, but in the catagory that indivual is in. For example; If you are a teacher and the children in your class are acting abnormally, subdue your assumptions and posistion, put yourself in the shoes of the catagory of the children, not each child indivually, and see where your behaviour may act as a catalyst or fuel to the issue you are dealing with, with the children. I used this example because children are not the kniving people with negetive motives as much as they are natural state responders and sponges to situations presented to them. Their behaviors are in many cases a reaction to enviroment and not generally there intention, which is why the teacher is likely the responsible force for the childrens reactions.

 

I may be explaining it to death but to summerize.

 

You dont need to put yourself in the literal shoes, but instead, into the literal catagory shoes go into.

[Jehu]

Your logic defies me.

I don't know what to say.

I thought near everything was founded on a set of beliefs.

But there you go. . .

 

You seem to be a little perturbed by my comments. This is not necessarily a bad thing. A great wisdom teacher once said “seek and you will find, find and you will become perturbed, become perturbed and you will be astounded, and then you will become the master of all.” Therefore, please allow me to perturb you a little further. When you open your eyes in the morning, and become aware of the things around you, is that “awareness” founded on a belief, or is it real? If you answer that it is merely belief, then who is it that believes that they are aware, for the term, “belief”, necessarily implies the existence of a “believer”?

 

The Buddhist “doctrine of emptiness” has often been interpreted as nihilistic, for it asserts that there is nothing that is real. This is not, however, a categorical denial of reality, but denies only the reality of that which may become an object of the mind, that is to say, things (ideas, objects, activities, etc.) Therefore, although they might assert that there is nothing that is real, there is in fact an underlying Reality which is absolute, independent, and immutable, but which cannot be conceptualized. Furthermore, it is the aim of every Buddhist practitioner to personally realize this Reality, and to not merely accept someone else’s word for it, even if that someone were the Buddha himself. So you see, we do not ask that you abandon your beliefs, but only that you shelve them long enough that you may enquire personally as to whether or not there is an “Ultimate Reality”, for we wish that you may be astounded!

[Jehu]

That is fine as far as it goes, but one thing Ive learnt from philosophy is that 'reason' can be used to proove anything. Do you have any objective, scientific evidence for your beliefs?

Reason, no matter how skilfully it is employed, if it does not depart from a valid premise, will not lead one to the truth. It is analogous to the use of compass to navigate uncharted seas, if one is not certain of where one began, one cannot be certain of where one presently is. This, however, is not a fault that is inherent in the compass.

 

As to my providing scientific evidence of my beliefs, what is it that you think that I believe? I have not, to the best of my recollection, expounded any beliefs. But why must we speculate at all? Are we not all participants in the realm of reality? Do we not all possess the faculty of reason? Why don’t we simply put away our beliefs for the time being, and see if we might find the truth for ourselves?

[Panjandrum]

Not to purposely jump in the middle of things, but to answer a request I present this.

 

Wisdom can be helped to grow by, always assuming you could be incorrect in any situation a posistion is taken and by placing yourself in as many shoes of a situation as possible in a efficient catagorical order.

 

I do this already. Guess that makes me wise, huh? :confused:

[Tormod]

I do this already. Guess that makes me wise, huh? :confused:

 

Which means you are chokeful of emotional bias.

[Panjandrum]

Reason, no matter how skilfully it is employed, if it does not depart from a valid premise, will not lead one to the truth. It is analogous to the use of compass to navigate uncharted seas, if one is not certain of where one began, one cannot be certain of where one presently is. This, however, is not a fault that is inherent in the compass.

 

But where does the knowledge of your 'location' come from? havent you simply accepted the teaching that you dont know where you are? Doesnt it all come back to a leap of faith, the abandonment of reason?

 

As to my providing scientific evidence of my beliefs, what is it that you think that I believe? I have not, to the best of my recollection, expounded any beliefs. But why must we speculate at all? Are we not all participants in the realm of reality? Do we not all possess the faculty of reason? Why don’t we simply put away our beliefs for the time being, and see if we might find the truth for ourselves?

 

Well, for one, you belive the universe is an illusion. Now I realise that implies science is also illusionary, but what about reason? Or faith? Arent they also logically illusions? In which case, by your own reasoning, its impossible to ever know if you are the right path, even if you reach the end. Any 'truth' you think you have discovered must be a figment of your imagination, since 'real' truth is unknowable.

[Panjandrum]

Which means you are chokeful of emotional bias.

 

Certainly a possibility. I doubt it, tho.

[arkain101]

It is a choice a person can make that opens up your ability to see what you might otherwise miss when bound set and determined in a blind like way.

[Tormod]

Certainly a possibility. I doubt it, tho.

 

On what basis? What makes you immune to emotional bias?

[TheBigDog]

On what basis? What makes you immune to emotional bias?

On a historical note... :) Even Vulcans are not without emotion. They were so burdened by their extreme emotions that they disiplined themsleves into nearly complete repression. As such they were in an entirly opposite respect biased by their emotions.

 

Bill

[Tormod]

As such they were in an entirly opposite respect biased by their emotions.

 

Exactly. The more you distance yourself from your emotions, the more biased you are because of them.

[Panjandrum]

On what basis? What makes you immune to emotional bias?

 

I have an unfortunate psychological condition. Im unable to 'feel' emotions.

[Tormod]

I have an unfortunate psychological condition. Im unable to 'feel' emotions.

 

Riiiiight. This is a "psychological" condition? Sounds pretty physiological to me.

 

So that's it for music and philosophy, then. You simply can't hear a good tune and you can't feel it when a theory sounds "right". :rolleyes:

[Panjandrum]

???

 

I enjoy music as much as the next person. Dont know very much about theories sounding 'right', tho. That smacks of delusion, beleiveing you have an insight into a non-existant absolute 'truth'.

[Tormod]

???

 

I enjoy music as much as the next person. Dont know very much about theories sounding 'right', tho. That smacks of delusion, beleiveing you have an insight into a non-existant absolute 'truth'.

 

If you enjoy music, you feel emotions. Gut feelings are also emotions. Therefore, in order to be a philosopher, you must have emotions. Those emotions underly everything you say and do, and as such they color your statements. Therefore you are biased by your emotions.

 

Why do I even bother? Because you wrote:

 

I am free from many of the preconceptions and biases that aflict otherwise intelligent people, since my reasoning is uninhibited by such things as emotion, compassion and guilt.

 

Thus this is either:

 

1. a blatant lie

2. a misguided belief

3. a joke

 

I assumed it was a joke but you kept posting back so now I'm starting to think we're downscaling from #3 towards #2. :rolleyes:

[Panjandrum]

I think we have a diffrent definition of 'emotion'. I dont consider physical sensation to count. Besides, I said 'most', not all.

 

And yes, psychological. As in psychiatric :rolleyes:

[TheBigDog]

I think we have a diffrent definition of 'emotion'. I dont consider physical sensation to count. Besides, I said 'most', not all.

 

And yes, psychological. As in psychiatric ;)

Still struggling with this issue Panj? How many posts on how many threads going on and on about how you just don't understand morality or emotion? I think you are simply using this forum for some bizzar lubricant for intellectually jacking-off. :eek: :rolleyes: :hihi: I want to be more than that. :)

 

Bill