@Zetherin,
Quote:Incredible. So what, then, has ontological status? Nothing exists?
Not at all. Nothing exists
absolutely - in its own right, or 'from its own side'. Existence is relational and conditioned. And this, as it happens, is the Buddhist philosophy of emptiness. What it rescues us from is the illusion that reality is set in concrete and fully determined. We cling to that illusion at our peril, because sooner or later every part of it, and we too, will perish.
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
Quote:Incredible. So what, then, has ontological status? Nothing exists?
Not at all. Nothing exists
absolutely - in its own right, or 'from its own side'. Existence is relational and conditioned. And this, as it happens, is the Buddhist philosophy of emptiness. What it rescues us from is the illusion that reality is set in concrete and fully determined. We cling to that illusion at our peril, because sooner or later every part of it, and we too, will perish.
So because we will one day perish, reality is not concrete? What do you mean by concrete here? Like, physical objects?
@Zetherin,
'Concrete' means substantial, real, unchanging, and so on. Buddhist philosophy does not deny the physical reality of the objects of experience - they are not illusory in the gross sense of a mere fantasy or apparition - but says that beings invest far too much significance in them due to ignorance and craving. They derive security from owning and controlling them. But ultimately they provide no real security or anything permanent or satisfying.
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
'Concrete' means substantial, real, unchanging, and so on. Buddhist philosophy does not deny the physical reality of the objects of experience - they are not illusory in the gross sense of a mere fantasy or apparition - but says that beings invest far too much significance in them due to ignorance and craving. They derive security from owning and controlling them. But ultimately they provide no real security or anything permanent or satisfying.
Oh, well, I don't entirely disagree with that. They acknowledge that my car is a real, physical object - they just don't want me to overvalue a material object, because, in the end, that is not what really matters. Right?
I've read a lot of Christian and Buddhist teachings that I have liked. Yeah, it is me, Zetherin, that is saying that. Heck, I went to Christian school for six years... I suppose that's another discussion, jeeprs (the one I wanted to get into with you).
@Zetherin,
Heck where is that old thanks button....anyway what I have noticed is that curiously enough, some schools of Western philosophy have actually converged with the 'oriental wisdom schools' in some of these fundamental matters. There is a very interesting cross-over between phenomenology, post-modernism and Zen.
@Zetherin,
Quote: They acknowledge that my car is a real, physical object - they just don't want me to overvalue a material object, because, in the end, that is not what really matters. Right?
Not quite. I'm not sure which movement makes the point that the car is what it is because you are what you are,and
vice versa. "Existence" is bi-directional. That mutuality is a snapshot by a third party.
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
Heck where is that old thanks button....anyway what I have noticed is that curiously enough, some schools of Western philosophy have actually converged with the 'oriental wisdom schools' in some of these fundamental matters. There is a very interesting cross-over between phenomenology, post-modernism and Zen.
On that note, and off-topic, I would really like to see who "thanks" (which is now just a "thumbs-up") our posts.
fresco wrote:Not quite. I'm not sure which movement makes the point that the car is what it is because you are what you are,and vice versa. "Existence" is bi-directional. That mutuality is a snapshot by a third party.
Can you give me some reading material on this? I don't know what you're talking about.
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
Oh, well, I don't entirely disagree with that. They acknowledge that my car is a real, physical object - they just don't want me to overvalue a material object, because, in the end, that is not what really matters. Right?
The Buddhist view would be that your car is impermanent and a cause of
dukkha, which is suffering/anxiety/unhappiness. It is a real physical object, but its existence is not permanent. Only
nibbana is permanent, absolute, or unconditioned, in the Buddhist view. But, this doesn't mean that they believe in something impractical like "my car is merely illusion!" No, just a simple fact that it won't exist forever, and thus cannot satisfy or give happiness to someone forever, which eventually leads to suffering.
Quite right. But the Buddhist attitude is still in keeping with this OP, namely, that facts are 'constructed'. Actually it is arguable that the counterpart for this idea in Buddhist philosophy is that factual judgements are actually Vijñāna, meaning 'mental fabrications'. Again this does not mean that the objects are non-existent but only that their significance is imputed rather than objectively given.
Now consider this. The original Skeptics are thought to have been directly influenced by Mahdhaymika Buddhists. Madhyamika is the school of Buddhism that finalized 'the doctrine of emptiness'. It is now known that Pyrrho, founder of the skeptics, visited India and brought back with him the tenets of the Madhyamika which were to form the groundwork of the original Skeptics.
The Skeptics practice was 'suspension of judgement', called 'epoche', the aim of which was to realize 'ataraxia', which is, indifference or tranquility (not that different from the Stoic 'apathea'). This is a direct counterpart to the Buddhist 'nirodha', or cessation of judgement.
I mention this to illustrate how the nature of skepticism has changed between then and now. Now, the skeptic does not actually practice 'suspension of judgement' with regards to the facts of experience, which really amounted to a form of intellectual asceticism. The modern skeptic takes the reality of the 'sensory realm' at face value, and regards Science as the best means to defend his or her sense of its normality.
Ironic, I think.
For details of the relationship between Buddhism and Skepticism, see The Shape of Ancient Thought, by Thomas McEvilly.
@jeeprs,
Interesting. I'd be interested in seeing the actual evidence presented in this book for the author's claims, but the theory does not at all surprise me. I've always thought it worked out well that the original skeptics of both Eastern and Western philosophy, Gautama Buddha and Socrates respectively, lived right about the same time as one another, only separated by what is now a pretty short geographical distance -- but not so separated, it seems, philosophically.
@Zetherin,
Jeeprs has suggested a good reference. Capra's "Tao of Physics" could be another.
I should point out that my particular stance here is multi-sourced, and includes references on Piaget's "Genetic Epistemology" and Dreyfuss's lectures on Heidegger (available online by googling Berkeley podcasts).
@Pangloss,
The Shape of Ancient Thought is a magnum opus. I think it will be rather controversial because it attacks the traditional notion that Indian and Greek philosophy grew up in complete isolation from each other, and instead says that they were constantly in contact across the Silk Route. It has some great essays on the philosophical equivalences between Plato, Plotinus, the Upanisads and the Buddhists. It took McEvilly - who is a cultural historian rather than a philosopher - about 30 years to write. I highly recommend it.
On the previous forum, there was a great video in that Philosopher Interveiws Series, an interview with Dreyfuss about Heidegger. That taught me more about Heidegger than I had managed to pick up in the prior 20 years (admittedly not much.) I imagine that collection is still on YouTube.....
I'll check some of these things out. I'm a bit of a skeptic myself, if it isn't readily apparent...
Getting back to the original topic of this thread -- I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned the implications of quantum mechanics.
@Pangloss,
I have not used QM by name but that is what I mean by "Physics shattering traditional views of reality". I have recently mentioned here or elsewhere Bohr's coat of arms - the Taoist yin-yang symbol.
As far as the counter-intuitive concept of "self" and "world" being co-determined, one needs to shed the concept of a permanent self. Thus the "I" who is eating a sandwich and thinking about his bank balance is different from the "I" who was driving his car yesterday, or the "I" in high school etc. It is necessary to think of "self" as a set of transient states loosely held together by physiology and social forces (note the reciprocal changing states of the sandwich for "I1") . But of course to do this , we need to give up our vested interests in "self integrity".
@fresco,
Actually I reckon QM shatters materialism, and materialism is actually a minority view within Western philosophy. Most of the big-name physicists actually lean towards Platonism. (Although many fundamental problems of physics would not have been solved if materialism hadn't had it's day so it must always have a place at the table.)
