And what implications does your stance have here for the possibility of philosophically approaching the topic? — baker
The idea is that doing things that one finds pleasurable (in the broadest sense of the word) cannot actually make one happy. Ie. that it's in the nature of doing worldly things that they cannot satisfy. (This is also the theme in Ecclesiastes, so it's not some "esoteric Eastern" notion.) — baker
All this is still firmly in the realm of craving, tanha. The craving for sensual pleasures, the craving for becoming, and the craving for non-becoming.
(Your project is based on what is sometimes termed "the third-and-a-half noble truth: suffering is manageable".)
— baker
I’m not saying that suffering is ‘manageable’. You’re grasping for criticisms, here. Reducing suffering is not the same as avoiding it. — Possibility
It’s easy enough to translate every action into craving. We cannot act without translating reason into affect, so I’m not going to deny this.
But you’re just avoiding what I’m actually referring to.
And why do you think merely listening to music is not an example of collaboration?
But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation),
That's not "meditation", that's zoning out.
— baker
Fully awake and alert is not ‘zoning out’. Come on, Baker!
Buddhism explores the possibility of a complete cessation of suffering - this is not the same as saying we all should follow that path to the end. I think that would be a misinterpretation.
Indeed it is.. Existence is a burden, hence efforts to prevent it for others. Meanwhile, we just have to "deal with it" in the ways that we do. Once born, we are "stuck" in the position of making a choice at all, once we reach an age where we can self-consciously make these decisions. These are the problems Existentialists describe.. Absurdity, isolation, doing something but with no inherent reason other than taking on arbitrary reasons (e.g. it's my role, it's what is expected, it's what everyone else seems to do, etc.). This is often called "authenticity" in behavior. What choice to make when faced with life's dictates (the situatedness we are presented?). — schopenhauer1
Rather, dissatisfaction is more of a restless feeling that one must DO anything.. Get "caught up" in something. Thus like Schopenhauer's pendulum, survival and boredom kind of do describe a large part of what is going on with human motivations. — schopenhauer1
Or maybe the widely held and tabooed assumption that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, is not justified.
— baker
Why "tabooed"? It's not a forbidden subject. Most people believe they are here to enjoy all that and that this is the purpose of life! And it's not an "assumption"; it's a belief and way of life. — Alkis Piskas
- the idea that it 'cannot actually make one happy' is not really a defensible posture. It might have been closer to being trivially true if you phrased this like so - 'doing things that one finds pleasurable may not make one happy.' However, from what I've seen, it's a hell of a good start. — Tom Storm
That's like saying that the operation was successful, and who cares if the patient died! — baker
A.k.a. bhava tanha. — baker
"Just like you, we also don't actually know whether God exists or not, but we'll burn you in his name anyway!" — baker
In the end it doesn’t matter if I think your perspective is wrong - it’s a valid perspective - but the fact that it requires you to reject valid information from others’ experiences indicates logical inaccuracies, or at least limitations.
While you reject valid information from others. Why don't you see that as a matter of logical inaccuracies or at least limitations on your part? — baker
While you reduce whatever I (or some other posters) say in such a way that you can dismiss it.
Talk about ignorance and exclusion! — baker
Both the individual and this worldview are five-dimensional conceptualisations that vary in relation to each other - and you know that your conceptual structures are far from identical to schopenhauer1’s, even if an evaluative relation reduces to the same side of the binary. But you’re not meant to look at the concepts, just trust that the word is the same, so it must represent the same consolidation of value.
Really, I do that? Thank heavens I have you to tell me that! — baker
Let me get that straight. Because the negation and the justification part ("not justified") somewhat perplexes me. Do you mean that we should absolutely believe that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry without questioning it? And that not believing that is forbidden?It is tabooed to suggest that the assumption (that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry) is not justified. — baker
I didn't say that. I said "Most people believe they are here to enjoy all that and that this is the purpose of life!". It's quite different. People don't assume or take for granted any truth here. People are not taught in their families or at school that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, and believe it without questioning it. People arrive at that conclusion based on their personal experience of and thoughts about life, which then of course they naturally believe.Like you say, we usually take for granted and we are expected to take for granted that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry. — baker
You keep talking about "reducing" suffering, "minimizing" suffering, but not once have you advocated the complete cessation of suffering. Reducing and minimizing fall under "managing". — baker
Actually, it looks more like there's quite a bit of terminology you didn't learn, even though you're using some of it from a certain field. — baker
You're working on the premise that your worldview (which you probably don't consider a worldview but The Truth) is greater than mine, that it contextualizes, encompasses mine. That you can explain me, but that I cannot explain you. — baker
And why do you think merely listening to music is not an example of collaboration? - Possibility
In the same way that the beggar in a Mumbai street selling paper handkerchiefs cannot be meaningfully said to "collaborate with the world's economy". — baker
It's the "genuinely doing nothing" that gives you away. — baker
Buddhism explores the possibility of a complete cessation of suffering - this is not the same as saying we all should follow that path to the end. I think that would be a misinterpretation.
You don't seem to understand just how egregious it is what you're doing. It's standard fare for New Agers, to be sure. You're basically telling me I should settle for cold pizza. — baker
Early Buddhism distinguishes between two types of desire: tanha and chanda.
Tanha is the craving we're all familiar with; we tend to imagine it in the form of hunger, or sexual lust, then in the vile craving of the heroin addict seeking his next fix, or the greedy capitalist ammassing more and more wealth. But also comes in much more subtle and sophisticated forms, like insisting the walls of your dining room be painted in taupe.
Chanda is the desire to overcome this mess of craving and suffering.
It's instructive to make this conceptual difference, so as not to be unduly pessimistic. — baker
We can communally console each other, be empathetic that we are stuck in this situation at all in the first place, gripe as much as we can about our existential situation, and not force others into this situation. — schopenhauer1
Why do I use the word AGENDA? Because it is the socio-cultural-physical reality of the ALREADY existing that one is thrown into. One can never have their own version of how things should be. One is always forced into the realities of the survival dissatisfaction operation that we are born into and MUST deal and take a stance towards in the first place. We are forced into situations of DEALING with. This is part of the factuality of being born at all. It cannot be overcome through X practices. The very fact that one is trying to overcome it (e.g. chanda) is part of the problem in the first place. I recommend we see the tragedy for what it is. Do not create Dealing with situations in the first place for people. It's just one thing, and another, and another.. Whether physical ailments, small pains, large harms, survival related activities, or the general dissatisfaction behind much of what we do. — schopenhauer1
Possibility does it a little differently.. She says instead, "In order to reduce suffering you must X, Y, Z (connect/collaborate/aware)". So she oddly collapses the individual perspective in some web-like fashion as to try to negate it.. But the SELF is persistent because of its basic reality as phenomenon. Being part of an almighty "Steamrolling Collaboration" principle does not make the sufferings of being a SELF/individual go away. All the problems remain, and these exercises in restating pretty conventional behaviors (working with other people and things to construct stuff etc.) in poetic terms. But just rephrasing things in more flowery terms doesn't get at the problems. — schopenhauer1
Once again, I am NOT saying that you MUST. I’m saying that the alternative (ignorance/isolation/exclusion) is ultimately less effective in reducing suffering, IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. The individual perspective has MORE structure in reality than this symbolic value you’re making it out to be. I’m not negating it, but rather describing it in context. The SELF is the continuous potential construct of a variable individual perspective. It has an ongoing relation to suffering as affect, but this relation is four-dimensional, not binary. And any reduction of this relation ignores the variable logical structure by which an individual determines and initiates action. — Possibility
A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality. — Possibility
IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. — Possibility
Why do you speak in such abstractions? WHAT is the "variable logical structure" — schopenhauer1
A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality.
— Possibility
WHAT do you mean by symbolic value is oblivious to any complexity in the relation? Can you just speak in ordinary language speak? Do you just mean that life is more than suffering? Well, my point isn't exactly that. It is that there is an inherent dissatisfaction where our being is oriented to take any action because of this dissatisfaction. I call this a kind of "inherent suffering". This is in contrast to what I deem as "contingent suffering" which is apart from just the inherent suffering, there are many harms that befall us that vary to individual based on circumstances of cause/effect and environment. — schopenhauer1
Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that. — Possibility
That we should exist at some level that precludes us from the logical structure of existence? This is what I mean by ‘symbolic value’ - the idea that our perceived value has no relation to our existence. Like a mathematical symbol. — Possibility
It's like this... If I set up a society.. and set it up to my standards, how I want it, but not the way you would set it up if you were to be a self-reflective adult.. and I gave you some hobbies to pursue or people you can freely try to form relationships with as a consolation.. But it is still setup in MY way of doing things in this society.. including the hobbies and the ways in which we form relationships.. all spokes that go back to my hub that I created for you.. And you (by default of this existence) can NEVER have a say in it.. That is more what is going on.. Now I can say to you, "Hey, don't be so sad.. you can COLLABORATE in my world that I created (not the way you would set it up, mind you, but MY world), and that will make things better".. well that injustice is still there. it is not a consolation and doesn't solve the problem.
As I have stated many times, there is a POLITICAL AGENDA that the parent has., that THIS WORLD is somehow setup in a way that other people should have to go through its "gauntlet" and as you say, COLLABORATE in it.. But this isn't the way an adult-version of that child might have set it up if they had a choice... It was a forced outcome.. so what to do? Get the pitchforks and symbolically kill the rebel (get them to FOLLOW THE AGENDA and COLLABORATE).. maybe force them into some kind of therapy? I don't know, hey how about hey just go commit suicide and leave well enough alone?? That's where I'm getting at.. No amount of flowery language about universal collaboration to reduce suffering gets rid of this.. You can try to discount the "SELF" so you can gaslight and keep saying it's YOU who are not complying good enough..but this actually reiterates what I am saying by being an exemplar.. So keep doing it, so I can be right :D. — schopenhauer1
Um, still don't get you. — schopenhauer1
Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that.
— Possibility
That's STILL not an answer! That is like if someone asked.. "What is General Tsao's Chicken?" and I just said, "Well, you wouldn't know because you don't eat anything but burgers." That is just unhelpful if they legitimately asked in good faith. — schopenhauer1
When I refer to open-ended collaboration, let’s just say that the process is the shared creation of a new system, a new ‘agenda’ that’s more satisfactory for all. There’s room in this collaboration for the pessimist, the rebel and the antinatalist, even if all you’re going to do is gripe. We need to understand where we ARE in order to structure a path beyond it. Evolution is driven by variation beyond consolidation. — Possibility
You’re saying that an individual has value, but this perceived value is contingent upon an awareness of their existence - whether actual or potential - which entails suffering.
Value = existence = suffering.
No existence = no suffering = no value. — Possibility
No - the question I was answering was ‘why is your language so abstract?’ That’s not a ‘what is’ question. A parallel question would be ‘Why are you talking about this General Tsao’s Chicken? What kind of burger even IS that?’ — Possibility
I was trying to ask you to EXPLAIN your abstractions.. and then you seemed to dismiss me as stuck in some point of view so wouldn't understand. It seems like a dodge to not make it concrete. The more concrete it is, the more I can actually argue against it.. You probably don't want that. I don't know the motivation, other than you prefer self-referential language to collaborating :D. — schopenhauer1
Let me ask you - are YOU willing to collaborate with people who choose (for whatever reason) to procreate? You think that collaborate means ‘follow my agenda’ — Possibility
Collaboration in its fullest sense is NOT concrete. That is the whole point. It disregards any existing sense of ‘agenda’ in favour of the possibility of working together, because two groups pulling in opposite directions achieves nothing overall except more suffering. — Possibility
Ukraine? — schopenhauer1
What I’ve been trying to articulate (obviously unsuccessfully) is the possibility that we’re both approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure. I’m exploring the possibility that we could both be correct and incorrect to some extent, and using this interaction to improve the accuracy of my own position (and potentially yours, but you don’t seem willing to even consider that). — Possibility
That's like saying that the operation was successful, and who cares if the patient died!
— baker
The operation is a choice the ‘patient’ makes freely, with an understanding of the risks. A failed operation is an opportunity to improve on the next attempt. Or not. And I’m not saying ‘who cares’ at all. I’m just saying that those who consider it worth the risk have often taken more into consideration than you might be aware of yourself in judging them. — Possibility
Notice I didn’t say a significant or noticeable difference. Making an incremental difference is not about anyone acknowledging your existence but the ‘self’ you construct to engage with the world. But this is only what I choose from my experience. I see it as an example of creatively re-arranging this supposedly ‘forced agenda’ you two keep harping on about as some ‘big bad’ we’re supposed to try and ‘win’ against. But it’s not about winning, it’s about understanding how the agenda is constructed - and then changing it.
This has nothing to do with ‘craving’, but selecting freely from options that include suicide, asceticism and griping. But you will continue to insist that I must be craving something, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand it any other way.
"Just like you, we also don't actually know whether God exists or not, but we'll burn you in his name anyway!"
— baker
Strawman
While you reduce whatever I (or some other posters) say in such a way that you can dismiss it.
Talk about ignorance and exclusion!
— baker
What have I dismissed?
"You two". Blegh.
Schopenhauer1 and I do not have the same stance, and I'm not "griping" about the agenda. — baker
Fair enough, and I think Schopenhauer would have a similar view. One point I am trying to make, that you criticized (it seemed) by saying I was overemphasizing, is that we are ALREADY put in a position that we will have those two types of craving AT ALL. This is my ethical stance against procreation, but also informs my overall pessimism. The fact that we are already PUT in a stance to HAVE to move forward with burdens, overcoming burdens, overcoming the burden of all burdens (chanda, let's say), — schopenhauer1
It's all part of a STANCE one HAS to take in the FIRST PLACE because one is ALREADY in the situation to begin with.
And this, you may call "unduly pessimistic" but it is the reality, and a reality that cannot be contested, as even the very act of contesting proves the point!
So I brought up the idea of gaslighting with Possibility. In a way, Buddhist (and other Eastern religions) are doing the same thing as what (it seems if I can understand her jargon) she is doing.
That is to say, it tries to make the suffering inwards (it is YOU who must change your view or right way of thinking to overcome suffering).
1) First off, I don't think the metaphysics is true. I DON'T think that the world is SIMPLY a construction. Rather, I think that there are SOME necessities (i.e. situatedness) of reality that one CAN NEVER change. These processes are the reasons we have desires and wants in the the first place. They are basically originated from evolutionary means, and what it means to be an animal in a physical environment.. (hunger, boredom, language, working together to accomplish goals, and the self-awareness).. it's all part of a sort of necessity of what it means to be "born" at all. I think it is a long con game to pretend that, "No we are not born, we only THINK we are born".. I think Descartes pretty much took care of that kind of thinking. Buddhism INSISTS there is no THERE there but there is a THERE. If there wasn't you wouldn't need things like Chanda or Buddhism at all! It's a pseudo-problem, really.
But you can always gaslight and say, "No no, that is just what you would say because you are too deluded or you don't have the right understanding".
2) Second, I notice that Buddhism is basically about the Middle Way.. This allows for things like having families, working tirelessly at your job, or whatever.
Thus, my answer is griping. I know that sounds oddly pedestrian, but it is more than just complaining.. It is the communal realization of our predicament..
As an analogy, what if this was the mindset of every person born into actual slavery? How do you think slavery was abolished? Not just by griping. It was the efforts of people focused on the possibility of a complete cessation of slavery, despite the reality of their experience. And they developed an understanding of their oppressors, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with this so-called forced agenda, until it no longer appeared to be ‘forced’, but was a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. — Possibility
There is one stance that I do expect you to take, and that is "What you do matters". — baker
So? — baker
It's important to note, though, that ideally, you wouldn't hear anything about Buddhism (or most other "Eastern religions") unless you made the effort yourself.
Instead, what has happened is that some Westerners have spread "Eastern religions" in the West, using the model of religion as they devised it based on Christianity. Unlike Christianity, "Eastern religions" generally do not proselytize, they are closed circles intended only for those with sufficient personal interest and who are willing and able to make the required effort. — baker
I think the cure for all this is to actually study Buddhist doctrine, or else, drop all talk of it. — baker
Clearly, it's not all that communal, given that not everyone shares it. — baker
Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle. — baker
This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency. — baker
Collaboration in its fullest sense is NOT concrete. That is the whole point. It disregards any existing sense of ‘agenda’ in favour of the possibility of working together, because two groups pulling in opposite directions achieves nothing overall except more suffering.
— Possibility
I am not against collaboration. It's almost a necessity for humans to live... In other words, before your long posts reifying it as a universal Principle par Excellance.. I knew of the importance of collaboration.. It doesn't have to be made into a universal metaphysical principle though as you are doing.. — schopenhauer1
1) Collaboration is something that PEOPLE/MINDS do NOT natural phenomena. — schopenhauer1
2) Just because collaboration might bring better results, doesn't prove anything about its morality.. At best it's a management tool, which obliquely, is what baker was trying to say.. (reducing harm instead of getting rid of it completely).. — schopenhauer1
3) It is the naturalistic fallacy even if it WAS some sort of natural principle to think that it applies to self-reflective minds that can CHOOSE various options.. All it would be (going back to point 2) is a way for some hypothetical imperatives related to outcomes to be obtained.. and even so, one would have to value that which one is working towards. which itself would still beg the question of WHAT is to be obtained? There is ALWAYS an agenda here.. even if it is just to make more people who collaborate itself! — schopenhauer1
I’m not just talking about collaboration to survive individually, but to dismantle the agenda that says we should be trying to survive in the first place, and determine a more satisfying way to interact with the world, together. — Possibility
I’ve never asserted collaboration as a principle or an imperative - ALWAYS as an option. As for what can be obtained: how about a more satisfactory agenda? Just because it doesn’t appear to have been achieved before, does not render it impossible. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.