Are there other possibilities? — anonymous66

Integrate all known systems, beliefs, dogmas, etc. into one coherent whole.

I believe that that is what Ken Wilber has spent an entire career attempting to do, but I could be wrong.

Plato as non-dogmatic? Maybe. I think others have made the case that he was pretty sure that his theory of the forms was "the right way" to view knowledge. (Although he definitely challenges the notion himself in Parmenides). — anonymous66

What? He presents the whole idea of the Forms as 'only a likely story'. Platonism might have its dogmas, but Plato's views and ideas were constantly evolving and changing.

I appreciated your intro to Marcel a few months back - this is from that page:

Marcel believes that conceptual knowledge is unable to give an adequate account of "being-in-a-situation" of the subject in his or her world. In Marcel's view, the subject is fundamentally an embodied being-in-a-situation, and is not solely a thinking or knowing subject. This embodied situation is defined by the subject's general and personal history, cultural and economic context, etc. The basic level of being-in-a-situation is not fully accessible to conceptual or theoretical thinking. The same applies to moral experience, human relationships, and the subject's relationship w/ God. One of the abuses of modern thought is to try to objectify all human experience in concepts, or if it fails, to judge that any experience which cannot be objectified is not worthy of philosophical analysis. Marcel wishes to preserve and defend the dignity of the human person.

So - philosophy here is performative, not a set of abstractions and hypotheses and symbols.

Platonism might have its dogmas, but Plato's views and ideas were constantly evolving and changing. — Wayfarer

That's definitely worth considering. Perhaps I am just projecting the dogmas of Platonism onto Plato.

I do think that good philosophers are those who are always willing to challenge their own beliefs, and consider other possibilities.

Edit: I started reading Plato's dialogues about a year ago, and I really enjoy them. I find myself going back to them often.

Belief is only a stepping stone - it's instrumental in the sense of 'pointing you in the right direction'. Like, you have to believe in something enough to take it seriously, to try it. But ultimately it's a matter of praxis - what you do. But nowadays 'belief' is over-emphasised.

Have another look at that quote I provided on the last page, 'the parable of the raft'. If you think about what it's saying, it's radically different from anything you would normally consider dogma. It's very different from the 'our way or the highway' attitude of a lot of Christians.

I wouldn't be so quick to cut out other possibilities. What did "existentialism" mean in medieval philosophy, after all?

These are only categories to coming to grips with thoughts past. But philosophy is a truly inventive enterprise -- it creates categories whole-sale. At its edges it makes thoughts ex nihilo -- even though we do spend a lot of time on exegesis and analysis of philosophical history.

If you find these categories unsatisfactory then that is the genesis of new thought.


Just to lay out my prejudices I am most sympathetic to existential philosophy when it comes to meta-ethics, and epicurean when it comes to normative ethics.

I read the parable, but I'm not sure what to make of it.

Fair enough. I would interpret it as follows.

First, it is a Sutta, meaning it is said to be something the Buddha really taught. In the Alagaddupama Sutta the Buddha gives two similes which explain how the dhamma that he teaches to the monks ought to be understood, one of which is the parable of the raft.

The parable of the raft starts with the simile of 'a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other.' The 'near shore' and the crossing itself, symbolise 'samsara' or worldly existence, with all of the hazards and dangers that it poses. The 'far sure' represents Nirvāṇa, freedom from all worldly anxiety and suffering.

So the man says 'What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?'

The 'raft' symbolises the vessel which is used to 'cross the expanse of water' - that is, the very teaching of the Buddha about 'the cause of suffering’ and its end.

I was struck by the simile of the raft being makeshift - twigs and the like 'being bound together' - so that it doesn't present 'the vessel' as being something of fine manufacture, you might say. In a way it's quite self-deprecating.

Then having 'crossed the river', the Buddha says, '"Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

"No, lord."

So the message is, once the raft has served its purpose, it is discarded. The simile ends with this admonition:

'Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.'

So in other words, this is making the point that the very teaching of the Buddha 'is not something to cling to', but is a makeshift 'raft' which is used for a purpose, and then discarded. Actually such admonitions are not uncommon in Indian spiritual traditions - you find much the same message in Advaita (Hindu) teachings. The whole point is, don't get attached to spiritual teachings. 'To say nothing of adharma' means, if you ought not to get attached to spiritual teachings, then it goes without saying that you should also abandon 'unwholesome practices', i.e. those kinds of activities that are prohibited by the monastic code.

This is the aspect of Buddhism which is generally non-dogmatic, in that it says, don't get attached even to Buddhism. Which is not to say, there aren't Buddhist dogmatists, as I'm sure there certainly are. But it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Buddhism.

It may be just too Eastern for my Western mindset. And I've never had a master whose teachings I was fearful of doubting.

I do feel like I'm on a journey to find the best way to make sense of the world and the best way to live my life. I suppose I could take the parable to mean that there may be times when I think I've found that way, when in reality, I may need to give up that way because it is lacking. But, to put it in terms of the parable... there will always be other rivers to cross, so other rafts.

As far as Wittgenstein goes. He seemed to have come to the conclusion that philosophy is meaningless, that there are no real problems in philosophy, and he was so sure of this that he encouraged others to find other things to do besides philosophy. I don't agree with his conclusions.

I dont know any relativist philosophers who believer that all opinions are equal. — Joshs

Presumably they think relativism is objectively better than the alternatives.

There is something to be said for being eclectic. I like exploring ideas from a wide range of categories.

Fair enough. I would interpret it as follows.

First, it is a Sutta, meaning it is said to be something the Buddha really taught. In the Alagaddupama Sutta the Buddha gives two similes which explain how the dhamma that he teaches to the monks ought to be understood, one of which is the parable of the raft.

The parable of the raft starts with the simile of 'a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other.' The 'near shore' and the crossing itself, symbolise 'samsara' or worldly existence, with all of the hazards and dangers that it poses. The 'far sure' represents Nirvāṇa, freedom from all worldly anxiety and suffering.

So the man says 'What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?'

The 'raft' symbolises the vessel which is used to 'cross the expanse of water' - that is, the very teaching of the Buddha about 'the cause of suffering’ and its end.

I was struck by the simile of the raft being makeshift - twigs and the like 'being bound together' - so that it doesn't present 'the vessel' as being something of fine manufacture, you might say. In a way it's quite self-deprecating.

Then having 'crossed the river', the Buddha says, '"Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

"No, lord."

So the message is, once the raft has served its purpose, it is discarded. The simile ends with this admonition:

'Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.' — Wayfarer

I never liked this parable of the raft. Largely because of the ending of "leaving the raft behind" instead of sending it back down the stream so that others may find it and use it to cross the river. An opportunity lost.

I'm not sure I follow. I wouldn't say I'm eclectic, at least, if that's how I came across.

Instead of looking for some system (or accepting some system) an existentialist sees the world afresh as a free being who has the first hand experience of finding himself in various situations. — anonymous66

I like this. He finds himself in hot water. He (really I) didn't ask for this adventure. No system seems to do this hot water justice. The systems seem to him like wishful thinking. Or to ignore the complexity of the situation. Or to ignore that the situation is his situation. The system is maybe great for humanity. It moves inexorably toward moral progress and increased scientific and maybe even metaphysical knowledge. To the degree that the individual can participate in this and enjoy it, hooray! To the degree that it neglects the specificity of his situation, boooooo.

Largely because of the ending of "leaving the raft behind" instead of sending it back down the stream so that others may find it and use it to cross the river. — Agustino

There is an abundance of leaves and twigs.

Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

"No, lord." — Wayfarer

No, of course not because the raft is definitely heavy, ideas aren't definitely heavy. The whole parable is a category error, he's basically saying - if you agree with me that my teaching can be like a cumbersome weight, then you should let it go once it's served its purpose. That much is obvious, if something is cumbersome and heavy and you don't know if you're going to need it again, you don't carry it. It doesn't take a Buddha to work that out, you could ask a five year old and he'd tell you the right answer. The question (which remains unanswered) is are teachings cumbersome and unlikely to be re-used once they've got you to nirvana?

You have not conveyed any insight into what the parable is about.

You have not conveyed any insight into what the parable is about. — Wayfarer

So 'what the parable is about' is an objective truth which people can either have insight on or not. I thought you were set against being dogmatic about objective truths.

Are you an Ayn Rand enthusiast, by any chance?

Can't stand her. No different to religious anti-realists in my opinion. She takes one very general logical truth (we are all rationally self-interested) and then makes one massive unjustified leap - ergo capitalism is right.

Religious anti-realists do the same, take the logical truth 'we can't be certain of anything' and then make the massive unjustified leap - ergo, my religion must be fine.

They're both just sloppy thinking to excuse a lifestyle they've already decided to adopt prior to the charade of pretending to arrive at their conclusions logically.

It was only because of your appeal to ‘an objective truth’ as if ‘objectivity’ is the sole criterion of truth. That is the kind of thing Rand would say, but pleased to know that in this respect you are a person of sound judgement. :-)

It's you who appealed to an objective truth by implying that that parable was definitely 'about something' which I must therefore have shown no insight into, rather than acknowledging that my interpretation of the story is as valid as any other. It surprised me, given your previous attitude to objective truth.

But nothing earns my respect quicker than agreeing that Ayn Rand is an idiot (she can't even spell Ann, for goodness sake!).

They're both just sloppy thinking to excuse a lifestyle they've already decided to adopt prior to the charade of pretending to arrive at their conclusions logically. — Inter Alia

I think you're right. But I often get the sense that describes most of us. And even if we identify with logic and critical thinking, this might involve some kind of 'prior' adoption of a standpoint. Don't get me wrong. I relate to critical thinking and logic. But I in some sense 'find' myself invested. Can I make explicit what is so great about logic and critical thinking? It seems vaguely (if at times intensely) noble.If I reduce it to a kind of prudence, the feeling of the situation is lost.

She takes one very general logical truth (we are all rationally self-interested) — Inter Alia

That's not a logical truth.

There is an abundance of leaves and twigs. — Wayfarer

Sure, but not everyone has the skill to make them into a raft, even if it's a 'bad' raft. The raft represent the teachings - the teachings may now be useless to you now that you are enlightened, but send them down the river, someone who isn't enlightened may find them, and they will be of use to him/her. The problem isn't only keeping something that is no longer useful to you, the problem is keeping something that isn't useful to you and could be useful to others. I think the Buddhist parable misses this aspect and it doesn't surprise me, given Buddhism's somewhat "selfish" focus on personal salvation (this is only relative to other faiths, not absolute).

I was saying that I'm eclectic, because I tend to pick and choose from among various ideas from a wide range of philosophical thinkers.

Another way to interpret the parable, is that the river is life, and because we're in the middle of it, we need a raft. We all need to assess our raft and continually improve upon it as we cross the river.

(edited slightly)

Or to ignore the complexity of the situation. — tEd

Regarding systems:
It seems to me like the paradigm is, "What you need to do is to think and analyze... that is THE most important thing to do in life." What about our actions? What about other people? How should we treat them? What about my first person experiences? Do they mean nothing?

But, I still like exploring systems. And I wonder if we'll ever find one that explains everything.

That's not a logical truth. — Agustino

Fair point. I shall refrain from attempting to condense an entire essay's worth of critique into a single epigrammatic sentence in future.

I often get the sense that describes most of us. — tEd

To an extent, yes, but there's a massive difference between 'sloppy' thinking to justify a position we've already decided to hold, and really good thinking to do the same job.

It's you who appealed to an objective truth by implying that that parable was definitely 'about something' which I must therefore have shown no insight into, rather than acknowledging that my interpretation of the story is as valid as any other. — Inter Alia

The difference I am trying to express is in respect of the use of the term ‘objective truth’. I think referring to ‘objectivity’ as a criterion for ‘what is really the case’ is misleading in this kind of instance. The truth which the Buddha wishes to convey is soteriological, concerned with transcending the human condition and with the ‘final bliss’ of Nirvāṇa. ‘Objectivity’ as a criterion has a more limited scope, namely in the judgement of phenomenal facts. Within that domain, ‘objectivity’ is indeed the deciding criterion, but beyond it, it doesn’t necessarily obtain.

Another doctrinal description of the transcendent nature of the teaching:

These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

Brahmajāla Sutta 37. Note ‘beyond the sphere of reasoning’, which is the domain within which objectivity applies.

Another way to interpret the parable, is that the river is life, and because we're in the middle of it, we need a raft. We all need to assess our raft and continually assess it and improve upon it as we cross the river. — anonymous66

Agree!