OK, so

1. How do we judge soteriological claims then, because there certainly seems to be quite a lot of them around and most are contradictory?

2. How do you know objectivity doesn't obtain beyond phenomenological claims, how did you work that out?

3. How did you know that when I made the comment that Buddha, in his parable, had made a mistake likening teachings to something cumbersome and of limited further use, I was making any claim about objective truth and not a soteriological claim of my own?

Good questions.

1. How do we judge soteriological claims then, because there certainly seems to be quite a lot of them around and most are contradictory? — Inter Alia

It’s a bet situation. We aren’t really going to know but we have to try something. Many would say ‘ah well, you’re simply accepting a proposition without evidence. What if you’ve been sold a pup?’

I think part of the answer, in respect of the Buddhist tradition, is that the countenance and deportment of the Buddha and the monks, would communicate a sense of assuredness and confidence - a palpable air of peace and stability which the questioner would sense. That would be evident, and therefore count as evidence. Clearly this is not evident to those of us reading the accounts at second hand but I think ought to be taken into account.

But at the end of the day it does require faith even if only in the sense of being a ‘willingness to try’.

2. How do you know objectivity doesn't obtain beyond phenomenological claims, how did you work that out? — Inter Alia

In terms of the discipline of philosophy, this is one of the main implications of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

3. How did you know that when I made the comment that Buddha, in his parable, had made a mistake likening teachings to something cumbersome and of limited further use — Inter Alia

Perhaps I reacted hastily, but I had the sense that you hadn’t really gotten the point. But clearly you are wanting to dig into the issue.

Well, that all makes complete sense, except for three major problems.

1. You mention confidence, peace, and stability as evidence that the prophet knows what they're talking about. Firstly, and most important from an ontological perspective, where did you get those qualities from, what led you to believe that such qualities were more likely to identify a true prophet from a set of potential prophets if objectivity is not being used? Secondly, and most important from a pragmatic point of view, I think most people described Jesus as pretty assured and peaceful, but his version of of salvation seems to be pretty much at odds with Buddha's. Self-assured is pretty much the hallmark of every crackpot guru out there, so all you've done is separate out the ones that seem peaceful. That still hasn't really narrowed it down to anything non-contradictory. You've dismissed my version pretty easily but you don't even know how peaceful I am (self-assured I think I've got pretty much covered!).

2. Kant claimed that we can't know that which is outside our sensual interpretation of the world, not that we can know but by some other means. His synthetic a priori knowledge was that which is logically derived from existence, it certainly doesnt advocate claiming to know something outside of our sense data by some other means.

3. At what point do we re-engage our critical thinking? If Buddha's teachings can be taken on faith, on account of his winning personality, then how do we know when to switch back into critically thinking about it. We seem (you and others) to be having quite a rational conversation about what Buddha meant, using evidence and logic (no one has yet suggested he might have meant we should build an actual raft), but it seems the possibility that he might actually have been talking nonsense has been artificially ruled out of our range of conclusions. This doesn't seem so much like faith as idolotry. People seem to be applying their critical thinking to somehow 'make Buddha right'. Essentially, I don't see how we can combine a faith that he must be right with an expectation that any form of rational analysis might help us to understand what he was saying, how can we know we've had any success with that analysis if we've already accepted that we personally wouldn't know what the 'right' answer looks like, that we must instead rely on a prophet for that insight?

To clarify;

We assume we do not personally know what is 'true' (otherwise we would not be seeking the advice of Buddha) - I have no problem with this.

We assume that whatever Buddha is saying is probably 'true' because his demeanour indicates he's got something right - apart from the problem of how we know what demeanour were supposed to be looking for, I have no problem with this either.

But... We don't seem to know exactly what it is he was saying, there seems to be some ambiguity about it. The same is true of Jesus, Mohammed, even the ten commandments. We're not quite sure exactly what they're saying (hence the massive and still unresolved study of theology).

So, being so sure that whatever they're saying is probably 'true' as evidenced by their countenance doesn't seem to be of any use to us, we still don't know any 'truths' because we don't know exactly what they meant. We're left applying our own thoughts and experiences to the words (very often second- or even third-hand accounts of them) after having just admitted that we wouldn't know what 'true' looked/felt like even if we found it.

We don't seem to have got anywhere.

[delete)

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. — Wayfarer

I think it is important to understand the raft as something we must make ourselves, each one of us. The Buddha does not give you the understanding, what is given to you is just the means. If you want to get to the other side of the river, build a raft.

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. — Agustino

But this is just the nature of understanding, it is something which each one of us has to create ourselves. It is not something which we can take, ready-made from someone else. So the raft can't be passed on. It's like Plato's cave people, the philosopher may feel the duty to go back and show the way to the people in the cave, beyond the reflections toward the true reality, but unless they have the will to follow, in the first place, they will think that the philosopher is crazy. So without the desire to cross the river, the raft is useless. And once one has the desire, the need for a raft is not an obstacle.

There is an abundance of leaves and twigs. — Wayfarer

That's the point, but the raft still has to be made, and each one of us has to make our own, as we forge our own understanding.

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. — Inter Alia

Look though, the teaching can be nothing more than giving the student direction. And when the student follows the direction and gets to where the teacher is, the teacher can no longer give the student direction. To go forward from this point, the student must find a new direction, which will necessarily be contrary to the direction which brought the student to that point. It is not like there is one direction for us all, and we mark off the points as if we proceed always in a straight line, always in the same direction, straight toward some distant end. We choose goals, proceed until we get there, then choose a new one. We cannot assume that the direction we proceed from a goal will be the same direction as proceeding to that goal.

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. — Agustino

But the raft cannot directly represent the teachings, because the raft is something that must be built by the student. So the teachings may direct the student on how to build the raft, once the student has developed the desire to follow the teacher, thus helping the student get to the other side, where the teacher is, but the teacher cannot produce the understanding for the student. So the raft is the understanding itself, and this must be built by the student. When the understanding is produced, the teachings are no longer needed. The student cannot pass along one's own understanding (the raft) to others, only the teachings.

Ahhh OK. Cool, I had it backwards in my head then.

I wouldn't speak against eclecticism, per se at least. I'm more just trying to get at that while categories of thought are useful for our understanding there is still variation within said categories. Existentialism is a prime example -- while there are themes and problems which Existential thinkers seem to grapple with with some similarity, the disparity of thought and argument varies widely among them.

So it's not satisfactory to simply posit three lines of thinking, and then disjunctively find the best solution between them. Disproving two or three whole categories of thought doesn't necessarily get at the arguments or lines of reasoning which you're exploring or thinking about.

You mention systems a lot when talking about dogmatism, and state:

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? — anonymous66

You also mention a goal here:

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. — anonymous66

I'd second what another poster has said, in part, and say that I don't think "dogmatism" is the exact right word for the questions you're asking when describing systems or the goal you're after. One could find answers to these questions by appeal to dogma, but I wouldn't say that systematic thought implies dogmatism. Or, at least, if we feel that systematic thought is dogmatism, then that might actually shed light on exactly how you feel about systematic thought -- that it can't be rationally defended, or something along those lines.



For me, it seems that tackling these particular questions is more interesting and worthwhile than parsing them into broad categories of thought, though, just because it allows you to be more specific and pay attention to the details of your thinking. Ideally speaking, at least, I'd say that a system of thought is the result of such thinking, rather than the justification by which we answer these questions. You don't begin with a system and derive answers, you begin with the questions and, perhaps if you are lucky, develop a system of thought.

A bit of historical pedantry on my part, but I feel it important to note just cuz -- Cicero was a Stoic, and not a Skeptic.

A bit of historical pedantry on my part, but I feel it important to note just cuz -- Cicero was a Stoic, and not a Skeptic. — Moliere

Hey, no problem. Didn’t find anything specific in my quick reading of his Wikipedia page but did find this on the Wikipedia page De Natura Deorum:

Gaius Velleius represents the Epicurean school, Quintus Lucilius Balbus argues for the Stoics, and Gaius Cotta speaks for Cicero's own Academic skepticism.

Having read this particular work and a little background—and as is confirmed in the quote above—we was an Academic (i.e., philosophical) skeptic who favored Stoicism in this very addressed work.

I mentioned the guy because he was anything but an ascetic.

That's the point, but the raft still has to be made, and each one of us has to make our own, as we forge our own understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, an assumption of subjectivism and relativism. It is a Buddhist principle that 'each must traverse the path', but not at all that everyone has to literally 'create the dharma' for him or herself. I think the understanding was, by joining the sangha and observing the discipline, then this comprises 'the vessel'. In fact that is the meaning of 'yana', as in Mahayana.

We don't seem to have got anywhere. — Inter Alia

Which is exactly the conclusion you intended to reach at the outset, I suggest.

Cool. My familiarity with Cicero is primarily through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_finibus_bonorum_et_malorum bc. of its polemic of Epicureans of the day. The wiki article mentions that he subscribes to Acadmic philosophy on it, so it seems I'm the one in the wrong on that. I mostly took his opposition to Epicureanism to be a Stoic one bc. they were the competing schools of thought of the day.

So not a strict stoic, I agree. Just one who is sympathetic of stoicism.

I'm okay with just saying "seeking after systems" instead of Dogma. Not everyone who is looking for a system is going to be dogmatic about it (assuming dogma has a negative connotation). I mentioned a definition of dogma in one of my earlier posts.

If there are other options beside the 3 I mentioned, I'd like to hear them. I think nihilism is a legitimate 4th category. Are there others?

Cicero liked some Stoic ideas

While Cicero would adhere to a moderate skepticism in general philosophical matters, he admired Panaetius and drew on a number of Stoic ideas in formulating his own ethical and political teachings

- but he was an Academic Skeptic.

I think that's just a matter of names after the fact. How do you answer the questions you pose? I'd say a piece-meal approach to the questions is better than deliberating between options.


Yup, I acknowledged my error.

Actually, I think that in today's academe, relativism has become a/the dogma.

Look though, the teaching can be nothing more than giving the student direction. And when the student follows the direction and gets to where the teacher is, the teacher can no longer give the student direction. To go forward from this point, the student must find a new direction, which will necessarily be contrary to the direction which brought the student to that point. It is not like there is one direction for us all, and we mark off the points as if we proceed always in a straight line, always in the same direction, straight toward some distant end. We choose goals, proceed until we get there, then choose a new one. We cannot assume that the direction we proceed from a goal will be the same direction as proceeding to that goal. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've entirely missed the point of what I was saying. There's nothing at all wrong with your interpretation, but how do we know it's the right one? As I've just discussed with Wayfarer, the only logical reason I can see why we're concerned with something said 2000 years ago would be that this person was particularly wise, wiser than we are, by quite some margin. Someone who has an access to 'the truth' that we do not have (after all, if we had it, we might just as well talk amongst ourselves about the nature of teachings on the subject of salvation). So what we think he meant is irrelevant because we have just admitted that we cannot get to 'the truth', only he can. What matters is what he actually meant, which, as illustrated by the fact we're having this discussion, is ambiguous. We can't ask him, because he's dead, so the whole line of enquiry is pointless.

Which is exactly the conclusion you intended to reach at the outset, I suggest. — Wayfarer

Yes, I don't quite see how my having predicted the outcome of this discussion at the outset has any bearing on the argument. I'm not yet fully aware of the community protocols here, being quite new, but I thought this was a forum to discuss philosophy, not Buddhism. If you have to already believe that Buddha is our saviour before you can even join the conversation and have your arguments actually responded to in intelligent, impartial manor, then I think we should at least make that clear from the outset as it's very disheartening otherwise.

Buddhism avoids the term ‘saviour’, to use that terminology somewhat stereotypes the discussion.

Actually, I think that in today's academe, relativism has become a/the dogma. — Mitchell

(Y)

Buddhism never uses the term ‘saviour’. — Wayfarer

No, I did, it's my opinion of who Buddhists I've spoken to treat his words and how his words are treated here on this thread, as if they alone can take us from our current, less-likeable state to a future more likeable one (nirvana) i.e. 'save' us. It's a perfectly normal use of the word to describe an approach to a a person, the fact that Buddhism itself doesn't use it is irrelevant because I do not believe Buddhism is even a thing, its just a collection of writings by some people, just like you and me, nothing more.

What's more relevant than quibbling over a term is the points I've contributed to this discussion which are routinely being ignored in favour of exegetical analysis of scripture. This is not a theology forum.

I think irrational belief, rather, is at the root of all systems of thought, from nihilism to analytic philosophy, to existentialism, to Islamism. A truly rational system of thought would begin with a single root, "I exist", for instance, and then every branch of the system would perfectly follow from that, but no one is so perfectly rational as to be able to develop and maintain such a system. Such a system would actually be incomplete; it would be impossible to live within the world of experience and yet rationally construct such a system from within experience; the system would have to be constructed from outside experience (analysis), but analysis exists within experience. — Noble Dust

That sounds very similar to what I see in Gabriel Marcel's writings.

I keep meaning to read him.

No, many of them think that standards of objectivity, and the validity of opinions, can be legitimately determined within cultural groups, but that such standards change from group to group. many of them also think progress does take place, but not a linear, teleological sort of progress.
If all opinions were equal, the idea of progress wouldnt make any sense.

Where would you recommend I start?

I really like a book called Gabriel Marcel by Seymour Cain. It's a good overview of his life and work, and if you like what you see, it will give you some ideas about what to read next.

I'm reading all of Marcel's plays that I can get my hands on, and I'm in the middle of his autobiography. I'm probably doing it backwards, in that I'm reading a lot of secondary literature before I start reading his serious works (but as I mentioned, I am reading his plays and autobiography) The more I read about him, the more I like him and the way he thinks.

I'm starting to look into Phenomenology in general as well.

I am looking forward to reading Berdyaev ( I do own The Meaning of the Creative Act).