Trump just needs some training and he'll do well! :snicker:

Values have to be prosocial.

If not they're antisocial that mimic prosocial values. How good the mimicry is, time will tell!

To give the devil his due, I'd say mimicking friendliness is better than open hostility. It might lead to a change of heart, even if only at the last minute. At least the value of goodness is acknowledged; so what if it's only a sham!

:snicker: I think I'm off-topic!

Questions regarding the now famous Noble Silence or the middle path.

1. The Buddha didn't know i.e. denying what are considered extremes is an admission of ignorance.

2. The Buddha knew i.e. the truth is actually somewhere in the middle, the madhyamaka is a statement of fact.

?

Yeah, right?

The mind, it seems, has a death wish; it wants to play against itself and win & lose :chin: (re The Stone Paradox, Leibniz - minds are, get this, little gods). The mind wants to trap itself, but only so that it can transcend its own limitations or thereabouts. Feels a bit premature if you ask me - there are other more pressing issues according to many - but hey, why should we do things sequentially, in the proper order? We're not computers running algorithms, oui?

You've accused me of many foul deeds, mon ami! :snicker:

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

Danke! Much obliged.

The Tetralemma with The Buddhist Denial (Nyet) = The Logical negation (No)

1. p No! Ergo ~p
2. ~p No! Ergo p

As you can see, with 1 and 2 we're running in circles between p and ~p.

3. p & ~p No! Ergo p v ~p
4. ~(p v ~p) No! Ergo p v ~p

Here the situation is different, both 3 and 4, negated, lead to p v ~p (the law of the excluded middle).

As is obvious, 1, 2 and 3, 4, together is basically the law of the excluded middle (LEM). What is the importance of LEM to Buddhism? Note here that Nagarjuna's tetralemma is being interpreted in terms of Western logic (especially the classical notion of logical negation).

---

The Tetralemma with The Buddhist Denial (Nyet) $\neq$ Logical Negation

1. p Nyet!
2. ~p Nyet!
3. p & ~p Nyet!
4 ~(p v ~p) Nyet!

The 4 corners above exhaust all possible states related to a proposition p. Nyet p doesn't mean yea ~p, nor does nyet ~p mean yea p; the tertralemma also denies contradictions (3), nor does it endorse anything other than p or ~p (4). It appears I was wrong, the tetralemma is not the escape route, it is the trap. Checkmate! The Mind can't make a/any move, all routes are blocked (re Zen Koans, Mushin no shin, Mu).

Fair enough.

I posted the thread in the logic category for a reason. My focus is on the logic of the tetralemma, to be precise how what I referred to as The Buddhist Denial (Nyet) is like and unlike the Logical Negation we're all familiar with.

When a Buddhist says "nyet" to a proposition p, s/he means not p, but then stops short of affirming ~p. This is a very subtle point, at least to me, and the OP was meant to highlight this unique feature of The Buddhist Denial (Nyet).

If I'm wrong, Buddhists would be, well, running around in circles with denial of one corner would result in taking you to the next corner (this is true for at least p and ~p within a logical negation framework) - it's kinda like a trap you see, for the mind. To escape, one must deny (Nyet) without affirming the negation of what one denies. For example, no (Nyet), god exists doesn't mean yea, god doesn't exist.

Something like that...

Still not as clear on the topic as I'd like to be.

Muchas gracias for providing some context for the OP.

how they would change things so they would be happy voters instead of angry voters. — Athena

The simplicity mon chéri, the simplicity! :up:

Reactionary politics is all about feelings. — Athena

Hear! Hear!

Good points!

Update

The Grelling-Nelson paradox is a true paradox: G & ~G

1. G & ~G
2. G (1 Simp)
3. G v P (2 Add, P is any god damned statement)
4. ~G (1 Simp)
5. P (3, 4 DS)
QED (ex falso quodlibet)

As you can see, unless we do something to halt the principle of explosion, we're doomed! One solution is to adopt paraconsistent logic, oui? :chin:

Addition/Disjunction Introduction Rule (step 3 vide supra), it doesn't feel right!

:up:

I haven't a clue as to what you're saying here.

There's no paradox in the equations of QM.

There's a paradox when these equations are translates into natural language e.g. English.

Something doesn't add up, oui?

And you appear to be ignoring information. — Athena

:blush: Yep, you're on the mark. It's just it doesn't feel right to attribute anything to a particular group of people or to a country as a whole. When we do that, we do it for the sake of simplicity, but there's the real and deadly risk of oversimplification.

Good points OP.

I've myself pondered upon the vexing issue of how even altruism in the end is selfish.

The way I (attempt to) save the phenomena as it were is to take a more nuanced approach. True, altruism is selfish, but contextualize that within the following undeniable truths:

1. Can one truly remove oneself from the equation of altruism? It, as of the moment, is impossible (no matter how altruistic you are, you're gonna reap some benefits). Do you begrudge a tiger if it attacks you? The tiger can't help it, it's nature is not something it chooses to be. Likewise, we too can't avoid acting in our own interests, but we must acknowledge that an altruist, all said and done, uniquely and distinctly, also deems the interest of others as equally or more important than his/her own. That's something that counts in my book.

2. The altruist also, if all goes well, reduces (quantitatively) his gain from an action i.e. if s/he could've got $50, s/he's willing to accept less (monetizing a problem is as good as mathematizing it; things begin to make sense).

Summary:

1. The altruist, despite an innate selfishness, seeks to aid others. Me = Others. Point earned!

2. The altruist, for the simple reason that profit for himself is ineluctable, attempts to mathematically reduce them. Me < Others. Another point earned!

1. I value others
2. I value others more than myself — Altruist

@Athena

In my humble opinion, the ills of the political system that are around are not unique to either the US or Germany.

@ucarr

Good that you broached the quantum mechanics (QM) topic. QM is frequently used as a source of examples of weirdness (logical hanky panky) in the world.

However, methinks this is misguided because the mathematical descriptions seem not to exhibit any inconsistencies whatsoever.

It's as if a book in language x (math) is perfectly coherent but the moment it's translated into another language (any natural language) it becomes incoherent (full of paradoxes).

That's my analysis of course; I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. All I have to offer is what I cobbled together from info I gathered from the internet.

There are true paradoxes e.g. The Grelling-Nelson Paradox and that means the LNC has to go, which in turn implies we need to switch from classical logic to some strain of paraconsistent logic.

The other alternative is to isolate true paradoxes like we do to Covid + people in the ongoing pandemic - damage control that is (vide ex falso quodlibet).

Am I making any sense?

Then, every human being has a unique consciousness and the problem of a bat is just the problem of every single life form having unique consciousness — Jackson

Aye!

As for my comment that this situation (current science) which the hard problem of consciousness calls home is probably temporary, vide infra:

Based on your pupil dilation, skin temperature, and motor functions, I calculate an 83% probability that you will not pull the trigger. — Terminator T-800

Verum: Philosophy
Bonum: Religion
Pulchrum: Epicureanism/Hedonism

A coupla points:

1. I've heard this often, mathematical truths are beautiful. This one :point: $e^{\pi i} + 1 = 0$ has been voted as numero uno in the looks department.

2. There's this notion of truthiness (vide Wikipedia for details) that may have a lot to do with beauty as it were. Beauty, instead of logical argumentation/justification, could be a reliable indicator of truthfulness & goodness both. A cursory look into mythology will give you some idea of what I'm getting at.

Not necessarily though i.e. the correlation between pulchrum and the other two transcendentalia (verum, bonum) isn't that strong or rather isn't that well established to be reliable - (lies, evil and beauty seem to join forces to produce a lethal cocktail to all who drink from it).

Perhaps the transcendentalia describe an ideal, best-case scenario as acknowledged by other posters.

@ZzzoneiroCosm

I think I have a death wish and I have no idea that I have it!

:fear:

That's just too general a characterization for what psychotherapists do. — baker

Keeps us sane, these helpful, though less-than-perfect, generalizations.

Truths, the way it seems to me, are basically maps (language + logic) and the objective is to get our hands on the best possible one, given the limitations of our tools, for the territory we're interested in. Our linguistic expressions, logically enhanced, must, in this sense, correspond to reality. That's all we can hope for and that's about all that's feasible.

Communism OR Anarchism

Choose! :snicker:

Nice!

Putin isn't immortal, neither are his henchmen. Patience NATO, patience! — Agent Smith

:snicker:

I'm barely a philosopher! — Average

:smile:

Yeah, in history, theists have treated animals very well, in-between sacrificing them and looking at their entrails to figure out what your gods want them to do next — universeness

Cows are sacred in Hindustan, but India's the largest or one of the largest exporters of beef! Go figure.

Then there's Hanuman, the monkey god, a central figure in the epic Ramayana. Meanwhile...in Indian research centers, monkeys are kept in appalling conditions. What's up with that?

Cognitive dissonance...at a scale that would make psychologists go huh :chin: ??!! Other countries don't fare better of course.

I'm not a Socratic — Average

Figures, you no troll!

Scotty's not the problem, in a "democracy" individuals are never the problem unless you wanna admit that it's not...a democracy.

:snicker:

Pretty much the same story for me and I actually really like Watts. His ideas were ‘off-the-rack’ but he had charisma and was an excellent preacher man. His words gave me comfort and meaning in a difficult time, as I recall. — praxis

I have a feeling Watts' charisma is largely due to his voice (deep baritone, made more impressive by chain-smoking).

:snicker:

Helpful! :up:

I can assure you that I'm not interested in trolling. — Average

:snicker: Philosophers, going by the standard set by none other than Socrates (Athenian gadfly troll), are supposed to be trolls of the highest caliber!

Thanks. There's too much to learn and I don't have the time. :sad:

:smile:

I don't know you so I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt. — Average

:smile:

@180 Proof

Dialectical Materialism

1. Dialectical. There are two opposing sides. What are they?

2. Materialism. What's that?

Muchas gracias in advance!

It's all very alien to me. — Average

Join the club, fellow forum member! :snicker:

@Wayfarer

:clap:

What a post! Superb!

Thanks for the link to Mullah Nasruddin (bookmarked it for later).

The belief in the link betwixt madness & the divine has a long history. For an obviou reason - theists are maniacs - this idea of theia mania has been suppressed in most religions.

I recall reading a definition of delusion in my college years and I'll reproduce it here as best as I can recall it.

Delusion: Belief that one refuses to give up

1. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary

and

2. Is not in keeping with the religion and culture one professes or is a member of.

A very subtle way of denouncing faith if you ask me: You're a lunatic if you believe x even if it's wrong, but perfectly "normal" if x is a doctrine in your faith.

Self-defense is instinctive/hardwired/automatic/unwilled. Is it better to be in control (not flee, not fight, and not freeze) or to lose it (fight, flight, freezs) big time?

Quartus quid?

He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty. — Lao Tzu/The Buddha

We need to bring the Occident and the Orient together. They seem to make up for each other's flaws.

The Golden Rule, Gensler's included, has to do with

1. Solipsism (We can only know ourselves, not too well I imagine; Temet nosce)

2. Principle of Uniformity of Nature (Others will like/dislike what I like/dislike respectively)

My guesstimate is that that Golden Rule and its spinoffs were never meant to work 100% of the time, but hey, if it does its job in 90% of cases, I'm all for it. Something is better than nothing, ja?

Live as an insane person or Die as a sane person.

The choices aren't that great, but before we grumble, let's not forget it could've been worse (no choice at all).