/.../Those are facts of our human condition, but outside the realism/anti-realism distinction, which is just the desire to avoid our responsibility for our acts by making it about just doing what is right, what we “ought” to—made certain (apart from me) by “facts”. — Antony Nickles
It's not about others lying or being mistaken.I'm not sure if "on trust" is entirely accurate. I think it would be more a case of making a judgment based on the weight of the evidence, which may be indirect. What's the probability that everyone without the problem would lie to us, or be mistaken? — Ciceronianus
The problem has more to do with how it's projected or sold as a goal to everyone, which included myself. I firmly believe it's incredibly unhelpful and even harmful to become a Buddhist for the purpose of attaining nirvana. It's akin to studying maths to win the fields medal or solve one of the 7 millennium problems. I can almost guarantee disappointment to anyone who does this.
It's 'projected and sold' to those who want to it to be, of which there are many. — Wayfarer
That's not the recognition of diminishing returns I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone who works hard in order to be able to afford the proverbial eating, drinking, and making merry, and who realizes that the eating, drinking, and making merry don't compensate for the hard work needed in order to be able to afford the eating, drinking, and making merry. I'm talking about people who, for example, one day realize that they need to work for an entire day in order to earn the money to be able to go to the cinema, and that the pleasure of watching the film doesn't outweigh the hardship needed to earn the money to be able to go see the film.If you want me to be completely honest. I have felt and do feel the diminishing returns thanks to my depression. — Sirius
Who gave you that medicine?I know what is it like for nothing to satisfy you, not even an hour long meditation session, medication, a dedicated study of the religious scriptures of all major world religions does the job for me
Why am l bitter ? Cause the medicine l was given didn't cure me of my illness.
I think perhaps, I would say, the correct sentence structure (in this particular context) for a realist then, would be "I think xyz about, what I think, is London".
But i do think the force of habit is strong enough to explain why realists talk in those absolutes anyway. — AmadeusD
Only on the assumption that everyone is equal.Questions of morality are about what everyone should choose. — Banno
It's subjective in the sense that it's people who are talking about its existence.
I think it goes further. It's subjective in the sense that it is an artificial label upon something that has no conformity to the label other than in the mind of a subject who has accepted the command to apply the label to that plot of land. — AmadeusD
I used the term "subjective" earlier in that particular context. Like I said:So what is there that is the opposite of "subjective", if we take this as a definition? What could be objective? Because there is nothing we could list here that is not by the very fact that we list it being talked about by people. And that would make everything subjective.
Can you give a better explanation of the distinction between subjective and objective? — Banno
Cunning.What can be more natural to us than how we live, how we actually interact with the rest of the world? — Ciceronianus
People who have significant eyesight problems generally know this is the case. Someone nearsighted will come to understand that what appears blurry to them at a distance won't appear blurry when closer to them, and as they live in an environment with others with no such problems, will come to know that they have a problem others don't have. Someone blind will come to know others are not. I think it's unlikely that the nearsighted and the blind will conclude that all are nearsighted and all are blind. — Ciceronianus
course, people will generally make concessions of weakness, fault, or deficit when it comes to small or trivial things.
But they are unlikely to believe (much less openly admit) they might be blind in some way that matters.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people admit they can't smell an intruder like a dog. — Hanover
We see in most cases exactly what we should see, being human. If that's the case, why is it that what we see isn't really what's there?
When we say we can't know what the world really or actually, I think we make certain assumptions, the primary of which is the assumption that there is something that is real behind what we experience which can't be determined. Something hidden from us because of our nature. It's a kind of religious view, perhaps. — Ciceronianus
If you accept moral realism, it's not because of any argument. It's just built in to your assumptions about the world. There is no good argument for moral realism. That there are moral truths does not show moral realism. — frank
"London" is a subjective term? — Banno
No. My gut feeling is that there might be a misnaming going on.You have a gut feeling that moral realism is false. — Michael
I'm not sure about this. I revise my earlier statement that it's my gut feeling against theirs. I actually allow for the possibility that they might have a knowledge I don't have.Neither has empirical or self-evident rational justification.
How do you know this?There is an objective, mind-independent, inaccessible fact-of-the-matter.
But it patently is not a state of affairs, and at very, very best, a description of one. What state of affairs outside of the mind indicates that command is universal? As far as i know, realists don't make absolute claims to a state of affairs, by noting a perception. — AmadeusD
Yes. Because guts aren't reasonable.Possibly.
Do you claim that it is unreasonable to claim to know that something is false because their “gut feeling” tells them so? — Michael
I've never found it difficult to find others among the godless who are religiously / theologically well-read, especially here on TPF — 180 Proof
In Theravada and Early Buddhism kamma is intention. Generally, only intentional actions have kammic consequences. This is why two people, externally acting the same way, could face very different kammic consequences if their intentions for doing the actions differ, respectively.1. Karma and rebirth are supposedly based on cause & effect. If true, there's a mountain of causes that, at death, would logically result in rebirth that is practically indistinguishable from the previous life. Yet the story goes that if you do a lot of dirty deeds in your life you will be reborn as a dirty cockroach or something. That doesn't make sense if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. It would be like I'm a human being one instant and the next instant I spontaneously turn into a dirty cockroach, just because I stole a loaf of bread or whatever. I should be reborn the same human bread stealing dirty deed doer that I was the instant before death, if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. — praxis
I think this has sometimes more to do with an unwillingness to engage in time-consuming explanations to people who seem hostile rather than anything else.My question basically has to do with narrative. Buddhists claim that karma & rebirth act according to cause & effect despite being unable to provide a narrative that shows this structure in their narratives. — praxis