15 Jul 06
Originally posted by Mister MeanerThis kind of dualistic thinking is something that the Zen mind tries to avoid.
Ah yes, the zens really like Ekhart! I am not sure that we should be surprised that a Zen Master, bringing Buddhism to the west, should choose to quote from a western theologian to help explain a point.
Even if your argument that the Zen mind = Tao = pantheism is not a step too far, I am not yet convinced by the problem of evil aspect. This kind of ...[text shortened]... re the problem of evil seems to me to melt away...
Compassionate action arises of itself...
So tell me: do Zen Buddhists look both ways before they cross the street? I'd suspect so -- because it's either the Zen... or the bus/taxi/tram. I really doubt the eradication of dualism is taken to its definitive (and fateful) end.
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI see nothing contradictory about believing that the universe is in some sense a unity but that components of the Unity can do morally objectionable acts.
I see nothing contradictory about believing that the universe is in some sense a unity but that components of the Unity can do morally objectionable acts. It is only a problem if you subscribe to a Divine Puppetmaster theology, which pantheists don't.
Makes one wonder how united this "unity" of yours really is. Anyways, I merely propounded on "The Problem" to support my rejection of pantheism.
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloSince the absurdist stance claims that there is no ultimate meaning to our existence, any claims that entail an ultimate meaning to our existence are not compatible with an absurdist stance.
[b]Generally, everything is perfectly compatible with an absurdist stance.
Since the absurdist stance claims that there is no ultimate meaning to our existence, any claims that entail an ultimate meaning to our existence are not compatible with an absurdist stance. Your eschatological beliefs, for example, I do not consider compatible with ...[text shortened]... fact that one is dead, which should make all the difference, shouldn't it?”[/b]
It's really like you want reality to have no ultimate reason, cause or meaning. Why don't you consistently apply this principle in your life? Why bother trying to find individual meaning? Why do anything for that matter? Why even live?
I think this may just be a form of anthropomorphism.
Circumstantial evidence, your honour! :-D
Regardless, I think this aspect of Christian doctrine contributes to speciesism.
Are you vegetarian? Do you ever sit on a leather couch -- or wear a leather jacket? Ever intentionally killed a mosquito? Do you consider yourself intellectually superior to a sheep?
According to Sartre, 'anguish' stems from a "sense of complete and profound responsibility" that in choosing what he is, he also chooses for all of mankind.
How does the "ultimate meaninglessness" of life generate "profound responsibility"?
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloFair enough. You're certainly the expert on the subject around here.
Surprisingly to me, this website actually does convey a decent introduction (as far as extremely brief introductions go) to the absurdism of Camus.
I don't care to feed those practices that will confuse absurdism with existentialism. Absurdism is properly grounded in Camus, not existentialism, IMO.
15 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseJust as much as a Theist convinced that God would intervene to save them I imagine!!! The point of the Buddhist "awareness" isn't really about being one with the traffic; but more about understanding the mental baggage associated with a red light, policeman's whistle etc.
So tell me: do Zen Buddhists look both ways before they cross the street? I'd suspect so -- because it's either the Zen... or the bus/taxi/tram. I really doubt the eradication of dualism is taken to its definitive (and fateful) end.
Learning to remove the cycles of frustration, blame and "suffering" - that red light made me late - suppress the me and the I and take the longer view is a more accurate representation of the nihilism often associated with Buddhism I would guess, but I am no authority.
Time for vistesd to return to the market place perhaps??
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by Mister MeanerJust as much as a Theist convinced that God would intervene to save them I imagine!!!
Just as much as a Theist convinced that God would intervene to save them I imagine!!! The point of the Buddhist "awareness" isn't really about being one with the traffic; but more about understanding the mental baggage associated with a red light, policeman's whistle etc.
Learning to remove the cycles of frustration, blame and "suffering" - that re ...[text shortened]... guess, but I am no authority.
Time for vistesd to return to the market place perhaps??
Nah, IMO it would be rather presumptuous for the finite to predict the Infinite.
So you are saying that Buddhism attempts to remove the veil of dualism -- but not necessarily in all circumstances?
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseZen tries to to turn off the internal critique and see things as they really are. In all circumstances. This is the mindfulness of the present moment. Everything else is thinking. Similarly Christian Mystics have practiced knowing the the presence of God in each moment...
So you are saying that Buddhism attempts to remove the veil of dualism -- but not necessarily in all circumstances?
I think Krishnamurti's view was that even this was too much baggage...
Where pantheism seems to fail for me is that "God" (acknowledging all the various pantheisms you mentioned) appears on both sides of the equation such that you can "divide through by God" and "He" disappears! Maybe we are then left with things as they really are...
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseIt's really like you want reality to have no ultimate reason, cause or meaning.
[b]Since the absurdist stance claims that there is no ultimate meaning to our existence, any claims that entail an ultimate meaning to our existence are not compatible with an absurdist stance.
It's really like you want reality to have no ultimate reason, cause or meaning. Why don't you consistently apply this principle in your life? Why bothe ...[text shortened]...
How does the "ultimate meaninglessness" of life generate "profound responsibility"?[/b]
Er,...no. And what does my wanting or not wanting have to do with anything? I empathize with you to a certain extent: you are a passionate mind and value the opportunities that life affords; you are strongly wed to your conscious experience and cannot bear the thought of its cessation; you hope that your actions and existence will have eternal significance. And yet there is nothing that supports that hope; there is nothing about our conscious experience that we can identify as permanent or immortal. I think absurdism is justified but certainly defeasible. So I am always open to hearing argument against absurdism, but I am not interested in appeals to emotion.
Why don't you consistently apply this principle in your life? Why bother trying to find individual meaning? Why do anything for that matter? Why even live?
I do "consistently apply this principle" which is to say that I consistently stand in endorsement of the claim that there is no ultimate meaning to my existence. I think you falsely suppose that absurdism entails nihilism and/or suicidal impulse. Not so (and if you have argument to the contrary, I would certainly like to hear it). Concerning absurdism's implying nihilism, you yourself affirm just the opposite every single day -- we all do. That's because there are numerous actions that are purposefully carried out under chains of justification that terminate completely within our natural existence: they require no external justification, nor do we suppose any in our deliberations. Example: say I prevent you from unknowingly placing your hand on a burning hot stove. In that event, there are a number of good reasons we can point to for valuing my acting in such a way, and not one of them has anything to do with God or ultimate meaning. My actions are meaningful, for one, in virtue of the fact that they carry real consequences (even in an absurd world). A game of chess has no eternal significance -- should I take that to imply that any one legal move has no more value than any other legal move?
Your question "Why even live?" is similar to the question of to what extent, if any, absurdism legitimates suicide. That is precisely the question that Camus tackles in The Myth of Sisyphus, and I recommend it. In that essay, Camus attempts to demonstrate that, in the face of absurdity, neither suicide nor escape through hope is legitimate. Regardless, under my absurdist stance, death represents a permanent cessation to consciousness. So if I value my conscious experience, then I have interests to avoid death. And even if I were unhappy with my life, to say that *I* would be better (or just no worse) off in a state of death is literally self-contradictory since it simultaneously supposes both a conscious self and the lack of a conscious self. So under my absurdist stance, I really don't see how I could rationally endorse suicide.
Are you vegetarian? Do you ever sit on a leather couch -- or wear a leather jacket? Ever intentionally killed a mosquito? Do you consider yourself intellectually superior to a sheep?
If you are trying to identify me as a hypocrite, none of these questions will achieve that. I am not a speciesist because I do not assign value merely on the basis of species. I assign value and moral consideration on the basis of actual possession of properties -- a category that humans inductively score well in, but not necessarily so. I think the Christian doctrine you mentioned earlier reinforces speciesism: to say that humans are made in God's image reinforces the idea that all members of the biological species Homo Sapiens are necessarily inferior merely in virtue of that membership, which is false.
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
Btw, vegetarian -- yes. But I have committed myself to a transition to fruitarianism. So then I'll be able to go around introducing myself as an "atheistic fruitarian Camusian absurdist", which I think is catchy.
How does the "ultimate meaninglessness" of life generate "profound responsibility"?
Be careful: Sartre states that anguish can stem from merely a "sense of profound responsibility". Regardless, I do not see why "profound responsibilty" cannot exist even in the absence of ultimate meaning, if that's what you're trying to get at.
You asked about 'despair' and 'anguish', both of which have specific meanings in existential thought, and I provided them. I don't agree with either of them and I do not see much place for either of them in my absurdist stance, and you can do the research yourself if you are interested (see, for example, Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism). In particular, I do not at all agree with Sartre's take on 'anguish'.