DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Philosophy, Informal Fallacies & Buddhism

**heinz_1966** · 07-06-2011, 07:42 PM

...Philosophy is about problems, doing problems, finding problems and increasing problems as the main amusement of mind. The teachings of the historical Buddha are about facts and solutions

Philosophy is not about amusement. Some people use philosophy for amusement. There is a clear difference between the two.

...Now, why do people with, existential worries or concerns and intellectual curiosity tend to look at the teachings of the historical Buddha as a philosophical essay?

WHO does this?

...Philosophy is essentially so entangled that it can take the teachings of the historical Buddha as its formal object and thus the confusion of the teachings of the historical Buddha as a philosophical endeavor.

WHICH philosophers do this?

metaphysics

What do you mean by this term?

Philosophy can kidnap the entire teaching of the historical Buddha because it does that by nature

Philosophy does not have a "nature." How could the pursuit of the capacity for sound judgment (wisdom) have a "nature"?

An example of this can be the Mahayana (philosophical) religion.

I've very little interest Mahayana.

But the teachings of the historical Buddha are not an object

What do you mean by "object"?

existential

What do you mean by "existential"?

Philosophy is about cleverness.

Philosophy 101: Philosphy is about wisdom as opposed to cleverness. The wisdom of Socrates is anti-cleverness (see Apology). Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom where wisdom is the capacity for sound judgment.

Nietzsche...died full of bitterness and existential stress???

Nietzsche died of a legitimate medical illness. No one knows what he was "full of" in his last years because he barely spoke, if at all. However, his early essay, Philosophy in The Tragic Age of The Greeks is an unsurpassed introduction to and analysis of the topic, and a superb introduction to and example of critical thinking.

This is a good example of "the informal fallacy of hasty generalization..., a version of the fallacy of secundum quid, sometimes also called the fallacy of converse accident. [It is] the error of trying to argue from a particular case to a general rule that does not properly fit the case" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 432. 1999: Cambridge Press.).

Just imagine that one is set in prison for the rest of her/his life. Suddenly happens that from this prison an inmate has escaped and she/he left somewhere the detailed instructions for escaping from that same prison (at any time, for any moment at any place of the prision). Another inmate has the fortune to found them; instead of doing the proper hole in the wall, flowing the instructions, starts to talk with the wall asking to it about what is the meaning of a hole in it and imagining the hole in it, and struggling with such ideas... Will she/he ever escape from there...? I don't think so.

Do you know of any philosophers who actually do this?

07-06-2011, 07:42 PM	#27
heinz_1966 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 430 Senior Member	...Philosophy is about problems, doing problems, finding problems and increasing problems as the main amusement of mind. The teachings of the historical Buddha are about facts and solutions Philosophy is not about amusement. Some people use philosophy for amusement. There is a clear difference between the two. ...Now, why do people with, existential worries or concerns and intellectual curiosity tend to look at the teachings of the historical Buddha as a philosophical essay? WHO does this? ...Philosophy is essentially so entangled that it can take the teachings of the historical Buddha as its formal object and thus the confusion of the teachings of the historical Buddha as a philosophical endeavor. WHICH philosophers do this? metaphysics What do you mean by this term? Philosophy can kidnap the entire teaching of the historical Buddha because it does that by nature Philosophy does not have a "nature." How could the pursuit of the capacity for sound judgment (wisdom) have a "nature"? An example of this can be the Mahayana (philosophical) religion. I've very little interest Mahayana. But the teachings of the historical Buddha are not an object What do you mean by "object"? existential What do you mean by "existential"? Philosophy is about cleverness. Philosophy 101: Philosphy is about wisdom as opposed to cleverness. The wisdom of Socrates is anti-cleverness (see Apology). Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom where wisdom is the capacity for sound judgment. Nietzsche...died full of bitterness and existential stress??? Nietzsche died of a legitimate medical illness. No one knows what he was "full of" in his last years because he barely spoke, if at all. However, his early essay, Philosophy in The Tragic Age of The Greeks is an unsurpassed introduction to and analysis of the topic, and a superb introduction to and example of critical thinking. This is a good example of "the informal fallacy of hasty generalization..., a version of the fallacy of secundum quid, sometimes also called the fallacy of converse accident. [It is] the error of trying to argue from a particular case to a general rule that does not properly fit the case" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 432. 1999: Cambridge Press.). Just imagine that one is set in prison for the rest of her/his life. Suddenly happens that from this prison an inmate has escaped and she/he left somewhere the detailed instructions for escaping from that same prison (at any time, for any moment at any place of the prision). Another inmate has the fortune to found them; instead of doing the proper hole in the wall, flowing the instructions, starts to talk with the wall asking to it about what is the meaning of a hole in it and imagining the hole in it, and struggling with such ideas... Will she/he ever escape from there...? I don't think so. Do you know of any philosophers who actually do this?
	Quote