DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Was Buddha a Phenomenologist (Existentialist? Empiricist?)?

**Aztegjpl** · 05-16-2011, 01:22 AM

Greetings stuka:
requires argument construction. No argument construction occurred on my part.

You solicited for arguments defending the straw men you offered. There is more than one way to erect a straw man. Your OP is also a loaded question, but the picture for that isn't near as funny as that of the straw man.

I don't see any takers on your offers to argue "The Buddha was a phenomenologist, an existentialist, an empiricist, the elephant is a tree, a snake, a wall", BTW. Clearly no one is taking the bait.

You do know what an argument is, right? Of course, thanks.
I'm not the one behaving childishly. The adage has nothing to do with "childish behavior" and everything to do with filtering. Paticcasamuppada, you know....

How would you know one way or the other? Gushing on and on about ones western philosophical heroes might be a first clue...

Requirements? That's your projection. I was asking about connections, not requirements. You didn't say anything about "connections". Your straw men take the assumptions "Buddha was an....x-ist, y-ist, z-ist", each position being an ontological speculative view.

Metta,
bucky It seems rather disingenuous to put the pointed remarks "You do know what an argument is, right?" and "I'm not the one behaving childishly" and the salutation, "Metta,..." in the same post. Clearly in such a missive, any thoughts of metta have been discarded like so much useless refuse.

05-16-2011, 01:22 AM	#13
Aztegjpl Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 560 Senior Member	Greetings stuka: requires argument construction. No argument construction occurred on my part. You solicited for arguments defending the straw men you offered. There is more than one way to erect a straw man. Your OP is also a loaded question, but the picture for that isn't near as funny as that of the straw man. I don't see any takers on your offers to argue "The Buddha was a phenomenologist, an existentialist, an empiricist, the elephant is a tree, a snake, a wall", BTW. Clearly no one is taking the bait. You do know what an argument is, right? Of course, thanks. I'm not the one behaving childishly. The adage has nothing to do with "childish behavior" and everything to do with filtering. Paticcasamuppada, you know.... How would you know one way or the other? Gushing on and on about ones western philosophical heroes might be a first clue... Requirements? That's your projection. I was asking about connections, not requirements. You didn't say anything about "connections". Your straw men take the assumptions "Buddha was an....x-ist, y-ist, z-ist", each position being an ontological speculative view. Metta, bucky It seems rather disingenuous to put the pointed remarks "You do know what an argument is, right?" and "I'm not the one behaving childishly" and the salutation, "Metta,..." in the same post. Clearly in such a missive, any thoughts of metta have been discarded like so much useless refuse.
	Quote