[xFZ3k8Mw]

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.

[dserbokim]

Academic?

Yes.

My OP topic is a claim to philosophy in general, not just logic I can't see where you made any claim at all in the OP.

Socrates was the the main character of Euthydemus. Socrates' career was a battle against sophistry. "Main character" is correct.

Socrates' career was a battle against sophistry...This is basic stuff. Yes, it is very basic. My ignorance is largely attributable to the fact that my freshman year in university was many years ago, and memory naturally fades wrt trivia. My undergraduate degree is in Philosophy, as is the graduate degree I'm working on now. Plato, not Socrates, wrote the Euthydemus. Philosophers and historians do not generally consider Plato's dialogs to be decisive as to what Socrates said or did, and it is generally accepted that Plato put his own ideas into the mouth of the character he called "Socrates". Only when there is corroboration from independent sources do the researchers tentatively hold that such-and-such was probably said or done by Socrates, as he never wrote anything.


Is this an example of the dubiousness of the link below? Petitio Principii. You have yet to establish that there is anything dubious about the link, but are tacitly asking us to proceed on the assumption that you have.


Ingnorance of the history of philosophy? So it would seem. Or perhaps lack of familiarity with how it is done.

Tag. You're it.

[K0aM7urg]

My OP topic is a claim to philosophy in general, not just logic.

I can't see where you made any claim at all in the OP.

The claim that similarities and differences exist between philosophy and Buddhism.

[PolPitasc]

You have yet to establish that there is anything dubious about the link.

I should have wrote "inferiority" instead of "dubiousness."

[melissa]

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's academic inquiry....."

Has either Ven. Thanissaro or The Academy been notified he's an official member again?

[celddiskend]

FBM/KA:Socrates-Plato basically embedded the philosophical tradition of teaching by analogy, simile, metaphor, etc... into Greek philosophy (and consequently the rest of philosophy), methods the Buddha also employed to teach.

[heinz_1966]

...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?

[67Irralphaisa]

Plato, not Socrates, wrote the Euthydemus.

I did not claim otherwise.

Philosophers and historians do not generally consider Plato's dialogs to be decisive as to what Socrates said or did, and it is generally accepted that Plato put his own ideas into the mouth of the character he called "Socrates."

It's more complex than than that.

Only when there is corroboration from independent sources do the researchers tentatively hold that such-and-such was probably said or done by Socrates, as he never wrote anything.

Another thing he has in common with the Buddha.

Petitio Principii. You have yet to establish that there is anything dubious about the link, but are tacitly asking us to proceed on the assumption that you have.

I am not committing the informal fallacy called "begging the question..., the fallacy of improperly arguing in a circle" (CDP, p. 434. '99). The "establishing" regards the inferiority of the source (link) to the CDP. Furthermore, re-statement is not necessarily circularity. "Circular reasoning should not be presumed to be inherently fallacious, but can be fallacious where the circular argument has been used to disguise or cover up a failure to fulfill burden of proof. The problem arises where the conclusion that was supposed to be proved is presumed within the premises to be granted by the respondent of the argument" (CDP, p. 433. '99). The burden of proof lies with the comparers of the sources; no premises have (yet) been (fully) granted.

Believe it or not, I don't really enjoy informal fallacies. Logic has never been my favorite part of philosophy. I'm more interested in epistemology and ethics and the philosophy/Buddhism intersects therein. I don't like ontology (metaphysics) much either.

[Lictimind]

Absolutly. I have never felt or seen any sort of philosophical struggle at any of the teachings of the historical Buddha. Where I have seen such a thing is in the Mahayana tradition that become the proper place for doing such struggles with the teachings. Just give a read to the Mulamadhyamakakarika verses of Nagarjuna.

I guess I see Nagarjuna more as someone who endeavoured to use philosophy in order to dismantle philosophy. A figure comparable to Wittgenstein, perhaps.

By his time Buddhism had already become enmeshed in scholasticism, and there were well-established procedures for logical argumentation which had to be observed -- so he couldn't just come in and make declarations "by fiat".

So yes, Mulamadhyamakakarika verses are dense reading (and not to my taste either, btw), but because he was writing within a different context and for a different audience, it may be easy to misconstrue his intent.

The teachings of the historical Buddha are not the case of an intellectual satisfaction but a deep concern about realizing the fact of the ultimate meaning of things. Sure. What I might add, though, is that if one has decided to practice within a certain tradition, it can be helpful to understand how the tradition developed. And in the case of Mahayana, that can mean engagement with Yogacara or Madhyamaka (not to mention figures such as Dogen or Linji or Shinran or Nichiren, depending on what you are practicing).

In other words, it can be about learning n a practical sense rather than intellectual self-gratification for its own sake. Especially in the context of discussion boards, where we have different traditions arguing with each other, knowledge can help address misunderstandings.

[RagonaCon]

FBM/KA:Socrates-Plato basically embedded the philosophical tradition of teaching by analogy, simile, metaphor, etc... into Greek philosophy (and consequently the rest of philosophy), methods the Buddha also employed to teach.

Yes, but that do not mean that the written teachings of the historical Buddha are philosophical works like the ones of Plato or any other philosopher nor that the Buddha was a philosopher. I am a teacher. I taught with metaphors too, but I am not a philosopher.

Metaphor, simile and analogy are not copyrighted means of Plato and Socrates. Those are means of teaching, not philosophical endeavours.

[petrarkaponye]

I guess I see Nagarjuna more as someone who endeavoured to use philosophy in order to dismantle philosophy. A figure comparable to Wittgenstein, perhaps.

By his time Buddhism had already become enmeshed in scholasticism, and there were well-established procedures for logical argumentation which had to be observed -- so he couldn't just come in and make declarations "by fiat".

For the context of Mahayana philosophy it was Ok. But the struggle of Nagarjuna is useless for the context of the Pali Suttas. They do not need the Nagarjuna mental yoga. What the Pali Suttas ask for is not for entanglements but quite contemplation about what is asked to be done.

So yes, Mulamadhyamakakarika verses are dense reading (and not to my taste either, btw), but because he was writing within a different context and for a different audience, it may be easy to misconstrue his intent. That density shows the sort of philosophical entanglement that became the Mahayanist movement. By themselves those verses are really enjoyable. They are a foundation, also, for Zen philosophical approach but again, useless in the context of the teachings of the historical Buddha. They are not needed there at all. The Buddha do not need the aid of Nagarjuna. Maybe otherwise

Sure. What I might add, though, is that if one has decided to practice within a certain tradition, it can be helpful to understand how the tradition developed. And in the case of Mahayana, that can mean engagement with Yogacara or Madhyamaka (not to mention figures such as Dogen or Linji or Shinran or Nichiren, depending on what you are practicing).

In other words, it can be about learning n a practical sense rather than intellectual self-gratification for its own sake. Especially in the context of discussion boards, where we have different traditions arguing with each other, knowledge can help address misunderstandings. I can tell just about the tradition I chose, Soto Zen and I could be messing around the huge Mahayana movement but I really do not feel it is important to what is asked at the Pali teachings. I really enjoy othre fields of knowledge for mental amusement. I have never felt a real curiosity about religions. Also, to undestand why or how Mahayana or any other religious tradition developed will never bring me deliverance of mind. But this is about personal opinion. What is important, IMO, is what the historical Buddha taught. Traditions are of secondary importance and should be taken with a healthy distance and critical scope. Some traditions do not care about the teachings of the historical Buddha, not to say some teachers that kidnap their students into their own understandings. That is a real problem that any religion has. "Traditions", all, have become religions and/or philosophical religions brought into thought enclaves.

I still haven't come into a Sutta where the historical Buddha is asking with urgency to be attached to a tradition but just to be surrounded by people of integrity, in the case of householders and lay practitioners.

[Twelearly]

For the context of Mahayana philosophy it was Ok. But the struggle of Nagarjuna is useless for the context of the Pali Suttas. They do not need the Nagarjuna mental yoga.

They are a foundation, also, for Zen philosophical approach but again, useless in the context of the teachings of the historical Buddha. They are not needed there at all. The Buddha do not need the aid of Nagarjuna. Maybe otherwise

I agree, FWIW. The teachings in the Pali Canon represent a complete path; no "add-ons" required.

[Oxzzlvpg]

Especially in the context of discussion boards, where we have different traditions arguing with each other, knowledge can help address misunderstandings.

Personally I think sustained personal practice at ground level can often be more useful to address misunderstandings and avoid hissy-fits. The problem is that some of us on discussion boards are so wrapt up in our intellectual knowledge that we may well have neglected the basic emotional issues we carry around with us - so its good to keep practising as well as studying.

I recall when I was an offline Tibetan Buddhist practitioner, it was said that one doesn't have to be able to read or write to become enlightened...in which case it wouldn't be necessary to learn to read in order to study Yogacara and Madhyamaka, lol !

Which tradition do you practice with offline, LazyEye ?

[tramdoctorsss]

Lazy, what means FWIW?

[w4HPpbSW]

Lazy, what means FWIW?

I think it means 'for what its worth' Kaarine.

Can I ask people to please remember not to use abbreviations in their posts because it makes things very difficult for our members around the world who don't have English as their first language. There is something about avoiding the use of abbreviated language somewhere in the Code of Conduct.

OK, back to topic !

[xT0U3UGh]

Personally I think sustained personal practice at ground level can often be more useful to address misunderstandings and avoid hissy-fits. The problem is that some of us on discussion boards are so wrapt up in our intellectual knowledge that we may well have neglected the basic emotional issues we carry around with us - so its good to keep practising as well as studying.

So true. It's also easier, too, to notice this in other people and overlook it in oneself -- I've learned that too well. And internet communications almost by nature are prone to fostering misunderstandings because things like gesture and facial expression and tone of voice are absent. We tend to fill in the gaps with our own projections.

For what it's worth, I've found the discussions here to be valuable even when they border on the contentious. Much can be learned through the push-and-pull of dialectic, as long as we don't take it too personally.

I recall when I was an offline Tibetan Buddhist practitioner, it was said that one doesn't have to be able to read or write to become enlightened...in which case it wouldn't be necessary to learn to read in order to study Yogacara and Madhyamaka, lol ! And in Zen one is supposed to be able to get "direct transmission from the teacher outside words"!

Which tradition do you practice with offline, LazyEye ? I've sat with Zen and Theravada groups, but currently my practice is at home and my sangha is online. Work, family and other commitments ensure it will be so for a few years to come. Thanks for asking.

[StivRichardOff]

. We tend to fill in the gaps with our own projections.

Yes, I agree and also that we shouldn't take things too personally/seriously !

Nice to chat Lazy.....and many apologies for taking the thread off topic.... I'm disappearing to make my evening meal now. Bye

[infarrelisam]

And I'll brew a bit more of this stuff...



Have a good evening!

[Shemker394]

And internet communications almost by nature are prone to fostering misunderstandings because things like gesture and facial expression and tone of voice are absent. We tend to fill in the gaps with our own projections.

Sure...

For what it's worth, I've found the discussions here to be valuable even when they border on the contentious. Much can be learned through the push-and-pull of dialectic, as long as we don't take it too personally. That is nice to know Lazy; believe me, never hard feelings from here...

And in Zen one is supposed to be able to get "direct transmission from the teacher outside words"! I address that wonderful feature Zen offers. Silent learning, a quite mind.

[Argurnenoni]

Hi,
Are philosophy and Buddhism mutually exclusive? Is there overlap? If so, what value does this have, if any?

Philosophy is irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. Perhaps philosophy has value in other aspects of life.

For example, can informal fallacies and Buddhism make beneficial contributions to each other? The Buddha's teachings are about removing mental obstacles such as fallacious, delusional thinking.

Or, are philosophy and Buddhism polar opposites with no overlap? What value does such a separation have? As I said, philosophy is irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. No need to bother with building up false dichotomies about them.

For example, does using informal fallacies to discuss and debate Buddhist truths and ideas corrupt Buddhism? What connection are you making between philosophy and "informal fallacies"? Are you saying that informal fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy? That does not seem to follow.

Or, are there other alternatives or ways of looking at this I'm not seeing right now? It all looks like to me.