Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

Telocollinite said:
I'm curious why you bear the burden you do with regards to this. I wish my apology was accepted but I understand that you are not someone who "forgives". Forgiveness is for losers apparently and I will readily admit I am not worthy of your forgiveness even with my apology.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what I'm supposed to forgive you for, I only read a tiny fraction of what you write.


Perry PhD said:
Of course it's OK to hate.
Click to expand...

"The fields are damaged by weeds, mankind is damaged by hatred: therefore a gift bestowed on those who do not hate brings great reward."
--> Siddhartha Gautama, The Buddha

"Among wise men there is no place at all left for hatred. For no one except the greatest of fools would hate good men. And there is no reason at all for hating the bad."
--> Boethius

"I have decided to stick to love…Hate is too great a burden to bear."
--> Martin Luther King, Jr.
Click to expand...

^^ Getting back to scientism and the claim that the only real knowledge is scientific, the above claims are not quantifiable or definable by science.

I think the first claim above is more of a capitulation to human weakness, and it is ultimately self defeating.

The last three statements are a kind of normative knowledge that is valuable, practical, and it's the type of knowledge you won't find reading Einstein, Bohr, or Hawking.
 
Cypress said:
I have no idea what I'm supposed to forgive you for, I only read a tiny fraction of what you write.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

^^ Getting back to scientism and the claim that the only real knowledge is scientific, the above claims are not quantifiable or definable by science.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Science need not "quantify" everything. I've already established that there is a significant role in the sciences for the qualitative. Hence all the references and citations I provided to qualitative science.

I think the first claim above is more of a capitulation to human weakness, and it is ultimately self defeating.
Click to expand...

Feelings are neither good nor bad. They simply are what they are. To fight a feeling is to give it more power than it necessarily deserves. But hate is simply a normal human emotion. It's how we act given a feeling of hate.

Everyone feels hate from time to time. The sign of psychological health is how one responds to that feeling.

The last three statements are a kind of normative knowledge that is valuable, practical, and it's the type of knowledge you won't find reading Einstein, Bohr, or Hawking.
Click to expand...

OK, here's a question: why are these statements valuable or true?
 
Telocollinite said:
Thanks.



I disagree. Science need not "quantify" everything. I've already established that there is a significant role in the sciences for the qualitative. Hence all the references and citations I provided to qualitative science.



Feelings are neither good nor bad. They simply are what they are. To fight a feeling is to give it more power than it necessarily deserves. But hate is simply a normal human emotion. It's how we act given a feeling of hate.

Everyone feels hate from time to time. The sign of psychological health is how one responds to that feeling.



OK, here's a question: why are these statements valuable or true?
Click to expand...

All other things being equal, people who conciously live without hate are happier and healthier, mentally, emotionally, and physically.

Your ethical view that it is okay to hate leads to mental distress, unhappiness, emotional problems, and is ultimately self defeating.
 
Cypress said:
All other things being equal, people who conciously live without hate are happier and healthier, mentally, emotionally, and physically.

Your ethical view that it is okay to hate leads to mental distress, unhappiness, emotional problems, and is ultimately self defeating.
Click to expand...

While I agree, people like Steven, Mason and Perry have no control over their happiness since they are not in full control of their faculties.
 
Cypress said:
All other things being equal, people who conciously live without hate are happier and healthier, mentally, emotionally, and physically.

Your ethical view that it is okay to hate leads to mental distress, unhappiness, emotional problems, and is ultimately self defeating.
Click to expand...

See, I think this is not what a psychologist would advise. The ideal is that you understand feelings are normal and carry no negative or positive value. They just are. It's how we REACT to those feelings that makes the difference.

Hatred is a perfectly normal "feeling". Acting on it is where the problems arise.

Trying to control your FEELINGS is psychologically unhealthy...but reacting to your feelings is very much where value comes in.

But you missed my key question: why are the statements you provided considered "valuable"?

The reason I asked is because the "truth value" of any statements against hatred aren't "universal truths", not even to humans. Do you not "hate" being bitten by a mosquito? Ultimately you murder the mosquito who is simply trying to survive. We don't consider that a "hate crime" for obvious and rational reasons. But it is still a killing of an innocent.

No, these "normative knowledge" items you raise are important ONLY in the context of a social animal. No one thinks that the wild animal who kills off the offspring of competing males is "evil"...they just are. Is not murder evil always? If it were a universal truth it would be. But since it is not we have to look for WHY we have that rule.

And we need look no further than basic biology. We are social animals and murder destabilizes the social safety net we rely on for survival. We are stronger together as a whole.

There is no one on earth who "lives without hate". There simply isn't. Because it is physically impossible. What IS possible is to control how we react to that feeling.
 
Doc Dutch said:
While I agree, people like Steven, Mason and Perry have no control over their happiness since they are not in full control of their faculties.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have heard some on this thread or elsewhere guffaw and express incredulity that hate can be suppressed and managed. As if, to them, self control and discipline are foreign concepts
 
Is there anyone among us who has not awakened on a miserable morning
and fervently wished that his or her self was merely an illusion
that could be dismissed at will?

I would have to suspect that in our present society,
that would describe at minimum half of the mornings
for most aware people.
 
Telocollinite said:
See, I think this is not what a psychologist would advise. The ideal is that you understand feelings are normal and carry no negative or positive value. They just are. It's how we REACT to those feelings that makes the difference.

Hatred is a perfectly normal "feeling". Acting on it is where the problems arise.

Trying to control your FEELINGS is psychologically unhealthy...but reacting to your feelings is very much where value comes in.

But you missed my key question: why are the statements you provided considered "valuable"?

The reason I asked is because the "truth value" of any statements against hatred aren't "universal truths", not even to humans. Do you not "hate" being bitten by a mosquito? Ultimately you murder the mosquito who is simply trying to survive. We don't consider that a "hate crime" for obvious and rational reasons. But it is still a killing of an innocent.

No, these "normative knowledge" items you raise are important ONLY in the context of a social animal. No one thinks that the wild animal who kills off the offspring of competing males is "evil"...they just are. Is not murder evil always? If it were a universal truth it would be. But since it is not we have to look for WHY we have that rule.

And we need look no further than basic biology. We are social animals and murder destabilizes the social safety net we rely on for survival. We are stronger together as a whole.

There is no one on earth who "lives without hate". There simply isn't. Because it is physically impossible. What IS possible is to control how we react to that feeling.
Click to expand...

The Buddha's message of recognizing and letting go of hate, resentment, avarice was so appealing that Buddhism spread like wildfire two thousand years ago, long before there was science and statistics.


You're free to believe hate is healthy and desirable.

I don't think that's borne out by human experience.
 
Cypress said:
The Buddha's message of recognizing and letting go of hate, resentment, avarice was so appealing that Buddhism spread like wildfire two thousand years ago, long before there was science and statistics.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that from the beginning of the human experience,
there had to be some primitive level of science and statistics.

As old as I am, however, I'm not quite old enough to have been there
and thus can't say for certain.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, I have heard some on this thread or elsewhere guffaw and express incredulity that hate can be suppressed and managed. As if, to them, self control and discipline are foreign concepts
Click to expand...

Mentally ill and/or stupid people have a problem controlling their emotions. Their higher cognitive abilities, common to all humans, are lesser than average and more akin to Perry's talking dog.
 
Cypress said:
The Buddha's message of recognizing and letting go of hate, resentment, avarice was so appealing that Buddhism spread like wildfire two thousand years ago before there was science and statistics.
Click to expand...

I know I put the words out there in as clear a manner as possible, yet I feel you didn't really follow my point. I NEVER said hate was "desirable". I said it was a normal human emotion. And one that should be REACTED TO in a better way.

Here's something I'm sure you've run across in your extensive reading of religions: scrupulosity. Scrupulosity is actually a subgenre of OCD but in it, sufferers (like Martin Luther for example, very famous sufferer of this) feel that they must control their thoughts absolutely and perfectly lest they think a blasphemy or they are insufficiently thankful to God or whatever. It comes down to absolute and perfect control of all thoughts.

That's unhealthy. One cannot control one's "thoughts", they simply are since our brain is a "thinking machine" and more than 90% of our thoughts are subconscious. It's what we DO with those thoughts that gives us power over our emotions. We aren't controlling the thoughts.

Have you read anything about Mindfulness? Indeed you are to view the thoughts that come to your mind with "interest", but don't necessarily have to assign an action to them. Not all thoughts are "real". You may THINK there's a threat behind the sofa, but that doesn't mean you have to grab a gun and start shooting at the sofa.

THIS is what I'm talking about.

And, again, my point is that the "normative knowledge" you talk about is normative to HUMAN SOCIETY. It isn't a "universal truth", it only has value to humans in a human setting. That's a big indicator of evolutionary biology playing a significant role.


You're free to believe hate is healthy and desirable.
Click to expand...

FEELINGS are healthy and desirable. Acting badly on those feelings is when a value judgement becomes important.

I don't think that's borne out by human experience.[/QUOTE]
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I strongly suspect that from the beginning of the human experience,
there had to be some primitive level of science and statistics.
Click to expand...

Probably very true. The great Philosophers were OBSERVING people's actions and creating a MODEL of those actions as well as hypothesizing a more efficient was for those actions be carried out.

Actual physical science used to be called natural philosophy and for good reason.
 
Even people who aren't religious typically value these religious ethics that have been passed down from antiquity. Why? Because they speak to our conscience. It's something we can sense by intuition, without mathmatical equations or laboratory experiments to justify them.

The Seven Deadly Sins:
pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth

The Seven Cardinal Virtues:
prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, faith, hope, charity.
 
Cypress said:
Even people who aren't religious typically value these religious ethics that have been passed down from antiquity. Why? Because they speak to our conscience.
Click to expand...

And they make for a stable solid social network.

It's something we can sense by institution, without mathmatical equations or laboratory experiments to justify them.
Click to expand...

Probably because we are social animals tuned to desire social network stability for our survival.

Biology is a science.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Another lie from a well-known liar, Perry.
Click to expand...

Then you can prove otherwise.

Why do you keep changing your username? What are you trying to hide?
Click to expand...

I've already answered this for you. But I'll do it again. I'll even put it in bold letters so you can more easily ignore it again:

I changed my handle at first so that I could reset the conversation with Cypress as things had gone very far off the rails largely due to me. So since I wanted to talk about the CONCEPTS without being a non-stop personal attack festival I changed names. If you go back and look at every time I changed my name I came back on with a mild comment and actually tried to engage.


So, you see, I tried. I learned early on you are on here only to fuck with people. So I only play with you when I'm feeling in a mood. That's why I ignore so many of your posts. They carry no value to anyone but you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top