Philosophy

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

as this is the philosophy section... i should pose my query here.

as this site attracts visitors of all manner of philosophical views, i thought it would be interesting to share a synopsis of our philosophical view with each other... sort of a "hey, you meet my worldview and i'll meet yours" sort of thing?

i've asked before if Christianity had any particular philosophical position or schools of thought... not much was forthcoming. thus, i'll understand if my Christian friends cannot participate in the discussion.

if there is interest, i'll ask for someone to start. it's a bit late in the evening for me and i'm off for evening prayers

 

[Yaacova]

ok.....well I'm ready!

 

[kedaman]

my worldview is transcendental idealist: the objects of our senses must conform to our mental representations.

 

[Yaacova]

wow.....that was totally random.

 

[Marek]

my worldview is transcendental idealist: the objects of our senses must conform to our mental representations.

Well said. I hold a quite similar view.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Metaphysics: Metaphysical naturalism (all phenomena are rooted in physicality; note however: "the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts", which applies to emergent phenomena such as life and consciousness)

Epistemology: Reason (abstract thought rooted in perception)

Human Nature: Living, dynamic, social, conscious, volitional, creative beings each with a unified nature (i.e. no mind-body dualism, but no reductive monism either). Death is final.

Ethics: Eudaimonism (the ultimate ethical purpose of one's life is one's personal flourishing, and the essential virtue is rationality)

Spirituality: Self-knowledge, self-actualization, and self-esteem

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,


thank you for the respones!

Buddhist philosophical views are classified, at least by Tibetan Buddhists in general, into four main categories: Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogachara, and Madhyamika.

1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism." It is similar to the first few of the Indian views that see the World of Experience as composed of various physical elements that interact with the components of beings.

2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational. These first two schools consider that there are two kinds of interactors: Physical aspects, ie. skandhas of which one, rupa, comprises the traditional elements, and the Mental aspects including consciousness (vijnana), sensation (vedana) which contributes to pain/pleasure, cognition (sanjna) and the impressions derived from experience (samskara.). The 12 Links of Causality go into this in more detail.

3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being. It mentions the idea of "Buddha nature." Vasubandha and Asanga finally adopted this position.

4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents. Chandrakirti expounds upon Nagarjuna.

The Madhyamika view has given rise to two particular schools of thought: Svatantrika and Prasangika, which is the school that i adhere to. According to the Prasangika school, the object of refutation (or negation, gag-cha)* is an extremely subtle object that is ever so slightly more than—a little over and above—what is merely labeled by the mind.

His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso Rinpoche in The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice. Boston: Wisdom Pub., 1995. (49-54):

"According to the explanation of the highest Buddhist philosophical school, Madhyamaka-Prasangika, external phenomena are not mere projections or creations of the mind. External phenomena have a distinct nature, which is different from the mind.

The meaning of all phenomena being mere labels or designations is that they exist and acquire their identities by means of our denomination or designation of them. This does not mean that there is no phenomenon apart from the name, imputation, or label, but rather that if we analyze and search objectively for the essence of any phenomenon, it will be un-findable.

Phenomena are unable to withstand such analysis; therefore, they do not exist objectively. Yet, since they exist, there should be some level of existence; therefore, it is only through our own process of labeling or designation that things are said to exist.

Except for the Prasangika school, all the other Buddhist schools of thought identify the existence of phenomena within the basis of designation; therefore, they maintain that there is some kind of objective existence.

Since the lower schools of Buddhist thought all accept that things exist inherently, they assert some kind of objective existence, maintaining that things exist in their own right and from their own side. This is because they identify phenomena within the basis of designation.

For the Prasangikas, if anything exists objectively and is identified within the basis of designation, then that is, in fact, equivalent to saying that it exists autonomously, that it has an independent nature and exists in its own right.

This is a philosophical tenet of the Yogacara school in which external reality is negated, that is, the atomically structured external world is negated. Because the proponents of the Yogacara philosophical system assert that things cannot exist other than as projections of one's own mind, they also maintain that there is no atomically structured external physical reality independent of mind. By analyzing along these lines, Yogacara proponents conclude that there is no atomicly structured external reality.

This conclusion is reached because of not having understood the most subtle level of emptiness as expounded by the Prasangikas. In fact, Yogacarins assert that things have no inherent existence, and that if you analyze something and do not find any essence, then it does not exist at all.

Prasangikas, on the other hand, when confronted with this un-findability of the essence of the object, conclude that this is an indication that objects do not exist inherently, not that they do not exist at all. This is where the difference lies between the two schools."

this link has some very good information for the interested reader:
http://www.khandro.net/Bud_philo_Madhyamika.htm

 

[Hydra009]

Philosophy: Existentialism, materialism.

Ethics: Not quite sure exactly where I stand. I generally consider myself utilitarian in this area.

 

[Lifesaver]

Hmm, let's see.

I believe that all reality points to God, the creator of all there is.
Man, with the use of his reason, is able to realise this and to take conclusions from the observable world to arrive at knowledge of ethics, metaphysics and even some preambles to theology.
From a certain point on in human knowledge, reason alone is not enough to go on, and man needs faith. That is not to say that what reason informs us ceases to be valid. Actually, reason and faith are never wrong (if one thinks they are, it is because he has not been truly guided by either reason or faith), and one does not contradict the other. This would be impossible, since there is only one truth.

Now, since God wills everything that exists, everything that goes against that will moves on the direction of inexistence. And it is exactly this, inexistence, that is what evil is. And good is equal to being. Good, therefore, does not necessitate evil at all, and there is no absolute evil, as that would be nothing. Notice also that evil can only exist in a rational will and nowhere else.

As far as ethics is concerned, I am a Christian eudaimonist. Man is a rational animal; it is his reason that differs him from beasts. Actions in accordance with reason are good, and those against it are bad, for they make him less of a man than what he could be.
Furthermore, every man acts aiming, as his last end, at happiness. Happiness is only possible with God, and thus turning one's will in accordance with the will of God. God created man as a rational animal; thus, the path of happiness consists in being a man as fully as possible, in acting rationally.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

If someone who barks against philosophy should ask the standard question: "Why do you preach more boldly than you live?" I will someday reproach myself more strongly still. But for now I make this defense: I am not wise and never will be. Demand not that I be equal to the best, but better than the wicked.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I don't think that I've quite settled completely to a certain world view, as there are many topics that I have to spend more time contemplating. And related to that I am not completely certain of what I do believe, though I think that all of these things are strongly likely. But I have made many mistakes in the past, and probably many I have not caught as of yet.

But of positions that I do hold:

I believe in free will for humanity, and probably for at least some animals, but this free will is not total. Complete free will is a contradiction. But I do believe that free will is not so limited that we have no choices.

The soul exists, and both rationality and consiousness are dependent on it. But the human person is really an interaction between the soul and the body, the soul alone would be very different from the person, and the body without the soul would also be very different. In particular I firmly believe that the soul has no memory and no senses without the body. The soul can outlast the body, but the person does not last beyond the body unless the body were to be reconstructed and the soul rejoined to it.

As a consequence I do not think that it is likely that we will ever be able to make a true artificial intellegence, though we will be able to make some stunning copies. But as I do not fully understand how the soul and the body become intertwined, I will not rule out the possibility. I just think it's an incredibly unlikely possibility. Animals, however, are more likely to be intellegent or rational, having a common heritage as us.

Each person and each thing has a purpose, which exists independent of another thing's opinion. Every moral action is in accordance with reason, and does not contradict a thing's nature. But I think these are necessary conditions for an action to be moral, and I do not think that in particular there is a causal relationship between moral actions and actions being good for a nature or purpose. Rather the world is set up in such a way that moral actions do not contradict one's morals.

I suppose I should mention with this that I think that morality is objective, in that if a person had all the information about everything, and a perfect reason, that person could make a judgment about what action would be moral, and there would only be one right judgment. But I also think that morality may be dependent on the person, in that actions that are moral for one person may be immoral for another.

The immorality of an action can be in its manner or its intention, but not in its consequences. As a consequence a person must know that they are doing good to truly do good, but if they think they are doing a good action that does not necessarily mean that the action really is moral.

As a guide to moral behavior I often ask myself if everyone acted in the way I did following my line of reasoning, would I prefer that world to this one? But I do no think this is actually the basis of morality, rather only a good rule of thumb.

I've been heavily influenced by Kant and Aquinas, but I do not subscribe wholly to either of their philosophies (I am very fond of Plato as well, but I'm not sure how much of his philosophy I have actually kept). I think both of them got a lot right, but I'm still trying to sort out everything they got wrong and also find the things that neither of them realized.

 

[David Gould]

I am an evil reductionist. There is no self, no free will, no morality. However, as there never have been, there is no need to fear being without them.

 

[Received]

David always pulls the no self philosophy after I destroy him in basketball; but whenever he wins, oh! it's self to the nth degree!

 

[David Gould]

David always pulls the no self philosophy after I destroy him in basketball; but whenever he wins, oh! it's self to the nth degree!

Hey - that's just the 'evil' part of my evil reductionism at work. And just cause I am egocentric does not mean there is an actual ego for me to be centric around. (I have this weird image of a no-self in orbit around a no-ego. Man, if I existed, I would be getting dizzy.)

 

[Lifesaver]

The soul exists, and both rationality and consiousness are dependent on it. But the human person is really an interaction between the soul and the body, the soul alone would be very different from the person, and the body without the soul would also be very different. In particular I firmly believe that the soul has no memory and no senses without the body. The soul can outlast the body, but the person does not last beyond the body unless the body were to be reconstructed and the soul rejoined to it.

First, I'd like to say your views are very appealing and well-constructed.
Secondly, a question:
yes, senses and memory are both dependent of the body to exist. But is it not possible that a bodiless soul be given direct knowledge (such as to preserve its memory) by God, without the need of senses and brain?

 

[MoonlessNight]

First, I'd like to say your views are very appealing and well-constructed.
Secondly, a question:
yes, senses and memory are both dependent of the body to exist. But is it not possible that a bodiless soul be given direct knowledge (such as to preserve its memory) by God, without the need of senses and brain?

It could be possible, but I don't think that it would be the same type of knowledge as we commonly think of knowledge, as we usually equate knowledge with a form of memory, which, as I said, I believe is a strict property of the body. But there could be other forms (and yes, I believe that there are other forms) or knowledge that could be existent in the soul. I'm not sure that a priori knowledge in it's truest form would require a body, though all applications of such knowledge would. But it would be impossible to give an example of exactly what I am getting at, as even putting something into words could be considered an application of that knowledge. I see it a bit like mathematics, I suppose. The soul could be well versed in something like group theory in and of itself (though not by knowing the rules which govern groups, but rather it would be well acquainted with the nature of groups in their truest sense), though it might never have seen a group, that is something that it would need experience, and therefore would need to access memories, for that. And there could be other sorts of knowledges that the soul could possess independent of the body as well, particularly if God was involved.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I've enjoyed the course that this topic has followed thus far, and am wondering if anyone else would care to chime in.

 

[James T]

on why: nihilism

on belief: empiricism

on knowledge: foundationalism and coherentism

on why again: what I enjoy and what works

 

[Gracchus]

Reality is one, separateness is illusion, and all rhetorical and mathematical descriptions are flawed and incomplete. (Gödel's Theorem)

Everything is natural. There is no "supernatural". Spiritual discourse arises from a misapprehension and ignorance of the real, totally physical world, and thus, theology is usually the discussion of cloud-cuckoo land.

 

[Psychlea]

OK, I'll play.

I am a rare breed...an Idealist.

All that we call the "physical world" is what we are in the process of creating. We are constantly creating it WITH God. It isn't concrete, immovable, fixed. It is malleable...an idea. We used to create it with myth and legend. Now we create it primarily with science. The world is constantly in the act of becoming.

God created us to be co-creators with Him. Almost god-like in our ability. As such, we have free will. Absolute free will.

Why have an earth, why live on it, why create it if it is all just an idea? Why eat chocolate when you could more easily extract nutrition from a bean sprout? For the experience. Living is like eating fine chocolate...we do it for the experience. Because it is better that way.

Ethics: For me? Christian ethics work just fine.

Geez...I shoulda waited to do this until I had been awake longer...oh well!

Peace & Love
-Psychlea