Buddhism and Hegel

[fisherman_carl]

If it does not exist, then we can safely ignore it. If we can never know it, then it is a waste of time trying to find it and we are better off ignoring it and spending our time on something more fruitful.

The two statements “1 + 1 = 2” and “1 + 1 = 10” have equal truth values. Both are contingent truths, dependent on the number base which is assumed, but not stated.

No. You see it with the best clarity your eyes are capable of. If it is far away, then you can see it more clearly through a telescope. The fact that “more clearly” is possible tells you that you did not have “perfect” clarity originally. You only had a relatively clear view of the object.

Any loss of data means that you do not see the object “as it is”, but “as it approximately is”. Our internal mental constructs are not reality, otherwise the water in a mirage would be real, and it isn’t.

It is an error to mistake a fuzzy approximation of something for the thing itself.

rossum

See that’s where you and I differ. I don’t see the world around me as a fuzzy approximation of reality itself. Yes, there are some things we can not see or do not know, but we know enough in order to see objective reality. You think that because you can not see the atoms in everything that you are not seeing it as it is. However, that is a reductionist philosophy. We are more than just atoms or what we can not see. We are able to see things as they are as a whole. And, we are able to see universals and truths in mathematics and philosophy. Your thinking basically is designed to undermine objective truth. Because if you can’t trust yourself to find it then you have no basis to say this is true over something else. However, that is not how we were created. We have a deep desire to know the truth. And, this desire comes from God, so that we will seek him.

 

[rossum]

See that’s where you and I differ. I don’t see the world around me as a fuzzy approximation of reality itself.

Consider when you look at a horse. Light is reflected off the horse into your eyes. Some of that light (but not all of it) is converted into electrical impulses in your optic nerves. Those impulses travel to your brain. What your brain ‘sees’ is a set of electrical impulses, which are at two removes from the actual horse: horse → light → impulses. You cannot have the actual horse inside your brain, all you have in your brain are patterns of electrical impulses. How can those impulses not be a “fuzzy approximation of reality”?

You think that because you can not see the atoms in everything that you are not seeing it as it is.

Your mind-reading powers have failed you, that is not what I think.

And, we are able to see universals and truths in mathematics and philosophy.

Universals do not exist in the external world, they are merely reified adjectives, and only exist inside our heads. Mathematics is an axiomatic system; change the axioms and the mathematics changes. Whatever mathematics is, it is not the external world. Some (but not all) mathematics can be used to model the external world, but it is only a model not the real thing.

Your thinking basically is designed to undermine objective truth.

I have no problem with objective truth. I do have a problem with absolute truth. I especially have a problem with the reified Absolute Truth – capitalisation is a common sign of reification.

However, that is not how we were created. We have a deep desire to know the truth. And, this desire comes from God, so that we will seek him.

Which is why so many Hindus worship Vishnu. You are making a claim that covers pretty much every god/dess known to man.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Consider when you look at a horse. Light is reflected off the horse into your eyes. Some of that light (but not all of it) is converted into electrical impulses in your optic nerves. Those impulses travel to your brain. What your brain ‘sees’ is a set of electrical impulses, which are at two removes from the actual horse: horse → light → impulses. You cannot have the actual horse inside your brain, all you have in your brain are patterns of electrical impulses. How can those impulses not be a “fuzzy approximation of reality”? . . . Universals do not exist in the external world, they are merely reified adjectives, and only exist inside our heads. Mathematics is an axiomatic system; change the axioms and the mathematics changes. Whatever mathematics is, it is not the external world. Some (but not all) mathematics can be used to model the external world, but it is only a model not the real thing. I have no problem with objective truth. I do have a problem with absolute truth. I especially have a problem with the reified Absolute Truth . . .

You contradict yourself talking about reification and doing just that in your description of the relationship between our nevous system with the world of which we are a part.

But then, I have no idea what you mean by absolute truth.
The existence of an objective world to which your concept of objective truth is related would be an absolute truth. As is the mind that does mathematics.

Another absolute truth would be that which the Buddhism adresses:
As do all religions, Buddhism offers a way to transcendence and a cure for the suffering of existence.
Basically, it sees our human plight in this world as resulting from an ignorance of the underlying realities which make up the Ground of our being.
We act on what is transient and superficial, and this ultimately leads to suffering.
Consciousness arises from the relationship of the mind and the substance of the world, producing feelings, which we then desire.
Wanting more, we cling to what is essentially illusory, because it is not the true reality of our nature.
Our actions produce karma which forms who we are and how we go on to relate to the world.
This clinging, through our actions, if there were reincarnation, would cause one to return to play it out; i.e. to satisfy or let go of the desire.
The wheel of existence is kept going in our attempts to possess the good and escape aversions.
Realizing the underlying reality of existence, with the revelation of the Truth (which is veiled by ignorance), we are freed from the desires that keep us bound to samsara.
The ultimate reality, the Absolute Truth would be no-thingness, the Atman, which is Brahman, Vishnu. We know God to exist.

The Christian philosophical system is the best at explaining pretty much everything about the nature of existence. It does so because Christ is the Light and the Way.

 

[rossum]

You contradict yourself talking about reification and doing just that in your description of the relationship between our nevous system with the world of which we are a part.

What part did I reify? The horse, light, our eyes, our optic nerves, our brains?

The existence of an objective world to which your concept of objective truth is related would be an absolute truth.

How do you absolutely know that we are not living in the Matrix or are a series of brains in jars? The real existence of the external world is very probably true, but cannot be shown absolutely. As a working assumption it functions very well, but there is no absolute proof available.

As is the mind that does mathematics.

There are computer programs, like Mathematica, that can do mathematics.

Basically, it [Buddhism] sees our human plight in this world as resulting from an ignorance of the underlying realities which make up the Ground of our being.

Almost right. The ‘Ground of Being’ is a reified concept that does not exist. Part of our ignorance is to think that such things exist. Buddhism counters such concepts with the idea of emptiness.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

rossum

 

[Thomas_White]

So you admit that you are at least a continual stream of consciousness. When people say with Human that personal identity is an illusion I worry that they are trying to run away from some previous guilt or hurt. You may not always feel like the same person, but love is possible so identity remains

If you haven’t done so already, it might prove helpful to look at a text on Buddhism. What is in question here is the concept of ‘self’ or ‘ego’. When this is transcended, it does not mean non-existence, and neither does it much differ from Christian spirituality or mysticism (though there are conceptual differences). An individual having this experience does not cease to exist. It remains awareness and perhaps could be experienced while contemplating the mysteries of the rosary, for example.

 

[Thomas_White]

I meant to say Hume in this post, not Human

I see. I did wonder what ‘Human’ meant in the comment. I really don’t see the empiricism of Hume as particularly enlightening here.