I agree. The only truth is that there is no truth. Then why should anyone believe him? It can’t be true?RE: Refuting Buddhism
Rossum’s signature line comes as close as anything to demonstrating that his belief system - assuming it is a reflection of Buddhist thinking - is self-refuting.
To be completely fair, rossum’s signature line is intended to be more along the lines of a paradox or Zen Koan, the very purpose of which is to compel the reader to abandon dependency upon human reason and seek enlightenment as an immediate act of intuition rather than mediated through reasoning.
The fact that you accept the reality of a soul has nothing to do with its non-existence.
A human being consists of five parts: body/form, feelings, perceptions, impulses/habits and consciousness. All of these five change. What part of a human being, beyond these five can you point to. Does this further part change or not?
I have a series of linked unique identities, each one conditioned by the previous ones in the series and in turn conditioning the further ones in the series. The series is indeed unique, but it is not a single entity, rather it is a compound entity. If you remove all of the individual parts f the compound entity then there is no underlying “soul” left over. If you remove all its parts then there is no “car” left over.
Feelings change. Perceptions change. Habits change. Consciousness changes. All five parts of a human being change.
It is a series of different skies, each one conditioned by its predecessors.
It is a series of different trees, each conditioned by its predecessors. Remove all those different trees and there is no “essential tree” left.
You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.Rossum’s signature line comes as close as anything to demonstrating that his belief system - assuming it is a reflection of Buddhist thinking - is self-refuting.
I have no problem with objective truth. I have great problems with Ultimate Truth, Absolute Truth or any of the other reified truths that people discuss. All reification is incorrect; there is no more a reified Truth than there is a reified Blue.
Would you agree that Absolute Truth exists, but I’ll be darned if any human being has ever shown us what it is?
The above is merely a claim, not an argument.
Exactly. The abstract is not real, hence trying to treat the abstract as real, by reifying it, is an error.
I do not define God that way. God, YHWH, is a living being with certain ascribed properties. Allah is a living being with certain ascribed properties. Vishnu … etc. Absolute Truth is something different; at the very least it is is not a living being.
Here are two statements:
Absolute Truth may, or may not, exist. I am strongly inclined to the “does not exist” side but am willing to be convinced otherwise. I have certainly seen a lot of claims, but to date I have seen no convincing evidence or proof that it actually exists. I have found that ordinary relative truth is sufficient to work in the ordinary relative world we actually live in.
Perception is just the raw perception; pattern matching between previous (name removed by moderator)uts and current (name removed by moderator)uts. We see a familiar pattern and label it “horse”.
This is a Catch 22 situation. Absolute Truth requires evidence that is acceptable to you, who are only capable of adjudicating relative truths (according to your own reasoning). All acceptable and, therefore, relative evidence will only prove relative truth, ergo you have eliminated the very possibility of proving Absolute Truth by your requirement for acceptable, that is: relative, evidence. You have eliminated Absolute Truth by a fiat of relative truth.
What you are missing is the soul or spirit, which never changes, but gives life to the material body. This is where our intellect, our free will and rational thought reside. You have created a false dilemma, however, by stating that outward changes in a being somehow indicate a change in the identity of that being. I have watched my parents age over time. Never have I wondered about who they were. They are the same person they were at conception. Their identity never changed. This is a grave error in Buddhist philosophy concerning the nature of human life.
I have not “eliminated the very possibility”. I am merely requiring that any proof of Absolute Truth itself be absolute. I am sure you would agree that a relatively true proof of an Absolute Truth could not be relied upon.
Then you are denying the possibility of salvation. An unchanging soul cannot change from unsaved to saved (or vice versa). That may be good Calvinism, but I do not think it is in conformance with Catholic doctrine.
If I remove all the five parts of a human, then there is nothing left apart from those five parts. If I start with a chain, and one by one remove each link of the chain, what is left after all of the links have been removed? That which is left is the chain’s “soul”: nothing. A soul does not exist, it is merely a reification of what we perceive, overlaid onto reality by our minds.
No they are not the same. Their forms have changed, their feelings have changed, their perceptions have changed, their habits have changed and their consciousnesses have changed. What you see as a single entity is a chain of different entities, each causally connected to the next. Remove the individual links in the chain and there is no soul remaining.
This is a grave error of the Abrahamic religions, and leads to much suffering. You are projecting an internal mental construct out onto the real world, where it has no real existence. The mismatch between your expectations and reality will only cause suffering.
But I’m not particularly fond of the colour purple…If what you believe is true then you should probably start referring to yourself as the “poster formerly known as Rossum”.
Au contraire! You are engaged in the same act of “elimination” in the part of the post quoted below. I have highlighted the offending statements.
If we “are unable to tell” whether proofs are absolute, what would be the point of “requiring” that proofs be absolute? In order to rule them ineligible because they are Absolute and therefore beyond our capacity to adjudge them as Absolute? Sounds like a mind game.
How is it possible to accept a non-absolute proof that a given truth is Absolute? The proof could not be relied on.
okay lets try this.How is it possible to accept a non-absolute proof that a given truth is Absolute? The proof could not be relied on.
If you propose an Absolute Proof, then naturally you will need to prove that your proof itself is Absolute.
In order to get an Absolute result out of any logic chain, then you need at least one Absolute (name removed by moderator)ut into that logic chain. You cannot just conjure up the Absolute from nothing, you need an absolute starting point. Absent that, you will not be able to establish any Absolute. I do not deny that such an Absolute starting point may exist, but if it does it has not yet been found. Until it has been found I will remain sceptical of any claims to Absoluteness.
rossum
