Buddhism

What do you all think (and by all I'm pretty sure I mean 'Beer)? I've read a little bit on it recently, and it definitely has some good aspects. I'm not saying I believe in all the little gods and spirits, but its beliefs of karma and enlightenment and very interesting, and i would like to explore meditation a bit further. Its a good life philosophy at least.

Your thoughts?

Bilbo Baggins wrote:What do you all think (and by all I'm pretty sure I mean 'Beer)? I've read a little bit on it recently, and it definitely has some good aspects. I'm not saying I believe in all the little gods and spirits, but its beliefs of karma and enlightenment and very interesting, and i would like to explore meditation a bit further. Its a good life philosophy at least.

Your thoughts?

Spent a lot of time with Buddhists, my inlaws, friends in Thailand, and other Asian countries. Like Christianity there are many different spins on it. I don't have any really negative feelings about it, but these are my observations of some Buddhist Asian countries. I'm not sure how much of it has to do with Buddhism.

1- They seem to have less regard for human life than "christian' nations.
2- Money, greed, getting over on someone else at any costs . . . seems to be pretty damn common. Even more so than in western cultures.

Karma . . . yeah that's real interesting. What goes around comes around is the western version of it. Actually, I think you do get back what you send out. I may be a prick here at times, but I believe strongly that if you give of good vibes you get them back. Case in point. My TV cable was out. I call the cable company and the woman who answers is surly and in a bad mood. I call her by her first name, am as friendly as can be, joke, and empathize with the trouble she's having with her computer. In a couple minutes she's turned around completely and is friendly, helpful and we get my problem fixed.

Meditation --- Yep. I believe in that. In fact I used to meditate with my sister in law who is a buddhist nun. Never really bought into some of the stuff she said, but meditating was cool. It lowered my BP, cleared my mind and made me more effective at my job and left me feeling refreshed. Dang, I should probably start that again if I could make the time for it.

Enlightenment . . . that got a little too far out there for me. I'm not saying I don't believe it. Just didn't really achieve it.

Karma . . . yeah that's real interesting. What goes around comes around is the western version of it. Actually, I think you do get back what you send out. I may be a prick here at times, but I believe strongly that if you give of good vibes you get them back. Case in point. My TV cable was out. I call the cable company and the woman who answers is surly and in a bad mood. I call her by her first name, am as friendly as can be, joke, and empathize with the trouble she's having with her computer. In a couple minutes she's turned around completely and is friendly, helpful and we get my problem fixed.

The idea of karma really interests me, though I have doubts about any supernatural power controlling it. I like to think though that if you have a kind, caring and friendly outlook on life, then your life will begin to reflect that. As your example highlighted, dealing with an angry world in a friendly manner can make a big difference to you personally.

Meditation --- Yep. I believe in that. In fact I used to meditate with my sister in law who is a buddhist nun. Never really bought into some of the stuff she said, but meditating was cool. It lowered my BP, cleared my mind and made me more effective at my job and left me feeling refreshed. Dang, I should probably start that again if I could make the time for it.

Definitely something I'm interested in doing.

Enlightenment . . . that got a little too far out there for me. I'm not saying I don't believe it. Just didn't really achieve it.

Perhaps my language was a bit strong. By 'enlightment' I mean achieving a state where you are more at peace with yourself, and not so driven by desires for material things or gratification. Its related to meditation as well. From what I've read, the higher one goes on the levels of enlightment, the less connection one has to the pains and desires of the real world. I don't think I'm ever going to become a buddha and thats not my goal, but getting a bit more focus in my life and reducing the influence of short-term desires is a worthy goal.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:What do you all think (and by all I'm pretty sure I mean 'Beer)? I've read a little bit on it recently, and it definitely has some good aspects. I'm not saying I believe in all the little gods and spirits, but its beliefs of karma and enlightenment and very interesting, and i would like to explore meditation a bit further. Its a good life philosophy at least.

Your thoughts?

My beliefs are at odds with many aspects of Buddhism. But they are philosophical in nature, not religious; the conflicts I have with Buddhism are similar to those I have with other religions. Mainly, I disagree with the concepts of pacifism and the altruistic morality espoused by Buddhism.

But there also things that I like about Buddhism:
One thing I agree with is the concept that truths and morals exist as part of an objective reality; I just disagree with what Buddhism considers the standard of value, as well as with the method of attaining truth and morality. I also agree with their condemnation of hedonism, and the basic premise of being at "peace with oneself" (but again, I disagree with the method of attaining such peace).

That being said, the Buddhists I have met are generally good people. I have no problems with it.

I agree that war in some cases is unavoidable, and perhaps even undesirable, so I couldn't describe myself as a pacifist. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with altruism, and I'm not sure why you do. Further explanation would be helpful.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with altruism, and I'm not sure why you do. Further explanation would be helpful.

I will get back to you on this, hopefully tonight. My explanation here is a tad-bit complex.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:I agree that war in some cases is unavoidable, and perhaps even undesirable, so I couldn't describe myself as a pacifist. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with altruism, and I'm not sure why you do. Further explanation would be helpful.

That makes me curious as well.
Altruism as a personal choice is not a bad thing. Some people choose a life of it, some choose it more selectively. Either way, the world would be a worse place without it.

We continue to wait in suspense....

Bilbo Baggins wrote:We continue to wait in suspense....

I'm here.
Wherever "here" is.

Before I explain my opposition to altruism, it is best you know exactly what I am talking about when I say “altruism”. I am referring to altruism in its philosophical sense; i.e. the philosophy of self-sacrifice. Altruism is not the quality of being kind, caring, or compassionate. When I say “altruistic”, I am referring specifically to the quality of being a self-sacrificing servant to others.

My rationale for being “anti-altruistic” begins with the concept of existence as explained through Aristotle’s Law of Identity; A is A. The fundamental idea established by A=A is the concept of an objective reality; in other words, that reality and existence is not fluid; it is an absolute, where the only alternative is non-existence. For every living organism in this universe, existence is the origin, and it is thus the primary goal for such organisms to perpetuate their existence; for the only possible alternative, as stated earlier, is non-existence. What is then established is the absolute truth that existence itself is the only objective standard of value.

With existence (man’s life) being the ultimate standard of value, the primary right is man’s fundamental right to life, from which all other rights are derived. Since man has an inherent right to life, there also are established inherent consequences: Every individual has ownership of their life, and all processes of the individual are self-sustained and can only be chosen by the same individual. This means that individuals also have a right to live their life in accordance with their own values, and sustain and progress their existence in the manner they deem appropriate. These consequences also become inherent rights by extension of their fundamental right to life; they are essential for the existence of the right to life. If you deny an individual the right own his life, the right to live his life by his values, and the right to sustain his existence, then you are denying the existence of his fundamental right to life, which would be an abandonment of the objective reality.

We have established that every individual has a fundamental right to life, and by extension of this principle, the right to sustain their existence (sustaining one’s existence is not only a right, but an individual’s moral purpose). The only mode of survival, the only tool which man has to survive, is his rationality. Humans are not like animals, we do not simply exist on “instinct”; we are thinking, cognitive creatures, and our minds are our greatest and only tool which we can use to ensure the continuity of our existence. With man’s life being the standard of value, with existence being our purpose, and with rationality being the only mode by which we can perpetuate existence, what is established is this: rationality is our greatest virtue, and is thus the only means we can achieve an understanding of true objective morals.

One of our greatest moral choices is this: to be egotistic or altruistic? Will man live for the sake of his self, or for the sake of others? Will man’s life have a greater value, or will he only value the lives of others? Is man an end in himself, or is he a means to the ends of others?

The philosophy of altruism obviously states the latter. The altruistic recognizes that individuals do not own their life, but that other individuals, society, or some “common good” has higher claim on their life than they do. It abandons the idea of man’s life being a standard of value; altruism sees the “self” as a standard of vice, and the standard of value being the “lives of others”. It abandons the idea that man’s ultimate moral purpose is their own existence, instead replacing it with the existence of others. It abandons the idea that the mode of survival is rationality, instead replacing it with what is “pragmatic” for achieving a desirable end which will benefit the “common good”. Altruism, fundamentally, rejects an individual’s only true mode of survival as “evil”.

Of course, it is only natural that rationality would be frowned upon by the philosophy of altruism. Any individual who truly applies their rationality would find that altruism is a source of immorality. The rational individual is the one who asks “Why?” The altruistic individual is the one who cannot answer that question. This is because the philosophy altruism is not based on concrete rationality, and thus there is no real answer to legitimize its existence. The entire school of thought is based on a perversion of rationality, which is consequently a perversion of life and reality.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:We continue to wait in suspense....

Sorry it took so long. It takes me a while to get back on track if I don't accomplish something over the weekend.

Now this is more like it! I understand your line of reasoning, but I still have questions regarding your definition of altruism. For example, what if someone is exceedingly wealthy - a Bill Gates figure - who decides to donate $10million to charity. He is not serving himself, but you would find it hard to argue that he is threatening his own survival by this act. Obviously an extreme example, but I think the message is clear. If you can afford to give, without threatening your own existence, then what is wrong with doing so? You stretch the argument of rationality a bit far I think.

Good question.

In regards to charity, I am not implying that the act itself is immoral. As long as someone is not committing “fiscal suicide” through charitable actions, and as long as those receiving the charity are deemed worthy of receiving it by the giver, then there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

The concept of being ‘anti-altruistic’ is not the same as being ‘anti-charity’ or 'anti-good will among men’. I am not against what could be called ‘rational charity’. What I am against is the altruistic definition of charity; that it is every individual’s moral obligation, that it is a requirement to live a life of virtue.

So, in short. I see absolutely nothing wrong with giving or receiving charity as long as it is a voluntary, uncoerced choice, and as long as the receiving party is a man of morality.

Interesting. I can agree to an extent; a person should obviously act rationally when concerning their own well-being. At first sight, this theory would seem to suggest that beliefs like mine (socialism, collective will, etc) are wrong, in that they do not allow man the fullest possible freedom to pursue their survival. However, I do not think it is irrational to be a socialist at all. For workers, it is about seizing the power that is rightfully theirs - taking command of their own destiny. Surely this is the most rational act possible? What do you think about that?

Socialism is not about men seizing what is “rightfully theirs”; it is about society (or the “workers” as you put it) seizing the claim of individual’s to their own lives. The socialist philosophy, which is altruistic in nature, is based on the illusion that there is a conflict between human rights and property rights; that the existence of the latter is detrimental to the existence of the former, and that human rights can only be preserved through the destruction of property rights. This is nothing more than a lie of irrationalists and mystics.

Property rights and human rights are not mutually exclusive, they exist inseparably. Property is the product of an individual’s mind and effort, the product of their life and liberty, and they are thus entitled to its full claim. The society cannot claim the property of an individual on behalf of some “common good”; to deny an individual the full rights to his property is to deny an individual his rights to the life and liberty which produced it.

Socialism, by making the means of production “collectively-owned”, by redistributing the wealth of individuals, and by replacing the concept of individual rights with non-existence “collective rights”, does nothing more that seize the life, liberty, and the minds of individuals and denies them the right to live for their own sake. There is nothing ‘rational’ about it.

I can feel the loathing through my screen. Though I strongly disagree, I don't think much will be accomplished by slugging through Round 2 of Socialism vs Capitalism. Our viewpoints are polar opposites, and it would require more than an internet forum debate to change our minds. I will chip away at it though.

EDIT: I feel I should clarify this. I do believe that someone's mind can be changed through rational debate, but I don't think a battle over the core tenets of each ideology is the way to go. Debate over issues and practical examples, as opposed to theory, is likely to be more productive in this case.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:
EDIT: I feel I should clarify this. I do believe that someone's mind can be changed through rational debate, but I don't think a battle over the core tenets of each ideology is the way to go. Debate over issues and practical examples, as opposed to theory, is likely to be more productive in this case.

For what purpose?

Why should I subordinate morality to pragmatism? Anything can be manipulated to a point where it will "work" for certain scenarios; but the one thing that can never be altered is whether it is right or wrong. Choosing a pragmatic approach over a moral approach is for the moral coward.

I do not suggest that you betray your morals. However, an argument based on the key theoretical elements of our beliefs is unlikely to sway each of us. An illustration of these theories through practical examples (e.g. universal healthcare vs market healthcare examples throughout the world) will probably be more productive, as it tests the worthiness of the theory in a real-life setting.

Obviously there will be disputes over whether something has 'worked' or not (e.g. Healthcare in Canada - conservatives see it as a dismal failure, liberals a sign of the inherent superiority of public healthcare systems), but the same is true for theory. However, real-life examples have a more personal and direct impact, as it is theory at work, and so the arguments behind them are more convincing.

Very well. If you like, we can discuss practicality.

However, since I subordinate pragmatism to morality, the chances of convincing me to turn socialist are less likely.

EDIT: Don't expect this to be a "quick" thing; I have less time to chat over the week, and since we are discussing pragmatism, it may take longer to respond in cases where I need to compile data.

Haha . I'm not expecting you to instantly bombard me with examples of the successes of libertarian thinking. I'm just making the comment that purely theoretical debate will probably be unproductive as we have heard each others arguments many times before. I think that it would be better to debate on issues that come up naturally. However, I'm still more than happy to discuss theory, I just don't want to get into another mammoth back-and-forth like the one at CC (which though fun, was time-consuming to say the least) where we end up thinking exactly what we did at the beginning.