they're not conclusionsCittasanto wrote:and how do you come to those conclusions?danieLion wrote: you miss my point; AS a psychology, the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; AS a theology--outdated...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions
Intellectual Integrity
Re: Intellectual Integrity
Re: Intellectual Integrity
danieLion, I'm not sure if you need to contextualize the "practice" of the Buddha's teaching. This action may be what makes it anachronistic. Go with "akaliko".
Re: Intellectual Integrity
I didn't say "across the board." Don't put words in my mouth. And I didn't say they were outdated as "a way of life."polarbuddha101 wrote:Okay, to put it another way, why do you think that the teachings of the buddha are outdated across the board, i.e. as a psychology, philosophy, etc.? I would imagine you have some reasons for making this assertion. I'm more interested in why you think it's outdated as a philosophy, a psychology, and a way of life than anything else.
In general I am informed by Bikkhu Bodhi, Reverends Analayo, Sujato, and Thannisaro, and the sutta pitaka. My principle method is critical thinking.
Philosophically (here I am informed by authors like K.N. Jayatilleke, Richard Gombrich and Paul Fuller) the teachings of the Buddha have been improved upon (not in a totally dismissive way) by the likes of empiricism (e.g., via Hume), pragmatism (e.g., via William James and Richard Rorty), and Wittgenstein (post Tractatus). In the psychological/philosophical overlap, for instance, William James' Principles of Psychology, Alfred Korzybski's Science & Sanity, Robert Anton Wilson's Promethues Rising and Quantum Psychology are far superior (yet not entirely unrelated) to Buddhist psychology/philosophy. In the psychological literature, you'll find a much more relevant psychology of human suffering than in Buddhist psychology (my ideas here are informed by the Abhidhamma and authors like Rune E.A. Johansson and Sue Hamiltion), in the likes of Albert Ellis et al. You'll find a better understanding of karma in B.F. Skinner et al, and a better understanding of introspection in, for example, in E.G.Boring's A History of Experimental Psychology and John C. Lilly's Progamming and Metaprogamming in the Human Biocomputer. In the "theological" or religious studies realm, you'll find a much less primitive and much more sophisticated understanding of "spirituality" in Aleister Crowley's works, Joseph Campbell's works, Robert Anton Wilson's works, and in the field of cultural anthropology.
I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some teachings of the Buddha at times appear to me to have direct relevance to modern living and my life, but thinking critically (like thinking scientifically) for the sake of intellectual integrity is not about settling on conclusions. It's an iterative process. For instance, I don't believe in reincarnation and think the Buddha and his followers were merely creating inner hallucinations for themselves about past lives. I don't doubt modern man can do the same, but even if I attained knowledge of past lives I wouldn't CONCLUDE that that particular cosmology is an absolute truth. However, I don't exclude the possiblity that I could experience it in way that left no doubt. I predict, however, I would understand it as an experience that likely defies categorical definition and refrain from attributing any subjective, objective or subjective-objective validity to it. The Buddha was not superhuman and made mistakes and changed his mind frequently after his "awakening." He was clearly a critical thinker. He should not inspire blind faith. So, by "outdated" I don't mean totally useless or completely irrelevant. I mean, in the context of current knowledge, which parts can we discard and which can we retain for the sake of intellectual integrity?
Re: Intellectual Integrity
Of course it's not a necessity to contextualize the "practice," but I believe it is preferable to do so when one can, especially if one wants to test it's relevance for our own lives. I want the teachings to appear more relevant, but that's just a wish. Critical thinking for the sake of intellectual integrity demands one look at just how "outdated" (see my other post for clarification of this term) some parts of Buddhism are and to look just as hard as the Buddha looked into the nature of suffering and the end of suffering. The history of Buddhism itself puts the lie to belief that the teachings of the Buddha are timeless, and modern controversies like the one over the meaning of sati, for instance, are indicative of the fact Buddhism lacks intellectual integrity. Some of the teachings clearly are not timeless. What makes many aspects of the teachings of the Buddha anachronistic is not how we understand them retrospectively but how the Buddha and his comtemporaries understood the world during their life and times in a way we'll never understand. And at some point, one is no longer contextualizing but merely cramming round pegs into square holes. They obviously won't fit, and no amount of blind faith will make them fit.Mr Man wrote:danieLion, I'm not sure if you need to contextualize the "practice" of the Buddha's teaching. This action may be what makes it anachronistic. Go with "akaliko".
Re: Intellectual Integrity
It only lacks intellectual integrity when you put it in the wrong context. The teaching is no a pursuit of the intellect (it is also not a rejection of the rational in daily life). The timeless aspect (to me) is the benefit, which can be known.danieLion wrote:Of course it's not a necessity to contextualize the "practice," but I believe it is preferable to do so when one can, especially if one wants to test it's relevance for our own lives. I want the teachings to appear more relevant, but that's just a wish. Critical thinking for the sake of intellectual integrity demands one look at just how "outdated" (see my other post for clarification of this term) some parts of Buddhism are and to look just as hard as the Buddha looked into the nature of suffering and the end of suffering. The history of Buddhism itself puts the lie to belief that the teachings of the Buddha are timeless, and modern controversies like the one over the meaning of sati, for instance, are indicative of the fact Buddhism lacks intellectual integrity. Some of the teachings clearly are not timeless. What makes many aspects of the teachings of the Buddha anachronistic is not how we understand them retrospectively but how the Buddha and his comtemporaries understood the world during their life and times in a way we'll never understand. And at some point, one is no longer contextualizing but merely cramming round pegs into square holes. They obviously won't fit, and no amount of blind faith will make them fit.Mr Man wrote:danieLion, I'm not sure if you need to contextualize the "practice" of the Buddha's teaching. This action may be what makes it anachronistic. Go with "akaliko".
I would also add that for me much of the symbolism does resonate. I might not connect with the personality of a particular monk (for example) but I do relate to "the bhikku" symbolically (apologies if I am rambling).
Last edited by Mr Man on Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Intellectual Integrity
Contexts are neither wrong nor right.Mr Man wrote:It only lacks intellectual integrity when you put it in the wrong context.
Re: Intellectual Integrity
But they can be improper (which is to say, unsuitable or otherwise deficient).danieLion wrote:Contexts are neither wrong nor right.Mr Man wrote:It only lacks intellectual integrity when you put it in the wrong context.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Intellectual Integrity
Is critical thinking completely reliable?danieLion wrote: thinking critically (like thinking scientifically) for the sake of intellectual integrity is not about settling on conclusions. It's an iterative process.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: Intellectual Integrity
Aleister Crowley, really?danieLion wrote:In the "theological" or religious studies realm, you'll find a much less primitive and much more sophisticated understanding of "spirituality" in Aleister Crowley's works, Joseph Campbell's works, Robert Anton Wilson's works, and in the field of cultural anthropology.
- Polar Bear
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Re: Intellectual Integrity
Thanks for the clarification.danieLion wrote:I didn't say "across the board." Don't put words in my mouth. And I didn't say they were outdated as "a way of life."polarbuddha101 wrote:Okay, to put it another way, why do you think that the teachings of the buddha are outdated across the board, i.e. as a psychology, philosophy, etc.? I would imagine you have some reasons for making this assertion. I'm more interested in why you think it's outdated as a philosophy, a psychology, and a way of life than anything else.
In general I am informed by Bikkhu Bodhi, Reverends Analayo, Sujato, and Thannisaro, and the sutta pitaka. My principle method is critical thinking.
Philosophically (here I am informed by authors like K.N. Jayatilleke, Richard Gombrich and Paul Fuller) the teachings of the Buddha have been improved upon (not in a totally dismissive way) by the likes of empiricism (e.g., via Hume), pragmatism (e.g., via William James and Richard Rorty), and Wittgenstein (post Tractatus). In the psychological/philosophical overlap, for instance, William James' Principles of Psychology, Alfred Korzybski's Science & Sanity, Robert Anton Wilson's Promethues Rising and Quantum Psychology are far superior (yet not entirely unrelated) to Buddhist psychology/philosophy. In the psychological literature, you'll find a much more relevant psychology of human suffering than in Buddhist psychology (my ideas here are informed by the Abhidhamma and authors like Rune E.A. Johansson and Sue Hamiltion), in the likes of Albert Ellis et al. You'll find a better understanding of karma in B.F. Skinner et al, and a better understanding of introspection in, for example, in E.G.Boring's A History of Experimental Psychology and John C. Lilly's Progamming and Metaprogamming in the Human Biocomputer. In the "theological" or religious studies realm, you'll find a much less primitive and much more sophisticated understanding of "spirituality" in Aleister Crowley's works, Joseph Campbell's works, Robert Anton Wilson's works, and in the field of cultural anthropology.
I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some teachings of the Buddha at times appear to me to have direct relevance to modern living and my life, but thinking critically (like thinking scientifically) for the sake of intellectual integrity is not about settling on conclusions. It's an iterative process. For instance, I don't believe in reincarnation and think the Buddha and his followers were merely creating inner hallucinations for themselves about past lives. I don't doubt modern man can do the same, but even if I attained knowledge of past lives I wouldn't CONCLUDE that that particular cosmology is an absolute truth. However, I don't exclude the possiblity that I could experience it in way that left no doubt. I predict, however, I would understand it as an experience that likely defies categorical definition and refrain from attributing any subjective, objective or subjective-objective validity to it. The Buddha was not superhuman and made mistakes and changed his mind frequently after his "awakening." He was clearly a critical thinker. He should not inspire blind faith. So, by "outdated" I don't mean totally useless or completely irrelevant. I mean, in the context of current knowledge, which parts can we discard and which can we retain for the sake of intellectual integrity?
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Integrity
Then what are they? has your reasoning not ended up with this at this point?danieLion wrote:they're not conclusionsCittasanto wrote:and how do you come to those conclusions?danieLion wrote: you miss my point; AS a psychology, the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; AS a theology--outdated...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Integrity
daverupa wrote:But they can be improper (which is to say, unsuitable or otherwise deficient).danieLion wrote:Contexts are neither wrong nor right.Mr Man wrote:It only lacks intellectual integrity when you put it in the wrong context.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Integrity
no, something can be sound but not true. it makes sense but there is fallacious thinking involved.kirk5a wrote:Is critical thinking completely reliable?danieLion wrote: thinking critically (like thinking scientifically) for the sake of intellectual integrity is not about settling on conclusions. It's an iterative process.
for a crude example
all beds I have slept on have a mattress
therefore everyone sleeps on a mattress
although this maybe true it does not follow that everyone does actually sleep on a mattress, or that I have always slept on a mattress.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Intellectual Integrity
If you mean contexts are either effective or ineffective, then I agree. Any other terms are too loaded. However, a superior way to look a it--over relying on a primitive psychology like the Buddha's--is the set and setting "explanations" of modern psychology (for starters).daverupa wrote:But they can be improper (which is to say, unsuitable or otherwise deficient).danieLion wrote:Contexts are neither wrong nor right.Mr Man wrote:It only lacks intellectual integrity when you put it in the wrong context.
Re: Intellectual Integrity
No epistemic method is completely reliable, but it's more reliable than other methods. I'm not after absolute reliabity. I'm after understanding the teachings in terms of pragmatism, especialy the pragmatism of John Dewey, William James and Richard Rorty.kirk5a wrote:Is critical thinking completely reliable?danieLion wrote: thinking critically (like thinking scientifically) for the sake of intellectual integrity is not about settling on conclusions. It's an iterative process.