YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

Buddhist response to Western ontology - Page 11 - Dhamma Wheel

Buddhist response to Western ontology

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:27 pm


User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby contemplans » Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:38 pm


Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby Kenshou » Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:38 pm


User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby contemplans » Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:41 pm


User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:04 pm



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.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:09 pm



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.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:24 pm


User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2928
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby Goofaholix » Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:33 am


User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby Sherab » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:35 pm


User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby contemplans » Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:39 pm

I am going to close my contribution to this thread. We've had a lot of room to explore the argument that I presented, and I think we all have some food for thought to go away with. If you felt like I didn't answer your question at all, or not adequately, it is probably because of one of the reasons below. Altogether there has been a confusion of method in the discussion, so I would like to address before I go two primary stumbling blocks to understanding that seem to stick out to me.


A misunderstanding of logical argumentation.

Natural science and philosophy of nature are two different type of pursuits of knowledge, with two different methods, and two different types of truths arrived at. Natural science has for its object and its goal the phenomena and processes of sensible being. Philosophy of nature has for its object the phenomena and processes of sensible being, while its goal is the essence and cause. Not phenomena as such, but being as such. The first method is called empiriological, while the second method is called ontological. The first reasons down, while the later reasons up. Both analyze to reach universal conclusions. Natural science deals with phenomena, so in its conclusions it never reaches beyond phenomena. It uses hypothesis, deductions, and the like to come to a probable explanation of phenomena. Philosophy of nature is simply the application of the intellect, in light of self-evident (obvious) truths, to an object offered it by experience until it finds a true principle by which it can understand the object. Infering what is necessarily implied by the facts, philosophy of nature comes to explanations which are necessary and "all or nothing". There can be a mistake in the premises somewhere, in which case the argument can be reformulated based on the new knowledge. Generally philosophy of nature handles matters which natural science take for granted. As long as one is not taken for the other, there is no real conflict between the two methods. Together they form a coherent view of existence.

So Thomas Aquinas argues that, given that we observe that things exist, undergo change, and exhibit final causes, there necessarily must be a God who maintains them in existence at every instant. Everyone has been looking at the conclusions (God, pure actuality), instead of addressing the premises, and the discussion hasn't really get off the ground.


An assumption/bias that scientific reasoning is superior to methaphysical reasoning. Or even that methaphysical reasoning has no value.

This view is called scientism or postivism. This view is problematic because the proponents of it never defend the claim, but just put it out there. In that case they are being just as dogmatic as any person they criticize for being dogmatic. Second the view they espouse is actually methaphysical, in that they would need to appeal to methaphysical reasoning to support it. As said earlier, natural science takes for granted propositions which philosophy of nature explain. Topics such as: there is a physical world existing independent of our minds, this world is characterized by various objective patterns and regularities, our senses are only partially reliable sources of information about this world, there are objective laws of logic and methematics that apply to the objective world outside our mind, etc. All these and other claims are methaphysical in nature and are presupposed by natural science. Scientism is there incoherent.


I wish you all well. I enjoyed the discussion. See you in another thread.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:02 pm

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:37 pm


User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby Sherab » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:07 am


User avatar
polarbear101
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby polarbear101 » Wed May 02, 2012 4:01 am

Perhaps this makes sense. 'Being' in the sense that things 'are' is a fact. So, things have being. Everything and every process is a manifestation of being. Because of 'being' there are things. So, things necessarily need being. However, 'being' cannot have any actuality independent of things that have the property of 'being'. 'Things' necessitate being and being necessitates that there 'are' things. Therefore, god does not exist as 'being' because he would be dependent on things that have 'being' and thus god is an improper term to use. So, 'being' upholds the universe (as in everything, including multiverses) and the universe upholds 'being'. Thus, they are completely dependent on one another and cannot be separated because 'being' is a property of things and properties cannot exist independent of that which they are properties of and things cannot exist independently of their properties. So, if that makes sense and we accept this, god does not exist in the modern sense it is used in. If this doesn't make sense, then it because our minds can't comprehend it, either way I declare myself the momentary victor. :sage:
"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."

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 17855
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby retrofuturist » Wed May 02, 2012 4:02 am

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

YouthThunder
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:03 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby YouthThunder » Wed May 02, 2012 8:24 pm

I don't know for sure but there are things that suggest God might exist:
http://al-furqan.5u.com/miracles4.html

Especially the one about lungs,well I read one buddhist text about Mahabrahman but I am not sure if it applies,the text says the Mahabrahman thought that he created the things although in fact the things just rise dues to karmic laws or something(or something along these lines) but still......

In gnosticism,they have a concept of Yaldabaoth,Demiurge,but the question is could anyone prove whether who got it right?

P/S:You can say I am undecided between buddhism,islam and baha'i.

User avatar
polarbear101
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby polarbear101 » Thu May 03, 2012 5:19 am

"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."

YouthThunder
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:03 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Postby YouthThunder » Thu May 03, 2012 4:19 pm



Return to “Connections to Other Paths”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine