Intellectual Integrity

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

Ñāṇa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:How is that an "objective fact"?
It can be tested by anyone. it is true whether a Buddha is present or not. also see my last comments (this part is why I responded there).
edit - it does not depend on one's personal perspective for it to be the case.
The recognition of the cessation of mental outflows is only available to noble ones and doesn't exist independent of a particular mental continuum. As worldlings, we can experience the temporary suppression of the hindrances through the development of samādhi & paññā, and can infer from this that the complete termination of the mental outflows would be peaceful, but this is still an inferential cognition on our part. This can be very useful as a way of pointing us in the right direction. But it is a pointer, and not an observable objective fact.
The subjective experience may influence the application but not its being true.
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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

SDC wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:why not here?
I'll take it far off topic.
ok
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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:Belief that the fact/value (fact/opinion) distinction is valid is just another opinion.
could you expand on this?
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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

i have just noticed that I missed a number of responces from Daniel, but as I am going away for a few days soon I may not have time to go over them until I get back, but will try.
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
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by danieLion »

Cittasanto wrote:
danieLion wrote:Belief that the fact/value (fact/opinion) distinction is valid is just another opinion.
could you expand on this?
The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy by Hilary Putnam

Excerpt from Richard Rorty's review of the above.
Putnam's dislike of science-worship is just one example of his distrust of all philosophies that stray too far from common sense, from what he sometimes...calls "the ordinary...." Using a strategy pioneered by Dewey, Putnam shows how his opponents have turned commonsensical distinctions into philosophical dichotomies (fact vs. value, objective vs. subjective, mind vs. matter) and then, typically, tried to eliminate one side of the dichotomy in favor of the other.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by danieLion »

Cittasanto wrote:i have just noticed that I missed a number of responces from Daniel, but as I am going away for a few days soon I may not have time to go over them until I get back, but will try.
Thanks Cittasanto. I'm in no hurry but sincerely look forward to your responses.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:i have just noticed that I missed a number of responces from Daniel, but as I am going away for a few days soon I may not have time to go over them until I get back, but will try.
Thanks Cittasanto. I'm in no hurry but sincerely look forward to your responses.
Probably wont be too much as I have ran out of steam this past week. hence my impromptu trip away.
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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote: The recognition of the cessation of mental outflows is only available to noble ones and doesn't exist independent of a particular mental continuum. As worldlings, we can experience the temporary suppression of the hindrances through the development of samādhi & paññā, and can infer from this that the complete termination of the mental outflows would be peaceful, but this is still an inferential cognition on our part. This can be very useful as a way of pointing us in the right direction. But it is a pointer, and not an observable objective fact.
The subjective experience may influence the application but not its being true.
I don't think you understood at all what Geoff just said.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote: The recognition of the cessation of mental outflows is only available to noble ones and doesn't exist independent of a particular mental continuum. As worldlings, we can experience the temporary suppression of the hindrances through the development of samādhi & paññā, and can infer from this that the complete termination of the mental outflows would be peaceful, but this is still an inferential cognition on our part. This can be very useful as a way of pointing us in the right direction. But it is a pointer, and not an observable objective fact.
The subjective experience may influence the application but not its being true.
I don't think you understood at all what Geoff just said.
care to explain?
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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: The subjective experience may influence the application but not its being true.
I don't think you understood at all what Geoff just said.
care to explain?
First of all, I have no idea what your response to Geoff's msg is saying. But what I am saying, and what I do believe Geoff is saying is what I said above: One needs to keep in mind that in the Buddha's teachings truths are cognitions, not objective facts. The Buddha is not talking about the height of Everest. He is talking about being free of greed, hatred, and delusion, which is an experiential, cognitive process.

That is, in the Dhamma the only way truths are truly experienced and truly known (not as a matter of belief) is by cognition. The Four Noble Truths start with pointing to experience, not a matter of belief. Awakening is not something one must believe in in order for there to be awakening. It is what one experiences with the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: care to explain?
First of all, I have no idea what your response to Geoff's msg is saying. But what I am saying, and what I do believe Geoff is saying is what I said above: One needs to keep in mind that in the Buddha's teachings truths are cognitions, not objective facts. The Buddha is not talking about the height of Everest. He is talking about being free of greed, hatred, and delusion, which is an experiential, cognitive process.

That is, in the Dhamma the only way truths are truly experienced and truly known (not as a matter of belief) is by cognition. The Four Noble Truths start with pointing to experience, not a matter of belief. Awakening is not something one must believe in in order for there to be awakening. It is what one experiences with the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion.
If you have no idea what i was saying, how do you know the/a point was missed?

What I was saying was (to put it another way with a little extra) - Just because something is known in a particular way, or fully known at a certain point - and this can have its effect on the application of this knowledge - it doesn't actually stop something that is true from being true. Sacca is sacca, one may only need a more complete theory/way of measuring to get at a more exact understanding.
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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:but lets not forget about the silver rule
or the platinum rule: treat others in the way they like to be treated.

And: how do we follow such "rules" without conceit?
That would be where turning inward and observing out intent would come in.
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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
there will be recourse to faith, but being doubtful and using scepticism's tools are not the same thing, one part of empirical scepticism is accepting a workable model yet remaining open to a better one.
This reminds me of Bayesianism.
Cittasanto wrote:and a valid authority is as the Buddha said time and again, in various ways (particularly about practice and finding a teacher,) one that can be observed and tested.
How sure are we that the what the Buddha meant by "observed" and "tested" is similar to what sceptical empiricism means by the terms? Perhaps a better empricism for Buddhist religionists is William Jame's radical empiricsim (likewise, perhaps a better view of science for Buddhist religionists is to be found in Kuhn, Feyerabend et al as opposed to Gombrich's beloved Popperianism or the logical postivism of the Vienna Cirlce)?
James radical empiricism seams like a good start to me, but that is after looking at the Wiki and nothing else. Although I would say talking about supernatural beings (devas) does have its benefit at times.
There is allot of info on Bayesianism and without having the time to go through it all do you have any particular area or good synopsis to look at?
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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

Thanks.
What put me off was the "fact/values" instead of the "fact vs values."
I took that post to essentially be a condensed version of the one above regarding the quote in the OP, so won't reply to that.
danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
danieLion wrote:Belief that the fact/value (fact/opinion) distinction is valid is just another opinion.
could you expand on this?
The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy by Hilary Putnam

Excerpt from Richard Rorty's review of the above.
Putnam's dislike of science-worship is just one example of his distrust of all philosophies that stray too far from common sense, from what he sometimes...calls "the ordinary...." Using a strategy pioneered by Dewey, Putnam shows how his opponents have turned commonsensical distinctions into philosophical dichotomies (fact vs. value, objective vs. subjective, mind vs. matter) and then, typically, tried to eliminate one side of the dichotomy in favor of the other.
I would agree with this quotation in general. But just to pick up on mind vs. matter, within the canon we have namarupa (name and form), internal & external.... particularly noticable with the Internal & external is the tetralima. sometimes things can be one or the other (or examined at either frame of reference) both, or neither. although the jain do have a seven-fold model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada#Philosophical_overview wrote: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
syād-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.
although this does seam to be a little bit too far.

I will take this opportunity to share some of the links - rather than make a new reply - of pages I have saved recently (although I would generally just do a search when my interest peaked for whatever reason). Although these are just the pages I happened to bookmark, not that they are of particular importance.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/logic.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bestlibrary.org/ssmedia/2009 ... acies.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: care to explain?
First of all, I have no idea what your response to Geoff's msg is saying. But what I am saying, and what I do believe Geoff is saying is what I said above: One needs to keep in mind that in the Buddha's teachings truths are cognitions, not objective facts. The Buddha is not talking about the height of Everest. He is talking about being free of greed, hatred, and delusion, which is an experiential, cognitive process.

That is, in the Dhamma the only way truths are truly experienced and truly known (not as a matter of belief) is by cognition. The Four Noble Truths start with pointing to experience, not a matter of belief. Awakening is not something one must believe in in order for there to be awakening. It is what one experiences with the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion.
If you have no idea what i was saying, how do you know the/a point was missed?/quote]I exaggerated.
What I was saying was (to put it another way with a little extra) - Just because something is known in a particular way, or fully known at a certain point - and this can have its effect on the application of this knowledge - it doesn't actually stop something that is true from being true. Sacca is sacca, one may only need a more complete theory/way of measuring to get at a more exact understanding.
As I said, truths in the Buddha's teachings in the suttas are cognitions.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply