AgarikaJ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
...
DooDoot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pmAmerican ... ideology
To note: I am not American, this alone makes it difficult to understand what you are going on about so often.
Anyway, I have brought up the point here several times, there are some posters on here who frequently use terms loaned from social sciences, but in a fashion that is far off their actual definition. As they never explain how their private usage is actually meant in detail, their whole argument becomes largely undecipherable.
Definition libertarianism: "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens." I see no issue with this concept, but you seem to have a problem with citizens living their lives unmolested by political intervention?
Definition feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Again, from a purely compassionate standpoint, which I am sure every Buddhist will inherently have, it would be impossible to deviate from this idea; every Buddhist must therefore be a feminist, or he is already fettered to an attachment of overly ego-based views centered around one's gender.
Definition patriarchy: "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." This is a phenomenon wholly pertaining to the world of laypeople; if other laypeople are somehow against this hierarchical stratification based on gender, this does not sound overly concerning to me. As a Buddhist I would largely advise to let those laypeople work it out between themselves and if to "choose sides", to do it on the basis of being emotionally disengaged and guided by the concept of compassion.
...
When DooDoot wrote:
Why? It might sound very weird compared to American left-wing libertarian ideology. DN 31 appears to say a "libertine" is a dangerous friend.
And then you, AgarikaJ, responded about 'libertarianism' by giving the
definition of 'libertarianism, as quoted above, you and DooDoot may both have mixed up the words 'libertarianism' with the word 'libertine'.
Here is the definition of '
libertine', which is what the DN31 is talking about, in my opinion (I could be wrong) --
in my opinion, it was
not talking about 'libertarianism':
libertine: a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
samsarictravelling
Edit: From my quote of DooDoot below, it seems DooDoot really thinks 'libertine' has a direct connection with the word 'liberalism' and 'libertarianism', which -- in my opinion -- is totally incorrect. 'Libertine' means 'a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake',
not 'liberalism' and 'libertarianism', if I am correct; am I correct or incorrect?:
DooDoot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:23 am
AgarikaJ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:16 pm
But what @DooDot wrote simply cannot be left to stand, as it promotes ignorance and discompassion.
...
In summary, in my view, little you say is related to Buddhism. Allow me to summarize how I view your views:
1. You believe in "liberalism" and "freedom of self-expression". Obviously, this is not Buddhist. DN 31 says a "libertine" is a dangerous friend. Buddhism teaches a define path of living, be it 5 , 8 or 10 precepts or Vinaya.
...
But 'liberalism' does have an
obsolete meaning, as shown eventually through a visit at this webpage at first:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism :
liberalism noun
...
Definition of liberalism
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
...
By clicking the word
liberal, it directs to
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal#h1 :
liberal adjective
...
Definition of liberal (Entry 1 of 2)
...
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the
context of the DN31:
(e) "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any libertine, any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his friend and companion.
gambler=gambler
libertine=a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
drunkard=drunkard
swindler=a person who uses deception to deprive someone of money or possessions
cheat=a person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.
rowdy=a noisy and disorderly person.
These types of people are the kind you find partying at night, and/or poor and without wisdom. I don't see how
in this context you can have a 'liberal' person chastised by the Buddha. What do I mean by a 'liberal' person? A liberal person is 'an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights'. And what is 'liberalism'?:
'a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see AUTONOMY sense 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties'.
Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
Would the Buddha chastise such a person that is of the 'liberalism' kind? I hope not for my argument's sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One reason both AgarikaJ and DooDoot have mixed up the words 'libertine' and 'libertarianism' is that both may have been born in non-Western countries and never became proficient enough in English to know terms like 'libertine'.
All my thoughts above. I may or may not be wrong.
samsarictravelling