nihilism

[iambiguous]

And what I am most interested in is not how religious communities describe their "characteristics", but the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that their own God or spiritual path is the real deal.

Then there's no need to make up stuff about the religion. You can merely request the proof that the path does what is claimed it does by the religious person or group.

What stuff am I making up about religion? I simply note that most religions seem rather adament there is but one true path [their own] to moral commandments, immortality and salvation.

How about this...

Have you yourself ever come upon a religious denomination able to convince you they did indeed encompass the one [and the only] true path to these things?

Do you share Phyllo's belief that objective morality is within reach of mere mortals? With him, however, I still have no understanding of what he predicates this on. Is it the Christian God? Some other God?

If you are "here and now" an atheist yourself, do you believe that objective morality is within the reach of mere mortals in a No God world?

If so, let's focus in on particular conflicting goods given particular contexts.

And what particular Buddhists might share in common with particular Christians and all other religious denominations is this: become "one of us"...or else.

And now you've shifted from saying they have this position to saying they might share in common with particular Chrisitians. So, when it's pointed out you're making stuff up, instead of admitting directly that you presented something as fact which is more like speculation, on your part, you change the wording, later, without admitting anything.

But good to note that you can actually change.

Note to others:

I'm sure that in his head here and now he is convinced his point above is an adequate rejoinder to my point. Just as I am convinced in my head here and now it has almost nothing at all to do with the point I am making.

On the other hand, that happens a lot here, doesn't it? For me, these countless "failures to communicate" regarding human interactions in the is/ought world are expected. For others, however, if someone does not react as they do to an author's argument, they claim a failure to grasp what the author truly means.

[Iwannaplato]

What stuff am I making up about religion?

I have, a number of times, pointed out that you portrayed Buddhism incorrectly. I did this directly in posts where I quoted you, and on the previous page in independent posts about Buddhism and Buddhists. I guess you missed this.

I simply note that most religions seem rather adament there is but one true path [their own] to moral commandments, immortality and salvation.

So, instead of responding to the points made in relation to Buddhism, you restate your position at a general level.

How about this...

Have you yourself ever come upon a religious denomination able to convince you they did indeed encompass the one [and the only] true path to these things?

In other words, it is a non-issue that he incorrectly described Buddhism/Buddhist since there are religious people and groups that fit his earlier description of Buddhism.

The answer to the question is no.

So, back to Buddhism...inaccurately described and framed by Iambiguous. See previous posts in response to him and then on the previous page of this thread giving information that contradicts part of this description of Buddhism.

He could acknowledge his misrepresentation of Buddhism and go back to the topic in the OP, which does not require any assessment of Buddhism to be discussed and in fact is not related to Buddhism. Or he could demonstrate that his description of Buddhism is accurate. Or he can play games. There might be some other options here.

[iambiguous]

Do or do not any number of folks here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- make the claim that moral commandments, immortality and salvation are available only to those who are on the One True Path?

Let's take another look at this. And I'd like to say also, just for context, I don't really like Buddhism. It's not for me. But there's no need to make up stuff about it or conflate it with other religions.

Again, what stuff am I making up here? What actual objective facts about Buddhism do I get wrong? Just Google "do Buddhists all believe the same thing?"
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+budd ... s-wiz-serp

There are the so-called "core beliefs". But how are they to be interpreted given all of the very different lives that we might live? And isn't that why I ask members here to bring their own assessment of Buddhism [of God and religon] down out of the spiritual clouds and note its relevance given their actual interactions with others who are not Buddhists.

Either the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave are more or less enlightened. And someone in any particular Buddhist community is either able to assess that given such things as karma, reincarnation and nirvana or they can't.

In other words, in regard to human interactions here and now, how much does Buddhism revolve around "what would Buddha do?" in much the same manner that Christians insist human morality must revolve around "what would Jesus do?"

And it's not what you [and others] like or dislike about Buddhism, but the manner in which assessments of it are rooted more in the subjective parameters of dasein out in a particular world historically and culturally, or there is in fact a way to pin down objectively what all Buddhists are obligated to believe if they wish to be though of as an Enlightened follower of Buddha himself.

Buddhism either 1) has no immortality or 2) everything is immortal, depending on what you are thinking of as continuing perpetually. In Christianity, the individual soul can go to Hell or Heaven - at least in most versions of Christianity. In Buddhism there is anatma, no individual soul. So, there is NOTHING like the Christian immortality of the individual.

No, from my frame of mind "here and now", Buddhists are either able to connect the dots between Enlightenment on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side, or they believe that each of us as individuals can, what, believe whatever we want?

What I would like Buddhists here to do is to take their beliefs about their faith and fucus in on these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of their beliefs reflects the optimal spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why theirs?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief regarding spiritual matters
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and Buddhism

Also, of great importance to those like me is not what is believed by the spiritual minded, but what they are able to demonstrate [even to themselves] that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave.

Further no one can be bad, not follow moral commandments in Buddhism and through this lose immortality or lose nirvana. That aggregate - that entity that is not a being with a soul - will continue as a cluster longer than some entity that gets Enlightened. But there are no selves in Buddhism. EVerything goes on, period.

Okay, let them demonstrate that this is the case beyond an "existential leap of faith". In fact, what make Buddhism particularly problematic for many is that "Buddhists do not believe in any kind of deity or god, although there are supernatural figures who can help or hinder people on the path towards enlightenment."

It all gets so convoluted:

There are various types of apotropaic deities whose main role is as guardian deities, protectors or general removers of evil. Some of these are unique to Buddhism and others are Indian deities that Buddhism shares with Hinduism. These deities can be seen as bodhisattvas, as devas, or even as manifestations of a Buddha." wiki

Further the goal is NOT to be reborn, if anything. To dissolve. To stop believing, in the Western sense, that one has a self and exists. What Iambiguous is afraid of losing (as are most people), his life, his self, never existed in the first place, in Buddhism

Dissolve?

Note to Buddhists:

Is that anything like being fractured and fragmented? I know some have pointed out similarities between Buddhism and my own drawn and quartered perspective regarding human identity. But in regard to things like nirvana, one achieves this involving some semblance of "I" or for all practical purposes you may as well be a completely different person. If there is no continuity between before and after the grave then whose identity are we talking about? Ultimate Enlightenment...but as who?

And it is precisely false to claim that Buddhism sees some great things that you must be in Buddhism to have or attain.

Yes, that may well be the case here. After all, my own understanding of Buddhism [like yours] is no less rooted existentially in dasein.

[Iwannaplato]

Do or do not any number of folks here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- make the claim that moral commandments, immortality and salvation are available only to those who are on the One True Path?

Let's take another look at this. And I'd like to say also, just for context, I don't really like Buddhism. It's not for me. But there's no need to make up stuff about it or conflate it with other religions.

Again, what stuff am I making up here? What actual objective facts about Buddhism do I get wrong? Just Google "do Buddhists all believe the same thing?"
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+budd ... s-wiz-serp

I looked there. What is it of your positions you think you supported? Do you think I think Buddhists all believe the same thing? I don't, which is implicit in my responses to you earlier. Those aren't particularly good sources that googling leads to, but I don't know what you thinking you've demonstrate, nor how it relates to my points. And I have already, more than once, pointed out the errors in your description of Buddhism.

There are the so-called "core beliefs". But how are they to be interpreted given all of the very different lives that we might live? And isn't that why I ask members here to bring their own assessment of Buddhism [of God and religon] down out of the spiritual clouds and note it's relevance given their actual interactions with others who are not Buddhists.

That is a separate act on your part and a perfectly reasonable one. It doesn't justfiy your description of 'Buddhism.

Either the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave are more or less enlightened. And someone in any particular Buddhist community is either able to assess that given such things as karma, reincarnation and nirvana or they can't.

In other words, in regard to human interactions here and now, how much does Buddhism revolve around "what would Buddha do?" in much the same manner that Christians insist human morality must revolve around "what would Jesus do?"

Now, you're asking questions. Earlier you made assertions.

And it's not what you [and others] like or dislike about Buddhism,

Obviously. I mention that I don't like Buddhism, because often people assume that if someone is doing something that could be construed as defending a position then they must believe that position. My hope, often unjustified, is that if they see me say I am not a Buddhist and in fact have issues with it, they may take my positions more seriously.

but the manner in which assessments of it are rooted more in the subjective parameters of dasein out in a particular world historically and culturally, or there is in fact a way to pin down objectively what all Buddhists are obligated to believe if they wish to be though of as an Enlightened follower of Buddha himself.

Well, if you were enlightened you would be the Buddha, more or less, you certainly would be a follower (anymore). Nor would you be you in any sense Westerners think of identity, except for mystics in many religions.

Buddhism either 1) has no immortality or 2) everything is immortal, depending on what you are thinking of as continuing perpetually. In Christianity, the individual soul can go to Hell or Heaven - at least in most versions of Christianity. In Buddhism there is anatma, no individual soul. So, there is NOTHING like the Christian immortality of the individual.

No, from my frame of mind "here and now", Buddhists are either able to connect the dots between Enlightenment on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side, or they believe that each of us as individuals can, what, believe whatever we want?

You started with 'no' and said nothing related to what I said about Buddhism. It's good you ended up asking a question, and I certainly wouldn't have reacted to questions. But again you made assertions about Buddhism that generally are incorrect.

What I would like Buddhists here to do is to take their beliefs about their faith and fucus in on these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of their beliefs reflects the optimal spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why theirs?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief regarding spiritual matters
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and Buddhism

Well you can ask them to do this obviously. It seems like you continue to assume they necessary believe point 1 above, but since you're asking them to demonstrate this, for reason, rather than telling everyone they believe this, go for it.

Also, of great importance to those like me is not what is believed by the spiritual minded, but what they are able to demonstrate [even to themselves] that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Fine. You want them to justify things they say. Exactly what I would have expected in relation to your assertions about Buddhism.

Further no one can be bad, not follow moral commandments in Buddhism and through this lose immortality or lose nirvana. That aggregate - that entity that is not a being with a soul - will continue as a cluster longer than some entity that gets Enlightened. But there are no selves in Buddhism. EVerything goes on, period.

Okay, let them demonstrate that this is the case beyond an "existential leap of faith".

No, that's not a response. If you are now accepting that you presented Buddhism incorrectly, acknowledge that. If you are still hanging on to what I consider false ideas of Buddhism, justify them.

In fact, what make Buddhism particularly problematic for many is that "Buddhists do not believe in any kind of deity or god, although there are supernatural figures who can help or hinder people on the path towards enlightenment."

Some Buddhist believe in supernatural figures, some do not.

It all gets so convoluted:

There are various types of apotropaic deities whose main role is as guardian deities, protectors or general removers of evil. Some of these are unique to Buddhism and others are Indian deities that Buddhism shares with Hinduism. These deities can be seen as bodhisattvas, as devas, or even as manifestations of a Buddha." wiki

Again, parts of Buddhism. But sure, Buddhism has many schools, subgroups, and areas where Buddhism is combined with local, pre-Buddhist beliefs, there are Western Adaptions. Not unlike other large belief systems.

Further the goal is NOT to be reborn, if anything. To dissolve. To stop believing, in the Western sense, that one has a self and exists. What Iambiguous is afraid of losing (as are most people), his life, his self, never existed in the first place, in Buddhism

Dissolve?

To escape the illusion that there is an ongoing self.

Note to Buddhists:

Is that anything like being fractured and fragmented? I know some have pointed out similarities between Buddhism and my own drawn and quartered perspective regarding human identity. But in regard to things like nirvana, one achieves this involving some semblance of "I" or for all practical purposes you may as well be a completely different person.

More the latter, but it's more radical than that. This whole self continuing through time is illusory.

If there is no continuity between before and after the grave then whose identity are we talking about? Ultimate Enlightenment...but as who?

Now you are starting to ask questions that fit better with Buddhism.

And, of course, there is always the option to try Buddhism, in a practical way. See if it seems to reduce your suffering and continue as long as the effects are helpful

Right now you have a chosen path. It probably, like for most people, is a mish mash of activities to make yourself feel better. Perhaps in your case posting here.

So, you've already committed yourself to a way of finding out what is going on, and making things better for yourself. Can you demonstrate this is the best path or the best path for you?

If you haven't you could experimentally try Buddhism (or something else). If you are concerned about supernatural elements, there are versions of Buddhism that lack such things.

Or any other tradition secular or otherwise.

But if the idea is the get the great after life, I'm afraid Buddhist ontology doesn't have a persistent self. There can be persistent illusions of selfhood: aggregates.

And it is precisely false to claim that Buddhism sees some great things that you must be in Buddhism to have or attain.

Yes, that may well be the case here. After all, my own understanding of Buddhism [like yours] is no less rooted existentially in dasein.

yes, though this would imply that all opinions are the same.

If someone says Buddhism is primarily a method for car repair, that opinion may be rooted in their experience of their Buddhist neighbor car mechanic. It's demonstably incorrect however and were some of your assertions about Buddhism, which were presented as generally the case.

I notice you ignored my posts reporting what Buddhists themselves say, on the previous page. This goes against your generalizations worded as universalizations about Buddhism that I first responded to.

I notice in this post there was a progression from those kinds of statements to asking questions - and yes, I realize you have asked questions before in addition to making incorrect statements about Buddhism. This is a good trend. Requests and questions may have incorrect assumptions implicit in them, but at least they are not presenting positions in the utterly fixed way of those kinds of assertions.

EDIT: what might also be useful is to realize that in many belief systems, including secular ones, many members have a naive assessment of the actual beliefs. For example, many people who believe in Darwinian Evolution (which I also do, just to head off any assumptions) believe it means survival of the fittest. It doesn't. Many people with a better grasp on evolutionary theory would consider many assertions out of epigenetics to be false and Lamarkian. They'd be wrong about this. People take on belief systems, yes via dasein, via high school classes and group identification, in this case, without really understanding what the belief system is actually saying. This is true in religious belief systems as well. This happens in Buddhism also, obviously, where notions of selfhood from every day common sense get projected onto the religion. Generally when there are fights, for example, between religious people and secular people about, say, how old the earth is, or did we come from apes (which is itself a misreading of evolutionary theory shared by many religious people AND naive believers in evolutionary theory), no one on the evolution team cares if their peers has much of a grasp of evolutionary theory. They're just on the right side of the issue, so who cares. Added to this in many religious traditions is the idea that members will slowly, over time, come to be aware of some implications of the religion and it's fine that they have misconceptions early on.

Anyway, perhaps you'll be influenced by what I wrote in general about Buddhism and then also presented from Buddhist leaders and writers and groups. Perhaps not.

I'll leave it here.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Alexander Summerville

Q: How do I refute nihilism?

A: It’s actually pretty easy; no serious philosopher is likely to espouse actual “nihilism”. Rather, it’s a term used by philosophers to criticize the thinking of other philosophers as irrational! As far as I can tell, the only people who take it seriously, as a philosophy, are people who know little about philosophy.

Sure, if you are convinced that this is a reasonable assessment of nihilism, and it fits snuggly into your own philosophy of life...a philosophy that others here do take seriously...how about taking it down out of the philosophical clouds and, given particular sets of circumstances, exploring situations in which others construe nihilism from entirely different perspectives.

Mine, for example.

Essentially, “nihilism” as a concept is self-refuting, at least once you understand even a little bit of the linguistics and logic of the concept.

Same thing. Note actual experiences you have had that enabled you to grasp how nihilism is essentially self-refuting "as a concept". What for all practical purposes does that even mean?

Let’s start with the meaning: “nihil” is just Latin for “nothing”. So the word “nihilism” is just a fancy way of saying “nothing-ism”! Most people with a bit of training in philosophy will have at least a smidgen of Latin, and already know that, and so are not likely to be impressed by the ‘fancy’ term.

On the other hand, this particular nihilist makes a distinction between discovering what things mean objectively for all of us in the either/or world and the claims of moral objectivists who insist they have discovered what things ought to mean in the is/ought world as well. Their focus is less on nothing, however, and more on telling others what everything means. And if you're lucky you won't find yourself living among those who impose their own rendition of "or else" if you refuse to.

[iambiguous]

Let's take another look at this. And I'd like to say also, just for context, I don't really like Buddhism. It's not for me. But there's no need to make up stuff about it or conflate it with other religions.

Again, what stuff am I making up here? What actual objective facts about Buddhism do I get wrong? Just Google "do Buddhists all believe the same thing?"
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+budd ... s-wiz-serp

I looked there. What is it of your positions you think you supported? Do you think I think Buddhists all believe the same thing? I don't, which is implicit in my responses to you earlier. Those aren't particularly good sources that googling leads to, but I don't know what you thinking you've demonstrate, nor how it relates to my points. And I have already, more than once, pointed out the errors in your description of Buddhism.

We think about religion differently. I start with the assumption that many of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- do not start with:

That with moral commandments at stake on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation at stake on the other side, it isn't enough to just believe something.

Unless, of course, a Buddhist is also willing to acknowledge that his or her belief is just a "leap of faith". Or, in the end, a "wager".

From my frame of mind "here and now", either there is one set of enlightened behaviors that all Buddhists believe will provide them with a ticket to nirvana or Buddhists around the globe -- or on other planets? -- can espouse their own set of moral and political prejudices in the hope of avoiding being reincarnated as a slug instead of, say, the second coming of Buddha?

Then the part I come back to again and again and again...but what of "I"? Karma comes back to bite you on the ass and you come back as a dung beetle. Is the beetle thinking, "I'll be the best damned dung beetle there can possibly be so next time I'll come back higher up in gene pool."

In other words, what for all practical purposes does this...

"In Buddhism, liberation is achieved when all things and beings are understood to be with no Self. Nirvana is also described as identical to achieving sunyata (emptiness), where there is no essence or fundamental nature in anything, and everything is empty." wiki

...mean?

You're completely empty. The self is liberated by becoming No Self at all.

Okay, then what? What exactly unfolds from day to day in nirvana?

I still recall one day visiting my ex-wife's parents and finding out that her father and his brother had become Buddhists. Here were two men I knew to be rascist, sexist, heterosexist. And now they were racist, sexist, heterosexist Buddhists.

There are the so-called "core beliefs". But how are they to be interpreted given all of the very different lives that we might live? And isn't that why I ask members here to bring their own assessment of Buddhism [of God and religon] down out of the spiritual clouds and note it's relevance given their actual interactions with others who are not Buddhists.

That is a separate act on your part and a perfectly reasonable one. It doesn't justfiy your description of 'Buddhism'.

What better way to grasp what another's beliefs are than to note how those beliefs are embodied in their interactions with others? And, sure, describe Buddhism anyway you want in a world of words. Does that then make what you believe true...spiritually? Or "by definition"?

Either the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave are more or less enlightened. And someone in any particular Buddhist community is either able to assess that given such things as karma, reincarnation and nirvana or they can't.

In other words, in regard to human interactions here and now, how much does Buddhism revolve around "what would Buddha do?" in much the same manner that Christians insist human morality must revolve around "what would Jesus do?"

Now, you're asking questions. Earlier you made assertions.

Unless perhaps what is really going on here is more like you making assertions about me making assertions when right from the start I flat-out admit over and again that my own value judgments here are no less rooted existentially in dasein. And thus given new experiences, ever and always subject to change. And how is that really any different for others?

As for the "illusory self", there are countless interactions with others that we sustain in the either/or world and no one speaks of illusions at at. Here illusions revolve around things like solipsism or dream worlds or sim worlds or Matrix "realities". Instead, with almost all religions there is what many construe to be this non-illusory soul able to become enlightened [on the right One True Path] and never, ever really...die?

What I would like Buddhists here to do is to take their beliefs about their faith and fucus in on these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of their beliefs reflects the optimal spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why theirs?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief regarding spiritual matters
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and Buddhism

Well you can ask them to do this obviously. It seems like you continue to assume they necessary believe point 1 above, but since you're asking them to demonstrate this, for reason, rather than telling everyone they believe this, go for it.

Okay, if anyone here is a Buddhist or knows a Buddhist or knows of a Buddhist discussion forum that would be interested in responding to my own "dissolved" "self" in the is/ought world, let's get started.

On the other hand, I had an experience in the past that is relevant here. I joined an Objectivist discussion forum in the old Yahoo Groups days. I explained my win/win frame of mind but made it clear that Ayn Rand was just another FFO to me. At first I was welcomed with open arms -- open minds? -- because they really did assume that they could set me straight. And, I was assured, they would to be successful in accomplishing this in an "intelligent and civil exchange". I held up my end of that promise, but within a week or two I was banned.

It all gets so convoluted:

There are various types of apotropaic deities whose main role is as guardian deities, protectors or general removers of evil. Some of these are unique to Buddhism and others are Indian deities that Buddhism shares with Hinduism. These deities can be seen as bodhisattvas, as devas, or even as manifestations of a Buddha." wiki

Again, parts of Buddhism. But sure, Buddhism has many schools, subgroups, and areas where Buddhism is combined with local, pre-Buddhist beliefs, there are Western Adaptions. Not unlike other large belief systems.

All I can do here is to note yet again that, given what is at stake on both sides ot the grave, is it really no big deal that mere mortals can choose from literally hundreds of One True Paths "down here" to attain them. Are those religious folks who champion one or another Judgment Day just fools who do not grasp how ecumenical the Divine Plan really is?

Dissolve?

To escape the illusion that there is an ongoing self.

But in many important ways we mere mortals do sustain an objective self all the way to the grave. In other words, given our interactions in the either/or world. Our biological self, our social, political and economic self, our experiential self. It's just that many objectivists insist that, given their deep down inside "intrinsic self" they've discovered that conflicting goods are the illusion. Just embrace their own values and you too can become "one of us".

Now you are starting to ask questions that fit better with Buddhism.

Now all I need are those Buddhists who might be able to provide me with answers that allow me to yank myself up out of this fucking hole I have dug myself down into. Or, sure, I provide them with answers that bring them down in the hole with me: win/win.

And it is precisely false to claim that Buddhism sees some great things that you must be in Buddhism to have or attain.

Yes, that may well be the case here. After all, my own understanding of Buddhism [like yours] is no less rooted existentially in dasein.

yes, though this would imply that all opinions are the same.

Or it suggests that those who share the same opinions lived very, very similar lives. My point however is this: that it seems obvious [to me] that in regard to the many, many, many issues that divide us morally and politically, philosophers [by now] should have discovered something at least in the vicinity of a deontological moral philosophy.

I notice you ignored my posts reporting what Buddhists themselves say, on the previous page. This goes against your generalizations worded as universalizations about Buddhism that I first responded to.

On the other hand, the advocates of all the other One True paths here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -
...can do the same.

So, I point this out to them and ask instead that they make an attempt to explain to me 1] how they came to believe what they do existentially, and 2] the extent to which they were able to convince themselves that their path really is the one true path.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch

I’m not going to jump on the ‘nihilism’s definition’ chariot here, but rather the rural ‘refute’ wheelbarrow; if by ‘refute’ you mean ‘show out of logical necessity that it is a false claim' then you can’t.

On the contrary, out in the world of actual human interactions, you can claim many, many things are true...and in simply believing that they are true, that makes them true. For you. Thus it is always important in discussing nihilism that references are made to particular human experiences. Is there in fact a meaning that we can all agree on?

For example, on June 27 at 9 p.m., CNN will host a presidential debate between Trump and Biden. The fact of the debate, the reason for the debate, the questions asked and the answers given are all part of the political process here in America. What does it mean? Well, it's not likely many will insist it's a beauty contest or a game show.

But when the discussions shift to squaring their answers -- their policies in office -- with what each of us believes it might mean for America's future?

For better or worse, most/a great many important questions in life (subjectively speaking) can always be responded to by a staunch “Nuh-uhn!”. Whenever you’re arguing in epistemological realms this becomes all the worse.

Same thing.

In discussing the fact of the debate how many are going to say "nuh-uh, it has nothing to do with politics or the presidential election. It means something entirely different".

There are things that we can know epistemologically about debates. We can't just make up our own meaning. At least not if we wish to be thought of as a rational human being. But in reacting to what the candidates say, what it means for America can vary considerably from person to person.

I merely root this by and large in dasein rather than in anything an epistemologist can tell us about meaning here.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch

So to start, I would differentiate off the bat whether they/you want to know if nihilism can be shown to be necessarily incorrect as a worldview, or whether you are wondering if nihilism is ‘likely’ or ‘probably’ a correct worldview. A ‘fastest horse in the race’ idea.

Is it possible that it’s true? Yes. Is it probable? Nuh-uhn.

A necessarily correct or incorrect "worldview" regarding what? Likely or probably true regarding what?

It always comes back to the same thing for me: that in the absence of a demonstrably proven God [or a God that reveals Himself] there does not appear to be a way for mere mortals to acquire an ontological or teleological understanding of the human condition. Let alone of existence itself. At best, we can take a "leap of faith" to one or another secular "Ism". A Humanism. We can note the laws of nature and conclude that if there is an essential meaning to be found we'll have to come a lot closer to grasping the human brain itself in order to find it.

Here’s where the retort will come “but you can’t PROVE your own value structures etc etc’ and no, I suppose I can’t. But saying other options don’t give solid conclusions is a far stretch from validating their opposites. Said differently: if you want to say “Well you can’t prove that the universe intrinsically has meaning/a teleology/a moral structure.’ no…no I can’t (let’s say). But if you want to then go, ‘ha! SO there — there isn’t one then.’ is just a large jump to make, epistemically (as a truth claim).

Pulled and tugged in different directions here too. And in whichever direction, "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" are ever and always present.

Some, however, will go all the way to the grave convinced their own understanding of all this is the correct one. And there is little likelihood of someone like me changing their mind. Why? Because it is that they believe in the One True Path that comforts and consoles them. What that path happens to be could be almost anything.

But until someone does manage to prove their own understanding of human interactions is the correct one given one particular context after another I'll remain entangled in my own fractured and fragmented quagmire.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch

This will seem like a horridly childish argument I’m putting forward, but I promise if contemplated it has more weight than it first appears. Say you went to the sea, and scooped up a cup of water from it, then drank — it taste salty. Can you rationally presume that the whole body of water contains salt? Yes. Are there possible scenarios or thought-experiments where you could be wrong, yes, but best rationale dictates there is salt throughout that water.

Here, however, nihilism as I understand it is purely in the speculative department. Salt in the ocean is squarely embedded in the either/or world. We can explore the oceans around the globe and determine if there are parts of them where the water is not salty. Scientists can explain why the ocean is salty...why it must be salty given the inherent -- natural -- components involved.

Does nature, our universe, creation — whatever term you like to mean ‘everything’ produce meaning & value? Yes. You can’t possibly say ‘no, it doesn’t, it’s just us who do!’ because unless you’re positing that we don’t come from nature, then we MUST. The cosmos creates us, we create meaning, value ethics (MVE from now on).

Define meaning here? define value? Then "somehow" connect the dots between what they mean to you "here and now" and what they mean objectively in a No God world. What they mean to...Nature?

And while we were created and continue to exist in the cosmos, how on Earth is that the same thing as the Cosmos creating us? As though the universe were an actual entity in possession of an ontological and teleological agenda.

pause for the 'But that’s just subjective! It doesn’t equate to objective truth of any of those!’ I know.

It doesn’t — not necessarily anyway. I’m not sure the universe as a whole can experience pain, and pain is certainly subjective, but you’d better bloody well agree that pain exists and that it definitely does objectively exist.

And then there are those born without the capacity to feel pain. And those mascohists who actually seek it out. And those sadists who seem all but compelled to inflict it. It just seems obvious to me that while pain is an inherent [objective] componet of human biology, how we react to it as individuals can be profoundly problematic. Profoundly subjective.

Maybe pain can be experienced differently, or suffering can manifest in differing ways, but the concept of suffering certainly seems to be a pretty indelible part of creation.

The concept of pain? More to the point, who doubts that "for all practical purposes" pain [both mental and physical] is an objective componet of the human condition? Instead, the conflagrations revolve far more around which pains are said to be morally justified and which are not.

[Iwannaplato]

I looked there. What is it of your positions you think you supported? Do you think I think Buddhists all believe the same thing? I don't, which is implicit in my responses to you earlier. Those aren't particularly good sources that googling leads to, but I don't know what you thinking you've demonstrate, nor how it relates to my points. And I have already, more than once, pointed out the errors in your description of Buddhism.

We think about religion differently. I start with the assumption that many of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- do not start with:

That with moral commandments at stake on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation at stake on the other side, it isn't enough to just believe something.

That's a link to a list of religions, not some source on Buddhism. Then you describe what you find there using words best connected to Christianity.

Nor does any of this relate to what I wrote above or previously.

Unless, of course, a Buddhist is also willing to acknowledge that his or her belief is just a "leap of faith". Or, in the end, a "wager".

And this is a new way of framing the issue, presented as if it was what we were talking about.

From my frame of mind "here and now", either there is one set of enlightened behaviors that all Buddhists believe will provide them with a ticket to nirvana or Buddhists around the globe -- or on other planets? -- can espouse their own set of moral and political prejudices in the hope of avoiding being reincarnated as a slug instead of, say, the second coming of Buddha?

Then the part I come back to again and again and again...but what of "I"? Karma comes back to bite you on the ass and you come back as a dung beetle. Is the beetle thinking, "I'll be the best damned dung beetle there can possibly be so next time I'll come back higher up in gene pool."

Well, you've parodied your own version of Buddhism. This has little to do with what went before in the conversation.

In other words, what for all practical purposes does this...

"In Buddhism, liberation is achieved when all things and beings are understood to be with no Self. Nirvana is also described as identical to achieving sunyata (emptiness), where there is no essence or fundamental nature in anything, and everything is empty." wiki

...mean?

You do realize that pretty much any secular field's abstract assertion would also be rather mysterious if you took an idea out of context and people who had near zero experience of the practices or participation in the community of that field's peers read that abstract assertion. Of course, it doesn't make much sense to you.

I still recall one day visiting my ex-wife's parents and finding out that her father and his brother had become Buddhists. Here were two men I knew to be rascist, sexist, heterosexist. And now they were racist, sexist, heterosexist Buddhists.

So what. This is simply implying some kind of argument without making it. Which is clever, because actually making that argument would look silly.

I met these two guys who had been doctors but they went into neuroscience and they were pro-pedophilia....[hint, hint][/i

Let's imply a bunch of fallacious arguments so we don't have to actually justify them.

What better way to grasp what another's beliefs are than to note how those beliefs are embodied in their interactions with others?

Well, great let us know when you've done some actually research into the behavior of Buddhists. Will you be focusing on the US and which Buddhism? Or internationally?

Either the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave are more or less enlightened. And someone in any particular Buddhist community is either able to assess that given such things as karma, reincarnation and nirvana or they can't.

Rebirth is much more likely than reincarnation to be part of Buddhism.

In other words, in regard to human interactions here and now, how much does Buddhism revolve around "what would Buddha do?" in much the same manner that Christians insist human morality must revolve around "what would Jesus do?"

Now, you're asking questions. Earlier you made assertions.

Unless perhaps what is really going on here is more like you making assertions about me making assertions when right from the start I flat-out admit over and again that my own value judgments here are no less rooted existentially in dasein. And thus given new experiences, ever and always subject to change. And how is that really any different for others?

YOu made a bunch of assertions about Buddhism which were univeral and then incorrect. I presented evidence that it was incorrect, and you did not react to this at all. IOW your dasein could change potentially. You generally present yourself as a finished product when any particular issue is the topic. When generalizing you have no idea what you will believe. But when presented with criticism of your ideas, you just say things like the above - hey we both have different experiences and impressions. Sure, but you could actually respond to and potentially integrate new information and possibly change. But you have no interest in that.

YOu had your past and this let to your hallucinations about all Buddhists and even though you clearly know very little about Buddhism, but met some Buddhists a long time ago, you have no interest in trying to integrate any new information.

As for the "illusory self", there are countless interactions with others that we sustain in the either/or world and no one speaks of illusions at at. Here illusions revolve around things like solipsism or dream worlds or sim worlds or Matrix "realities". Instead, with almost all religions there is what many construe to be this non-illusory soul able to become enlightened [on the right One True Path] and never, ever really...die?

Well, that was just some garbled jargon or perhaps intellectual contraption combining a bunch of ideas from wherever.

What I would like Buddhists here to do is to take their beliefs about their faith and fucus in on these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of their beliefs reflects the optimal spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why theirs?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief regarding spiritual matters
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and Buddhism

Well you can ask them to do this obviously. It seems like you continue to assume they necessary believe point 1 above, but since you're asking them to demonstrate this, for reason, rather than telling everyone they believe this, go for it.

Okay, if anyone here is a Buddhist or knows a Buddhist or knows of a Buddhist discussion forum that would be interested in responding to my own "dissolved" "self" in the is/ought world, let's get started.

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ism+forums

On the other hand, I had an experience in the past that is relevant here. I joined an Objectivist discussion forum in the old Yahoo Groups days. I explained my win/win frame of mind but made it clear that Ayn Rand was just another FFO to me. At first I was welcomed with open arms -- open minds? -- because they really did assume that they could set me straight. And, I was assured, they would to be successful in accomplishing this in an "intelligent and civil exchange". I held up my end of that promise, but within a week or two I was banned.

I don't see what an Objectivist Forum has to do with Buddhism.

It all gets so convoluted:

There are various types of apotropaic deities whose main role is as guardian deities, protectors or general removers of evil. Some of these are unique to Buddhism and others are Indian deities that Buddhism shares with Hinduism. These deities can be seen as bodhisattvas, as devas, or even as manifestations of a Buddha." wiki

Again, parts of Buddhism. But sure, Buddhism has many schools, subgroups, and areas where Buddhism is combined with local, pre-Buddhist beliefs, there are Western Adaptions. Not unlike other large belief systems.

All I can do here is to note yet again that, given what is at stake on both sides ot the grave, is it really no big deal that mere mortals can choose from literally hundreds of One True Paths "down here" to attain them. Are those religious folks who champion one or another Judgment Day just fools who do not grasp how ecumenical the Divine Plan really is?

Not relevant to Buddhism and what you said about it.

Dissolve?

To escape the illusion that there is an ongoing self.

But in many important ways we mere mortals do sustain an objective self all the way to the grave. In other words, given our interactions in the either/or world. Our biological self, our social, political and economic self, our experiential self. It's just that many objectivists insist that, given their deep down inside "intrinsic self" they've discovered that conflicting goods are the illusion. Just embrace their own values and you too can become "one of us".

Nothing to do with the Buddhist idea that the persistent self is an illusion. In fact there are many similarities between your own beliefs or at least assertions around identity and Buddhist ideas about the self or lack thereof.

Now all I need are those Buddhists who might be able to provide me with answers that allow me to yank myself up out of this fucking hole I have dug myself down into. Or, sure, I provide them with answers that bring them down in the hole with me: win/win.

The answers would primarily be practice-related.

And it is precisely false to claim that Buddhism sees some great things that you must be in Buddhism to have or attain.

Yes, that may well be the case here. After all, my own understanding of Buddhism [like yours] is no less rooted existentially in dasein.

yes, though this would imply that all opinions are the same.

Or it suggests that those who share the same opinions lived very, very similar lives. My point however is this: that it seems obvious [to me] that in regard to the many, many, many issues that divide us morally and politically, philosophers [by now] should have discovered something at least in the vicinity of a deontological moral philosophy.

Again, little to do with Buddhism that is quite different from philosophical writing and discussion, in terms of how it tries to reduce suffering. It is practice focused, not word focused.

I notice you ignored my posts reporting what Buddhists themselves say, on the previous page. This goes against your generalizations worded as universalizations about Buddhism that I first responded to.

On the other hand, the advocates of all the other One True paths here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -
...can do the same.

No relevant to what you quoted.

So, I point this out to them and ask instead that they make an attempt to explain to me 1] how they came to believe what they do existentially, and 2] the extent to which they were able to convince themselves that their path really is the one true path.

Yeah, ok. So, you'll just keep asserting stuff. You're not interested in counterevidence. You could at any time change all your beliefs, but in practice you're not interested in exploring at all if your assertions are correct.

Got it.

I'll leave the Buddhist issue there. Keep on asserting stuff about things you don't know much about, cause that's OK cause no one has answered your not necessarily related questions to your satisfaction.

[phyllo]

Unless perhaps what is really going on here is more like you making assertions about me making assertions when right from the start I flat-out admit over and again that my own value judgments here are no less rooted existentially in dasein. And thus given new experiences, ever and always subject to change. And how is that really any different for others?

YOu made a bunch of assertions about Buddhism which were univeral and then incorrect.

How do statements describing Buddhist beliefs qualify as "value judgements"? Unless they are statements like "Buddhist belief X is good or Buddhist belief Y is bad" which are not descriptions but the personal opinions of the writer.

To use a Christian example ... "Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus" ...is not a value judgement.

[Iwannaplato]

Unless perhaps what is really going on here is more like you making assertions about me making assertions when right from the start I flat-out admit over and again that my own value judgments here are no less rooted existentially in dasein. And thus given new experiences, ever and always subject to change. And how is that really any different for others?

YOu made a bunch of assertions about Buddhism which were univeral and then incorrect.

How do statements describing Buddhist beliefs qualify as "value judgements"? Unless they are statements like "Buddhist belief X is good or Buddhist belief Y is bad" which are not descriptions but the personal opinions of the writer.

To use a Christian example ... "Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus" ...is not a value judgement.

Good point. He made assertions that Buddhist told people to use their path or else.
He spoke about their ideas about reincarnation - which some have - but mainly it is rebirth not reincarnation in Buddhism and there's a major difference.
He framed the issue in terms of somehow having the self in an afterlife and other ways of framing the issue that confuse Christian theology with Buddhist ontology where they are not at all the same.
He made assertions about Buddhists saying their path is the one true path and despite my pointing to what major figures bringing Buddhism to the West and figures in Eastern Buddhism and some of the main international Buddhist organizations saying the opposite of this, he hasn't managed to concede he might be making things up.

Suddenly these are value judgments and the is/ought world is just ought, so there's no need to justify his position and there really is no way to work it out.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch

The next factor which weighs in here, is that when trying to figure out whatever someone believes to be true, I find how they act to be a much truer metric than what they say they believe — most especially with philosophers, perhaps.

On the other hand, let's face it, we live in a world today where many of us interact with others by engaging personas. How we act [and react] is only what we think others expect of us in different situations. And those like me -- drawn and quartered, tugged ambivalently in different directions -- are just particularly fractured in the is/ought world.

Of course, the antidote of choice for most here is still objectivism:

"What persona? This is who I really am. And, more to the point, why aren't you the same?"

No one runs their life as relativists in such things. You could argue you do, because being a nihilist IS just going off of whatever you subjectively decide/feel to be meaningful and just go off of that, while all the while KNOWING that it is nothing but a useful fiction.

Yep, by and large, for some of us, in relationships, at work, at school etc., fictions prevail. We "play the game" anticipating how others might react to us and then making the necessary adjustments.

Also, with the advent of virtual relationships [like ours], it is often tempting to create a whole new identity. Or playing video games. It's just that most of us still recognize the difference between who we let others think we are and who we really are instead. That's just not an option for me in regard to value judgments.

Here and now.

The problem is, unless you just decide right off the bat to give Nihilism ‘the win’ on this topic, I don’t see how anyone could ever ‘get there’ otherwise. You’ll have to say something like “Well until someone can unerringly PROVE that there is an objective value hierarchy, I’ll stick with nihilism!” but why would you ever go THAT way?

Pick three:
1] new experiences
2] new relationships
3] new information and knowledge

That's really how the human condition unfolds, isn't it? You believe something but then things change in your life and you find it harder and harder to go on believing it. Everything here revolves around the extent to which your life stays more or less the same year in and year out. Here the objectivists will often think, "I was wrong about that One True Path, but not about this one." Again, it's convincing yourself morally and politically there is but One True Path -- the psychology of objectivism -- that is far more crucial in my view.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Matthew Murdoch

You may want to now ask the opposite of ‘well why wouldn’t I!?’ and my answer would be something like — your day to say experience, your thoughts and actions over the course of your whole life, as well as that of ever single conscious life form we have access to, and the acknowledgment that everything humankind has ever created or accomplished has been grounded in at least ACTING like there are meaningful and valuable things — that philanthropy really just IS worth more than porn; that philosophy really just IS more valuable a thing than poop on a rock. That at least seems a reasonable place to start from anyway.

Then those who suggest the possibility that we only find particular things meaningful and valuable because our material brains compel us to. Then those who go even further and suggest the possibility of a sim world reality or a dream world reality or solipsism or that we we are entirely duped by those who own and operate the Matrix.

On the other hand, we are still confronted over and again with those who insist that how they think and feel and what they say and do really are unequivocally worth the most. It's not that philosophy isn't scat so much as only their own philosophy is the antidote.

Pooph!?

Said another way (before I cut myself off). If our universe doesn’t seem to be one with meaning, what could you possibly be looking for to show that it does?

Uh, a God, the God will do it for me. And let them decide amongst themselves which one really does exist. In other words, I'm assuming that an omnipotent God [if that describes yours] could easily come up with a way such that no one could possibly doubt His existence.

As for those who are partial to, say, pantheism instead, where to even begin in explaining how the universe -- in Its Divine wisdom? -- chose teleologically to create us?

What more could you want, given that you’re never going to stub your toe on a value, nor bump into an ethical concept on the street. If our universe doesn’t have any deep-seeded meaning, AT LEAST agree that it in no-wise needs to experientially be ANYTHING like the one we all seem to have and live in.

On the other hand, come on, in our interactions with others who, as well, derive their value judgments existentially from dasein, we can more than just "stub our toes" on their values, or "bump" into their conflicting ethical concepts. Human history to date for example shows us over and over and over again how that unfolds.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

You escape Nihilism once you realize that it is a pseudo-philosophical position. It is pseudo-philosophical because the intuitions behind the position are so flawed that hardly any philosopher ever takes the position seriously intellectually.

Here, of course, it comes back around to how different individuals -- philosophers or not -- define nihilism. Also, what does it mean to each of them given the manner in which I construe such things [in the is/ought world] as rooted existentially in dasein.

Here's one description:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. IEP

Now, in some respects this encompasses me, but in other respects it does not. For one thing, I root my own value judgments here given my own set of assumptions:

1] No God
2] that human morality is an extremely complex intertwining of genes and memes in a world ever evolving historically and culturally amidst a swirl of contingency, chance and change
3] that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I might change my mind regarding what nihilism means to me "here and now"

Most often, if philosophers ever touch upon this position, it is to eliminate the confusion that their young students find themselves in. That said, the intuitions are very common and I have had almost all of them, too.

Right. In fact, that is often how I react to some of the "serious philosophers" here. Those who take nihilism [and morality] up into the techincal -- theoretical -- clouds and exchange post after post after post in which the assessments almost never actually come down to Earth. And that mysterious "intuition"...that "deep down inside" you "gut feeling" that some behaviors are moral and others immoral. Cue the "intrinsic self" that "somehow" transcends dasein.

Now, of course...

Now of course, there are various different interpretations of nihilism itself. Some see it is as the idea of living in a world without a God, and on that interpretation, then ok, I’m a nihilist. However, this is not what you mean by it, because otherwise you would not need any escaping from nihilism.

As though nihilism were a great white shark or a pride of lions or a pack of wolves after you. With nihilism, in my view, you can "escape" it only to the extent you can make it escapable...in your head. Given the manner in which "I" construe it "here and now" I can't imagine finding an escape route myself.

Other than oblivion.

On the other hand, how many times in the past was I an objectivist myself? This part:

...I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.

Am I wrong about nihilism? Sure, that's entirely possible. And for those here who do reject it themselves let's bring our respective moral philosophies "down to Earth" and explore our own assumptions given a particular set of circumstances.