The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 9:58 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 9:10 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 2:50 am
I said one of your options was to say, "I don't know." That's not a lot to expect.

I just did.

You are asking the wrong questions when you claim you don’t know the answer.

How do you know?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 11:26 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 9:58 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 9:10 am

I just did.

You are asking the wrong questions when you claim you don’t know the answer.

How do you know?

I know this… “You seem to have all the answers to everything”

Why do you bother to ask questions if you already know you don’t know the answer?
You have to answer your own questions,as you seem to know that someone already knows questions have answers.
Why can’t that someone be you.

If you’re searching for the right answers, then start by asking the right questions.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 11:44 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 11:26 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 9:58 am

You are asking the wrong questions when you claim you don’t know the answer.

How do you know?

I know this… “You seem to have all the answers to everything”

Why do you bother to ask questions if you already know you don’t know the answer?
You have to answer your own questions,as you seem to know that someone already knows questions have answers.
Why can’t that someone be you.

If you’re searching for the right answers, then start by asking the right questions.

If you're with the woo believers and cultists here, then I'd rather not take your advice. Taking the advice of or listening to the voodoo charmers of the world has only made me extremely miserable.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 12:46 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 11:44 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 11:26 am

How do you know?

I know this… “You seem to have all the answers to everything”

Why do you bother to ask questions if you already know you don’t know the answer?
You have to answer your own questions,as you seem to know that someone already knows questions have answers.
Why can’t that someone be you.

If you’re searching for the right answers, then start by asking the right questions.

If you're with the woo believers and cultists here, then I'd rather not take your advice. Taking the advice of or listening to the voodoo charmers of the world has only made me extremely miserable.

Then why are you seeking answers to your questions from someone who believes in God, or woo?

Maybe you’re miserable because you refuse to answer your own questions. If you don’t have answers then all you’ve got is nihilism and the feeling of being lost. I’d be miserable too if I was lost, fortunately I’m not lost, I have always answered my own questions.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 12:46 pm If you're with the woo believers and cultists here, then I'd rather not take your advice. Taking the advice of or listening to the voodoo charmers of the world has only made me extremely miserable.

Benjamin Franklin believed in God.

Question to AI:
Was Benjamin Franklin a woo believer, a cultist, and a voodoo charmer?

AI answer:
Benjamin Franklin was not a woo believer, cultist, or voodoo charmer; he was a polymath and a Founding Father of the United States, known for his contributions to science, politics, and philosophy. His beliefs were more aligned with a practical approach to ethics and self-improvement rather than any form of mysticism or cult-like practices.

Conclusion:
Clinging to delusions causes misery and Klingons.
Maybe a heavy reliance on Chomsky for fodder causes mental misery.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 9:10 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 2:50 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2026 11:24 pm If I had answers to give you for your question, I would answer. Otherwise, I can only give speculation.

I said one of your options was to say, "I don't know." That's not a lot to expect.

I just did.

Well, then, there has to be some reason Buddhism never produced science. Is it that Buddhist people are likely just not to be as bright as other people, or could there be a better, more practical reason, something related to Buddhism itself?

Well, Buddhism teaches that reality is "maya," illusion, right? Reality is not a thing to be attended to, studied, dwelt upon, analyzed, experimented with, or valued; it's to be "gotten over," so to speak, so that one can realize that material reality isn't the truth of things, but rather a delusion which causes desires. And desires are the source of suffering, "samsara." So the desire for worldly things is to be overcome through "enlightenment" and "transcendence." On thus can one get off the wheel of suffering, the endless incarnational cycles, and escape into "nirvana," the extinction of all desire and of the soul, and its reabsorption into "the divine." That's Buddhism.

Now, can you see anything in that, that just MIGHT make it harder for a Buddhist to think science was worth doing?

Think, Gary, think...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 5:28 pm Well, Buddhism teaches that reality is "maya," illusion, right? Reality is not a thing to be attended to, studied, dwelt upon, analyzed, experimented with, or valued; it's to be "gotten over," so to speak, so that one can realize that material reality isn't the truth of things, but rather a delusion which causes desires. And desires are the source of suffering, "samsara." So the desire for worldly things is to be overcome through "enlightenment" and "transcendence." On thus can one get off the wheel of suffering, the endless incarnational cycles, and escape into "nirvana," the extinction of all desire and of the soul, and its reabsorption into "the divine." That's Buddhism.

Now, can you see anything in that, that just MIGHT make it harder for a Buddhist to think science was worth doing?

Hinduism too. But you are forgetting something very important, IC. Just as in a Christian society where most people do not choose the path of trying (in life) to get as close to God as possible by becoming monks/nuns, it is the same with Buddhism and Hinduism. Achieving samsara is difficult so most decide to put that off till another life. Yes, that means will experience life as suffering, but Buddhism and Hinduism are really just answering the big question "why do we suffer"?" The "and how might we escape that" just a minor part.

Accepting "living (this life) within maya" means accepting the material world as real. A Buddhist monk would not be interested in science. This is different than for a Christian monk who might be (studying God's creation as a way of getting closer to God). But most Buddhists, most Hindus, not monks.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 8:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 5:28 pm Well, Buddhism teaches that reality is "maya," illusion, right? Reality is not a thing to be attended to, studied, dwelt upon, analyzed, experimented with, or valued; it's to be "gotten over," so to speak, so that one can realize that material reality isn't the truth of things, but rather a delusion which causes desires. And desires are the source of suffering, "samsara." So the desire for worldly things is to be overcome through "enlightenment" and "transcendence." On thus can one get off the wheel of suffering, the endless incarnational cycles, and escape into "nirvana," the extinction of all desire and of the soul, and its reabsorption into "the divine." That's Buddhism.

Now, can you see anything in that, that just MIGHT make it harder for a Buddhist to think science was worth doing?

Hinduism too.

Absolutely. The reasons are slightly different, but the effect is just as preventative to science.

But you are forgetting something very important, IC.

Hmmm... and just what am I allegedly "forgetting"?

Buddhism and Hinduism are really just answering the big question "why do we suffer"?" The "and how might we escape that" just a minor part.

And...how does this relate to the question of why Buddhism or Hinduism don't do science?

Accepting "living (this life) within maya" means accepting the material world as real.

Not at all. The opposite is true, actually.

The whole point is that this world is something to be "gotten over" or "gotten out of." It's a realm of delusion, a (demiurgic, perhaps) trap, one which one can only escape by realizing that it doesn't really exist at all.

A Buddhist monk would not be interested in science.

So far, so good. But I suggest, neither would any serious Buddhist, be he monk or not.

This is different than for a Christian monk who might be (studying God's creation as a way of getting closer to God).

Yes, plausibly. Many scientists have been Catholics...and not merely monks, either. But one doesn't study creation to "get closer to God" in some vague sense. The motive is much more plain than that: if the real world is a created world, it holds the fingerprints of the Creator within it. Moreover, He has put us here to explore, steward and turn to good uses the world which He has created for man. There is a kind of sacred obligation to explore and employ the world.

But there's a profound difference between the Hindu-Buddhist "god" conceptions and the Christian one. In the H-B cosmos, the "god" is concealed by the maya of physical reality. It is past or behind, not in the physical world that this "god-consciousness" is located, allegedly. But the Jewish and Christian God conception is one of a Creator immanent within His creation as well as transcendent of it, one who has good intentions, not deluding intentions, in creating the physical world, delights to self-reveal through various means -- including creation itself -- and who runs it by physical laws and regularities, rather than idiosyncratically or by things which seem but are not. So the physical world can be trusted -- it has stability, regularity, testability, observability, natural patterns that are amenable to being analyzed and understood by the human mind, which is likewise constructed by God for just that task, and is very suitable to it.

Ethical world-engagement is an act of worship. This was one of the great discoveries of the Reformers...including Martin Luther who, you will recall, was once himself a Catholic monk. This was later developed into a general understanding of all callings (including merely secular careers) as being "sacred." Science, then, can become a religious calling, just as much as any clerical one could ever be. Christians know they are not to abandon the world (this is the monk's mistake, actually). It is the stage upon which the whole drama of salvation is to be played out. And it's a good stage, not a trap or a delusion, and it yields abundant benefits when mankind subdues it to the useful and the good.

That's a really good incentive for doing science. One can not only learn about God through exploring His creation, one can also please God by stewarding His creation and uncovering its potentialities; and one can also benefit oneself and be blessed by the fulfilling of these good potentialities, as well. And one knows in advance, if one is a Christian, that God has intended that you should do this very thing.

But most Buddhists, most Hindus, not monks.

Yes: and that's an important point. The most serious, dedicated, obedient and devoted members of those religions are not enabled to do science. Their own beliefs deny them the expectation of a good creation, the anticipation of rational laws, the belief that engaging with reality can lead to good things, and thus that doing science would be religiously good. To be religiously devout, one has to escape this world, not devote oneself to it.

Now, I do not believe that people from those countries are less intelligent, less sincere, or less committed to their beliefs than anybody else. And I suspect you'd agree with that, too. I think they're just living within a worldview that, if believed, would cut them off from any incentive to do scientific inquiry. In fact, for them to do science would be to cherish this world of suffering (samsara) and delusion (maya), and thus would be, for them, anti-religious, if anything. One would have to deny the illusory nature of reality to engage with it in scientific ways.

Here's the interesting contrast,though. Judaism and Christianity create an incentive toward science, because they share a common belief in the inherent givenness, goodness, analyzability, rationality and usefulness of creation. One cannot actually be a devoted Jew or an obedient Christian if one has contemptus mundi. And that's why the best Christians and Jews are not monks; one cannot be truly devout and obedient in detachment from the world. One has to embrace creation as a gift, and make use of the opportunities God has given one.

Suppose all that is true. This begs the question: why will extinction instead of willing mastery of a world of suffering and the eternal turning of the wheel? If you take extinction, you sacrifice what pleasure you may have been able to experience if you had stuck it out instead, see. If the problem is suffering... if that's the thing that causes you to will your own extinction... might ought you just get tougher then, maybe so that you suffer less?

Thus, i coin the school of Barbuddhism or more colloquially known as Dark Buddhism. It's everything buddhism is but spiked with Nietzsche and Stirner. Everything sucks, is pretty much illusory, there's no right or wrong, and if you exist in any way after you expire from this miserable world it'll be the same kind of shit just on another planet or realm or wherever you'll be. Ultimately, more suffering, more disappointment, more pain, the same benign type of space/time bound experience. The universe... a big wheel that keeps on turnin' like Proud Mary. Rohllin', rohllin', rohhhhlin' on a river.

As such, it becomes necessary to become a Barbuddhist if one doesn't want to go extinct and dash out their little flame once and for all in the cold and indifferent darkness of the void.

If the Buddha was right, there are only a couple of kinds of people. The suicides, which are the traditional buddhists. The eternal loiterers, which includes everyone who doesn't know the buddha was right and so can't be competently aware of reality; they are a phenomena known as experiential zombism... people that aren't as alive as a buddhist or a barbuddhist. They are to them like a dolphin or gorilla is to you. The last type are the eternal party animals, the barbuddhist, barbarian buddhists. They're like helmsmen who have learned to master the stormy seas in the eternal void, then?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 5:28 pm

- Humans have always had scientific minds, however, the object of scientific attention varies.

- For Umgawa the cave man, the object of scientific attention was the nature of the wheel and how to capture the fire that made the scavenged deer killed in the inferno, taste so good. Among other things.
- For the experimental scientist, the scientific method which reveals physical repeatability is the object of scientific attention. Among other things.
- For a theoretical scientist who doesn’t experiment, the object of scientific attention is mentally examining known physical forces in relationship.
- For the Buddhist, the object of attention is the nature of mind and what occludes, such as escapism.
- Everyone has delusions, but to transcend delusions does not mean to end delusions. Quite the paradox for material scientists, however it is consistent with the definition of transcendence.

- Umgawa the cave dweller, the experimenter, the theoretician, and the Buddhist all use the scientific mind to direct attention. Where that attention goes, varies, as does the straying of attention due to capacity and occlusions such as ignorance.
- In the material world, the material scientist is King Authority … and in Musk’s case well rewarded.
- This is why the doomsday Climate fanatics always chirp “Settled Science! Settled Science!”
- In the material world, that’s the final word of poseurs riding the coat-tails of science … settled science of course being just a chant of belief in defiance of nature's power.


As an aside, it's interesting that the Left's criticisms of The West are not based on Western criteria. For example, to say that the United States is at fault for not providing free everything, is not a Western judgement. Western Culture does not promise this. The projection of inapplicable criteria as a basis of judgement can of course be extrapolated into other applications.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2026 2:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 5:28 pm

- Humans have always had scientific minds,

Not really. If all you're suggesting is that human beings are curious, then yes, you're probably right. But science is much more than mere curiosity, and it's an artifact of the 17th century West, really.

As an aside, it's interesting that the Left's criticisms of The West are not based on Western criteria.

The irony is that sometimes they are, and sometimes they're not. For example, the Left claims the West violates "universal human rights." But nowhere in the world BUT the West was anything close to the idea of "universal human rights" ever discovered. They're a product of the West.

For example, you'd never meet societies as overtly racist as you'd find in tribal Africa, in the Far East or in India. But they make no apologies for it, and have no conscience about it. They don't believe racism is wrong. They think it's right.

Where do we get our idea of "universal human rights"? From the idea that all people are created by God, made in His image, and created for His glory and His purposes, not our own. And that's a very Protestant kind of idea...not at all intuitive, if that's not the cultural tradition from which you are coming.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2026 3:13 am

The curious scientific mind is different than a curious mind.

The curious scientific mind intellectually investigates known phenomena.
What is known to the Buddhist, is not necessarily known to the experimenter, or the theoretician.

The curious mind, that is not scientific, may go chasing after unicorns never known.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2026 3:13 amThe irony is that sometimes they are, and sometimes they're not. For example, the Left claims the West violates "universal human rights." But nowhere in the world BUT the West was anything close to the idea of "universal human rights" ever discovered. They're a product of the West.

For example, you'd never meet societies as overtly racist as you'd find in tribal Africa, in the Far East or in India. But they make no apologies for it, and have no conscience about it. They don't believe racism is wrong. They think it's right.

Where do we get our idea of "universal human rights"? From the idea that all people are created by God, made in His image, and created for His glory and His purposes, not our own. And that's a very Protestant kind of idea...not at all intuitive, if that's not the cultural tradition from which you are coming.

excellent!

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 10:39 pm

The paradox of Buddhism is the realization that everything is perfect as it is.
Included in everything are individual needs to change things, when such needs are present.
This makes perfect sense, in reality.
The material world is constantly changing, much to the annoyance of attachment.