Philosophy Now Forum

Have posted to a small number of philosophy and Buddhist-oriented forums, since around 2009. Departed from Philosophy Forums after continually wrangling with materialists. Trying to develop philosophical detachment whilst at the same time exploring what I consider to be important philosophical ideas. Drawn to Mahayana Buddhism and Christian Platonism. Some knowledge of the German idealists. Interested in Eastern and Traditional philosophy, also philosophy of science and the philosophical implications of biology and physics. I have bought a few copies of Philosophy Now at the newstands and might subscribe now I have joined this forum.

I did enter a couple of other replies after submitting this, am waiting to see whether they appear or not, before posting anything further.

Would you describe the Buddha as a philosopher or a religious leader?

In today's terms, probably both. In the context of his day, he was a 'samana' which meant 'wandering sage'. He would usually be described as 'the ascetic Gotama' or 'the recluse Gotama'. There is no doubt in my mind that he was also a religious leader, but bear in mind that the connotations of the term were very differerent in that place and time to what they are now. The terms 'dharma' and 'religion' overlap in some respects, but there are also important differences, chief amongst them the emphasis on validation of the teaching via religious experience.

Jonathan.s wrote: religious experience.

By what I know, the Zen Buddhists, at least (I'm not familiar so much with the other Buddhist genres) where not really "religious" in their experience, as may say some Christian theologians-philosophers, but resembled much more traditional early empiricism in Europe, that is, empiricism without so much focus on formalities.

Empiricism in the modern sense really started with Hume and Locke, didn't it? I agree that Buddhism puts a lot of emphasis on 'experience' - but the types of 'experience' that Buddhists are inclined to consider were quite outside the worldview of the European empiricists, I would say.

Jonathan.s wrote:Empiricism in the modern sense really started with Hume and Locke, didn't it? I agree that Buddhism puts a lot of emphasis on 'experience' - but the types of 'experience' that Buddhists are inclined to consider were quite outside the worldview of the European empiricists, I would say.

it's difficult for me to say... because european philosophers are all almost always part of the Aristotelian and/or Platonic traditions and that colours their writings. Like many of them copies directly the two greeks style and even content of writing.

But I mean more the primitive form of empiricism with the way of looking at the world and reporting what you see in it. Natural empiricism. The buddhists of Zen tradition (at least) seemed rather focused on what was the cases in nature, and they dealt very naturally, if I might say, with reportings of their inner experience. More like modern "introspection" you know? There's a difference between the priest who tells of all the shakings of his soul and the introspective psychologists who reports his the movements of his inner life...

Yes, I would agree with that. Quite true. Originally, empiricism meant 'suspension of belief in the non-evident'. Have a look at this book.

Yes, he was probably closer to a Socrates than most would suspect. He counselled with all types, was a sturdy interrogator and was known for his solitary habits It has even been thought he was poisoned like Socrates. His enlightenment seemed to have more to do with clearing his mind of religious guff as anything else.

Food poisoning is the accepted theory, although the question of whether the offending meal was pork is still a vexed one.