Hey, I wouldn’t mind being right and creating invincible arguments. 
(though I suppose I am a bit more skeptical about how easy those are to create and stricter about what the criteria are)
I already presented arguments.
-
you are mistaken when you associate ‘avoidance’ and ‘desires’ with fear.
-
you don’t have a causal link between subconscious fear of death and the actions of theists.
-
you have no way to access the subconscious of all humans or even a particular group of humans
I can ignore you, but then your poor arguments and reasoning may proliferate. They may appear to be true to some people who read them. It’s in everyone’s interest that I point out the problems with your argument.
phyllo,
Well, then, what or who is this image which stares back at you when you look in the mirror which you recognize? Simply an illusion? If that is the case, then what need is there to get rid of “craving, desire or attachment”? If a self does not exist, then all the rest is illusion too.
A puff of smoke will soon dissipate.
What is it about our selves which seems to want to deny what is clearly there?
Yes.
It’s not that fast or easy.
“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” A. Einstein
Prismatic ,
How did you manage to interpret that I claimed Kant was a Christian? There’s nothing wrong with applying Kant’s thinking on a philosophy forum, but you used Kant as an authority in your claim that a transcendent-self or “soul”, does not exist – which doesn’t make sense unless Kant demonstrated such unequivocally. Kant may have reasoned the soul out of existence in his estimations, but he didn’t know that there is no soul, and neither do you - that is a matter of belief. Maybe you can present an argument/syllogism which demonstrates your thinking on this matter? For me, using philosophical authorities kind of kills the discussion, because interlocutors don’t want to disagree with them. Like saying: “This is what my big man says on the matter, so I don’t have to argue anymore.” Which is what some theists do. Only instead of Kant they say God.
I never claimed that you were wrong to use the term “empirical self”. It is idiosyncratic in my view, but I understand what you mean. There’s no need for extensive justification. You just need to explain what you meant - which you have… That is what suits you, but it may suit others to actually discuss the aggregates as they relate to Buddhism and philosophy. If you want to use the term “empirical self” that’s fine, but from my perspective it is not a qualifying term as such. Rather a description of what you mean. I don’t think that people who enjoy philosophy mind discussing things in depth. Using generalisations kind of defeats the purpose I think.
KT,
Ha! I’m satisfied with a good argument or comment that makes sense. For me making sense is the priority. I also like to learn from others here. I don’t really try to create invincible arguments, I like being right, but I’m not too concerned about it. I prefer discussion and bouncing points to and fro. If I had the knack of being right the majority of the time and could create invincible arguments, I’d look at publishing my work! In the years I’ve been using philosophy forums, I’ve yet to see an argument that was accepted by all forum members and ticked every box required for being a proof. Prismatic believes he has created logical proofs, but I think his arguments are prone to confirmation bias. He’s got smarts, but I think he bottle-necks things through his own biases and strict real/not real paradigm of thinking. I think that Phyllo is right in the sense that it is better to debate with Prismatic, rather than ignore him.
Prismatic,
This is arbitrary and doesn’t compute. You will just claim (as you usually do) that my arguments are not sound, and conversely, that yours are (as you usually do). I can do more than what you state here if I choose to, and still be within the purview of philosophy. This is cliche, but with you, I believe the problem is choice. I don’t think that you understand the nuances of how choice relates to human behaviour, and the factors which lead to people making them. As an example, you regard theists with almost absolute disdain, but if you understood their choice, you wouldn’t. You are more like a theist than you realise, which is ironic.
I agree the term ‘desire’ is confusing.
I did not create that term but was trying to improve from someone’s bad argument.
Here is my revised argument;
P1 DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will-to-live against all odds till inevitable mortality.
P2 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one is instinctually driven to avoid death.
P3 To avoid death, it is instinctual to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
C4 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one will instinctually fear death [subliminally or consciously].
Note my conclusion do not imply the fear of death is the ONLY instinct that is necessary to survive.
My conclusion show instinctual ‘the fear of death’ is one necessary instinct to avoid death [P2], thus to survive [P1].
Welcome your critique on the above.
I have done extensive research on religions in general with specialization on Buddhism and Islam.
In Islam, 30% of the 6236 verses is related to death and the fear of death is various forms.
Christianity in general is about fear of death thus the need for salvation and eternal life via essentialism [in contrast to Buddhism’s non-self]. I have not analyzed the verses on the NT in detail like I did for Islam, but intuitively, there would be a high % of verses that are related to fear of death in relation to verses like John 3:16 and others.
In Buddhism, the Buddha Story [core], the Sutra, practices also focus on death.
Note the link I gave earlier.
In Hinduism, it is reincarnation of the soul with an escape from physical death to different realms.
From what I read of other religions, the eschatological theme is one of the main theme of the respective religion.
Therefore there is a link of the subconscious fear of death with religions with theists and non-theists.
The subconscious mind is 90% [appx.] of the mental faculty of all humans while the conscious mind is 10%.
The % is not specific but merely to show the significant relative difference between the contribution of the subconscious mind and the conscious mind.
Note there are tons of research on instincts and subconscious actions by Scientists and psychologists.
Therefore I can infer the actions of ALL humans [whatever groups or individuals] are activated by the subconscious mind.
In terms of fear and fear of death, note the role of the unconscious mind;
Fear processing in the brain
Many experiments have been done to find out how the brain interprets stimuli and how animals develop fear responses. The emotion, fear, has been hard-wired into almost every individual, due to its vital role in the survival of the individual. Researchers have found that fear is established unconsciously and that the amygdala is involved with fear conditioning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_proc … _the_brain
As with the above I have recountered all the counters you have presented so far.
Btw, I welcome all critiques to my arguments, the more the better which will help to reinforce my argument or reject it if any of the premise is false.
To Kant the idea of the soul as an essence is a transcendental illusion.
This is similar to Buddhism’s anatta [non-self].
In Philosophical discussions, it very effective to use the theories of past giant philosophers who had dug deep to justify their argument to avoid reinventing the wheel.
True, every philosophical theory will have its opposition, thus we need to understand in detail what are the opposing theories to assess their arguments are properly justified or not.
Generally, those philosophical theories where there is merely one opposing view, they are reasonably well grounded to stand on their own subject to its opposing views.
E.g. the view of the Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism and others with dichotomic views.
Being not tied to Buddhism and its doctrine, what I had considered is the question of which term is more efficient and objective.
I mentioned the Dalai Lama who has the highest authority in Tibetan Buddhism is flexible to let Science overrides Buddhist theories as far as the truth is concern.
I have always strive to present my arguments as logical and rational as possible.
What is critical is whether all the premises that follow to the conclusion are true, rational and justified. I have always make a point to comply with this requirement. I do not deliberately try to be rhetorical or deceiving.
The only problem for me is usually linguistic, i.e. using the wrong term to represent what I really intended to convey.
Thus it is no point stating I have confirmation bias, etc.
What is critical in a Philosophical Forum is to show
- why my premises are false,
- they are impossible to be real [empirically & philosophically] or
- they do not follow to the conclusion.
Wherever if I claim your argument is not sound, I will always give the reason why it is not so.
As for my argument, it by default I will claim they are justified and sound.
It is for you and others to show why my premises are false or when I personally discover they need to be corrected which I have done many times.
When have I regard theists with almost absolute disdain.
I raise a thread’Do not bash Muslims’.
-extended to even those who commit the terrible evil and violent acts.
My critique is always on the ideology of theism which inspire believers to commit evil and violent acts.
I have been arguing all along, the reason why theists are theists is because of the subconscious fear of death.
Therefore if we resolve theism from the subconscious fear of death like what non-theistic Buddhism is doing, then there is no need for theism.
Note,
Many experiments have been done to find out how the brain interprets stimuli and how animals develop fear responses. The emotion, fear, has been hard-wired into almost every individual, due to its vital role in the survival of the individual. Researchers have found that fear is established unconsciously and that the amygdala is involved with fear conditioning.
By understanding how fear is developed within individuals, it may be possible to treat human mental disorders such as anxiety, phobia, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
I am not categorizing theism as a mental disorder as in DSM-V, but it is nevertheless problematic as evident by the terrible evil and violent acts directly from theism.
My thesis is the critical root of theism is driven by the unconscious fear of death.
Thus, by understanding how fear is developed within individuals, it may be possible to treat theism to prevent atrocities, evil and violent acts committed by [a frightening] SOME theists.
Prismatic,
Fair enough. I’ll take you at your word, but your posts do IMV convey that you view theists as inferior. Not because of them as people, but because of their systems of belief. Perhaps disdain was the wrong term to use.
I think that we view things differently with regards to the forum. I like to discuss things, whereas you like to make arguments.
I’m not sure if any of that is true.
Consider a prey animal. It will run away if it sees, hears or smells something coming near to it. That instinct, to run away, saves its life in many situations.
But does it have any concept of death or mortality? I doubt it. But I’m not going to pretend that I can read the minds of animals.
If it has no concept of death, then it can’t have a fear of death.
It has an instinctual behavior which is beneficial for survival.
Why should I think that the instinctual behavior in humans is much different? Humans can consciously think and understand death. But why would their instincts be driven by fear of death when animals don’t seem to be driven by such a fear? I don’t see any good reason for the instinct to change in that way.
That’s why I don’t think that P1, P2 or P3 are true.
I thought of the same example: animals. We are supposed to be unique compared to at least most other animals who, as far as we know, do not think forward to their deaths. They have instincts and also learned patterns to avoid threats of all sorts. This does not mean that when a gazelle sees a lion it consciousnly or unconsciously thinks of death. It is simply guided to react by fleeing or other avoidance.
Exactly. All the DNA (and parenting) need to pass on is behavior reactions. Of course can be guided by emotions (and thoughts in us), and these emotions may or may not get triggered in certain situations. The individual organism need not have a conception of death. I do think it is possible some of the social mammals are aware of death, though I doubt this kicks in when a predator appears. Elephants seem to understand and become sad when they find bones of dead relatives. But animals with much smaller brains and no indication at all they ever think of death will avoid threats. I truly doubt mosquitoes are afraid of death, consciouly or otherwise. But raise a hand and they move away.
I also think that phrase ‘against all odds’ is not correct either. Many people will, when faced with low odds, give up. They will not try a different kind of cancer treatment. They simply lie down when bitten by a poisonous snake and accept their fate. - this is actually more common in the East Humans have a remarkably wide range of responses to threats and many will not struggle against all odds.
And, as has been pointed out numerous times, people will also choose to increase the odds of their deaths and do things they know both consciously and unconsciously increase the odds of their dying now.
And I suppose if his judgment is that religions reduces the fear of death, then he has little to worry about. Religious people will lose to natural selection. One would have to wonder how religious belief arose. If it was primarily to relive us of fear of death - his hypothesis - then those who believed that should have been more vulnerable to being killed.
Religions explain why the world is the way it is. Explaining death and what happens after death is a big part of it.
Why am I here?
What does it all mean?
Is there any purpose to what is happening?
What should I do?
Why are some people nice and others nasty?
What is death?
Why does everything die?
Is there anything beyond the material?
It’s not all ‘fear of death’.
Yes. An interesting point that had not occurred to me.
No, there’s a tremendous that is implicitly and openly about sex in religious texts. I’d be interested to see whether the fear of sex or the fear of death actually has more potential citations in the Bible.
And notice the Bible posits something in relation to death, then it is about the fear of death. So, we can assume that if the Bible talks about sex, this is due to the unconscious fear of sex - and perhaps fear of not being loved, not being sexually adequate, not being the only one loved by and being made love to by a certain person.
And it’s all a bit like saying that boot camp shows that the military is all about the fear of not having good posture and of not having extremely well made beds.
I thought it is was interesting to check what are the most common nouns in the Bible…
Now notice below that Death comes after Mouth (lol) And while Heaven is high up on the list it comes in long after children. And also Heaven means sky, where God is, for much of the Bible and not the afterlife. and it comes after Evil, Sons, Hand and Jerusalem, for example. God, however, since it is implicit in Lord, wins hands down. And one need not have a God to have an afterlife.
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
The illusion of self? Right. Like our biological, historical, cultural and experiential self isn’t something that we tote around with us [rather substantively] from the cradle to the grave. In fact, from my perspective, the self becomes less and less substantial the closer we get to those contexts in which we most want it to be whole: in the is/ought world and when we die.
And what is religion if not the perfect invention to make “I” that way?
And how would we go about doing that? Of course: by treating Nirvanna as a concept. And then exchanging our own concepts about it up in the clouds of abstraction. And, up there, words often revolve more around how they make us feel psychologically than in how we can we can reconfigure them into demonstrative proofs. Denomination to denomination that never changes.
All this denotes to me is how the human mind is capable of balancing any number of seemingly incongruous things so as to attain and then sustain at least some measure of psychological comfort and consolation. Among other things, we call this cognitive dissonance. Even among the secular factions who have abandoned all hope of everlasting life, they are able to convince themselves that, at least with regard to human interaction on this side of the grave, we can “reason” our way [philosophically or otherwise] to objective morality. And though there are dozens and dozens of conflicted advocates out there who claim the crown by insisting it all revolves around being “one of us”, none of them will back down when they are confronted with all of their myriad “competitors”.
Isn’t it rather obvious then that what we are dealing with here is not so much what you believe in but that you believe it.
Not James Taylor’s self.
My vision and Mission is striving to achieve ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity’ to ensure the preservation of the human species.
This is an ideal [an impossibility] but it is nevertheless a guiding target where humanity continually improve towards it.
With respect to the above, theism [not theists] is an inferior ideology and practice relative other more advanced spiritual theories and practices, e.g. Buddhism-proper and others.
If we compare the Abrahamic religions in terms of their spiritual elements, practices and results, to Buddhism and the likes, it is so obvious, the Abrahamic religions are inferior in terms of striving towards ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity.’
I am not promoting Buddhism and others, but I an expecting [in the future] all the advanced spiritual theories will consolidate into one efficient and fool-proof general ‘spiritual’ theory and practices that can expedite humanity towards the ideal ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity.’
Yes, discussion is necessary but arguments* are most critical to justify why my proposals are reasonable in improving towards ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity.’
- it is philosophical arguments not in the sense of being argumentative without justifications.
Note ‘argument’ below. My reference to ‘argument’ is not the first meaning but to the rest of the other meanings below.
Argument;
an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation:
-a violent argument.
a discussion involving differing points of view; debate:
-They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
a process of reasoning; series of reasons:
-I couldn’t follow his argument.
a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point:
-This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.
subject matter; theme:
-The central argument of his paper was presented clearly.
-Dictionary.com