They? Who are “they” here? I presume perhaps you are talking about all of the Buddhists that you have interacted with in going out to be among them in order grasp first hand what they do or not not believe about reincarnation and the soul. Okay, why don’t you then invite them here to participate in this discussion. As the very embodiment of Buddhism, they can tell us themselves.
And, again, noting what “they” either do or do not believe about reincarnation and the soul is not, in my view, the same thing as demonstrating it such that rational people would be obligated to think the same.
They have nothing to demonstrate to you that will bring you peace if having a persistence self is that which will bring it to you.
More to the point [mine] what have they been able to demonstrate to themselves here that convinced them to believe what they do?
Instead, from my vantage point, it’s straight back up into the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions:
They are not making an extra claim, they think most people are making an extra claim that there is this persistent self. Where you see no justification for objective morals, they also see no justification for a persistant self. However given that their practices, for them, erode their interest in finding such a thing, they are not after demonstrations.
Hinduism might be a better bet, but even there where there is reincarnation, they also, the dedicated practitioners, tend to put citation marks around that ‘I’. Just a chunk of Vishnu or whichever God they use as their symbol having forgotten himself in finite form. I doubt you will find any solace their either. You can’t squeeze the Western yearning for eternity from those Eastern stones.
Again, given my own interest in religion as the vehicle for connecting the dots between the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of “I” there and then, this tells me practically nothing at all.
But then…how about the horror of eternal life`? Is that also not terrifying? A billion years, run twenty times and you haven’t scratched the surface of that never ending existence.
What particular eternal life? Given what particular set of circumstances? Look, if I could live forever in an essentially meaningless existence that still included the food I love to eat, the music I love to listen to, the films I love to view, the books I love to read… along with all of the other experiences I cherish “here and now”, I’ll take that billion years. But, sure, if it also included terrible pain and suffering…maybe not.
But that’s the point. We can speculate about “eternity” as “philosophers” until we are blue in the face. But that doesn’t bring me an inch closer to demonstrating its actual existence. Let alone what it might entail.
I’ve mentioned what the Buddhist rebirth actually means before in this thread, but you seem not to have noticed, nor quite here either when someone else says it. It offers no solace or comfort unless one misunderstands it, which some, yes, do. It is not an afterlife for you, for your soul. Buddhism is saying that it will not be you tomorrow, that there is no persistance.
Again, you know “what the Buddhist rebirth actually means”…how exactly? Cite the experiences you have had in Buddhist communities. Are you or are you not able to invite those you interacted with into our discussion?
50 years ago it was considered taboo in science to consider animals experiencing agents with emotions and intentions, etc. No rational person who believed animals were experiencers could prove this to scientists, in fact trying could fuck up your career. And yet, now most scientists would agree those who believed animals were sentient and lived their lives in dynamic relations with animals in part based on the assumption they were experiencers like us were rational and correct.
Okay, but in regarding to reincarnation, back to this:
If they were really on to something here, and if the cumulative evidence “en masse” was sufficient, would not this be Big News? Wouldn’t all of the media around the globe be drawn to it? I mean, actual substantive proof of life before and beyond the grave? Where are the front page headlines, where are television specials, where are the probing documentaries?
Isn’t this something that millions and millions of us do want to believe is true? Wouldn’t everyone be glued to accounts able to actually establish it? Or least lead us to believe a demonstration is within our reach?
Only, to my knowledge, there is nothing like that at all. So, for those among us who do believe it is true, how do you explain this? How wide is the gap between the anecdotes and the hard evidence?
And now, The Shift. The shift from Karpel Tunnel making substantive points to Curly, the Stooge compelled to thump me:
You want to take my posts as slime, fine. You’ve spat on everything, so in the end it seems like you mainly want to spit. Politely, at times, you spit, but generally with such condescension and dismissal and such a lack of humility about what you clearly know little about, both how one learns and whom you psychoanalyze.
If for a second you could actually consider how unbelievably rude you have been, well, that’s a horror also.
I feel like I am talking to a Kid, as you would say about others.
Which merely brings me back to this:
Whenever Curly wants to dispense with the Stooge persona, I am more than willing to explore his accusations here in the philosophy forum.
No huffing and puffing, no clamoring histrionics, no personal attacks.
Just him and me discussing our respective moral philosophies given a context that most of us here are likely to be familiar with.