Buddhism and Well-Being

[@KaneB]

My videos on Hume's account of the self: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXzah6t_bquSf8k kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYSaq6KGj8meb68

[@zhulin78]

About the paradox there is a branch of Buddhism called Zen, they consider Buddhism as the way to eliminate paradox rather than, or including suffering, and the enlightenment is not for pursuing, which means we can not reach it in certain ways （应无所住而生其心 from Diamond Sutra）. If someone seeks enlightenment logically, it just happens. if someone seeks it as a life experience, it will be far from life. Sunyata of Zen and Tao of Taoism both describe the supreme truth as the mystery of mysteries（玄之又玄 from Tao Te Ching）, neither unborn nor destroyed and neither defiled nor cleansed（不生不灭，不垢不净 from The Altar Sutra）. I understand enlightenment as accommodating the paradox of co-occurrence simultaneously in the unconscious. I can only speak Chinese so I'm sorry if I use English unproperly.

[@sethlee1017]

Thank you. I've been interested in your perspective on Buddhism for a bit now, as it seems to align very strongly with your views on Humean philosophy, philosophical pessimism, and skepticism that you've expressed, and your explanations/arguments are a lot more understandable and coherent than any that I could articulate. There are a few things that I slightly disagree with or feel could've been conveyed better (which is bound to happen as I practice Buddhism *without all the metaphysics), nevertheless, I'm not here to critique but rather to admire your intellectual honesty and I feel you’ve done Buddhism more justice than many other content creators on KZbin. I also respect your open-mindedness For me, I feel Buddhism is more so a set of lifestyle prescriptions that uses philosophy (and soteriology to a lesser extent) as a conceptual framework for practical application, not much dissimilar to how a personal trainer prescribes exercises using anatomy and physiology as a conceptual framework (hopefully that analogy makes sense).

[@Mcristini1994]

My second challenge to buddhism as presented in this video concerns the idea that the self and concepts are "illusions." What I think about this is similar to what I think about the concept of "confusion" in Kantian philosophy. Kant considers that the analysis of a concept consists in the clearing of its "confused" content, so that it becomes clearly distinguishable. Now, what is difficult is to explain what confusion itself could be in a Kantian worldview or, in other words, what could be the transcendental conditions of possibility of confusion. The impossibility of explaining in Kantian terms what confusion is or how it is possible destroys, in my opinion, his project of conceptual analysis (on which his entire philosophy depends). I believe that something similar occurs in this case with respect to "illusions" such as the self and concepts. How is it possible that a being capable of enlightenment is deceived? What is a delusion and how is it possible, ontologically speaking, for a Buddhist? If the ultimate truth shows us a world without a self and without concepts, it should also show us how concepts and the self were possible in the first place, because the fact is that all unenlightened people have a self and resort to concepts. To say that they are illusions does not explain the sense in which they are patently real, that is, the sense in which they rule with sovereign force the course of our lives. On the contrary, if a Buddhist were to deny the existence or reality of illusions as illusions, then he would be denying the very difference between someone who is enlightened and someone who is not, and I think that would be problematic.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

Nope. This is only said when one is trapped in concepts and doesn't meditate and only intellectually approach this topic which will never get anywhere. Kant is hopelessly confused as per usual.

[@mohitoness]

gonna try and offer a constructive reply... Allow me first to rephrase two questions from your post (hope that I found the interesting ones for you, and haven't changed them too much): "If the ultimate truth shows us a world without self/concepts, how is it that all unenlightened people still experience patently real concepts/self?" "How can you simultaneously deny the existence of a reality of illusions and also rely on defining the illusory reality when describing enlightenment?" For the first question I think you will find that, if you replace the word concept with the word language in your question, it will bring much clarity. The world doesn't need language for things to exist, and a world without language has no distinctions and no definitions (can you imagine a world without any words?), but people still use language and the use of language creates a very particular and very hard-wired experience of the world that is hard to shake off (even with meditation, though meditation sometimes would help with this, if you're lucky and perseverant). As for your second question, I think similar to an experience of the world that has no language at all, which is impossible to fully imagine, it's hard to imagine enlightenment, certainly impossible to explain it. Sometimes, when poets for example try to convey an experience of the world that is so deep as to be ineffable (any explanation will take away from its meaning), they use language in a different way, using it as a tool for indirectly providing non-linguistic meaning, rather than an independent system with self-contained meaning. (If you think it through, you will see that western philosophy process of clarification and reduction uses language as this latter, self-contained system.) When language is a tool to try and get at the non-linguistic world, then you use the tool in whatever way you can, and that sometimes involves making contradictions solely for the experiential response that they generate: the sense of absurdity, simultaneity, even humor. Many definitions of enlightenment are purposefully absurd, vague, comical, terse, aphoristic etc. in this very same way, perhaps partly as a gesture toward the futility of trying to explain something that vaporizes through the very act of explanation

[@daltsu3498]

Illusions are illusory, emptiness is empty. Enlightenment is just another game we play to speak of it but in the end the seeker seeks the seeker for that's all there is.

[@BeingHuman-being]

Sleep would be a better analogy for the supposed 'paradox' [there is no paradox in the 1st place]. Sleep is a necessary natural element of human nature. To 'desire' [wanting] sleep itself [state of wakefulness] is contrary to sleep and one will have problem falling asleep, thus sufferings. The proper approach is to develop 'Right View' and Right Action so that one cultivate the inherent natural state where one will sleep spontaneously without any 'desire' [which is a cog of the wheel of the 12 Nidanas that give birth to sufferings] to sleep. Note the last phase re Enlightenment from the Ten Bulls by Kakuan. Englightenment? Chop Wood, Carry Water.

[@Mcristini1994]

Great video! I think there are some other challenges that can be posed to Buddhist philosophy as you formulated it. The first of these is in line with your question "Why would enlightenment be preferable to death?" and it is this: How can a Buddhist differentiate between being enlightened and being dead? I mean, we know that in the enlightened state there can be neither desire nor volitions, so we might believe that there are still body parts, perceptions and consciousness. However, the lack of a self and even of concepts makes it difficult to conceive in what sense these entities (body, perceptions, consciousness) could be apprehended or distinguished from anything else (even death). Put another way: it's easy to understand death (existentially speaking) as the end of the self, and that's what enlightenment is supposed to bring us, so it's difficult to understand how they differ. Finally, if a buddist said that death and enlightenment don't differ, then I would say there is one more problem, since while death can be understood as the negation of all experience, enlightenment can not. Death has no content and supposes the termination of all experience (including perceptions, concepts, desires, volitions, etc.), however, precisely for this reason we do not consider it a "state" at all (even less a state of well-being) . However, it seems that Buddhism poses enlightenment as a state, as something that is achieved and in which it remains, not as mere non-existence.

[@KaneB]

>> However, the lack of a self and even of concepts makes it difficult to conceive in what sense these entities (body, perceptions, consciousness) could be apprehended or distinguished from anything else (even death) Yeah, when we talk about bodies, perceptions, consciousness, etc., we're in the realm of conventional truth. A body is constructed out of parts, so the term "body" is a conceptual fiction in just the same way that "house" is.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

@@KaneB This guy commenting comes on my discord drunk and yells about how Kant could kick Zen's ass or whatever. Every Kantian who comes on my discord can never grasp the provisional reality versus ultimate reality thing (which is real strange considering the kind of distinctions Kant himself made)

[@ilmnaut8032]

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 you should've answered the objection instead of discrediting him by appealing to his background.

[@Mcristini1994]

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 I'm not kantian (i've just said that his whole philosophical project is ill-founded in another comment). And i didn't yell. Also, what's the problem with drinking and philosophizing? Kane himself has a video doing just that.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

@@Mcristini1994 Philosophy is more embarrassing than drinking. I'd agree with that. Glad you're not a Kantian

[@darcyone6291]

I think that the point Buddhism is making about the attitude towards pain, that is it's our attitude towards pain that causes suffering, could be applied to the view that Buddhism takes towards desire. So, when the Buddhist, for example, talks about the treadmill of desire, it could be seen as an opportunity to increase the richness of our existence rather than as a source of suffering. Buddhism still makes very important points to our lives I think, but takes them to a degree that I personally don't find related.

[@syanlopez1]

Cool to see you do stuff on Buddhist philosophy! If you're interested in the moral realism debate, I think the Buddhist tradition has interesting perspectives on the issues (since they largely argue that moral truths as conventional, and not ultimate, truths).

[@KaneB]

>> If you're interested in the moral realism debate Nah, that's not a topic I've ever cared much about. 😉 More seriously: I don't know whether I'll be exploring Buddhist philosophy more in the future. There's a lot of interesting stuff there. It's just that there's also a lot of other interesting topics, and I don't have nearly enough time in my life to study it all. This video came about because I've been thinking about philosophical pessimism quite a lot recently, and there was an obvious connection to the Buddhist account of suffering.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

@@KaneB If you're still mildly interested in exploring more, I would recommend R. Guilbault's (2019) "Emptiness and Metaethics: Dogen's Anti-Realist Solution," which basically says Nagarjuna is advocating for the emptiness in all things, a problem for Mahayana Buddhism, attempting to reconcile emptiness with commitment to compassion, because the latter implies some moral realism and the former moral anti-realism. Dogen responds by doubling down on anti-realism. The commitment to compassion is a function of conventions set by Buddhist practitioners. I really liked that paper. I'm probably reading it again in the future.

[@IntegralDeLinha]

Great video! Thank you!

[@jinghuang6667]

Could you please do more videos on Buddhist philosophy? Thanks! This one is really good.

[@davidzuilhof2272]

So excited

[@KaneB]

If I recall correctly, you mentioned in a comment the similarity between Buddhism and some of the pessimistic views I'd been expressing. That was one of the things that inspired this video.

[@davidzuilhof2272]

@@KaneB yup that was me! Fun to hear that that was inspiring to you, I read mark siderits book as well, thought it was interesting as well. If you ever are up for doing either a conversation or an interview (I have enough questions for you ready) about this topic let me know :) (Private or public idc) I saw someone else recommend this book/authoralready, but engaging Buddhism van Jay Garfield is a really interesting book on the matter

[@KaneB]

@@davidzuilhof2272 Sure, send me an email and we can set something up (in my channel description; youtube will remove the comment if I try to write my email here).

[@tonyburton419]

@@KaneB My understanding is that Buddhism - depending on which version, is not pessimism as such - the outcome is to free self of "ego", and hence increased sense of contentment, acceptance and with living in the ongoing now

[@KaneB]

​@@tonyburton419 I suppose it depends on how you define the word "pessimism". The Buddhist account of suffering in ordinary persons strikes me as quintessentially pessimist, but it's distinguished from some of the more bleak expressions of pessimism in that claims to offer a way out.

[@Svelton]

This was wonderful, thank you!

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

Here is an alternate conception of Buddhist well being as envisioned through the Zen perspective. It is not to do with desire but about what is desired and what value is given to what. So we can imagine two classes of goals: (A) Type and (B) Type... (A) Type would be something like "Washing the dishes - Eating a favorite meal etc." and that would look exactly as we'd expect 3rd person. Then there are (B) Type goals and (B) Type goals happen every frame of existence and for each frame of existence these endless (B) Type goals are helplessly fulfilled by the mere state of reality being exactly as it is, and this is endlessly and helplessly fulfilled. The idea here is not to eliminate (A) Type goals, but rather to shift all of our value to (B) Type goals until (A) Type goals are merely performed "just cause" as mere play, but the real joy and contentment that is derived from life is all derived from the (B) Type goals which are an endless resource and endless stream, they are unconditional, it is fulfilled merely by reality being exactly as is... once one has shifted all of our value from (A) Type to (B) Type the self and all conceptual objects are naturally destroyed through this process of shifting ones source of well being to each and every frame of reality as being unconditionally embraced.. Since the demand on the self to actively embrace each frame of existence is too much for it to perform manually the self dissolves into this as a completely automatic process with no self in the way. - As for the paradox of desiring enlightenment - Zen has a different view (1) That the desire for enlightenment is like the stick used to stir a fire, it too will be burned up by the meditative process and just gets the fire stirring going, but it as a desire is dealt with, just like the fire stirring stick itself burns away (2) In Zen enlightenment already is, when you realize the state of enlightenment it is clear that enlightenment always was there, the illusion of the self never even made an appearance to begin with, only a false semantic claim was made where the natural enlightened state was denied, but it never rose above the level of a semantic illusion to begin with.

[@KaneB]

Can you say a bit more about what (B) type goals are? I don't think I understand the distinction you're drawing. What would be an example of a (B) type goal? I'm also unclear about what you mean by "frame of existence".

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

@@KaneB Right. So a B type goal is the same every time. The goal is "That reality be exactly as it is" - And there are infinite duplicates of this goal. The goal only lasts a single frame or moment of your existence and is instantly successfully fulfilled, helplessly, automatically. Now basically at first this seems absurd. But gradually it is all about shifting value away from standard goals and desires (which still occur but cease to be valued for well being) to instead rather desiring indefinitely that reality be exactly as it is.. this desire will always be fulfilled helplessly successfully... the mystical state is essentially when this shift in value is automatic and not induced via meditation. Basically it's a process of gradually desiring reality to be exactly as it is (unconditionally) - this breaks down the distinction between self and reality because everything reality does is always exactly what you want no matter what

[@ilmnaut8032]

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 any literature reference to read on this type distinction of goals?

[@KaneB]

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 I see, thanks for the explanation!

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

@@KaneB A super simplified way of looking at this would be converting all of life to a state of play. Satisfaction from play is different than satisfaction from attaining something. You are happy during the whole process of play not just when achieving something (I like playing through the level of the game not just defeating the end boss). Also play is silly and pointless but that is what is great about it. Once all of life is play enlightenment is kind of irrelevant. The challenge for most people is to see as play things that are otherwise taken very seriously or taken to be mundane, but this universal play state can be attained.

[@DeadEndFrog]

the last point is precisely analoguse to the paradox of happiness, and i think buddisms insistance on compassion is the way out of a paradoxial situation. Just as with happiness, which comes as a by product in the paradox, enlightment comes as a byproduct of compassion

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

Enlightenment comes from accepting reality in each instant exactly as it is unconditionally. No matter what happens saying "Thank you very much I have no complaints what so ever"

[@DeadEndFrog]

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 i see, i saw your response in the comments and it makes sense, i still dont Get what role compassion would have if not this one, as accepting reality happens with or without compassion. As i side note, i still hope you respond to my comment on the zen video, as im curious to see what your anwser would be. Cheers

[@jacklessa9729]

I think Buddhism arguments to "life is suffering" are actually good argument to "suffering is inevitable", they are not even good argument to " Life is more suffering than pleasure. ". So I think they are wasting their time trying not to suffer(try to never suffer paradoxically only bring more suffer LOL) The difference of this enlightenment beings seems that they would not feel pain neither pleasure and in a Hedonistic paradise would be no pain and maximum pleasure. I took Bupropion(a anti-depressive that also help people to quiet smoking.) to try to reduce my suffering when I was quieting smoking(A LOT OF SUFFER, NEVER SUFFER AS MUCH) and I felt like their enlightenment seems to be, I felt almost no pain, but also almost no pleasure, I felt like I was dead, a zombie, it was awful. So if you think this enlightenment is possible and want to try something closer to it, first try Bupropion. I will never take Bupropion again.

[@KaneB]

I suspect that most Buddhists would deny that this state is anything like enlightenment. It's hard to say because enlightenment is difficult to characterize, but it doesn't sound like this drug gave you "joyful tranquillity", contentment, peace of mind, etc.

[@jacklessa9729]

@@KaneB If the non-self feels something positive, so there's some kind of higher pleasure "joyful tranquility". You can only feel this higher pleasure when you have no more desires. But if there's no one to desire, how there's someone to feel joyful tranquility?! This is weirdest thing, it seems contradictory. Or the non-self can't feel anythingh and what they mean by " Joyful tranquility " Is that feel nothing is not good or bad, is to be complete calm. What I meant above is that they maybe believe is not good or bad and this will bring to the no-self calmness, but I felt something very close to it, and to me was not calmness, was terrifying, boring, nothing mattered because nothing was bring me joy, it was really bad.

[@veganphilosopher1975]

I feel we are on similar wavelengths looking into this area. 10 years ago my attitude towards Buddhism or basically any thought that wasn't presented in a western analytical framework was very dismissive

[@domwren]

Our brains don't go through the cellular regenerative process that many other body parts do. Recent studies in mice have shown that neurons can survive at least two lifetimes. So, with regard to self, we may well only ever have one brain, although the internal structure of it changes over time with synaptic connectivity, for instance.

[@Mcristini1994]

My third challenge is related to the second, in that it seeks to account for the nature of a self for any given experience. First of all, it should be noted that each living organism is itself a center of perception, that is, an entity with a certain space-time location that has its own "point of view". Thus, I, who am a specific living organism, cannot see, hear or feel what another organism in another part of the world sees, hears or feels. Strictly speaking, I can't perceive anything other than what affects my sensory organs (someone sitting next to me could perceive something very similar, but will be slightly affected by their positional differences from me and by the state of their sensory organs). This is a general problem faced by anyone who wants to deny the real existence of individuals in the universe: while the physical world is a continuum in terms of spacetime, in terms of experience it is not. Every living organism has an experience only of its proximity (both spatial and temporal). My experience of being is not continuous with that of an astronaut on a space base or that of a 14th century monk. When a Buddhist monk claims to have eliminated her self, that does not allow her to overcome her perceptual proximity in spatial or temporal terms (she cannot see what others see from their respective points of view, nor can she make her time continuous with someone else's from another century, etc.). This proximal character of the first person experience is, for me, one of the two pillars that found the reality of the self in the experience of each person. The second pillar is the realization that one is indeed a center of perception and that there are others who are their own center of perception. The moment I realize that what I see is not all that is visible, but that there are others who see other things, I immediately realize that what I see is a "point of view". Understanding that there are other experiences (in every perceptual sense) is what makes me realize that what I perceive is not "the world", but a particular experience of the world. The conception of otherness is a condition of possibility of the self. These two pillars (the proximal character of perception and the awareness of said character) base the notion of self that any person handles in their daily life and are clearly achieved by anyone who knows that what they perceive is not the totality and that there are other individuals. It should be noted that this type of self does not imply a continuous self from birth to death, but only a condition of possibility for there to be a self at any present moment (and, ultimately, an experience understood as experience).

[@Mcristini1994]

It's a bit funny but, if i am right, the enlightenment promoted by buddhism would be achieved by a kind of self-deception (that is, by forgetting that one's own experience is in fact an experience and not the totality of the world). It would be like achieving a true solipsist stance, that is, not merely postulating the inexistance of otherness in a theorical framework, but genuinly forgetting otherness as a way of understanding one's own perception (that is, by forgetting what otherness even is). The difference between the solpsist theorical belief and the solipsist (buddhist) stance could be illustrated by this example: if an ordinary man survived alone in a post-apocalyptic scenario, he would not believe in the existance of any other empirical individual, but he could still conceive otherness as such, that is, the fact that there is something else besides what he sees through the eyes of an hypothetical other. He could picture otherness as a way of interpreting his own point of view. On the contrary, an enlightened person would not conceive otherness even with real others sourrounding him (and thus, he would not understand his own perception as constituting a particular experience of the world).

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

​@@Mcristini1994 No. You're not understanding non-duality - Oneness and multiplicity are both transcended. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Zen for more clarity.

[@Mcristini1994]

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 I read the article and I have a lot of critics to make, but I'm going to start with just a few, quoting the part I criticize. Referring to Zen, the article states that: “It also understands a specificity of the thing-event to be a recapitulation of the whole; parts and the whole are to be lived in an inseparable relationship through an exercise of nondiscriminatory wisdom, without prioritizing the visible over the invisible, the explicit over the implicit, or vice versa”. My challenge remains valid with respect to this statement. The only sense in which the visible can be not-prioritized over the invisible (if what others see also counts as "the invisible") is axiological or epistemological, not empirical. It does not seem that Zen meditation allows empirical access to a larger or different field of perception (an enlightened person cannot see the entire universe or recapitulate all the moments of the past, present and future). Precisely this proximal limitation of experience is one of the foundations of the self and cannot be overcome through meditation. In other words, meditation does not allow you to fly, see new colors, travel in time or transcend your space-time location or your perceptual capacity in any way, it only allows you to modify your cognitive disposition. Just believing that you have transcended or affirming it is not enough to effectively transcend your perceptual limits, and that is evident from the moment that a Zen practitioner cannot perceive anything that others perceive from his proximal perception. Referring to the effects of “having a self”, the article states that: “Epistemologically speaking, Zen observes that this renders opaque, or at best translucent, the experiential domains beyond the sensible world as well as ego-consciousness, both either taken naturalistically or by means of theoretical speculation. The inability to go beyond these experiential domains occurs because ego-consciousness is physiologically rooted in the body and psychologically in the unconscious”. And that is exactly my point, there is no meditation or practice that allows a zen practitioner to exceed his proximal field of perception because he cannot expand his senses in any way relevant to his bodily limitation. He cannot transform in a perceptual matrix of the entire reality. He can only modify his interpretation of his perceptual field. “Logically speaking, Zen explains that “two” things arise because the everyday standpoint stipulates the above-mention epistemological paradigm as the standard for cognizing the whole, however the whole may be construed (Nagatomo, 2000, 213-44). This logic thinks it reasonable to divide the whole into two parts when knowing or understanding reality. That is, when this logic is applied to the whole, it compels the user of this logic to choose, reasonably in the mind of the user, one part, while disregarding the other part(s) as irrelevant or meaningless. It prioritizes one part at the expense of the other part(s), while celebrating the exclusion. In so doing, it looks to the explicit while becoming oblivious to the fact that the implicit equally exists as a supporting ground for the explicit, where the explicit is something “obvious” to the senses and the rational mind. It champions one-sidedness in cognition and judgment as the supreme form of knowing and understanding reality. However, Zen thinks that this prioritization, this exclusion, violates a cardinal principle of knowing, for knowledge of anything demands an understanding of the whole. Either-or logic fails on this account” This could practically be a reflection on the Hegelian dialectic. Western philosophy has long presented exponents who criticize dualism understood as "one thing or the other." Quoting Hegel in the Phenomenology of Spirit: “When the opinion of the antagonism between what is true and what is false takes root, said opinion usually expects, also, from a given philosophical system, assent or contradiction, seeing in any statement before said system only one or the other. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive development of truth, but only sees contradiction in diversity (...) But, in their flow, they constitute at the same time many moments of an organic unity, in which, far from contradicting each other, they are all equally necessary, and this equal necessity is exactly what constitutes the life of the whole. But the contradiction before a philosophical system either, in part, does not usually conceive of itself in this way, or, in part, the conscience of the one who apprehends it does not know, generally, to free it or keep it free from its one-sidedness, to see under the figure of the controversial and the apparently contradictory, mutually necessary moments”.

[@Mcristini1994]

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 I continue my critic. "Zen believes that theoretical reference ultimately carries no existential meaning for emancipating a human being from his or her predicaments, for it maintains that discriminatory knowledge of any kind is delusory/illusory in nature." This division between practice and theory is something that I do not agree with and that I find strangely dualistic for a way of life that claims to dissolve dualisms. All forms of practice imply some kind of theory (if by 'theory' we mean some kind of interpretation) and all forms of theory imply some kind of practice (if by practice we mean some way of affecting the world). There is no theory that does not have some practical-perceptual manifestation (such as speaking, gesturing, feeling this or that emotion when holding it, modifying the personal disposition to do one thing or another, etc.) and there is no practice that does not suppose some kind of interpretation (either elaborate, as a scientific interpretation, or more basic, as an expectation or recognition of something-as-something). On the other hand, I do not understand what an "illusion" would be for Zen Buddhism and, even more, I do not understand why the fact that knowledge is illusory would imply that it has no existential meaning or that it does not serve to emancipate people. Nietzsche, for example, strongly argued that illusions are a fundamental tool to perpetuate life if they are evaluated in aesthetic or functional terms and not in a merely epistemological way. “In the meditational process of discovery then, Zen moves from an ordinary, commonsensical standpoint to an extraordinary standpoint, and with this transformation returns to the everyday lifeworld, wherein no Aristotelian either-or logic is accepted as the standard for knowing and understanding reality. As a result, paradoxes, contradictions, and even what appears to be utter nonsense abound in Zen literature. The kōan method mentioned above exemplifies this point. To cite just one such example: “the river does not flow but the bridge does.” If one attempts to understand that by relying on an Aristotelian either-or logic as the standard for understanding, one will be under the impression that this expression is nonsensical or meaningless”. In the first place, the phrase "the river does not flow but the bridge does" is perfectly understandable from an Aristotelian logical point of view, it is only difficult to conceive empirically. If I were to say “the river does not flow, but it does flow”, it would be difficult to conceive in an Aristotelian way but, even so, there have been many Western philosophers who affirmed “contradictions” of this kind. It seems to me that describing Western philosophy as advocating a sharp division between Aristotelian logic and nonsense is highly reductive. Many great exponents of Western philosophy have extensively used metaphors to explain their positions. Furthermore, some have taken metaphors as a more valid explanatory source than concepts (Nietzsche or Lacan, for example). To say that knowledge is a castle of cobwebs mounted on water (Nietzsche) or that the universe being discordant agrees with itself, like the discordant harmony of the bow and the lyre (Heraclitus) are direct forms of philosophizing with metaphors and of admitting some form of of contradiction as a philosophical foundation.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

@@Mcristini1994 Doesnt claim to dissolve dualisms. It claims to transcend both duality and nonduality. And to also hold them in simultanity. So you are already misinformed about the aim. You also think you can use your standard philosophical framework to critique something totally outside of it which just begs the question for your philosophical world view at the start of your reasoning process you violate reasoning by begging the question for reasoning. Its called the problem of the criterion look it up... and fallbilism wont save you cause fallibilism gets destroyed by Hume's critique of reason via vertical assessments and Nargajuna's source skepticism and by the lack of Getteir defeaters in each instance... there goes your claim that philosophy can do anything other than make up stuff... time you moved on from philosophy to something beyond it

[@tormunnvii3317]

A more accurate translation of Dukkha is “Unsatisfactoriness”, and the cause of this is “Clinging” to Desires, not Desiring itself. Therefore, the Paradox of Enlightenment is not valid.

[@virtuouspyromaniac4467]

Where is the video for the Frege-Geach problem that you promised man? }:(

[@KaneB]

Currently somewhere in Meinong's jungle. I'm planning on doing a Frege-Geach video. But I'm planning on doing lots of things, and I probably won't get around to all of them. For comparison, I started writing my video on moral naturalism in 2015, then get interested in other things, then came back to it in 2020.

[@niket527]

I really like your channel and wanted to deep dive into philosophy, but I don't know where I should start. Which playlist would you recommend to start with? Logic? Or is there some more basic playlist?

[@KaneB]

My playlists don't need to be viewed in any particular order, so just go with whichever one you're interested in. As for logic, I don't have a very detailed logic series. If you want to explore that, it would be worth picking up an introductory textbook.

[@niket527]

@@KaneB Thanks! I was curious because it seems some topics build off of others. For example it seems like in order to understand metaethics you should understand ethics. Or in order to watch the scientific realism playlist I should watch the philosophy of science playlist. What do you think?

[@KaneB]

@@niket527 No, the metaethics and scientific realism playlists can be viewed independently. In order to understand metaethics, you just need some grasp of moral judgments and moral arguments -- something which pretty much every English-speaking adult engages in. It's not a requirement that you understand the technical moral theories developed by philosophers.

[@esthersmith3056]

im not sure i believe that self-immolation, no matter how calmly and without regard for pain, represents an increase in wellbeing.

[@Thelordmagedon]

If you’re hitting alternative philosophies you should do a video on Satanism and Anton LaVey.

[@simonb3643]

The problem with Buddhism (the non sectarian version from the agamas and pali sutas, not the cultural adaption stuff that de deloped later) is that it its analysis is of the Human Condition is very well but: If you dont believe in rebirth, and in this day and age you have every reason not to: why bother? It will end. It is still optimistic, hopeful. Pessimistic worldview but a way out is a way out once you know ‘the truth’. And for some reason it is hidden from us? The transcendentalist still assume that old Socratic Delusion: truth and the ‘good’ life are the same. But since Darwinism it has become public that the truth of what we are isn’t very comforting at all. Loved it when Cioram said the salvation is that there is no salvation. We can use some insights in an attempt to increase the quality of our life but for the rest. Dont bother

[@garruksson]

Unknown knowns came in his pants when he saw this vid in his feed.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

Damn straight.

[@jamescareyyatesIII]

If the Burning Buddhist was enlightened, why was he so attatched to flags? The Burning Buddhist wasn't protesting the Viet Nam war, he was protesting the removal of Buddhist flags from the royal palace by the royal family, who were Catholic and not Buddhist. His act seems more pissy than enlightened.