Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

The Buddha Was In Fact a Philosopher

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 2:18:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The_fool_on_the_hill says that Buddhism is not a philosophy and that the Buddha is not a philosopher, nor did it exist in his time or location. He is false. Here's an explanation of why Buddhism is a philosophy.

"Buddhist philosophy deals extensively with problems in metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics, and epistemology.

The historical Buddha lived during a time of spiritual and philosophical revival in southern Nepal when the established mythologies and cosmological explanations of the Vedas came under rational scrutiny.

Buddha's doctrine did have an important philosophical component: it negated the major claims of rival positions while building upon them at a new philosophical and religious level.

The Buddha's method of enquiry in disputation with others was like the Socratic method, his approach to metaphysical questions apophatic and his attitude to the accepted pantheon of gods and goddesses somewhat iconoclastic. He asserted the insubstantiality of the ego and in doing so countered those Upanishadic sages who sought knowledge of an unchanging ultimate self. The Buddha created a new position in opposition to their theories, and held that attachment to a permanent self in this world of change is the cause of suffering and the main obstacle to liberation. He broke new ground by going on to explain the source for the apparent ego: it is merely the result of identification with the temporary aggregates ("skandhas") which constitute the sum total of the individual human being's experience at any given moment in time. His avoidance of theological speculation or assertions and non-assertion of the existence of any Supreme Being or essential substance may be seen as evidence of his mystical apophasis rather than skepticism or nihilism. The Buddha was concerned with advancing human happiness by teaching people the correct method of liberation."

-- http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

The Buddha was also referred to as a Contemplative all throughout the early scriptures and no its not "back labeling" we dont even use that term in the modern West. So your claim that the translations that also mention "philosophers" are back labeling is false.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 10:07:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 2:18:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The_fool_on_the_hill says that Buddhism is not a philosophy and that the Buddha is not a philosopher, nor did it exist in his time or location.

The Fool: Good now show where show where said any of these things. And then you will actually be referring to me.

Sophist He is false. Here's an explanation of why Buddhism is a philosophy.

The Fool: well that the claim of a Fool ;) But I think its better to say here is the most modern description in wikipedia. I do consider My undergraduate and graduate course where I have read the compete writing of buddhas and writting counless papers with understand the history in the exchange or words and ideas throughout population a much better authority.

Sophist: "Buddhist philosophy deals extensively with problems in metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics, and epistemology.

The Fool: The difference is in the supportive argumentation. When can read Buddah in its original language then you be justfitied.

The Sophist: The historical Buddha lived during a time of spiritual and philosophical revival in southern Nepal when the established mythologies and cosmological explanations of the Vedas came under rational scrutiny.

The Fool: dude I know Buddha inside out I have take a ungrade and graduate level course on it. You are reading form yourself.

The Sophist: Buddha's doctrine did have an important philosophical component: it negated the major claims of rival positions while building upon them at a new philosophical and religious level.

The Buddha's method of enquiry in disputation with others was like the Socratic method, his approach to metaphysical questions apophatic and his attitude to the accepted pantheon of gods and goddesses somewhat iconoclastic. He asserted the insubstantiality of the ego and in doing so countered those Upanishadic sages who sought knowledge of an unchanging ultimate self. The Buddha created a new position in opposition to their theories, and held that attachment to a permanent self in this world of change is the cause of suffering and the main obstacle to liberation. He broke new ground by going on to explain the source for the apparent ego: it is merely the result of identification with the temporary aggregates ("skandhas") which constitute the sum total of the individual human being's experience at any given moment in time. His avoidance of theological speculation or assertions and non-assertion of the existence of any Supreme Being or essential substance may be seen as evidence of his mystical apophasis rather than skepticism or nihilism. The Buddha was concerned with advancing human happiness by teaching people the correct method of liberation."

-- http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

The Fools: I Think what I said was way over your head, man. No one disagrees that it says that in wikipedia. I don't think I said anything about wikipedia.

Sophist. The Buddha was also referred to as a Contemplative all throughout the early scriptures and no its not "back labeling" we dont even use that term in the modern West.

The Fool: yes ofcourse and when you could speak the same language as buddha you know it that is true.

The fool: Lets grant for the sake of argument that we don't use that "back labelling".
(In all of the entire west, we will pretend that is a minor claim for mountains of evidence. just for fun)

Sophist: It is false that we use the term back labeling or in fact use labal of the way we understand them to explain history. Through ALL THE WESTERN UNIVERSE.
Oh noooo!

The Fool: awwww But I just used it, and I am in the western universe and you know exactly what I meant when I said, and meant, or else what are you refuting? But I assure you next I will check the entire western world and its history to make sure its have been by some else. awww but then the first person of course being the one the used for the first time will be false and so the next who uses will false too, and so for all eternity of all language. So what the Heck are we talking about. All our worlds are false. awww

Sophist: So your claim that the translations that also mention "philosophers" are back labeling is false.

The Fool: QED !? lol hahaha

The Fool: what the hell are you reading.. I said not in the greek sense of philsopher were our original western definition comes from, and it still holds. ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 10:14:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The_fool_on_the_hill says??

The Fool: you mean the Fool argues for! ..its much more then a say.
You have even changed venues as to avoid people from reading my arguments, because obviously I go against the common view. And you are hoping that if more people agree with you it will actually change the truth of the manner. WHich is impossible.
So shame on you as dihonest debator and let this be a part of you integraty in the future. Good for you, you have earned it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 5:20:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 10:14:10 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The_fool_on_the_hill says??

The Fool: you mean the Fool argues for! ..its much more then a say.
You have even changed venues as to avoid people from reading my arguments,

I have no recollection of this. This is an empty claim by you and have nothing to show for it.

because obviously I go against the common view. And you are hoping that if more people agree with you it will actually change the truth of the manner.

Have you been living under a rock? No one here agrees with me on any issue and Im fine with that. I have the reputation of being the most far out conspiracy theorist, no Libertarian agrees with my Libertarianism, there's no active Buddhists here but me, etc.

How can you claim any of this. Stop making blind and ignorant claims, they just make you look more foolish.

I will address your other post when I get the chance. Btw, I doubt you have learned Pali and Sanskrit and read the entire Tipitika and every Mahayana Sutra. That's a big mountain of books equivalent to 100 Bibles, many of which arent available unless you willing to pay over several grand for them. I dont believe your claims. I too have taken multiple religion and philosophy courses on religion as well as attended lectures by Venerable Zen masters. And i've read countless scriptures translated by well renowned Buddhist scholars like DT Suzuki, Buddhagosa, and others.

So shame on you as dihonest debator and let this be a part of you integraty in the future. Good for you, you have earned it.

Your reasons for calling me a dishonest debator are false so i'd appreciate if you retracted this slanderous claim.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 7:45:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would agree with that, no problem. What is the role of the philosopher? To speck to the disorder through their experiences. THe symbols are different, but he still tries to fix the disorder in the world.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 8:18:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Don't believe it, I wouldn't trust a fool, don't believe anything I say I . If you are going to refer to me argue against my argument. Which was that term philosophy, from the Greek till 1600's had broadened to incorporate more than the more in the definition. Buddha was not introduced to the west as philosophy for a long time after then. So when all the transitions from Greek which are all hand written along with all copies and also taken account different cultural translations and more topics and people under the heading of philosophy, the meaning changes. And Buddha is not introduced till the west until this broadened definition is being used and so when translated it is no longer the exact same of the original definers. Have you counter this? no? then F8ck off!!

Sophist: Your reasons for calling me a dishonest debator are false so i'd appreciate if you retracted this slanderous claim.

The Fool: are they really! Do you my false reasons?? Well her my so called false reasons that you are a complete liar. And you shouldn't be trusted at face value ever on DDO.

Sophist claims.
1. Sophist: The fool says Buddhism is not a philosophy.
The Fool: really!! Come on now!! I hold this?

2. Sophist: The fool says that the Buddha is not a philosopher.
The Fool: really!! I hold this, this is what you get, from me really!! Come on Now

3. Sophist: the fool also says that Buddha did it exist in his time or location.
The Fool: again. Really I said that, where is this? Have I really argued for this? What planet are you on?

4 Sophist: Here's an explanation of why Buddhism is a philosophy.
The Fool: Who are talking to? What is your audience? Why others and not me. If it's my argument?

The Fool: Firstly did I mention Buddhism really or did I say Buddha didn't argue as rigorously as early western philosophy and that it was his followers did arguments.

Quick check..! have you represented anything I said at all! Just one. Why not just grab quotes of me arguing for what you are saying? Wouldn't that be much easier and trust worthy.

Why are you a liar? because you have not made one claim through all what you are saying about me not one. Then what the hell are you even talking about. Anybody can go what I wrote, I encourage it. What are even trying to pull? Did I avoid you ? no. So are not lying? Show me how I argue for what you claim of me. What the problem?. Its straight forward right. No?

Well here is more reasons why you are a liar. Oh ya sorry false reasons.. .lolY
The Fool: you mean the Fool argues for! ..its much more than a say.
In that you are trying to give an impression that I go around saying random claims. But I always argue for any claims that not common sense. So that is an intentional false impression of me.

The Fool: You have even changed venues as to avoid people from reading my arguments,

Sophist: I have no recollection of this. This is an empty claim by you and have nothing to show for it.

The Fool: really. this is the same venue? Is this not a different forum you made just to slander me. You really don't remember making it? Who made it? It says you name? so you are lying again. Right. Is not and empty claim is a justified claim? Which is fable. Fair? No?

Sophist: Have you been living under a rock? No one here agrees with me on any issue and Im fine with that.

The Fool: really am I suppose know tha t people don't agree with you here? Is anybody? Maybe its because you are wrong. I mean I might not, but look at all the lies. Can you support all of them? Go for it.?

Sophist: I have the reputation of being the most far out conspiracy theorist, no Libertarian agrees with my Libertarianism, there's no active Buddhists here but me, etc.

The Fool: Conspiracy theorists are usually nonsense. They tend to overestimate the capabilities of coordination of others. People are usually not that organized as assumed. What does that have to do with anything?

Sophist: How can you claim any of this?.

The Fool: with justified argumentation like I have everything like every serious claim. You are the evidence? no ?
Sophist: Stop making blind and ignorant claims, they just make you look more foolish.

The Fool: hahahaah. …hahahha. You got to be Fooling me. Yes more foolish then a Fool. ;) Blind and ignorance are the same as metaphors by the way. Lol They are not accumulative. But they do count as two lies as my claims are not blind nor ignorant? Have I not justified them ? fair.

Sophist: I will address your other post when I get the chance.
The Fool: pls don't. Dude you are done as a credible source of anything. You are official off the Fool's list of rational debaters on DDO. If you don't have a conclusion support by at least 2 premises I am not responding. And I have giving more the enough justification for it. If anybody wants truth just read what I have actually wrote. Just ask this guy, he should know where I wrote these things.

Sophist: Btw, I doubt you have learned Pali and Sanskrit and read the entire Tipitika and every Mahayana Sutra. That's a big mountain of books equivalent to 100 Bibles, many of which arent available unless you willing to pay over several grand for them. I dont believe your claims. I too have taken multiple religion and philosophy courses on religion as well as attended lectures by Venerable Zen masters. And i've read countless scriptures translated by well renowned Buddhist scholars like DT Suzuki, Buddhagosa, and others.

The Fool: you know what, that is really interesting. I doubt you are a dragon. But for the record I am talking about the philosophy about Buddah not the entire history of all forms and extension of world Buddhism. I am an active philosopher. And I have taken philosophy courses on the original Buddha and Buddhism not religious courses. Oh and but this doesn't make sense because I am supposed to be holding he doesn't exist in space or time. Yeah tha t makes sense. Hahahahahaah

GeoLaureate8 You are walking philosophic disaster on your own. you don't need help, to prove yourself wrong .
As a master of Fools I hereby grant you the title of idiocy. Stand proud you have certainly worked hard to it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 4:49:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Uh, wow... What was that incoherent pile of disorganized slop? Lol.

Maybe if your posts included properly quoted excerpts, chronological order, correct grammar, and coherent lines of thought I may be motivated to respond. But you've given me nothing but a headache of a post to respond to.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:59:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 2:18:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The_fool_on_the_hill says that Buddhism is not a philosophy and that the Buddha is not a philosopher, nor did it exist in his time or location. He is false. Here's an explanation of why Buddhism is a philosophy.

I wouldn't say buddha wasn't a "philosopher" :/
(he certainly explained himself sometimes)

But he was also had a streak of "moralizing religionist" in him
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:07:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
oh, I meant to quote my argument for that, and link to that thread you made where you had me explain this to you...
The one where, when I did explain how buddha was an unsupported moralizer, you had no response whatsoever (as was the case in several other threads if you remember)

At 3/21/2011 12:50:08 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Since I myself am compassionate.. I approve of others acting compassionately too.

However Buddha doesn't just say that HE approves of others being compassionate.. he doesn't only suggest that He'd like to see people be compassionate..

he says that ALL buddha's (all who see clearly) are compassionate.

In fact, as I quoted on this page, he suggest that Before one can even Come to see clearly.. one must Practice compassion.

He has the notion that one Ought to act to reduce suffering NOT ONLY in yourself... but in Others too.

From what I can tell This is completely unsupported.. Compassion is caring about/empathizing with other people.. and is either something you have or you don't.. and it's got nothing to do with your ability to understand the nature of the world...

and, there's no reason (beyond trying to hoodwink the masses into carrying out Your Own empathetic will) to say that one who's not so Compassionate "Should Be"...

If I'm empathetic.. I would have others act as I would have them act... And I would rather they be empathetic, so as to ensure they act as I would have them.. But there's no Objective reason that others should act with compassion.

Rather That, as Are All "shoulds", is dependent upon my perspective...

and does not lay claim to being Objective... and cannot stand alone... but rather needs to draw support from what I happen to care about.
http://www.debate.org...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:10:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 4:08:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
If people can call Richard Dawkins a philosopher, Buddha was a philosopher.

I said I wouldn't deny him the title....

I just said I'd call him other names too!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 8:42:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 4:08:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
If people can call Richard Dawkins a philosopher, Buddha was a philosopher.

you didn't see where it came from. I was saying that buddah was a difference kind of philosopher then socrates. and he went bizzark and posted this..lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL