Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Choosing a Philosophy or Religion

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 1:41:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It seems there has been a misunderstanding as to how I go about picking a philosophy. My post on Jainism was a bit misleading, but I was basically just giving Jainism some exposure as well as appealing to those wishful Atheists (I'm not one) here who say Atheism is depressing and trying to find a religion to believe.

If anyone read Cerebral's convert me debate, it seemed the method of convincing was basically to show consistency of Islam's doctrines and compatibility with science, rather than providing evidence for it's claims.

Anyways, the point is I don't choose philosophy/religions based on which is more desirable, but rather which is philosophically superior. For the same reason a person may choose Objectivism, I chose Buddhism. (Though the word "choose" may not be accurate as I didn't "choose" it, but upon exposure to it, I found it philosophically superior and convincing.)
"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
vivalayeo
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 3:15:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I choose a philosophy based on how justifiable it is. I am not going to argue for something make's little rational sense to me. What click's click's. What doesn't, I learn from and refute it. Simple :P
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 5:48:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 1:41:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It seems there has been a misunderstanding as to how I go about picking a philosophy. My post on Jainism was a bit misleading, but I was basically just giving Jainism some exposure as well as appealing to those wishful Atheists (I'm not one) here who say Atheism is depressing and trying to find a religion to believe.

If anyone read Cerebral's convert me debate, it seemed the method of convincing was basically to show consistency of Islam's doctrines and compatibility with science, rather than providing evidence for it's claims.

Anyways, the point is I don't choose philosophy/religions based on which is more desirable, but rather which is philosophically superior. For the same reason a person may choose Objectivism, I chose Buddhism. (Though the word "choose" may not be accurate as I didn't "choose" it, but upon exposure to it, I found it philosophically superior and convincing.)

That's good to hear.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 6:56:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 3:12:50 PM, innomen wrote:
What do you mean by "superior"?

Philosophically superior in the sense that it has satisfactory and justifiable explanations, sound reasoning, and a wide range of aspects that make it a more complete philosophy.
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 11:31:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 1:41:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It seems there has been a misunderstanding as to how I go about picking a philosophy. My post on Jainism was a bit misleading, but I was basically just giving Jainism some exposure as well as appealing to those wishful Atheists (I'm not one) here who say Atheism is depressing and trying to find a religion to believe.

If anyone read Cerebral's convert me debate, it seemed the method of convincing was basically to show consistency of Islam's doctrines and compatibility with science, rather than providing evidence for it's claims.


Either was valid.

Anyways, the point is I don't choose philosophy/religions based on which is more desirable, but rather which is philosophically superior. For the same reason a person may choose Objectivism, I chose Buddhism. (Though the word "choose" may not be accurate as I didn't "choose" it, but upon exposure to it, I found it philosophically superior and convincing.)

How is Buddhism philosophically superior to non-Buddhism? What is your criteria?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 11:36:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 11:31:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anyways, the point is I don't choose philosophy/religions based on which is more desirable, but rather which is philosophically superior. For the same reason a person may choose Objectivism, I chose Buddhism. (Though the word "choose" may not be accurate as I didn't "choose" it, but upon exposure to it, I found it philosophically superior and convincing.)

How is Buddhism philosophically superior to non-Buddhism?

It's philosophically superior to all the other various philosophies that I have been exposed to.

What is your criteria?

I already explained that in my previous post.
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 11:39:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 11:36:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:31:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anyways, the point is I don't choose philosophy/religions based on which is more desirable, but rather which is philosophically superior. For the same reason a person may choose Objectivism, I chose Buddhism. (Though the word "choose" may not be accurate as I didn't "choose" it, but upon exposure to it, I found it philosophically superior and convincing.)

How is Buddhism philosophically superior to non-Buddhism?

It's philosophically superior to all the other various philosophies that I have been exposed to.

What is your criteria?

I already explained that in my previous post.

No you did not, otherwise I would not have asked. You are being evasive as usual.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 11:41:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 11:39:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:36:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:31:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anyways, the point is I don't choose philosophy/religions based on which is more desirable, but rather which is philosophically superior. For the same reason a person may choose Objectivism, I chose Buddhism. (Though the word "choose" may not be accurate as I didn't "choose" it, but upon exposure to it, I found it philosophically superior and convincing.)

How is Buddhism philosophically superior to non-Buddhism?

It's philosophically superior to all the other various philosophies that I have been exposed to.

What is your criteria?

I already explained that in my previous post.

No you did not, otherwise I would not have asked. You are being evasive as usual.

I think he means when he said, "it has [to have] satisfactory and justifiable explanations, sound reasoning, and a wide range of aspects that make it a more complete philosophy."
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 11:45:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 11:39:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:36:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I already explained that in my previous post.

No you did not, otherwise I would not have asked.

I don't have a criteria in the sense that I go down a checklist and see if it qualifies as most superior. As I said before regarding how I decide if it's philosophically superior:

"[If] it has satisfactory and justifiable explanations, sound reasoning, and a wide range of aspects that make it a more complete philosophy."

You are being evasive as usual.

I never evade, sorry. Also, my post wasn't evasive because I actually had a tangible reference whereas you simply say "I refuted you already" and I say "where?" and then you can't provide a tangible reference it.
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 11:52:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 11:45:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:39:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:36:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I already explained that in my previous post.

No you did not, otherwise I would not have asked.

I don't have a criteria in the sense that I go down a checklist and see if it qualifies as most superior. As I said before regarding how I decide if it's philosophically superior:

"[If] it has satisfactory and justifiable explanations, sound reasoning, and a wide range of aspects that make it a more complete philosophy."

Any chance of you elaborating upon that?


You are being evasive as usual.

I never evade, sorry. Also, my post wasn't evasive because I actually had a tangible reference whereas you simply say "I refuted you already" and I say "where?" and then you can't provide a tangible reference it.

Where have I ever done that? Oh wait I see so basically what you are saying is that because of some petty issues between us you are going to troll me and avoid any semblance of a philosophical discussion? If you are insecure about your beliefs don't post them.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 12:11:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 11:52:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:45:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"[If] it has satisfactory and justifiable explanations, sound reasoning, and a wide range of aspects that make it a more complete philosophy."

Any chance of you elaborating upon that?

Well, Buddhism is a very complete philosophy in that it covers ontology, phenomenology, epistemology, consciousness, metaphysics, cosmology, etc. as well as providing sound justifications and reasoning for it's position concerning each of these philosophies.

Other philosophies and religions are either lacking in some areas, or has unjustifiable assertions or answers.

I never evade, sorry. Also, my post wasn't evasive because I actually had a tangible reference whereas you simply say "I refuted you already" and I say "where?" and then you can't provide a tangible reference it.

Where have I ever done that?

Here: http://www.debate.org...

Oh wait I see so basically what you are saying is that because of some petty issues between us you are going to troll me

I have no personal issue with anybody. If someone throws red herrings around all the time, I'm simply going to point it out.

and avoid any semblance of a philosophical discussion?

This whole thread is an instigation of a philosophical discussion, how is it avoidance?

If you are insecure about your beliefs don't post them.

If I were insecure about them, I wouldn't be sharing them and discussing them. In fact, I'm rather vocal about my beliefs.
"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
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 12:17:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Whoa, both you two should step back a bit and realize you have a lot of similarities which could help you two with having a philosophical debate, yeah? No being snarky.

C_N- He's not trying to be evasive or troll. I'd hear him out. :D

Geo- You could have repeated your "criteria" to clear up the confusion. He didn't do it on purpose to start a fight... :D

Both of ya, breathe... You guys are too intelligent to fall victim to petty insults. Now, I've said my peace. I'll shut up.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 12:38:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 12:17:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
Whoa, both you two should step back a bit and realize you have a lot of similarities which could help you two with having a philosophical debate, yeah? No being snarky.

C_N- He's not trying to be evasive or troll. I'd hear him out. :D

Geo- You could have repeated your "criteria" to clear up the confusion. He didn't do it on purpose to start a fight... :D

Both of ya, breathe... You guys are too intelligent to fall victim to petty insults. Now, I've said my peace. I'll shut up.

geo believes in Aliens, illuminati, reptilians... and has a history of some silly beliefs.

CN is petty.

whatcha gonna do?
"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."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 12:41:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 12:38:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/14/2010 12:17:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
Whoa, both you two should step back a bit and realize you have a lot of similarities which could help you two with having a philosophical debate, yeah? No being snarky.

C_N- He's not trying to be evasive or troll. I'd hear him out. :D

Geo- You could have repeated your "criteria" to clear up the confusion. He didn't do it on purpose to start a fight... :D

Both of ya, breathe... You guys are too intelligent to fall victim to petty insults. Now, I've said my peace. I'll shut up.

geo believes in Aliens, illuminati, reptilians... and has a history of some silly beliefs.

CN is petty.

whatcha gonna do?

I'm going to hope that this site doesn't degrade people into thinking insults override civility because we have anonymity on this site. Philosophical debates can be personal... but shouldn't be personal attacks. Criticize the gods... that's more fun. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 1:00:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Geo, do you believe that choosing a philosophy and finding a religion are the same process, and essentially parallel each other with one having the addition of faith?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 1:13:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 12:11:32 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:52:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2010 11:45:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"[If] it has satisfactory and justifiable explanations, sound reasoning, and a wide range of aspects that make it a more complete philosophy."

Any chance of you elaborating upon that?

Well, Buddhism is a very complete philosophy in that it covers ontology, phenomenology, epistemology, consciousness, metaphysics, cosmology, etc. as well as providing sound justifications and reasoning for it's position concerning each of these philosophies.

Other philosophies and religions are either lacking in some areas, or has unjustifiable assertions or answers.

I did not ask for you to repeat the same statement just with bigger words.


I never evade, sorry. Also, my post wasn't evasive because I actually had a tangible reference whereas you simply say "I refuted you already" and I say "where?" and then you can't provide a tangible reference it.

Where have I ever done that?

Here: http://www.debate.org...


You ignore the thread that was referenced in my argument with you. So I repeat where have I ever done that.

Oh wait I see so basically what you are saying is that because of some petty issues between us you are going to troll me

I have no personal issue with anybody. If someone throws red herrings around all the time, I'm simply going to point it out.

Asking you to expand upon YOUR statement is not a red herring.


and avoid any semblance of a philosophical discussion?

This whole thread is an instigation of a philosophical discussion, how is it avoidance?

You are avoiding a philosophical discussion with me.


If you are insecure about your beliefs don't post them.

If I were insecure about them, I wouldn't be sharing them and discussing them. In fact, I'm rather vocal about my beliefs.

No, you are vocal in stating that you are a buddhist, you are vocal concerning the magic lizards, what you fail to mention is why you adhere to such views. As this thread shows you simply become aggressive dishonest and evasive.

Lets try a different tactic, why are a Buddhist and not a Jain? No I am not asking for a vague statement to the effect that Buddhism is better, but an actual explanation.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 1:15:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 12:38:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/14/2010 12:17:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
Whoa, both you two should step back a bit and realize you have a lot of similarities which could help you two with having a philosophical debate, yeah? No being snarky.

C_N- He's not trying to be evasive or troll. I'd hear him out. :D

Geo- You could have repeated your "criteria" to clear up the confusion. He didn't do it on purpose to start a fight... :D

Both of ya, breathe... You guys are too intelligent to fall victim to petty insults. Now, I've said my peace. I'll shut up.

geo believes in Aliens, illuminati, reptilians... and has a history of some silly beliefs.

CN is petty.

whatcha gonna do?

It is not petty to politely ask someone why they believe something on a forum on a debate site... but yea, I am.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 1:21:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 12:41:54 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 8/14/2010 12:38:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/14/2010 12:17:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
Whoa, both you two should step back a bit and realize you have a lot of similarities which could help you two with having a philosophical debate, yeah? No being snarky.

C_N- He's not trying to be evasive or troll. I'd hear him out. :D

Geo- You could have repeated your "criteria" to clear up the confusion. He didn't do it on purpose to start a fight... :D

Both of ya, breathe... You guys are too intelligent to fall victim to petty insults. Now, I've said my peace. I'll shut up.

geo believes in Aliens, illuminati, reptilians... and has a history of some silly beliefs.

CN is petty.

whatcha gonna do?

I'm going to hope that this site doesn't degrade people into thinking insults override civility because we have anonymity on this site. Philosophical debates can be personal... but shouldn't be personal attacks. Criticize the gods... that's more fun. :P

I'm sorry miss.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 1:22:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 1:21:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/14/2010 12:41:54 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 8/14/2010 12:38:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/14/2010 12:17:39 AM, annhasle wrote:
Whoa, both you two should step back a bit and realize you have a lot of similarities which could help you two with having a philosophical debate, yeah? No being snarky.

C_N- He's not trying to be evasive or troll. I'd hear him out. :D

Geo- You could have repeated your "criteria" to clear up the confusion. He didn't do it on purpose to start a fight... :D

Both of ya, breathe... You guys are too intelligent to fall victim to petty insults. Now, I've said my peace. I'll shut up.

geo believes in Aliens, illuminati, reptilians... and has a history of some silly beliefs.

CN is petty.

whatcha gonna do?

I'm going to hope that this site doesn't degrade people into thinking insults override civility because we have anonymity on this site. Philosophical debates can be personal... but shouldn't be personal attacks. Criticize the gods... that's more fun. :P

I'm sorry miss.

I forgive you.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 7:08:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Geo, this whole thread sort of begs a bigger question: Why do you personally feel the need to have a philosophy. Do you have a need for a doctrinal structure in your life, something that you can follow? Or (more likely) are you looking to further define yourself, i.e. create an identity, this is really common for someone your age. I don't say that with disrespect, but most people don't peruse ideologies like they're shopping for shoes.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 11:24:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 7:08:50 AM, innomen wrote:
Geo, this whole thread sort of begs a bigger question: Why do you personally feel the need to have a philosophy.

I don't. I find philosophy interesting and I have been convinced that a certain philosophy accurately describes reality.

Do you have a need for a doctrinal structure in your life,

No.

something that you can follow?

No, I'm a freethinker.

Or (more likely) are you looking to further define yourself,

"No self is true self and the greatest man is nobody." - Chuang Tzu

i.e. create an identity,

The desire to create an identity is already falling into the trap of an inauthentic life.

this is really common for someone your age.

Not much about me is common for my age nor does age mean anything to me.

I don't say that with disrespect,

I find this to be a rather gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of me, but not disrespectful.

but most people don't peruse ideologies like they're shopping for shoes.

I have never pursued an ideology. The philosophies I identify with are DESCRIPTIVE not prescriptive. I don't select or choose philosophies, they.come to me through means that are convincing.

In fact, I am quite the opposite of what you think. Whatever "ideology" I currently hold, and whatever ideology I have held, I was thouroughly convinced of it and therefore dont seek other ideologies. It is only when I am simultaneously shown that the my current one is false and another way of thinking is right do I change.

Let me ask you, have you seen any indication from me that I want to abandon my current philosophies for another one? NOT a chance.
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 11:32:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So I not ever going to get a reply, as per usual.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 3:05:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 11:24:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/14/2010 7:08:50 AM, innomen wrote:
Geo, this whole thread sort of begs a bigger question: Why do you personally feel the need to have a philosophy.

I don't. I find philosophy interesting and I have been convinced that a certain philosophy accurately describes reality.

Do you have a need for a doctrinal structure in your life,

No.

something that you can follow?

No, I'm a freethinker.

Or (more likely) are you looking to further define yourself,

"No self is true self and the greatest man is nobody." - Chuang Tzu
Geo, the fact that you had to quote someone else to help you describe where you are with your identity tells me something right there.

i.e. create an identity,

The desire to create an identity is already falling into the trap of an inauthentic life.

this is really common for someone your age.

Not much about me is common for my age nor does age mean anything to me.


I don't say that with disrespect,

I find this to be a rather gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of me, but not disrespectful.

but most people don't peruse ideologies like they're shopping for shoes.

I have never pursued an ideology. The philosophies I identify with are DESCRIPTIVE not prescriptive. I don't select or choose philosophies, they.come to me through means that are convincing.

In fact, I am quite the opposite of what you think. Whatever "ideology" I currently hold, and whatever ideology I have held, I was thouroughly convinced of it and therefore dont seek other ideologies. It is only when I am simultaneously shown that the my current one is false and another way of thinking is right do I change.

Let me ask you, have you seen any indication from me that I want to abandon my current philosophies for another one? NOT a chance.

Yes, your criteria for choosing one would indicate that should you find another one that meets your subjective idea of superior you would abandon your current one that would then be deemed inferior.
Do you think that the adoption of a faith or religion is the same process as that of an ideology or philosophy?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 3:10:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/14/2010 1:13:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Asking you to expand upon YOUR statement is not a red herring.

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to this red herring ad hominem:

"Oh wait I see so basically what you are saying is that because of some petty issues between us you are going to troll me and avoid any semblance of a philosophical discussion? If you are insecure about your beliefs don't post them." - You

No, you are vocal in stating that you are a buddhist, you are vocal concerning the magic lizards, what you fail to mention is why you adhere to such views. As this thread shows you simply become aggressive dishonest and evasive.

lolz at me being aggressive. I have been anything but aggressive, and rather calm in comparison to you. I have not shown any dishonesty and your declaration of such seems like an attempt to grasp for things to pick at.

Lets try a different tactic,

Thank you for putting this forth.

why are a Buddhist and not a Jain? No I am not asking for a vague statement to the effect that Buddhism is better, but an actual explanation.

This is a rather difficult question, but I'll gladly explain.

Buddhism initially appealed to me because its empirical attitude and philosophy actually challenged the current philosophy I had held at the time (sort of New Agey). At that point, I had realized the error of my way of thinking and was thus drawn to Buddhism. I also found it's goal of Enlightenment to be a rather noble goal and after studying it's philosophy further it resonated as true. Also, the discourses of Buddha blew me away with his advanced way of thinking and argumentation, especially for his time (and even to this day). Jainism, while being an interesting religion, didn't offer any of that.

(If you want me to expand upon the specifics of Buddhist philosophy, I can do that as well, but in a different thread.)
"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
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 3:29:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/15/2010 3:05:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/14/2010 11:24:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/14/2010 7:08:50 AM, innomen wrote:
Or (more likely) are you looking to further define yourself,

"No self is true self and the greatest man is nobody." - Chuang Tzu
Geo, the fact that you had to quote someone else to help you describe where you are with your identity tells me something right there.

You completely missed the point of that quote. The point is, I don't care about identity, the thought never crosses my mind, and I find the thought of identity inauthentic and meaningless.

I have never pursued an ideology. The philosophies I identify with are DESCRIPTIVE not prescriptive. I don't select or choose philosophies, they.come to me through means that are convincing.

In fact, I am quite the opposite of what you think. Whatever "ideology" I currently hold, and whatever ideology I have held, I was thouroughly convinced of it and therefore dont seek other ideologies. It is only when I am simultaneously shown that the my current one is false and another way of thinking is right do I change.

Let me ask you, have you seen any indication from me that I want to abandon my current philosophies for another one? NOT a chance.

Yes, your criteria for choosing one would indicate that should you find another one that meets your subjective idea of superior you would abandon your current one that would then be deemed inferior.

False. Being open-minded is not the same as actively seeking another philosophy. I am well-grounded and firm in my current beliefs. My criteria isn't really a critieria, but more of a way to describe what it would take to make me convinced of something else. Again, that in no way means I am seeking out other philosophies. In fact, I'm more inclined to criticize all philosophies that aren't my own, rather than be open to accept them.

Do you think that the adoption of a faith or religion is the same process as that of an ideology or philosophy?

Well, religion in general tends to appeal to man's emotional and irrational side whereas philosophy appeals to man's reason.

In the case of Buddhism, it appeals to man's reason and emotional side (basically the passion/devotion aspect, not necessarily the emotion associated with loving Christ, Allah, etc.)
"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
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 3:55:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 1:41:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It seems there has been a misunderstanding as to how I go about picking a philosophy. My post on Jainism was a bit misleading, but I was basically just giving Jainism some exposure as well as appealing to those wishful Atheists (I'm not one) here who say Atheism is depressing and trying to find a religion to believe.

If anyone read Cerebral's convert me debate, it seemed the method of convincing was basically to show consistency of Islam's doctrines and compatibility with science, rather than providing evidence for it's claims.

Anyways, the point is I don't choose philosophy/religions based on which is more desirable, but rather which is philosophically superior. For the same reason a person may choose Objectivism, I chose Buddhism. (Though the word "choose" may not be accurate as I didn't "choose" it, but upon exposure to it, I found it philosophically superior and convincing.)

You may think you do, but unfortunately psychology has demonstrated fundamental biases inherent in everyone. If you think your reasons for choosing your belief systems are purely rational, I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 4:02:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/15/2010 3:55:24 AM, Kinesis wrote:
You may think you do, but unfortunately psychology has demonstrated fundamental biases inherent in everyone. If you think your reasons for choosing your belief systems are purely rational, I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

I didn't say the reasons were purely rational. I said "philosophically superior and convincing." I find many things other than bare logic to be convincing.
"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
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 4:11:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/15/2010 3:29:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/15/2010 3:05:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/14/2010 11:24:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/14/2010 7:08:50 AM, innomen wrote:
Or (more likely) are you looking to further define yourself,

"No self is true self and the greatest man is nobody." - Chuang Tzu
Geo, the fact that you had to quote someone else to help you describe where you are with your identity tells me something right there.

You completely missed the point of that quote. The point is, I don't care about identity, the thought never crosses my mind, and I find the thought of identity inauthentic and meaningless.
As i think you are missing my point.

I have never pursued an ideology. The philosophies I identify with are DESCRIPTIVE not prescriptive. I don't select or choose philosophies, they.come to me through means that are convincing.

In fact, I am quite the opposite of what you think. Whatever "ideology" I currently hold, and whatever ideology I have held, I was thouroughly convinced of it and therefore dont seek other ideologies. It is only when I am simultaneously shown that the my current one is false and another way of thinking is right do I change.

Let me ask you, have you seen any indication from me that I want to abandon my current philosophies for another one? NOT a chance.

Yes, your criteria for choosing one would indicate that should you find another one that meets your subjective idea of superior you would abandon your current one that would then be deemed inferior.

False. Being open-minded is not the same as actively seeking another philosophy. I am well-grounded and firm in my current beliefs. My criteria isn't really a critieria, but more of a way to describe what it would take to make me convinced of something else. Again, that in no way means I am seeking out other philosophies. In fact, I'm more inclined to criticize all philosophies that aren't my own, rather than be open to accept them.
Geo, What it takes for you to be convinced is your criteria.

Do you think that the adoption of a faith or religion is the same process as that of an ideology or philosophy?

Well, religion in general tends to appeal to man's emotional and irrational side whereas philosophy appeals to man's reason.

In the case of Buddhism, it appeals to man's reason and emotional side (basically the passion/devotion aspect, not necessarily the emotion associated with loving Christ, Allah, etc.)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 5:51:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/15/2010 4:02:36 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/15/2010 3:55:24 AM, Kinesis wrote:
You may think you do, but unfortunately psychology has demonstrated fundamental biases inherent in everyone. If you think your reasons for choosing your belief systems are purely rational, I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

I didn't say the reasons were purely rational. I said "philosophically superior and convincing." I find many things other than bare logic to be convincing.

Hmm...you said you didn't choose your beliefs because they were desirable, which is virtually impossible given modern psychology. Your entire world-view, which determines which philosophies, world-views, music and everything else you find compelling is a product of mostly irrational indoctrination and inherent biases.

You might think you are a free thinker, but the truth is that your thoughts, beliefs and world-view are a product of a largely irrational society and millions of years of evolution concerned solely with survival and not with discovering metaphysical truths .

Bottom line: you don't choose philosophies or religions because they are philosophically superior. You choose them because you think they are superior for ultimately irrational reasons.