iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 6:21 pm
How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Panda
I was nihilistic for a while, however, what I found that helped me was Buddhism. Nihilism states basically that “Life is suffering and there’s nothing we can do about it”. Buddhism, which -to me-, is the flip side of the same coin of Nihilism…because Buddhism states, “Yes, Life is painful, our attachments to desires make them painful, but you can choose what kind of Pain you wish to go through”.
Again, if some are able to convince themselves that Buddhism is the One True Path to Enlightenment, that "life after death" awaits them and that nirvana is within reach of the most committed then they've achieved the peace of mind I wish I could experience again myself.
Thus...
Notice the following:
1) the person says nothing, at least not in the quote, about Buddhism being the One True Path to Enlightenment. Nor does he or she mention life after death - which would be a bit of an odd thing for many Buddhists to do, since in a sense they don't believe that is persistence of the self through this life. And, then, also that one of the ideas is to not be reborn. But representing Buddhism correctly is a low priority for Iambiguous. His response is absent any connection to what he quoted. 2) The writer says nothing in the quote about nirvana. For all we know from the quotes, the guy found some relief from the pain in life.
For me, this gave me hope and strength, because if Life is indeed Pain, then we can choose what kind of trial and tribulation we want to go through for the most part.
, of course, any number of Buddhists might choose to do so within the confines of the Sangha. Being able to share that One True Path with those who are not ever likely to question it.
Apart from IA's idiosyncratic use of Sangha, he's again not responding to what he quotes, but leaping off IA cliches. His repetition of the One True Path is, of course, idiotic, both in context and in general. First off even a cursory glance at Buddhism would find quite a number of paths with differences over practices and theory, notions of the self and more. Further, many Buddhist respect other paths, as do members of other religions. At least Don Quixote was tilting at windmill, even they weren't giants. Yes, there are Buddhists (and Hindus and....etc.) who think there is only one way to Enlightenment. But then there are others who do not think this. And leader of temples and ashrams have said this out loud in formal settings. You should see how often they speak highly of Jesus on Christmas, for example.
What's crucial is that Enlightenment is configured into day to day rituals and practices. You embody them because that's what enlightened men and women do. And they do so because they are enlightened.
Another hallucinated response to what he quotes. Here he's making up some Buddhist theology. Of course, there are likely Buddhist who might say something like what he is saying, but in general one wonders why he bothers to quote things, when he's just going to go off and make up stuff that is not connected to what he quotes.
It's a lovely concrete example of ongoing confirmation bias. He thinks religions are saying X, so he quotes one and then says things as if what he's quoted confirms his views. If you notice this and mention it, you are a Stooge. The polite thing to do when someone is pontificating is pretend they are making sense.
Not every chance will be offered to us, but when it is, we can decide what path we wish to travel. If life is indeed pain, then let me choose what kind of pain I wish to experience; instead of, the pain being chosen for me by Life.
Here I can only ask any Buddhists among us to note instances from their own life in which they chose their own pain. And, in particular, those contexts in which in choosing one set of behaviors you are confronted with others who insist on their own One True Path instead.
Not being a Buddhist, I'll leave this invitation to the Buddhist who wishes to waste his or her time, talking to someone who doesn't really care and has had his hallucinations pointed out to him before.
Based on nothing, he assumes that Buddhists must be the kind of objectivists he hates, the writer he quotes included. He doesn't seem to understand what the writer actually did say, nor shows much interest in it. He assumes this person is saying something like he or she can avoid certain types of pain: divorce, illness, unemployment, lonliness - and choose others, like perhaps a rash or having to read tripe like Iambiguous's posts. The utter lack of curiosity is, after all this time, still remarkable to me.
Iambiguous is an ongoing lesson in how to see only one's own ideas everywhere. Which is a fancy way of saying 'He sucks as a reader.'
You can find this pattern in post after post, thread after thread. Of course, bots don't mind this kind of sophism. The numbers will still keep going up.