RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:50 pm
VA, do you know who H.L. Mencken was? He was not a philosopher but a journalist and an excellent observer of human nature. You have made me think of him, especially two things he wrote. One thing he wrote was:
The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.
When I read what you have written all I see is what you have learned from others, and those others are among the worst possible sources for one's beliefs.
Among the things you have said:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:07 am
[*]Kant argued intensely, ...
[*]What I am discussing had been done philosophically for thousands of years.
[*]Within the Eastern Religion ...
[*]Eastern Religion like Buddhism ...
[*]To the Buddhists, common sense or empirical reality is real ... But when the well-being is threatened by the existential crisis, the Buddhist-proper has to shift perspective to view whatever is real and the empirical-self as an illusion.
[*]Point is you are not thinking deeper and wider, thus stuck in a silo-word of merely common empirical world as perceived by the human visual and conceptual system.
VA, I'm not criticizing you or your views. I personally think they are absurd and dangerous, because I've studied history, and know the consequences of believing the kind of mystic superstitious notions you embrace. I only hope you do not suffer too much because of yours.
Among all the philosophers in history, the worst and most dangerous was Kant with the possible exception of Hume.
Of course people entertained ideas similar to yours for thousands of years, and suffered the consequences of that superstitious ignorance in the form of perpetual incurable diseases, plagues, famines, wars, rampant infant mortality, life-spans of forty or less years, squalor, and ignorance. You really want to go back to that?
Do you really think Eastern religions, like Hinduism and Buddhism, are anything more than superstitious nonsense? You are right, when a Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, or any other Eastern mystic religionist, is "threatened by the existential crisis, the Buddhist-proper has to shift perspective," from the real to some baseless mystical "transcendent" reality, and suffers starvation, sickness, or death, because his "deeper wider" knowledge is absolutely useless in the real world. It will be useless to you too, because it is palpably not true; which reminds me of the other thing Mencken wrote:
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
Take care, my friend!
I have came across the name 'Menken' but it did not stick with me since there are no significant philosophical views from him that are notable.
Philosophically [from a glance in wiki] Menken was merely an empty vessel in philosophical terms. What he was banking on is merely Science in the narrowest sense and perhaps Scientism.
In addition, below reflect badly on him as a human person;
Your referencing to H L Menken has no credibility at all.
Btw, my reference to Eastern Religions was to Buddhism and the likes, not Hinduism in totality, Shintoism, and others.
H L Menken's views are merely based on what he personally dislikes with a leverage on Science and he provide no real arguments. If so, where?
Note whatever I present is NOT religious mumbo jumbo but based on justified true beliefs and based on sound arguments.
You are merely making noises, show me which of my presentation is irrational?
If you insist Kant was the worst and most dangerous, show me your arguments.
Btw, Buddhism-proper is based on rationality.
Note the Dalai Lama stance, i.e.
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
This show you are ignorant of what is Buddhism-proper but yet so arrogantly condemn Buddhism without evidence and justifications.
Btw, the Buddha NEVER advocated asceticism, escapism nor starvation. Where is your evidence to make such a claim?
Yes, there are Buddhists who became ascetics and starve themselves on their own initiatives, but that is not Buddhism-proper.
Of course people entertained ideas similar to yours for thousands of years, and suffered the consequences of that superstitious ignorance in the form of perpetual incurable diseases, plagues, famines, wars, rampant infant mortality, life-spans of forty or less years, squalor, and ignorance. You really want to go back to that?
Where is your evidence for the above claims?
