Philosophy

[Kokuu]

Dear all

I know very little about western philosophy. What I do know is based around the philosophy of science which I intuitively grasped through studying science, and by living with a friend who was doing a PhD in political philosophy.

Western philosophy has also seemed to me to be fundamentally less interested in the kind of things I like to think about than eastern philosophy. However, I thought that it was about time that I bit the bullet and learned a little more so subscribed to a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) on the subject delivered by the University of Edinburgh.

Straight away, some ideas from philosopher David Hume reminded me of Buddhist thinking:

As a good empiricist philosopher, Hume thought that it was crucial that philosophy stay true to our sensory experience of the world. However, he argued that our experience tells us much less about the world than we usually think. For example:

• Causation: We never really observe one thing causing another to happen. We might see one billiard ball roll into another, and then see the second billiard ball roll off. But all we really observe are the billiard balls at various times and places.
o Our experience of one ball causing the other to roll off is something extra, over and above the times and places we see the billiard balls occupying.
o So, for Hume, causation isn’t something we observe in the world. It’s something extra that our minds add to the events we observe.

• Ourselves: We never really observe ourselves –we might observe various thoughts, feelings, impressions as they pass through ‘our’ mind, but we never observe the single subject that is supposed to unify, or to have, all these.
o So, for Hume, the idea of a persisting self, over and above the various thoughts and feelings that pass through ‘our’ minds is something extra that our minds add to what we really observe.

I like this a lot as it reminds me of Buddhist ideas of separating empirical sensations from the subsequent judgements we make about them and stories we place on top.

It is also interesting how Hume thinks of the notion of self in a similar way to Buddhism in that it is something fundamentally unfindable.

I know that philosophical questions can have a tendency to disappear down rabbit holes, and for that reason we often do not encourage them so much at Treeleaf, but I found this to be interesting in comparing aspects of eastern and western thought.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Seikan]

Ah, you're tempting me to dive back into that same rabbit hole my friend...

I majored in western philosophy in college, yet while working on both my undergrad and graduate degrees, I also had an underlying current of interest in eastern thought. Therefore, I tended to look for east/west parallels in nearly every western philosopher that I studied.

Hume's "bundle" theory of self was definitely a personal favorite. I was also particularly fond of the Phenomenologists (Heidegger, in particular) and their focus on consciousness as their key topic of study.

Buddhist (and Taoist, for that matter) parallels can be found in the ideas of western philosophers from the Pre-Socratics (e.g., Heraclitus) all the way to present day philosophers. Of course, present-day academics have much easier access to eastern thought, so it is less surprising that their thinking could potentially be influenced by Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Ultimately though (for me anyway), all of the western philosophies ended up stuck too much in the world of "head" knowledge with little real emphasis on how to best interact with the world and alleviate the "suffering" of the human condition. That said, I do enjoy visiting the rabbit hole every now and again for the mental gymnastics that it offers.

Perhaps we should dedicate an upcoming tea house to this topic and see what sort of madness ensues.

Gassho,
Seikan

-stlah-

(apologies for running long here...)

[Kokuu]

Perhaps we should dedicate an upcoming tea house to this topic and see what sort of madness ensues.

Ha! That might be interesting!

I don't mind a bit of philosophy but I agree with you that it can quickly seem to get 'heady' for little purpose (although I am sure there are good reasons for philosophical theorists) and I prefer when there is an obvious practical application.

Good to know you have all of that knowledge hidden away!

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Shade]

Perhaps we should dedicate an upcoming tea house to this topic and see what sort of madness ensues.

I think this could make for some interesting conversation. However, such discussions involving lofty philosophical ideas or anything regarding the relative and absolute may result in one or more persons being muted. (For the record, this is a reoccurring tea house joke. No one has ever been muted for expressing their opinion, I just want to make that clear. Haha)

Gassho,

Shade

ST

[Jinyo]

Dear all

I know very little about western philosophy. What I do know is based around the philosophy of science which I intuitively grasped through studying science, and by living with a friend who was doing a PhD in political philosophy.

Western philosophy has also seemed to me to be fundamentally less interested in the kind of things I like to think about than eastern philosophy. However, I thought that it was about time that I bit the bullet and learned a little more so subscribed to a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) on the subject delivered by the University of Edinburgh.

Straight away, some ideas from philosopher David Hume reminded me of Buddhist thinking:



I like this a lot as it reminds me of Buddhist ideas of separating empirical sensations from the subsequent judgements we make about them and stories we place on top.

It is also interesting how Hume thinks of the notion of self in a similar way to Buddhism in that it is something fundamentally unfindable.

I know that philosophical questions can have a tendency to disappear down rabbit holes, and for that reason we often do not encourage them so much at Treeleaf, but I found this to be interesting in comparing aspects of eastern and western thought.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

Hi there,

this article might be helpful

https://www.philosophylives.com/publications/was-hume-a-secret-buddhist/

it clarified for me what I recall as fundamental differences between Hume's approach/conclusions to the question of 'self' and a Buddhist take (though I wasn't
studying Buddhism at the time). I always felt the Empiricists wanted to ditch metaphysics and if you follow their line of reasoning there's no place to go if you're interested in a spiritual level of human existence. I have only a vague memory of reading Hume now but I think I got bored contemplating the whole billiard balls analogy!

No more words else I'll be going down the rabbit hole - have had to extricate myself so many times

Gassho

Jinyo

[Kokuu]

this article might be helpful

https://www.philosophylives.com/publ...cret-buddhist/

Wonderful! Thank you, Jinyo!

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Kaisui]

Ooh interesting topic. I've been thinking about this lately too, comparisons between Buddhism and philosophies of science, because I've been involved with these too recently while doing a PhD. I have mostly aligned with 'critical realism' or 'scientific realism' for my thesis. In critical realism, it understood that we humans understand the world through our mental conceptions, and as such we can never fully grasp the true complexity of reality, but we can understand it better if we consider multiple angles and different contexts. While studying this, I too noted many parallels with Buddhism.

However, something interesting has recently occurred to me, surprisingly while I was on the cushion in Zazen (oops, yes this was a thought that I latched onto for a little bit...)

Buddhism, perhaps Zen especially, makes a very important point about epistemology (valid ways we can know reality) that I think is missing from other philosophies that I know of - but please tell me if you know otherwise.

While several philosophies may say something similar to Buddhism about how reality is complex or interdependent or ever changing and not fixed (ontology, statements about what the nature of reality is), and about how our conceptions of reality are inaccurate or approximate (epistemology again, how we can know reality), Buddhism I think goes further in epistemology and says something special...

Buddhism says we can know reality directly, beyond our conceptual mind, through meditation.

Do any Western philosophies share this feature that is fundamental to Zen?

,
Charity
sat/lah

[Gareth]

Hume’s “Treatise of Human Nature”, has been fun to read so far, though I got it just before deciding that I should read more Buddhist literature. It is split into a large number of small chapters on all sorts of topics, some only a couple of pages long in the version I have, which has unusually small print. I highly recommend Popper’s “Conjectures and Refutations” - he discusses Hume’s epistemology in some depth.

Gassho,
Gareth

Sat today, Lah

[Jundo]

It is, of course, the role of the Zen fellow to drop in and say ... whatever the sometime parallels and common ground between Zen ways and western philosophy now and then ...

... one sits, dropping all ideas and analysis. leaving the armchair and library for the Zafu. Perhaps later, one can pick up one's copy of A Treatise of Human Nature again! But in the meantime, burn the treatise and sit on its ashes!

So, a little Hume can't hurt ... but Hume misses the mark. Time to put down the mental gymnastics and Just Sit!

Thank you for Hume-ering me.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Seikan]

Jundo to the rescue!


Gassho,
Seikan

-stlah-


Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[Jinyo]

Ooh interesting topic. I've been thinking about this lately too, comparisons between Buddhism and philosophies of science, because I've been involved with these too recently while doing a PhD. I have mostly aligned with 'critical realism' or 'scientific realism' for my thesis. In critical realism, it understood that we humans understand the world through our mental conceptions, and as such we can never fully grasp the true complexity of reality, but we can understand it better if we consider multiple angles and different contexts. While studying this, I too noted many parallels with Buddhism.

However, something interesting has recently occurred to me, surprisingly while I was on the cushion in Zazen (oops, yes this was a thought that I latched onto for a little bit...)

Buddhism, perhaps Zen especially, makes a very important point about epistemology (valid ways we can know reality) that I think is missing from other philosophies that I know of - but please tell me if you know otherwise.

While several philosophies may say something similar to Buddhism about how reality is complex or interdependent or ever changing and not fixed (ontology, statements about what the nature of reality is), and about how our conceptions of reality are inaccurate or approximate (epistemology again, how we can know reality), Buddhism I think goes further in epistemology and says something special...

Buddhism says we can know reality directly, beyond our conceptual mind, through meditation.

Do any Western philosophies share this feature that is fundamental to Zen?

,
Charity
sat/lah

Hi, the whole of Western philosophy seems replete with the urge to understand what kind of knowledge (epistemology) our spiritual/religious/ beliefs and practices rest upon and the method by which that knowledge is acquired or actualized. There is a quest to discover whether we can actualize an untrammelled experience of 'reality' . I did think reading Husserl that he got close with his method of transcendental phenomenology (through a stage he called the 'transcendental reduction)to the actualization of dropping of body/mind as in eastern forms of meditation. Despite the seemingly Asian roots of Husserl's method he was adamant that he was seeking a rigorous science -possibly because he was putting forward a method - which is comparable to what we would term our 'practice'. If Husserl was around in our time I think he might have become a practicing Buddhist but I don't think any of his contemporaries followed through on his methodology. I'm not sure how this goes currently- must have a look.

Gassho

Jinyo

Sat today

[Shonin Risa Bear]

A book makes a splendid little table to rest a Zoomzenkai laptop on. _()_

gassho
d shonin sat/lah this morning

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,


It's been a long time since I've read any of the empiricists but if anyone is familiar with Bishop Berkley it might be a fun comparison (if I remember some of his work correctly.) I would also add that sometimes this type of thinking can help you let go of over conceptualizing. I spent some time with Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and after that I found I didn't really think to much about this stuff. It kind of oriented me to think of language as primarily about utility my encounter with J. L. Austin.

Wittgenstein has a famous line at the end of "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (which I'm pretty sure I only really understood the first line.) "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence".

Any who just some thoughts.

Gassho
Hoseki
sattoday

[Kokuu]

Wittgenstein has a famous line at the end of "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (which I'm pretty sure I only really understood the first line.) "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence".

I like that quote a lot, Hoseki.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Gareth]

My own interest/curiosity is not so much in the connection between Western philosophy and Buddhist literature, but in what the individual philosophers would have thought about Zen - e.g. could Marcus Aurelius have been nudged from Stoicism to Zen, or would he have had objections?

Popper argued against the idea that truth is manifest...but how would he view a letter from emptiness?

Sorry, that is all from me for now though

Gassho,
Gareth

Sat today