Permanently Deleted
Definitely. The category of "eastern philosophy" is obviously muddled when you start thinking about it geographically. East=Asia so eastern philosophy would include every where from Ankara to Sri Lanka to Hokkaido. It would include beliefs and traditions related to all the largest world religions.
OK maybe don't feel terrible that you don't like something? Ignore what people online tell you you should like.
I mean you could try Alice in Chains if you don't like Nirvana, I like them better.
You should read Zizek (I'm begging people , please engage with him beyond youtube!), I think his position on Buddhism is fairly congruent with yours and he would likely give you a more in depth critique. My short circuited take is that Buddhism (and lots of (post)structuralism and Heidegger etc.) raises death to the level of the sublime (death as rendered non-antagonistic to Being, death as the mere fact of life's passing) while positing the possibility of a moment of (impossible) autopoetic harmony with life as such (through withdrawal, meditation, nirvana etc.) wherein death is torn from its sublimity, overcome, and treated as mere contingent excess to life. The issue with this sublime concept of death which is necessary for positing separation from worldliness in nirvana is that one must presuppose the world as a constituted, harmonious whole which treats life and death as a complementary duality. Of course all life must pass, but everyone of experience can attest that death's entrance into their world does anything but introduce harmony. Death is not dissonance to life's consonance, but that which dissolves harmony as such.
You should check out the podcasts Red Library and Why Theory. The latter is definitely very RadLib (lots of orange man bad and I think even a positive mention of Russiagate at some point lmao) and they critique Marxists often on the terms of a pretty vulgar understanding of Marxism, but I think they are amazing at talking clearly about Zizek, Hegel et al; plus I think that its important to understand and engage with their antagonism to some (quasi)Communist ideals because I think a proper Marxist and Dialectical Materialism has to be able combat notions of the Communist project as being utopian and naive egalitarianism. However Red Library is comrades, they're sick, but the podcast is ending soon. I'm kinda disappointed I didn't get all that involved in their little online community (I'm bad at discord), but I taught myself a fucking shitload of political theory through them and their book recs. I certainly did not take Zizek seriously before listening to them.
Also Alenka Zupancic is another Slovenian author who considers herself a part of the same project as Zizek. She writes in a much more focused manner than Zizek and doesn't often do the "I'm going to give myself the worst grounds to argue from so as to undermine it from within" thing that Zizek does a lot and which can be confusing/problematic to people ( I mean I think it's important to force readers to think in the negative, but it's hardly a natural inclination and not easy to approach). Like when Zizek criticizes AES all the time while simultaneously calling himself a Stalinist, the most difficult and radical step is not to dismiss this as charlatanism, but to take it extremely seriously.
Also the podcast Machinic Unconsciousness Happy Hour engages with Lacan and Zizek a bunch, but from a more Deleuzian/Anarchist perspective. I don't listen to them a shitload, but they seemed pretty cool and open minded.
I wouldn't trip about being pissy about the promise of nirvana tho, the main thing I like about this site is its willingness to be pissy and antagonistic towards things.
idk western philosophy has produced a lot of cool shit like marxism for example, but I guess you werent describing academic philosophy but more like culture
Maybe try African philosophy? I don't know where you would start, but it could be interesting.
Also, may I ask if you've read any of the Socratic dialogues? I don't mean to be rude, but to me it sounds like you have a somewhat limited perspective on western philosophy, and the Socratic dialogues would be a good place to start.
Read whatever you want, but please don't just dismiss western philosophy outright like this, remember that western philosophy gave us Marxism, many variants of Anarchism, Existentialism and many many other philosophies that have the intention of being liberating.
And, reading western philosophy is good because many of us, (including you and me) actually subscribe to some unfounded ideas from western philosophy without even realizing it, by understanding western philosophy better, you may be able to also be able to understand how western philosophy and society has shaped your worldview, and perhaps then reading eastern philosophy will feel more fulfilling, as you will be able to approach it while being more aware of your biases.
I meant that you are a westerner, and you approaching eastern philosophy like a westerner because you are not aware of how the western approach has developed over time, making you think it's the universal way of thinking. By not learning about western philosophy, you are actually making yourself more susceptible to it. To me the way you complained budhism not really qualifying as scientific philosophy show to me that you subscribe to some enlightenment era western notions of science, and there isn't anything wrong with that, but you are biased without even being aware of the fact that you're biased. This is kinda what Zizek is rambling about when talks about ideology .
Being aware that you're biased and being aware of what your biases are not the same thing.
Nietzsche is a very good philosopher, but he is very individualistic which is probably why you have the idea that all western philosophy is very individualistic. But there are many philosopher from the west who aren't. So, if you are interested in philiosophy, please, start over at "The Republic" and then make your way up from there (you can skip most western philosophy after Plato and before Descartes).
Yeah sure I can agree with that, it's a good idea to read both and it's true that there are many points of similarities between the two , it's just that I tend to recommend people to read the philosophy that their society holds to be true first, for all the reasons I've stated above.
A key thing the remember is that western philosophy is an invented category that I'm pretty sure (just like the concept of "the west") only came about in the 18th or 19th century (see this graph ).
This especially true with ancient thinkers like Socrates or Plato. They are only in the "western" tradition post-hoc because they predate the conception of the west by thousands of years. Historically, Socrates and Plato are just as much part of the Islamic philosophical tradition.
Yes, this is often overlooked, similarly to how the "empiricist vs rationalist" debate was probably overinflated in it's importance after the death of Hume and Leibnez by Kantians.
I think you have some misconceptions about what Buddhism is and what the goals of Buddhism are. You said that you've read some on this topic, would you mind sharing what sources you've read from?
In this sutta the monk Māluṅkyaputta approaches the Buddha and demands that he answer a series of metaphysical questions. He wants to know whether the universe is finite or infinite, whether the soul and the body are the same or different, etc. The Buddha refuses to answer these questions though and instead says that he never promised answers to those questions, only a path to liberation from the karmic cycle. In what I think is the most illuminating part of the text, the Buddha says that asking such questions is like someone being struck by an arrow and refusing to have it removed until they know who shot the bow, who were their parents, who made the bow, who fletched the arrow, etc. Much like surgery and medicine, Buddhism is not a philosophy it is a practice. If you don't practice you can not grasp the true meaning even if you read every book ever written on the subject.
I want to try and point out a few of the misconceptions that I think you have expressed or I have seen expressed in the comments. The first and maybe the most important is that of the Four Noble Truths. A lot of people in the West say that the First Noble Truth is that "Life is suffering" but this is not a good transmission. Something closer to the original intent would be "In life there is suffering" the key difference is that the second definition does not imply that the whole of existence is constant suffering. All together the Four Noble Truths could be stated as:
- In life there is suffering
- There is a path that leads to suffering
- In life there is joy/peace
- There is a path that leads to joy/peace
The path that leads to peace is the Noble Eightfold Path and it lays out direct steps that one can take to lead them forward on the path towards joy/peace. Together, the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path make up the core of Buddhist teachings.
Now, to your point about being a centrist. In fact, this is also present in the Buddha's teachings and there is another sutta you may enjoy but I'll have to link it later. In the sutta there is a young boy who plays a stringed instrument (I forget the name!) beautifully but after meeting the Buddha he is so inspired that he takes the vows of a monk. In an effort to improve as fast as he can he goes off into the woods alone and promises to not come back until he is enlightened. After a day or two the Buddha goes searching for the boy and he takes with him the boys old instrument. Before finding the boy the Buddha stops and detunes the strings so that they no longer have any tension. When he finds the boy he asks him to play a song on the instrument but the boy says that it is impossible with the strings so loose. So, the Buddha tightens them until they are almost at their breaking point but the boy points out that this could never work either. He hands the instrument to the boy who tunes it properly and plays a wonderful melody. When he is finished the Buddha says to him "See, we are just like this instrument. If we go too far in the direction of desire or too far in the direction renunciation we can not mindfully operate." This is the Middle Way.
You seem to think that Buddhism advocates a renunciation of all worldly pleasure but this is not true. Renunciation is an important part of practice and is practiced to different extents among lay people and monks, but it does not mean a renunciation of everything. An interesting experiment you might try is to pick something from your everyday life and choose not to use it for a day or maybe even a week. It may be coffee, or tv, or dairy, or a social media app, maybe this website. Observe how your body and mind react to this. In most cases it will be negative because your mind and body are clinging to the sensory stimulation that they are used to, but if you can stick it out for long enough you may discover that there are many positives too. As a personal example, I have recently decided that I didn't want to constantly be listening to music or podcasts and at first I felt really fucking bored. Doing dishes, cooking, cleaning the house all became that much worse and I noticed myself reaching for my phone a lot. But after a while those restless feelings simmered down and I began noticing things that I hadn't before. How I hold my body when I am sweeping the floors and the way my muscles move. The flow of my breathe when I am typing at my computer and the way it makes my eyes hurt if I spend too much time on it! You may want to give it a try sometime! By removing certain pleasures we can open up space for other pleasures that connect us more to our bodies and the present moment to exist.
The next point of misunderstanding is that Buddhism is about stopping all feelings. This is actually the opposite of the truth! The Buddha always taught how to get in touch with our feelings, how to observe their impermanence which is their true nature. The practice of Buddhism is the practice of allowing our feelings to arise without acting impulsively on them. When you love someone you aren't literally feeling the emotion of love at all times. The feeling arises in you do to causes and conditions such as seeing or hearing something that reminds you of them. When you are not thinking of them you are not "feeling" love but you most likely would never say that in those moments you don't love them. In the moments that love does arise in you of course you can enjoy it! The key is to not be overtaken by it and to know that the feeling is temporary and lasts only as long as the causes and conditions do.
I know you said that eastern philosophy doesn't appeal to you so this is only for if you want to give it another try! I think you should try to be more curious about the practical steps you could take to implement the Buddhist teachings. Talking about Nirvana at this stage would be like if someone who never held a cello before picked one up and expected to play like Yo-Yo Ma! I would highly recommend the book "The Mind Illuminated" for a secular and very neuroscience heavy introduction to meditation practice. Also, Plum Village on Youtube has a ton of free Dharma talks and guided meditations which is where I learned a lot about Buddhist practice. And if you want to talk more I would love to! Buddhism was actually a major influence on me in developing my political ideology and it helped lead me away from the liberal/capitalist mindset.
My point about Nirvana was that I think it could be useful to shift the framework of your thinking away from the "ultimate goal" and towards the goal of "how can I find peace in the present moment" You've said before that it is difficult for you to not follow something to its logical conclusion, but Buddhism is not a philosophy it is a practice. A cello player might hold in mind their aspiration to play like Yo-Yo Ma but they need to learn a lot before they can really start to dive into his work! Similarly, it can be useful to hold the idea of enlightenment in mind but we need a lot of first-hand experience before we can truly grasp the meaning of Nirvana.
You have it exactly right when you ask whether the goal should be to mediate and reign in emotions! My question to you is how can you tell if something causes more good than harm? In Buddhism there are three general categories of feeling. There are feelings that are unpleasant, feelings that are neutral, and feelings that are pleasant. But these feelings are always interconnected you cannot have one without the others! Think about when you have a toothache, it is a cause of suffering. If you can go to the dentist and have it fixed that is a cause of joy but it fades fast. How often do you stop and think about your teeth when they are not hurting? Everyday our teeth do so much for us but we hardly notice. Neutral feelings are often very subtle and overlooked even if they are the cause of much joy in our lives! The practice of mindfulness helps us connect with these feelings and transform them into joy and peace. Now think of a child who is eating some candy, it is a pleasant experience but often they will eat too much and get sick which is unpleasant. If we learn to practice mindfully we can eat a piece of candy, and recognizing the the pleasant feeling is temporary, fully enjoy that piece! The neutral feeling here could be something like eating plain rice. How often have you had rice and really tasted the full flavor of the rice alone? Next time you eat rice, try and eat just a mouthful and really chew it for a while. As our teeth and saliva break the rice down the subtle flavor evolves and it can be quite pleasant!
Something else that I've noticed is that you seem to hold in you the idea that Buddhism teaches us to accept feelings/experiences and do nothing and that it is simultaneously too much effort. The Buddha taught ways to take our experiences/feelings and transform them so that we do not suffer from them. On the outside this may look like nothing but there is a very real transformation that we can create and through this transformation we can better decide how to act.
One of the keys to successfully being able to practice meditation is to not be too hard on ourselves! We aren't monks so we don't need to renounce all worldly pleasures and modern life throws a million challenges at us daily. You don't have to strive for perfection. The Buddha's teachings are like following the north star. The goal is to travel north not to reach the star! Something that a teacher of mine once said was that we should try and hold ourselves with more compassion. If you think about meditation during the day notice that aspiration and try to smile to yourself. If you notice that you think about it a lot during the week try to stop and take a single mindful breath, really feel the in breath and the out breath. Don't worry if you only remember to do it 1/10 times, if you do it 1/10 times consistently enough then it will transform into 2/10 then 5/10 then 10/10! Just like with weight training we need to start with what we are able to do and slowly work our way up. You may also like to try sitting meditation or walking meditation. Even if it is just for 5 minutes a week if you really practice I know that you will start to see some benefits!
Sorry for jumping in on another (good) conversation, but I saw that you’ve made a few posts on the topic, and was interested in this theme of following an idea or framework of ideas to their “logical conclusion” of some anticipated, undesirable extreme. I can seriously relate to the need to beat myself up out of some sort of perceived failure to live my life “properly”, in part reinforced by the dichotomy of “being a productive member of society” and “being useless” that’s imposed on pretty much all of us from birth.
For myself, a meditation practice has been helpful for catching myself when I fall into these thought patterns. When I notice myself feeling frustrated with myself for a lack of progress, or distress over some perception that I could be making much better use of my time than smoking weed and playing a video game, it’s been a lot easier for me to defuse that feeling before going into a mental tailspin. These concepts of “what I should be” are illusory and inherently unattainable (like the idea of being perfectly mindful all the time, when mindfulness itself is something that comes and goes, as with everything else.) And even if that anxiety might still arise, it’s been easier not to identify myself with it to the point of self-perpetuating distress.
Apologies if that didn’t make sense/doesn’t resonate lmao, as a full disclosure I am going through some med withdrawal so “brain machine broke”, but let me know if I can clarify anything. As full disclosure I’m one of those “perennialists” (i.e. see a lot of these spiritual practices sharing a broader metaphysical origin and goal) and think people should follow whatever path most resonates for them on every level down to aesthetic - but I’m wondering if your issue lies not with Buddhism itself, but potentially some other thought-pattern that this specific idea of Buddhism’s “conclusion” tends to evoke.
No worries comrade I didn't see it as lashing out! I also want to make it clear that I'm not trying to convert you or anything haha you just seem genuinely curious about the practice and I wanted to try and clarify a few points/share some of my own experiences. If you think that this is something that you want to pursue more I'd highly recommend trying to find a meditation center near you. They are usually run by lay practitioners and the dharma talks should be free. Learning from more experienced people can help you overcome some of the common roadblocks that we all face and even if you don't really like it you might make a new friend. I met my partner of 2 years at a meditation center and she has been the best thing to happen in my life!