Dogma or Existentialism or Relativism?
Does it come down to either Dogma or Existentialism or Relativism?
It seems to me that we all either must adhere to some Dogma in the form of a system (some people may not even be able to articulate their system of philosophy) (this system could be a religion or Marxism, etc), or someone could consciously choose Existentialism(there could be no system.. and we should just do our best to deal with the problems that arise because there could be no system), or one could become a Relativist (there is no possibility of objectivity, only opinion- and all opinions are equal).
Are there other possibilities?
It seems to me that we all either must adhere to some Dogma in the form of a system (some people may not even be able to articulate their system of philosophy) (this system could be a religion or Marxism, etc), or someone could consciously choose Existentialism(there could be no system.. and we should just do our best to deal with the problems that arise because there could be no system), or one could become a Relativist (there is no possibility of objectivity, only opinion- and all opinions are equal).
Are there other possibilities?
Comments (86)
I tend to like dogma. I googled dogma just to make sure, and G offered this synopsis of the movie Dogma at the top of the page:
What I was looking for was "from the Greek 'dogma' (Greek ?????) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" and 'dokein' (Greek dokeo) "to seem good". ("dokeo" went on to have a distinguished career as the expression, "okie dokie" meaning "OK, seems good")
Over time my preferred ????? has changed from Christian idealism to a much more materialist realism. I like knowing where I stand, what the world is about, what will probably happen next, and so on. Relativism doesn't mix with dogma much, except where relativism IS dogma, so that's out.
I'm never sure what existentialism is supposed to be, so it makes poor dogma.
Since these three rings encompass such a large circus of ideas, are more possibilities needed?
Would you like to know what I think existentialism is supposed to be?
I suppose one could choose to be eclectic. But still, wouldn't one then be an eclectic Dogmatist, Existentialist or Relativist?
I'm trying to decide whether I want to continue as a Dogmatist in search of a Dogma to explain, elaborate on and adhere to, or to just accept Existentialism.
I do like reading about the history of Analytic philosophy (the history of the search for a complete system is fascinating), and I enjoy reading Existentialist philosophers.
Of course.
I was about to say foundationalism instead of dogma until @Thorongil aptly mentioned this, but probably take it one step further in that relativism - but in particular existentialism - do form meaning for the individual or at the very least contrast and ameliorate this epistemic structure that enables or strengthens the formation of our identity. For instance, I personally appreciate phenomenal conservatism because it articulates a difference between propositional content from beliefs. I am not entirely sure about both nihilism and relativism; perhaps radical skepticism?
But isn't nihilism a dogma? It seems like a nihilist has to have this kernel of anti-dogma which repels every other dogma.
For me, existentialism is considering the possibility (for some it may be "accepting") that there truly is no system, no dogma to discover and/or adhere to.
Instead of looking for some system (or accepting some system) an existentialist sees the world afresh as a free being who has the first hand experience of finding himself in various situations.
Instead of looking for some system (or accepting some system) an existentialist insists on taking seriously the fact that he is a free being in an essentially meaningless (no system, no meaning) universe (even Christian existentialists consider meaninglessness or absurdity).
An existentialist wonders, "if no system, then how should I live?"
If nihilism is a dogma, then can't the same be said of foundationalism?
Wouldn’t all conceivable stances yet be addressing that which is true (of the ontic)? In which case, there would then be a ubiquitously present meta-position: that of philalethia (the love of truth). … One could add an “-ism” to this term if one likes.
Isn't foundationalism just a theory of knowledge? I'm talking about complete systems of philosophies that would include a theory of knowledge.
If you're talking about the general human condition in general (philosophers and TPF members included), I think some form of dogma tends to be at the root of our understanding and experience of the world. But the word dogma has negative connotations; I think irrational belief, rather, is at the root of all systems of thought, from nihilism to analytic philosophy, to existentialism, to Islamism. A truly rational system of thought would begin with a single root, "I exist", for instance, and then every branch of the system would perfectly follow from that, but no one is so perfectly rational as to be able to develop and maintain such a system. Such a system would actually be incomplete; it would be impossible to live within the world of experience and yet rationally construct such a system from within experience; the system would have to be constructed from outside experience (analysis), but analysis exists within experience. Or, imagine a truly rational system of thought as a straight vertical line, from existence at the bottom, to Truth (or whichever word you like) at the top. There's always a bend in the line somewhere, regardless of the person forming the system.
But dogmatism, as in being unwilling to even question one's own beliefs, is synonymous with fundamentalism; that's why I often argue that atheistic fundamentalism exists just as much as religious fundamentalism does. "Great" thinkers of all beliefs have been dogmatic. The problem with dogmatism is that it sits belief down within a specific cultural chair and refuses to let it move around the room of diverse experience, if you will.
Existentialism, to me, is the closest to a rigorous philosophy. It begins with "I exist", but rather than attempting to construct a truly rational system of belief from that perspective, it simply passively acknowledges the existential root, the starting point, and it integrates all aspects of experience into it's necessarily incomplete system, including rationality. Existentialism doesn't attempt to remove itself from the sea of experience; it acknowledges that the fish can't survive on the shore of pure rationality.
Relativism is just lazy epistemology.
Nihilism seems like less of a set of beliefs held by an individual (other than the occasional 20-something TPF newbie), and more of an ethos in our current milieu. Meaninglessness is a latent theme in consumerism at this point, at least in America, I think.
I guess I don't understand you then.
Further, the participants do not doubt that the conversation is in English.
Funny, that.
Folk take it as read that we ought not believe unless we have a justification.
Ought we doubt the obvious without justification?
Are you familiar with the Buddhist 'parable of the raft'?
One of the Buddha’s most famous teachings is the Parable of the Raft. In it he likened his teachings to a raft for crossing a fast-flowing river.
A man is trapped on one side of a river. On this side of the river, there is great danger and uncertainty; on the far side is safety. But there is no bridge spanning the river, nor is there a ferry to cross over. What to do? The man gathers together logs, leaves, and creepers and by his wit fashions a raft from these materials. By lying on the raft and using his hands and feet as paddles he manages to cross the river from the dangerous side to the side of safety.
The Buddha then asks the listeners a question. What would you think if the man, having crossed over the river thought to himself, That raft has served me well I will carry it on my back over the land now? The monks replied that it would not be a very sensible idea to cling to the raft in such a way. The Buddha went on, What if he lay the raft down gratefully thinking that this raft has served him well but is no longer of use and can thus be laid down upon the shore? The monks replied that this would be the proper attitude. The Buddha concluded by saying, So it is with my teachings which are like a raft and are for crossing over with—not for seizing hold of.
Actually there's a parallel in recent Western philosophy, which is Wittgenstein's analogy of the ladder:
I think that's true, as far as it goes, but it leaves far too much unsaid, as I am sure very few will actually realise that goal of 'seeing the world aright' from reading Wittgenstein - some other ingredients are required. But it is similar in spirit to the Buddhist view, as has often been noted.
Well, personally, I’m here only speaking on behalf of some of the more traditional forms of philosophical skepticism, such as that upheld by Cicero (insert: “global/radical/etc.” in place of “philosophical” if one pleases; this so as to definitively contrast it to philosophical dogmatists who finds “skepticism” for that which they are fully certain not be the case from the very get go … like the hardcore materialist who’s “skeptical” of ghosts):
There is never a good reason to doubt when no contradictions are present to one’s awareness. So, unless one gets to a situation that indicates both Q and not-Q both at the same time and in the same way, not an inkling of doubt is justifiable … but there’s always space for inquiry into anything one wants (from God almighty to … pick your poison) during the leisurely parts of the day. As life has it though, the more one inquires the more apparent contradictions one encounters, and, so, justifications are required to resolve the inconsistencies. But this basic, aforementioned principle is as steadfast as anything.
Not sure how the non-philosophical-skeptics would address this issue, though. A different recent thread on this form now comes to mind.
Edit: Speaking on behalf of the same perspective, I should add that when these contradictions become available to one’s awareness—though one’s life moves on with its hierarchies of priority—these contradictions are nevertheless accepted as givens that need to be addressed so as to be resolved. Whether they’re all remembered becomes a different issue. But rejecting their presence on account of one’s emotive dislike for their presence would, I believe, here be termed dogmatic prejudice regarding what is … and hence not the path of a philosophical skeptic.
Hello anonymous.
Of your three options, I'd say I feel closest to the Relativist position, as I expect the universe is fundamentally incomprehensible, so that objectivity is impossible. But I would not go on to say that 'all opinions are equal'. If 'equal' in that statement means 'identical' then one can easily observe that all opinions are not equal, if only because they are spelled differently. If it doesn't mean 'identical' then I presume it assumes there is some measure that objectively places a real, numeric, value on every opinion so that they can be ordered by value, and that that measure gives the same value for all opinions. But that conflicts with the belief that objectivity is impossible - how can there be an objective measure of the value of an opinion if objectivity is impossible?
Rather, I suggest that being a 'Relativist' implies that one can see no objective way of comparing the worth of opinions. There are of course subjective measures. In my case, I like opinions that are conducive to flourishing.
What about the differences between Aristotle's views and Plato's views? Weren't they each basically promoting a different set of dogma? (and didn't each have a complete system? they covered knowledge, ethics, etc.).
One could decide to look at each of those systems and decide which of those systems (and aren't there other complete systems? Berkely's, Kant's, etc)is closer to some objective truth, or better at explaining reality, or comes closest to describing the "basic furniture of the world". One could even create one's own system. Or one could become an existentialist, or a relativist or a nihilist.
I started thinking along these lines when I was reading Shestov (I think it was him). He suggested that one couldn't be a "real" philosopher and hold a teaching position. Because to hold a teaching position means that one must adhere to and teach a set of dogma, and a "real" philosopher challenges accepted dogma.
I think we're on the same page. I see no reason to disagree.
Plato is transparently non-dogmatic. The Platonic dialogues often entertain widely divergent viewpoints, and frequently encounter aporia, questions about which no real answer can be found. They are suggestive, poetical, sometimes humorous and ironic. Quite often one of his characters will relate a myth that conveys a profound truth, but then say 'oh well, it's a myth'.
Dogma comes along much, much later - when insights have been turned into formulae and repeated by generations of students who maybe don't have much understanding of the original question. That demonstrably happened in the case of the way Aristotle’s works came to be treated in medieval Europe.
But, I think I could probably change my title to "Systems or Existentialism or Relativism or Nihilism" and it would still convey the same idea. Meh... it's a work in progress.
I think it could be said that some seek after systems (some of those who seek after systems are more dogmatic than others)... if not systems, then Existentialism or Relativisim or Nihilism. If one was to seek after systems, then it's healthier to continue to doubt one's system, vs dogmatically assert that it is THE correct way to view reality.
I kinda doubt we'll ever find that complete system, and I wonder if trying to find an analytic way to describe everything could cause one to miss out on living a fulfilling life. For me Existentialism is more down to earth in that it deals with how to live our day to day lives, vs sitting around thinking about stuff. On the other hand, theories of knowledge seem pretty important, and I wonder how existentialists deal with the subject of knowledge.
I think I may start describing myself as an Existentialist who has an affinity for analytic philosophy (although I plan on looking into Phenomenology and other continental ideas).
My two favorite philosophers right now are Gabriel Marcel and Hilary Putnam.
Yeah I agree, and I don't think i suggested that. It looks like we're using "dogma" differently.
Definition of dogma
plural dogmas also dogmata play \-m?-t?\
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets
I think of dogmatism as being unwilling or unable to question ones own positions; the inability to entertain other sources of knowledge than a given set of accepted sources, for instance. But that's probably more of a shade of the meaning of the word, but I'd argue it's probably the dominant one these days.
That definition is ok as a baseline, though. But what you're describing, searching after a system of philosophy, sounds to me more like subjectively searching for the objective, which I think is what we all do anyway, whether consciously or not. I think being conscious of the conditions of the search, as you seem to be, is valuable and will take you far. Actually, a simpler way of putting it is "the quest for truth", But that's too colloquial, right?...
Edit: anyway, there's nothing dogmatic about being on a quest for truth, as far as I can see.
Integrate all known systems, beliefs, dogmas, etc. into one coherent whole.
I believe that that is what Ken Wilber has spent an entire career attempting to do, but I could be wrong.
What? He presents the whole idea of the Forms as 'only a likely story'. Platonism might have its dogmas, but Plato's views and ideas were constantly evolving and changing.
I appreciated your intro to Marcel a few months back - this is from that page:
So - philosophy here is performative, not a set of abstractions and hypotheses and symbols.
That's definitely worth considering. Perhaps I am just projecting the dogmas of Platonism onto Plato.
I do think that good philosophers are those who are always willing to challenge their own beliefs, and consider other possibilities.
Edit: I started reading Plato's dialogues about a year ago, and I really enjoy them. I find myself going back to them often.
Have another look at that quote I provided on the last page, 'the parable of the raft'. If you think about what it's saying, it's radically different from anything you would normally consider dogma. It's very different from the 'our way or the highway' attitude of a lot of Christians.
These are only categories to coming to grips with thoughts past. But philosophy is a truly inventive enterprise -- it creates categories whole-sale. At its edges it makes thoughts ex nihilo -- even though we do spend a lot of time on exegesis and analysis of philosophical history.
If you find these categories unsatisfactory then that is the genesis of new thought.
Just to lay out my prejudices I am most sympathetic to existential philosophy when it comes to meta-ethics, and epicurean when it comes to normative ethics.
First, it is a Sutta, meaning it is said to be something the Buddha really taught. In the Alagaddupama Sutta the Buddha gives two similes which explain how the dhamma that he teaches to the monks ought to be understood, one of which is the parable of the raft.
The parable of the raft starts with the simile of 'a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other.' The 'near shore' and the crossing itself, symbolise 'samsara' or worldly existence, with all of the hazards and dangers that it poses. The 'far sure' represents Nirv??a, freedom from all worldly anxiety and suffering.
So the man says 'What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?'
The 'raft' symbolises the vessel which is used to 'cross the expanse of water' - that is, the very teaching of the Buddha about 'the cause of suffering’ and its end.
I was struck by the simile of the raft being makeshift - twigs and the like 'being bound together' - so that it doesn't present 'the vessel' as being something of fine manufacture, you might say. In a way it's quite self-deprecating.
Then having 'crossed the river', the Buddha says, '"Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"
"No, lord."
So the message is, once the raft has served its purpose, it is discarded. The simile ends with this admonition:
'Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.'
So in other words, this is making the point that the very teaching of the Buddha 'is not something to cling to', but is a makeshift 'raft' which is used for a purpose, and then discarded. Actually such admonitions are not uncommon in Indian spiritual traditions - you find much the same message in Advaita (Hindu) teachings. The whole point is, don't get attached to spiritual teachings. 'To say nothing of adharma' means, if you ought not to get attached to spiritual teachings, then it goes without saying that you should also abandon 'unwholesome practices', i.e. those kinds of activities that are prohibited by the monastic code.
This is the aspect of Buddhism which is generally non-dogmatic, in that it says, don't get attached even to Buddhism. Which is not to say, there aren't Buddhist dogmatists, as I'm sure there certainly are. But it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Buddhism.
I do feel like I'm on a journey to find the best way to make sense of the world and the best way to live my life. I suppose I could take the parable to mean that there may be times when I think I've found that way, when in reality, I may need to give up that way because it is lacking. But, to put it in terms of the parable... there will always be other rivers to cross, so other rafts.
As far as Wittgenstein goes. He seemed to have come to the conclusion that philosophy is meaningless, that there are no real problems in philosophy, and he was so sure of this that he encouraged others to find other things to do besides philosophy. I don't agree with his conclusions.
Presumably they think relativism is objectively better than the alternatives.
I never liked this parable of the raft. Largely because of the ending of "leaving the raft behind" instead of sending it back down the stream so that others may find it and use it to cross the river. An opportunity lost.
I like this. He finds himself in hot water. He (really I) didn't ask for this adventure. No system seems to do this hot water justice. The systems seem to him like wishful thinking. Or to ignore the complexity of the situation. Or to ignore that the situation is his situation. The system is maybe great for humanity. It moves inexorably toward moral progress and increased scientific and maybe even metaphysical knowledge. To the degree that the individual can participate in this and enjoy it, hooray! To the degree that it neglects the specificity of his situation, boooooo.
There is an abundance of leaves and twigs.
No, of course not because the raft is definitely heavy, ideas aren't definitely heavy. The whole parable is a category error, he's basically saying - if you agree with me that my teaching can be like a cumbersome weight, then you should let it go once it's served its purpose. That much is obvious, if something is cumbersome and heavy and you don't know if you're going to need it again, you don't carry it. It doesn't take a Buddha to work that out, you could ask a five year old and he'd tell you the right answer. The question (which remains unanswered) is are teachings cumbersome and unlikely to be re-used once they've got you to nirvana?
So 'what the parable is about' is an objective truth which people can either have insight on or not. I thought you were set against being dogmatic about objective truths.
Can't stand her. No different to religious anti-realists in my opinion. She takes one very general logical truth (we are all rationally self-interested) and then makes one massive unjustified leap - ergo capitalism is right.
Religious anti-realists do the same, take the logical truth 'we can't be certain of anything' and then make the massive unjustified leap - ergo, my religion must be fine.
They're both just sloppy thinking to excuse a lifestyle they've already decided to adopt prior to the charade of pretending to arrive at their conclusions logically.
But nothing earns my respect quicker than agreeing that Ayn Rand is an idiot (she can't even spell Ann, for goodness sake!).
I think you're right. But I often get the sense that describes most of us. And even if we identify with logic and critical thinking, this might involve some kind of 'prior' adoption of a standpoint. Don't get me wrong. I relate to critical thinking and logic. But I in some sense 'find' myself invested. Can I make explicit what is so great about logic and critical thinking? It seems vaguely (if at times intensely) noble.If I reduce it to a kind of prudence, the feeling of the situation is lost.
That's not a logical truth.
Sure, but not everyone has the skill to make them into a raft, even if it's a 'bad' raft. The raft represent the teachings - the teachings may now be useless to you now that you are enlightened, but send them down the river, someone who isn't enlightened may find them, and they will be of use to him/her. The problem isn't only keeping something that is no longer useful to you, the problem is keeping something that isn't useful to you and could be useful to others. I think the Buddhist parable misses this aspect and it doesn't surprise me, given Buddhism's somewhat "selfish" focus on personal salvation (this is only relative to other faiths, not absolute).
(edited slightly)
Regarding systems:
It seems to me like the paradigm is, "What you need to do is to think and analyze... that is THE most important thing to do in life." What about our actions? What about other people? How should we treat them? What about my first person experiences? Do they mean nothing?
But, I still like exploring systems. And I wonder if we'll ever find one that explains everything.
Fair point. I shall refrain from attempting to condense an entire essay's worth of critique into a single epigrammatic sentence in future.
To an extent, yes, but there's a massive difference between 'sloppy' thinking to justify a position we've already decided to hold, and really good thinking to do the same job.
The difference I am trying to express is in respect of the use of the term ‘objective truth’. I think referring to ‘objectivity’ as a criterion for ‘what is really the case’ is misleading in this kind of instance. The truth which the Buddha wishes to convey is soteriological, concerned with transcending the human condition and with the ‘final bliss’ of Nirv??a. ‘Objectivity’ as a criterion has a more limited scope, namely in the judgement of phenomenal facts. Within that domain, ‘objectivity’ is indeed the deciding criterion, but beyond it, it doesn’t necessarily obtain.
Another doctrinal description of the transcendent nature of the teaching:
Brahmaj?la Sutta 37. Note ‘beyond the sphere of reasoning’, which is the domain within which objectivity applies.
Quoting anonymous66
Agree!
OK, so
1. How do we judge soteriological claims then, because there certainly seems to be quite a lot of them around and most are contradictory?
2. How do you know objectivity doesn't obtain beyond phenomenological claims, how did you work that out?
3. How did you know that when I made the comment that Buddha, in his parable, had made a mistake likening teachings to something cumbersome and of limited further use, I was making any claim about objective truth and not a soteriological claim of my own?
Quoting Inter Alia
It’s a bet situation. We aren’t really going to know but we have to try something. Many would say ‘ah well, you’re simply accepting a proposition without evidence. What if you’ve been sold a pup?’
I think part of the answer, in respect of the Buddhist tradition, is that the countenance and deportment of the Buddha and the monks, would communicate a sense of assuredness and confidence - a palpable air of peace and stability which the questioner would sense. That would be evident, and therefore count as evidence. Clearly this is not evident to those of us reading the accounts at second hand but I think ought to be taken into account.
But at the end of the day it does require faith even if only in the sense of being a ‘willingness to try’.
Quoting Inter Alia
In terms of the discipline of philosophy, this is one of the main implications of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.
Quoting Inter Alia
Perhaps I reacted hastily, but I had the sense that you hadn’t really gotten the point. But clearly you are wanting to dig into the issue.
Well, that all makes complete sense, except for three major problems.
1. You mention confidence, peace, and stability as evidence that the prophet knows what they're talking about. Firstly, and most important from an ontological perspective, where did you get those qualities from, what led you to believe that such qualities were more likely to identify a true prophet from a set of potential prophets if objectivity is not being used? Secondly, and most important from a pragmatic point of view, I think most people described Jesus as pretty assured and peaceful, but his version of of salvation seems to be pretty much at odds with Buddha's. Self-assured is pretty much the hallmark of every crackpot guru out there, so all you've done is separate out the ones that seem peaceful. That still hasn't really narrowed it down to anything non-contradictory. You've dismissed my version pretty easily but you don't even know how peaceful I am (self-assured I think I've got pretty much covered!).
2. Kant claimed that we can't know that which is outside our sensual interpretation of the world, not that we can know but by some other means. His synthetic a priori knowledge was that which is logically derived from existence, it certainly doesnt advocate claiming to know something outside of our sense data by some other means.
3. At what point do we re-engage our critical thinking? If Buddha's teachings can be taken on faith, on account of his winning personality, then how do we know when to switch back into critically thinking about it. We seem (you and others) to be having quite a rational conversation about what Buddha meant, using evidence and logic (no one has yet suggested he might have meant we should build an actual raft), but it seems the possibility that he might actually have been talking nonsense has been artificially ruled out of our range of conclusions. This doesn't seem so much like faith as idolotry. People seem to be applying their critical thinking to somehow 'make Buddha right'. Essentially, I don't see how we can combine a faith that he must be right with an expectation that any form of rational analysis might help us to understand what he was saying, how can we know we've had any success with that analysis if we've already accepted that we personally wouldn't know what the 'right' answer looks like, that we must instead rely on a prophet for that insight?
We assume we do not personally know what is 'true' (otherwise we would not be seeking the advice of Buddha) - I have no problem with this.
We assume that whatever Buddha is saying is probably 'true' because his demeanour indicates he's got something right - apart from the problem of how we know what demeanour were supposed to be looking for, I have no problem with this either.
But... We don't seem to know exactly what it is he was saying, there seems to be some ambiguity about it. The same is true of Jesus, Mohammed, even the ten commandments. We're not quite sure exactly what they're saying (hence the massive and still unresolved study of theology).
So, being so sure that whatever they're saying is probably 'true' as evidenced by their countenance doesn't seem to be of any use to us, we still don't know any 'truths' because we don't know exactly what they meant. We're left applying our own thoughts and experiences to the words (very often second- or even third-hand accounts of them) after having just admitted that we wouldn't know what 'true' looked/felt like even if we found it.
We don't seem to have got anywhere.
I think it is important to understand the raft as something we must make ourselves, each one of us. The Buddha does not give you the understanding, what is given to you is just the means. If you want to get to the other side of the river, build a raft.
Quoting Agustino
But this is just the nature of understanding, it is something which each one of us has to create ourselves. It is not something which we can take, ready-made from someone else. So the raft can't be passed on. It's like Plato's cave people, the philosopher may feel the duty to go back and show the way to the people in the cave, beyond the reflections toward the true reality, but unless they have the will to follow, in the first place, they will think that the philosopher is crazy. So without the desire to cross the river, the raft is useless. And once one has the desire, the need for a raft is not an obstacle.
Quoting Wayfarer
That's the point, but the raft still has to be made, and each one of us has to make our own, as we forge our own understanding.
Quoting Inter Alia
Look though, the teaching can be nothing more than giving the student direction. And when the student follows the direction and gets to where the teacher is, the teacher can no longer give the student direction. To go forward from this point, the student must find a new direction, which will necessarily be contrary to the direction which brought the student to that point. It is not like there is one direction for us all, and we mark off the points as if we proceed always in a straight line, always in the same direction, straight toward some distant end. We choose goals, proceed until we get there, then choose a new one. We cannot assume that the direction we proceed from a goal will be the same direction as proceeding to that goal.
Quoting Agustino
But the raft cannot directly represent the teachings, because the raft is something that must be built by the student. So the teachings may direct the student on how to build the raft, once the student has developed the desire to follow the teacher, thus helping the student get to the other side, where the teacher is, but the teacher cannot produce the understanding for the student. So the raft is the understanding itself, and this must be built by the student. When the understanding is produced, the teachings are no longer needed. The student cannot pass along one's own understanding (the raft) to others, only the teachings.
I wouldn't speak against eclecticism, per se at least. I'm more just trying to get at that while categories of thought are useful for our understanding there is still variation within said categories. Existentialism is a prime example -- while there are themes and problems which Existential thinkers seem to grapple with with some similarity, the disparity of thought and argument varies widely among them.
So it's not satisfactory to simply posit three lines of thinking, and then disjunctively find the best solution between them. Disproving two or three whole categories of thought doesn't necessarily get at the arguments or lines of reasoning which you're exploring or thinking about.
You mention systems a lot when talking about dogmatism, and state:
Quoting anonymous66
You also mention a goal here:
Quoting anonymous66
I'd second what another poster has said, in part, and say that I don't think "dogmatism" is the exact right word for the questions you're asking when describing systems or the goal you're after. One could find answers to these questions by appeal to dogma, but I wouldn't say that systematic thought implies dogmatism. Or, at least, if we feel that systematic thought is dogmatism, then that might actually shed light on exactly how you feel about systematic thought -- that it can't be rationally defended, or something along those lines.
For me, it seems that tackling these particular questions is more interesting and worthwhile than parsing them into broad categories of thought, though, just because it allows you to be more specific and pay attention to the details of your thinking. Ideally speaking, at least, I'd say that a system of thought is the result of such thinking, rather than the justification by which we answer these questions. You don't begin with a system and derive answers, you begin with the questions and, perhaps if you are lucky, develop a system of thought.
Hey, no problem. Didn’t find anything specific in my quick reading of his Wikipedia page but did find this on the Wikipedia page De Natura Deorum:
Having read this particular work and a little background—and as is confirmed in the quote above—we was an Academic (i.e., philosophical) skeptic who favored Stoicism in this very addressed work.
I mentioned the guy because he was anything but an ascetic.
Again, an assumption of subjectivism and relativism. It is a Buddhist principle that 'each must traverse the path', but not at all that everyone has to literally 'create the dharma' for him or herself. I think the understanding was, by joining the sangha and observing the discipline, then this comprises 'the vessel'. In fact that is the meaning of 'yana', as in Mahayana.
Which is exactly the conclusion you intended to reach at the outset, I suggest.
So not a strict stoic, I agree. Just one who is sympathetic of stoicism.
If there are other options beside the 3 I mentioned, I'd like to hear them. I think nihilism is a legitimate 4th category. Are there others?
Cicero liked some Stoic ideas
- but he was an Academic Skeptic.
I think that's just a matter of names after the fact. How do you answer the questions you pose? I'd say a piece-meal approach to the questions is better than deliberating between options.
Yup, I acknowledged my error.
You've entirely missed the point of what I was saying. There's nothing at all wrong with your interpretation, but how do we know it's the right one? As I've just discussed with Wayfarer, the only logical reason I can see why we're concerned with something said 2000 years ago would be that this person was particularly wise, wiser than we are, by quite some margin. Someone who has an access to 'the truth' that we do not have (after all, if we had it, we might just as well talk amongst ourselves about the nature of teachings on the subject of salvation). So what we think he meant is irrelevant because we have just admitted that we cannot get to 'the truth', only he can. What matters is what he actually meant, which, as illustrated by the fact we're having this discussion, is ambiguous. We can't ask him, because he's dead, so the whole line of enquiry is pointless.
Yes, I don't quite see how my having predicted the outcome of this discussion at the outset has any bearing on the argument. I'm not yet fully aware of the community protocols here, being quite new, but I thought this was a forum to discuss philosophy, not Buddhism. If you have to already believe that Buddha is our saviour before you can even join the conversation and have your arguments actually responded to in intelligent, impartial manor, then I think we should at least make that clear from the outset as it's very disheartening otherwise.
(Y)
No, I did, it's my opinion of who Buddhists I've spoken to treat his words and how his words are treated here on this thread, as if they alone can take us from our current, less-likeable state to a future more likeable one (nirvana) i.e. 'save' us. It's a perfectly normal use of the word to describe an approach to a a person, the fact that Buddhism itself doesn't use it is irrelevant because I do not believe Buddhism is even a thing, its just a collection of writings by some people, just like you and me, nothing more.
What's more relevant than quibbling over a term is the points I've contributed to this discussion which are routinely being ignored in favour of exegetical analysis of scripture. This is not a theology forum.
That sounds very similar to what I see in Gabriel Marcel's writings.
I keep meaning to read him.
If all opinions were equal, the idea of progress wouldnt make any sense.
Where would you recommend I start?
I'm reading all of Marcel's plays that I can get my hands on, and I'm in the middle of his autobiography. I'm probably doing it backwards, in that I'm reading a lot of secondary literature before I start reading his serious works (but as I mentioned, I am reading his plays and autobiography) The more I read about him, the more I like him and the way he thinks.
I'm starting to look into Phenomenology in general as well.
I am looking forward to reading Berdyaev ( I do own The Meaning of the Creative Act).