Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
#451445


Hello and greetings :D

Buddhism has its central spiritual philosophy,
and the central part of this philosophy pertains
to our deep understanding of the nature of our self,
the first-person "I", our spiritual understanding of who we really are,
of what our True Nature is.

The nature of our mind is consciousness,
and being conscious always is a first-person experience
for all living beings without exception, including plant life (Flora).
Even single-cell organisms have an acute sense of self.

The sense of self is the centre of our conscious life
and the centre of our subjective experience of the objective reality
which also includes other persons, human and animal alike,
for example, our beloved pets, whom have their individual unique personalities.

Without any further ado, to start our spiritual journey
of self-discovery and our philosophical debate,
I am asking you this question of central importance :

What is your self ?



Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA Location: Zürich, Switzerland
#451509
Hereandnow wrote: December 20th, 2023, 1:34 pm Hmmmm....what does Buddhism have to do with the self, save apophatically?
Maybe nothing ? :D

But the above question stands anyway :

What is your self ?


Hereandnow, do you have any idea of what your dear self is ?
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA Location: Zürich, Switzerland
User avatar
By JackDaydream
#451516
The 'self' as an aspect of philosophy and in relation to the nature of understanding of spirituality is so complex. In Western philosophy there was the idea of the 'soul', which may be critiqued questionably; it would seem to involve a disembodied entity of some kind. Some ideas of immortality, especially in the Christian tradition, seem to hinge on this. Nevertheless, Christianity has such a mixed picture, incorporating ideas of a disembodied soul, which goes back to the ideas of Plato and incorporated into various forms of Christian thinking.

Having struggled so much with Christian ideas, especially the punishment of sin, I do see the ideas of Buddhism and the 'self' as extremely important, both for understanding sentient existence and issues of what continues beyond death. In Christianity, there was the antagonism between immortality of the 'soul' and ideas of what may continue as a resurrection 'body'.

My own understanding of Buddhism is that it may reconcile the dualities of mind and body, especially in terms of thinking of an afterlife , as such. It is all about continuity of life and the evolution of lifeforms. Where the concept of 'self' fits into this is questionable, as to whether it is disembodied, physical or immaterial. This is the essential conundrum between idealism and materialism.

I do wonder if ideas of non dualism may step in, in thinking about the impasse between materialism and spiritual perspectives. Nevertheless, it is such a complex area of philosophy, but it may be essential to the philosophy of religion. Here, Buddhism may be an extremely useful as a basis for thinking about ideas of experience, consciousness and how these come together in ideas of psychology and the basics of the philosophy of religion. In the advances of scientific understanding, religious perspectives may be challenged and dismissed. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether materialism can explain the nature of consciousness itself.
#451517
JackDaydream wrote: December 20th, 2023, 4:18 pm
My own understanding of Buddhism is that it may reconcile the dualities of mind and body, especially in terms of thinking of an afterlife, as such. It is all about continuity of life and the evolution of lifeforms.

Where the concept of 'self' fits into this is questionable, as to whether it is disembodied, physical or immaterial. This is the essential conundrum between idealism and materialism.
Dear JackDaydream,

Hello :D

Thank you so very much for your deeply philosophical and spiritual post.
Much appreciated!

I was born in a traditional Roman-Catholic family,
and have not converted to Buddhism until I was 28 years old.

In my opinion, what Christian theology refers to as the "Soul", has the full and exact Buddhist equivalent of it simply being our normal individual mind. In my dual Christian-Buddhist understanding, this makes perfect sense.

To understand how and " where the concept of 'self' fits into this " is the ultimate goal of our philosophical debate in this humble topic.

As a philosophical warm-up, please let me quote the following.

Is Western thought marching towards Eastern Idealism?

Prof. Richard Grego PhD argues that, if we extrapolate the evolutionary trajectory of Western scientific and philosophical thought since the European Enlightenment, it becomes possible to discern that it is progressing towards a consciousness-only ontology convergent with Eastern thought:


What is the mind-body relation and how can the existence of an immaterial mind be explained with respect to the material body? Since our minds and our conscious awareness, which seem to be non-material, also seem to involve the operations of our material body-brain, how does our nonmaterial mental experience relate to, or involve, the material world to which it is connected? Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” first established the parameters of this problem by defining the respective ontological categories of ‘mind’ and ‘body,’ based on the “clear and distinct” datum of conscious experience that is plainly non-material, self-aware, subjective, purposeful and free, over against a physical body that is material, unaware, objective, purposeless and determined (except when it is animated by the mind that ‘inhabits’ it). This distinction also engendered further dichotomies like material/immaterial, subject/object, private /public, free/determined and natural/supernatural. As a founding father of the scientific revolution himself, Descartes understood that this division was an inevitable by-product of its naturalistic assumptions and methodology, which banished spirit, mind, meaning, purpose and value from the purview of physical science—and when adopted as a formal naturalistic metaphysics, would eventually banish them from reality entirely.

The mind-body / mental-physical “hard problem” thus became, and continues to pose, a problematic dichotomy in the Western paradigm, and no field of knowledge or professional practice is unaffected by it. One consequence is that contemporary philosophy of mind has been configured by three general ‘umbrella’ theories of “dualism” (that mind and body are two distinct entities or elements of some sort), “materialism” (that the physical world described by contemporary science is the only reality, and what we call mind-consciousness is merely the neurochemical activity of the brain, or some epiphenomenon of this activity)—probably still the most popular view in our science-dominated age—and “idealism” (that what we call the physical world is actually an aspect of consciousness, which is the sole and fundamental reality). A fourth option, sometimes referred to as “neutral monism” (that there is some indeterminate ultimate basis for all dimensions of reality—mental, physical and anything else—that encompasses all these without being reducible to any of them) has also emerged at various times through the history of Western thought, but has until very recently received relatively little popular attention.

Again, given the paradigm-shaping prestige of science in Western intellectual culture, various materialist philosophies of mind continue to remain popular, perhaps dominant, in contemporary discourse. As science has become increasingly influential not only as a narrow method for pursuing certain limited kinds of problems and projects (methodological naturalism), but also as a kind of grand theory describing the nature of all existence exhaustively (metaphysical naturalism or scientism), mind-consciousness has consequently come to be regarded as a physical phenomenon or substance entirely describable via scientific categories. The once popular dualist view advocated by philosophers like Descartes gradually, through the 18th and 19th centuries, gave way to more materialist theories of mind, among which are theories like “identity theory” (that mental states are simply brain states), “behaviorism” (that what we call mental states are, in fact, forms of physical behavior) and “epiphenomenalism”(that mental states are an inconsequential residual by-product or ‘shadow’ of physical states). This has culminated recently in a group of theories falling under the umbrella term “eliminativism,” which suggests that the very concept of consciousness should either be understood in terms of some behavioral or physical processes amenable to scientific quantification, or dismissed as a kind of brain-generated illusion.

Over the past few decades however, numerous logical and empirical critiques of materialism have gained increasing influence in philosophy of mind and consciousness studies, despite the persistent cultural prominence of scientism and materialist metaphysics. Cognitive and neuroscientists have noted, for instance, that despite years of research recording accurate correlations between mental states and physical-brain states, the physical sciences still lack any empirically viable theory regarding how these might be causally connected, and what mechanisms may be involved. Philosophers have pointed out how, contrary to claims by materialists that conscious experience is reducible to some physical entity or force describable by the physical sciences, consciousness remains nonetheless beyond the ability of the sciences to define, measure or describe in any coherent physical way. Thoughts, feelings, imagination, etc., have no discernable volume, mass, charge or any physically measurable property to qualify as physical entities verifiable by the scientific method. Nor is there any explanation for the more epiphenomenal materialist claim that consciousness is a byproduct of material processes, as there is no scientifically discernible or logically sensible way that something non-material (like mind) can magically pop out of the material world. The mind, it seems, is an undeniable aspect of reality that can’t be explained away via any quantifiable or empirical material explanation.

As a result of these problems, philosophy of mind in the West, since the late 20th century, has begun to produce an increasing number of theories that trend in the direction of idealism—even if most are unwilling to embrace it completely. Panpsychism, for instance, is another umbrella term for a group of popular recent theories that attempt to reconcile scientific materialism with consciousness as a fundamental reality. Panpsychism is the general thesis that mind-consciousness, while still ontologically distinct from the rest of the physical universe, is nonetheless integral to it, and a number of prominent formerly materialist neuroscientists and philosophers have expanded their metaphysical purviews to accommodate it. David Chalmers (who coined the term “hard problem”), brain scientist Kristof Koch and eminent philosopher Galen Strawson are former materialists-turned-panpsychists. Phil Goff and Itay Shani have advocated a form of panpsychism known as cosmopsychism—in which consciousness is not only a fundamental element of material reality, but also foundational to it.

In addition to panpsychist theories that portray consciousness as coextensive with the material world, more specific physics-based theories portray mind as emergent from increasingly abstract conceptions of the material world. For example, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s “orchestrated reduction” theory locates the origin of conscious awareness in state vector collapse of the Schrödinger wave function at the subatomic level, which takes place in the microtubules of the brain. Giulio Tononi’s “integrated information theory” explains consciousness as the product of bits of quantum information functioning at high levels of complexity. Bernard Carr traces consciousness to dimensions of hyperspace from contemporary string theory.

Beyond these, even more recent theories describe the status of consciousness in terms of straight-forward idealism. Bernardo Kastrup, for instance, conceives of consciousness as the single primordial substrate of all reality—encompassing completely the physical world described by science. Advocating a form of absolute idealism in the tradition of Schopenhauer (in a refined form that he calls “analytic idealism”) Kastrup conceives of material phenomena as kinds of mental qualities—resolving the “hard problem” by turning it on its head. Instead of attempting to explain how mind is possible in a material world, he explains how materiality, and the supposed separation between the mental and material, is all actually a form of conscious experience. Further, fundamental consciousness that creates the material world is a single substrate that only experiences material reality via individual minds, which in turn are dissociated aspects of this conscious substrate itself, like individual identities experienced by a person with multiple personality disorder. Material reality is a construct of the ultimate mind, and individuated minds experience this reality separately because they are estranged from their conscious source.

Interestingly, this trend in contemporary philosophy of mind suggests that the entire way in which Western metaphysics and mind are conceived may be evolving eventually toward some sort of self-transcendence, perhaps via a rapprochement with corresponding perennial ideas in Asian philosophical traditions. Several recent thinkers have drawn significant connections between Western cosmopsychism and idealism on one hand, and Hindu Advaita Vedanta philosophy (especially in its more recent neo-Vedanta formulations) on the other. Miri Albahari, for instance, has examined important similarities between Western cosmopsychism/idealism and Advaita Vedanta, while also noting substantial problems the former sometimes face and that the latter resolves. Western cosmopsychists (and even idealists like Kastrup to some extent), she claims, conceive of pure cosmic consciousness as a kind of ultimate or basic subject that posits the material world and other individual minds as its objects. However, in subtle contrast, Advaita Vedanta contends that the subjective and objective aspects of this reality are one and the same—both unified in the cosmic consciousness of which they are a part—just as the character’s perspective in a dream, and the seemingly external dream-world that this character perceives, are both ultimately aspects of a single unified consciousness that encompasses them both. In Advaita Vedanta, rather than cosmic consciousness being a subject that posits each human mind –along with the apprehensions of each mind—as objects of its own apprehension, “nirvikulpa samadi” (the experience of Brahman or absolute Being, in its primordial state of unmitigated purity), like dreaming consciousness, is instead conscious experience prior to any subject/object duality, which also provides the basis for all the conscious subjects and their material objects of apprehension, generated as aspects of itself. Rather than a subject positing the world as its object, Brahman is the cosmic unity in which subject and object are unified. Advaita Vedanta’s cosmic consciousness is “one without a second” and beyond the subject/object relation that characterizes traditional Western conceptions of consciousness.

This kind of nuanced but significant difference that Albahari highlights between Advaita Vedanta and Western cosmopsychism/idealism can be illustrated further by contrasting Advaita Vedanta’s metaphysical categories with those of cosmopsychicism and idealism. Via its various interlocuters from Gaudapada and Shankara to modern neo-Vedanta philosophy, Advaita Vedanta views reality on the respective levels of ‘maya’ (the illusion of material and cognitive reality as the entirety of reality itself), “salvikalpa samadi” (the knowledge that one’s perception of cognitive-material reality is an illusional or truncated representation of true reality—Brahman), and “nirvikalpa samadi” (the experience of Brahman via pure experience itself, which transcends all knowing, even while encompassing it), which is nothing less than the vital experience of oneness with cosmic consciousness as it continuously creates all existence. Similar Western schools of thought all retain in some way a conception of consciousness (via various forms of subjective, absolute and analytic idealism, or panpsychism and cosmopsychism) shared by Advaita Vedanta, in recognizing the ultimately mental nature of both the cognitive/physical world and the cosmic consciousness generating it. However, the persistent understanding of consciousness in these Western conceptualizations always retains some sense of consciousness inhering in a substrate—whether this be the physical universe, as in many forms of panpsychism and cosmopsychism, or even perhaps Kastrup’s idealism, which posits a subjective substrate (“that which is conscious”) underwriting the contents of consciousness as its objects—which fails to resolve the dilemma of subject-object dualism as completely as the all-encompassing Advaita Vedanta cosmic mind does1. From the Advaita Vedanta perspective, Western panpsychism and Idealism remain at the ontological level of savikulpa samadi, rather than nirvikalpa samadi.

Thus, the trajectory of Western philosophy of mind appears to be culminating in a Vedanta-inspired universal conception of consciousness that transcends dualism, materialism and even idealism as heretofore conceived. Philosopher of science Michael Silberstein, for instance, subscribes to a “neutral monist” cosmology (based on current developments in theoretical physics and a ‘block universe’ interpretation of quantum cosmology, to which he has also drawn parallels with Advaita Vedanta metaphysics), which posits a more primordial source of all reality that precedes and grounds what we call material and mental—a source that is best described as what philosopher William James called ‘pure experience,’ or what Silberstein thinks may be best described as a kind of “presence” in and through which mental and material, subject and object, operate in contingent relation to one another. The experience of my subjective mind encountering an objective material world co-arise with one another and create one another whenever there is an asymmetry or dichotomy in the primordial ‘presence’ that engenders them (also understood as “dependent co-arising” or “dependent origination” in Buddhist philosophy). “As I awaken in the morning, the world appears to me, and this asymmetric dichotomy between my mind and the material world arises,” physicists Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser and philosopher Evan Thompson write:

" At a deeper level, we might ask how experience comes to have a subject-object structure in the first place. Scientists and philosophers often work with the image of an ‘inside’ mind or subject grasping an outside world or object. But philosophers from different cultural traditions have challenged this image. For example, the philosopher William James (whose notion of ‘pure experience’ influenced Husserl and Whitehead) wrote in 1905 about the ‘active sense of living which we all enjoy, before reflection that shatters our instinctive world for us.’ That active sense of living doesn’t have an inside-outside/subject-object structure; it’s subsequent reflection that imposes this structure on experience. More than a millennium ago, Vasubandhu, an Indian Buddhist philosopher of the 4th to 5th century CE, criticised the reification of phenomena into independent subjects versus independent objects. For Vasubandhu, the subject-object structure is a deep-seated, cognitive distortion of a causal network of phenomenal moments that are empty of an inner subject grasping an outer object."

Ultimately though, perhaps this ‘neutral’ kind of ‘presence’ might, as Advaita Vedanta suggests, actually be a deeper kind of consciousness –“pure experience” in James’ terms or ‘pure awareness’ in Advaita Vedanta terms. Since cosmic consciousness or Brahman (like ‘presence’ for Silberstein), as the primordial groundless ground of all existence, remains beyond the subject-object distinction and is the source of all possibility while remaining itself both immanent in, but irreducible to, any comprehension itself, it certainly would seem to exhibit the qualities that Silberstein’s neutral monism prescribes. Silberstein’s work suggests that the problematic nature of the hard problem perhaps involves the realization, foundational to so many Eastern philosophies and religions, that the living experience of consciousness transcends any theory—physical or philosophical—about it. As the ground of possibility for all theories, cosmic consciousness is not reducible to any theory itself.

Preeminent neo-Vedanta, idealist and comparative philosopher of world religions, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, maintained that Advaita Vedanta’s concept of “nirguna Brahman” (Brahman as primordial consciousness encountered beyond all conceptual representations) provides the world’s oldest original, perennial and universal mode of encountering existence that simultaneously transcends and includes all world civilizations’ religious, philosophical, scientific and other conceptual frameworks. In this way, universal consciousness lies beyond our ability to comprehend it via any rational, discursive or abstract ideation that we may use to represent it conceptually—always exceeding any representation of it, although it engenders and encompasses these representations. This explains the inability of dualist, materialist, and even most Western idealist theories of mind to ever fully countenance consciousness. So long as we try to reduce consciousness—which is cosmic presence or pure awareness—to any abstract theory that fits neatly into a conceptual scheme, we separate our understanding from the very phenomenon we are attempting to understand, and so the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness in Western philosophy and science will never go away.

www. essentiafoundation. org/is-western-thought-marching-firmly-towards-eastern-inspired-idealism/
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA Location: Zürich, Switzerland
User avatar
By JackDaydream
#451527
Thank you for your reply, which seems to reflect a deep reading of the topic, including the ideas of Guido Tonelli. I do read in this area, feeling perplexed by the mind-body problem, especially in relation to religious experience. I come from a background of being brought up in the philosophy of Roman Catholicism. However, I am not convinced that such areas of body and mind are mere discrepancies of Catholic philosophy, or even Christianity.

In thinking of the topic, I wonder about the nature of ideas of body and mind in philosophy, especially in relation to esotericism. It goes back to the ideas of Plato and Hermeticism. The biggest influence in more recent ideas is in the thinking of Carl Jung. I wonder to what extent such points of view can be resolved or even considered in connection with the 'hard problem' of consciousness. This is because 'material reality' is so associated with the hard ideas of consciousness. Ideas of religious experience are often denigrated to 'myth'. The philosophical idea of 'myth' is often associated with stories, as if a mere shadow in relation to understanding. It may ignore the essential nature of the symbolic aspects of thought itself. In many aspects of religious and scientific thinking, the nature of scientific and the mythical may have become separated. The way in which I see Buudhism is that it may bring back the nature of such dialogue, especially the disharmony between the logic of science and the mythos of intuitive understanding
#451529
JackDaydream wrote: December 20th, 2023, 7:08 pm
Ideas of religious experience are often denigrated to 'myth'.
The philosophical idea of 'myth' is often associated with stories,
as if a mere shadow in relation to understanding.
It may ignore the essential nature of the symbolic aspects of thought itself.

I have never thought of it your way!

Yes, thinking and language are SYMBOLIC.

We think and communicate in symbols, only.

Mathematical logic is purely symbolic, too.

We even reason in symbols!

This makes perfect sense to me now! :D

Subconsciously, I have always somehow understood "symbol"
in terms of various kinds of modern and ancient pictograms.
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA Location: Zürich, Switzerland
#451533
JackDaydream wrote: December 20th, 2023, 7:08 pm
It may ignore the essential nature of the SYMBOLIC aspects of thought itself.

Dear Jack,

I would like to know, if in your philosophical opinion,
there are such aspects of thought that are not SYMBOLIC ?
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA Location: Zürich, Switzerland
By Joshua10
#451552
Generally accepted “Cult of Shiva” science has no source for its philosophical starting point guess that equal but opposite forces in nature cancel out.

We know that equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature do not cancel out.
User avatar
By JackDaydream
#451555
It is hard to establish to what extent thinking can be seen as beyond symbolism. That is because all thinking, including logic, is based on mental representations. Kant saw the establishment of epistemology of knowledge beyond the human mind, even though he believed in the importance of intuition and reason. Jung drew upon this in his approach to religion, especially the idea of God.

Equally, it could be argued that all ideas, including the notion of karma are mental constructs. Many would argue for realism as being demonstrated beyond the human mind. Nevertheless, while objects in the real world are material and mostly agreed upon it still connects with the problem of qualia. Some from a viewpoint of Eastern metaphysics would see the concrete nature of the material as opposed to thought as being questionable.
User avatar
By JackDaydream
#451556
In my sentence about Kant, in my previous post, I meant to say that he saw the establishment of ideas beyond the mind as problematic. Nevertheless, in the error I made, I see it as an ambiguity of Kant, especially in the two aspects of reason, a priori and a posteri.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#451562
Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: December 19th, 2023, 8:18 pm The nature of our mind is consciousness...
It is? I'm not trying to say it isn't, I'm only wondering if this is something we know ... or assume ... or what? Is consciousness the "nature of our minds"? Maybe so...
Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: December 20th, 2023, 7:31 pm We even reason in symbols!
Do we? Again, I'm not saying we don't. I think we can reason thus, but I wonder if we can also reason in other ways too? It is said that some people are visual learners, and so on, but investigation seems to indicate that yes, some are visually-oriented, while others are not. Others do it differently.



If we set in our minds (😉) that people do *this*, *this* way, when in fact we all share a variety of ways of doing these things, are we not limiting our own understanding?


Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: December 19th, 2023, 8:18 pm What is your self?
I don't know. I think I have some understanding of your question, but I think I am about as close to the answer as any of us — i.e. not close at all. Perhaps we don't even have a clue?
Last edited by Pattern-chaser on December 21st, 2023, 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#451563
Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: December 20th, 2023, 8:28 pm Dear Jack Daydream,

I would like to know, if in your philosophical opinion,
there are such aspects of thought that are not SYMBOLIC ?
Personally, I am aware of thinking in words, in symbols, and in patterns too. [Hence my chosen net-name.] I am aware that my thinking is hardly 'visual' at all, although that 'vision' seems to form a central part of the thinking of (some) others. I answer your question about philosophy by talking about thinking and thought because I understand philosophy to be serious and considered thought.

Words are symbols, of course. Even patterns could, I suppose, be seen as (very) complex symbols? But here again I find myself wondering if we are limiting ourselves, and our (philosophical) thoughts, by holding our musings captive, imprisoned within our existing assumptions and opinions? It doesn't feel right to me to describe all thought as symbolic. It feels incomplete, not wrong. But I freely admit I am struggling to offer a justification for what I feel.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#451566
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 21st, 2023, 8:29 am
Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: December 19th, 2023, 8:18 pm What is your self?
I don't know.

I think I have some understanding of your question, but I think I am about as close to the answer as any of us — i.e. not close at all. Perhaps we don't even have a clue?

Our dear self is so familiar to us that it simply seems to be too obvious to talk about. We are very busy with everything else. Not only all serious historical religious and spiritual traditions of the past and present, but even modern Western materialistic-atheistic science recognizes the self to be a legitimate object of scientific research.

Your short answer is a proper starting point of any serious deep philosophical inquiry. It reflects philosophical open-mindedness which is essential in our quest for understanding.

Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion. It is not even a religion. It is an experimental spiritual philosophy that expects one to arrive at one's own conclusions by oneself. It is akin to experimental physics that is guided by physical theories and hypotheses, a set of reasonable axioms and premises. Buddhism is essentially empirical being grounded in direct human experience.

Of course, there is naturally a set of premises that one needs to examine first, to see if they are acceptable enough to oneself, or not. If not, then you are NOT going to go to a Buddhist Hell. No worries. :D


So, naturally, this particular topic is heavily biased toward exploring the set of Buddhist premises. :D
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA Location: Zürich, Switzerland
#451567
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 21st, 2023, 8:40 am
But here again I find myself wondering if we are limiting ourselves, and our (philosophical) thoughts, by holding our musings captive, imprisoned within our existing assumptions and opinions? It doesn't feel right to me to describe all thought as symbolic. It feels incomplete, not wrong. But I freely admit I am struggling to offer a justification for what I feel.
I do completely agree with you, Pattern-chaser.

I can see that, as opposed to several loud individuals on this forum,
you are a proper philosopher, my friend.

The issue of symbolic aspects of our thinking is not important to Buddhism.

It was a revelation for me that strongly resonates with my intuitive understanding only.

I would have never thought of that this way, had Jack Daydream not mentioned it, because it has been far from obvious to me for the same reasons you mentioned, Pattern-chaser.
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA Location: Zürich, Switzerland

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


Personal responsibility

It seems to be a fact that some medical conditi[…]

At least Christians don't deliver death sentenc[…]

“He died broke at the age of 86 in his hotel room […]

Negligence or Apathy?

8B5B21B8-F76B-4CDB-AF44-577C7BB823E4.jpeg Prince[…]