Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The logic of Buddhist philosophy

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 210 posts

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#91

Post by dpweb »

Nature is to have no nature, taken literally that is a contradiction, but isn't it possible that is not meant to be taken literally, but to illustrate for instance that everything we hold dear is really just a construct. What we call "nature" isn't true essence but our interpretation of what we think essence is?

Jesus for instance freely admitted he taught in parables, and so everything was not to be taken word for word literally. Doesn't make it any less true, but when interpreted literally you can come to some incorrect conclusions.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#92

Post by notdonspaulding »

muraiki wrote: post #89
Daishiman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference between the Christian and Buddhist approaches to the paradoxes is the fact that Christian theologists have spent centuries devising new doctrine that accomodates the contradictory statements in a sort of logical superstructure, whereas no such thing happens in Buddhist contradictions. Part of the reason why I suspect this is because Christian dogma ultimately reflects on concrete precepts that…

The approach in Eastern Christianity (pre-Great Schism groups such as the Orthodox, Coptic, and others) is generally that of Apophatic or Negative theology. "Leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and non-being, that thou mayest arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with Him who transcends all…

> It should also be noted that I'm not talking about some fringe group of Christianity, but rather the second largest group of Christians in the world.

Can you be more specific? Are you talking about Orthodox Christians being the second largest group? If so, are you considering Roman Catholic to be the largest group?

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#93

Post by zenogais »

"An abhorrence of contradiction has been high orthodoxy in the West for more than 2,000 years."

Not necessarily so, just a particular branch of western thinking and tradition now widely called the analytic tradition. GWF Hegel and Karl Marx had philosophies that deeply and profoundly embraced contradictions. Neither tried to abolish them, but instead to embrace them. To quote Marx in "Capital Volume 1":

"This is, in general, the way in which real contradictions are resolved. For instance, it is a contradiction to depict one body as constantly falling towards another and at the same time flying away from it. The ellipse is a form of motion within which this contradiction is both realized and resolved"

In other words, contradictions are not resolved but given room to move within forms. This was a move deeply influenced by Hegel, whose Logic embraced contradictions and sought to sublate them in higher forms.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#95

Post by Retric »

throwaway13qf85 wrote: post #5

In case anyone is turned off by the expectation of wishy-washy flim-flam, it's worth noting that Graham Priest may be a professor of philosophy, but is most well known for his work in logic, particularly in non-standard logics (i.e. not propositional or predicate logic) that allow non-boolean truth values, or weaken or remove some of the axioms of classical logic. I assume that what's relevant here will be his work o…

Fuzzy logic is a vary useful non boolean logic system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic In practice it's somewhat like neural net's but in a far more human readable format and vary useful for things like washing machines that have lot's of flakey sensors and little processing power. But the basic idea is statements truth is percentage based. For example "this statement is true" would be 50% true and there is no contradiction.

PS: Yet another 1960's discovery that keeps being renamed and rediscovered.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #92
muraiki wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The approach in Eastern Christianity (pre-Great Schism groups such as the Orthodox, Coptic, and others) is generally that of Apophatic or Negative theology. "Leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and non-being, that thou mayest arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with Him who transcends all…

> It should also be noted that I'm not talking about some fringe group of Christianity, but rather the second largest group of Christians in the world. Can you be more specific? Are you talking about Orthodox Christians being the second largest group? If so, are you considering Roman Catholic to be the largest group?

Eastern Christianity is more than just Orthodox (and, in fact, overlaps with Roman Catholicism, in that the non-Latin Rite -- "Uniate" -- Churches in communion with Rome are both Roman Catholic and Eastern, the latter particularly where it comes to broad philosophical traditions while the former applies to the particular points of theology and authority at the center of the Great Schism.)

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#97

Post by shawndumas »

dllthomas wrote: post #50
shawndumas wrote: post #46

An "abhorrence of contradiction" is necessary for him to even begin to express his having eschewed his former "parochialism". To have said, "abhorrence of contradiction" he has demonstrated an abhorrence of contradiction -- in the very act of making his declaration. The Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) means that every word in the sentence "The line is straight" has a specific meaning. 'The' does not mean 'any',…

I don't see that every violation of the principle of noncontradiction trivially leaves definitions meaningless. Suggesting that a principle shouldn't be taken to hold in general doesn't mean that you have to violate the principle at every opportunity, just that there is some place it is (in whatever sense) correct to violate the principle. Of course, under traditional logics, accepting a contradiction leaves everythi…

by 'every violation' do you mean 'any violation', 'no violation', 'blue violation'...

by 'every violation' do you mean 'every observance', 'every miss-fire', 'every monkey'...

you see, apart from the law of non-contradiction language is impossible.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#98

Post by notdonspaulding »

dllthomas wrote: post #50
shawndumas wrote: post #46

An "abhorrence of contradiction" is necessary for him to even begin to express his having eschewed his former "parochialism". To have said, "abhorrence of contradiction" he has demonstrated an abhorrence of contradiction -- in the very act of making his declaration. The Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) means that every word in the sentence "The line is straight" has a specific meaning. 'The' does not mean 'any',…

I don't see that every violation of the principle of noncontradiction trivially leaves definitions meaningless. Suggesting that a principle shouldn't be taken to hold in general doesn't mean that you have to violate the principle at every opportunity, just that there is some place it is (in whatever sense) correct to violate the principle. Of course, under traditional logics, accepting a contradiction leaves everythi…

As someone not versed in nontraditional logics, can you give an entry-level statement or thought experiment that violates the principle of non-contradiction without leaving everything provable?

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#99

Post by tel »

dietrichepp wrote: post #88
tel wrote: post #37

Central to his teachings is the view that things are ‘empty’ (sunya). This does not mean that they are non-existent; only that they are what they are because of how they relate to other things. Immediately I thought of Category Theory as this statement is a not terrible expression of what CT tries to teach. I'll immediately recommend the paper Numbers Can Be Just What They Have To ( http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/phil/Nu…

Haskellers may recognize (a -> r) -> r as a way to represent "a"... you'll see that type signature in more than a few libraries.

Not without the forall!

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#100

Post by Daishiman »

muraiki wrote: post #89
Daishiman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference between the Christian and Buddhist approaches to the paradoxes is the fact that Christian theologists have spent centuries devising new doctrine that accomodates the contradictory statements in a sort of logical superstructure, whereas no such thing happens in Buddhist contradictions. Part of the reason why I suspect this is because Christian dogma ultimately reflects on concrete precepts that…

The approach in Eastern Christianity (pre-Great Schism groups such as the Orthodox, Coptic, and others) is generally that of Apophatic or Negative theology. "Leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and non-being, that thou mayest arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with Him who transcends all…

It's very intersting how St. Dionysius' quote is remarkably similar to Dogen Zenji's Fukanzazengi, the universal recommendations for Zen:

"Therefore, put aside the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing phrases, and learn to take the backward step that turns the light and shines it inward. Body and mind of themselves will drop away, and your original face will manifest. If you want to realize such, get to work on such right now."

"Do not judge true or false. Give up the operations of mind, intellect, and consciousness; stop measuring with thoughts, ideas, and views. Have no designs on becoming a Buddha. How could that be limited to sitting or lying down?"

Post reply on HN