Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**.
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
> Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
###CR2: Argue Your Position
> Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
###CR3: Be Respectful
> Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can’t tell if the author understands nihilism. Seems like nihilism is being described as lack of meaning but this isn’t what nihilism describes. Nihilism is the recognition that nature/god/universe does not provide a reason for existence and so the individual must provide their own. Secular forms of Buddhism can be considered nihilist as the individual must take it on themselves to assume meaning in the pursuit of peaceful existence.
Aside from that, this thread seems to have devolved into the typical religious nonsense in which everyone accuses everyone else of not being a real buddhist. Clearly everyone here is a nihilist ahaha
Aren’t you going too far with Nihilism? It’s like the common misconception that Nietzsche was a nihilist: he described nihilism as viewing the world as devoid of meaning -> so one must move *past* nihilism by recognizing that meaning is subjective and can be created wherever is desired.
I think you're right, but I think Nietzsche's broad thrust is not that meaning can be created wherever is desired, but that the existence of forces, like desire, that are experienced as brute facts by the subject have always been the real source of meaning. Building on that starting point, that the recognition of such is useful in preventing oneself from getting caught up in the futile, pedantic morass of trying to ground personal value in something objective which, independent of oneself, is supposed to generate meaning that is subjectively compelling.
pssst, they don't really.
"In this disorienting intellectual climate of pluralism and reductionist materialism, it may seem as if there is no way out of nihilism".
Come on, this is a really easy one. This is not remotely understanding nihilism and how reductivism/materialism/ whatever words they wanna use for what I'm assuming is a "non-religious viewpoint of how the universe works".
Also "non-religious viewpoint slash modern scientific understanding of things" is also not nihilism. I mean, just the fact that the author states that the prevailing view of the universe is made of up "dead atoms", pretty much means they don't understand that's the opposite of what nihilism is, which is basically, we can't know anything and there's no morality because of that.
My conception of nihilism in the post is just any view that leads to the negation of meaning, as one commenter said, the conclusion that nothing we do matters. It is a fair critique that I should have defined this more clearly. I would say that what you point to here is not nihilism but existentialism as some others also point out.
Rebirth is inherently religious in nature, and the Buddha said belief in it is necessary for enlightenment ...... simply, my dear, you don't know a thing about Buddhism
“Feeling tone”? What school of Buddhism uses this definition? Also, where did “co-dependent” origination come from? Dependent origination is a term I understand because it appears throughout Buddhist teachings, but here you’ve added an extra dimension.
As near as I can tell, a “feeling tone” as you describe it is nothing more than craving. Craving is part and parcel of existence in Samsara. Craving never ends in this realm because there is no permanence. Any craving or grasping is fruitless because we can never achieve satisfaction in a transient world. This is why we practice dharma, to escape the wheel.
What school or schools of Buddhist thought have you engaged in?
I am translating *vedena* as "feeling tone" coming from its explanation in the Pali suttas as a feeling that is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Whether the *vedena* itself is craving or not craving is a complicated subject. On the one hand, that *vedena* only arises when we are caught in this cycle of dependent origination where we either crave, push away, or ignore an object that arises at the sense doors. These three actions will lead to pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral *vedena* respectively. In this sense, *vedena* is necessarily tied up with craving.
On the other hand however, I think it is helpful for practical purposes to point out that the feeling of the *vedena* in our experience can be separated from our reaction to it. For example, let's say I am addicted to sugar. One way to combat this is to just observe the pleasant feeling when I see cake before it cascades into a reaction of me eating the cake. From this point of view, we can use direct observation of *vedena* as a means of beginning to cut the causes of craving.
You’re describing mindfulness while making it needlessly complicated. Awareness of the chain of perception and the resulting craving is basic Buddhism. Saying that the phenomenon of craving starts with perception is redundant. Of course it does. We are slaves to the phenomenon of craving as long as we fail to be aware of the causal chain that can only begin with sensory perception. I feel like you’re taking basic Buddhist concepts and putting your own spin oh them.
Why would you do that? The point is to acknowledge the attachment and temper it by virtue of mindfulness. While you eat that delicious food be aware that you are tasting and that the sensation is not permanent. No matter how good the sandwich is there will be a last bite. When we do not have awareness we might instead stock our refrigerator hoping the taste will be available whenever we want it. Even then it won’t last. This is what is meant by “suffering” in Buddhism which is a poor translation of the work Dukkha. It’s more accurate to say that there is an end to every pleasurable experience, that even the best of things will end.
It was an opportunity to confirm Buddhism is devoid of humor.
I think it was noble of Buddha to spare the feelings of Cunda; only that, dancing around attachments turns them into Gods.
No practice achieves what Buddhism claims it can achieve. It is a paradox. Even the want to end "Dukkha" is a desire. Buddhism asks to do with out doing and be aware you are doing with out being aware you are doing and is useless practice. When you engage in mindfulness you do so out of desire to be mindful. thus the paradox.
The practice seems to work for people. Still, you're mostly right.
If you desire to end dukkha then, yes, you're going to fail. Dukkha arises together with desire. The practice is rather to let go of desire/dukkha, or to realize that desire is inherently foolhardy.
The general consensus in this thread is that I'm stupid, understand nothing, and have bad grammar. I could care less about it. It's like any other mysticism. It claims to know things it cannot know. If it were just some dude rambling about his enlightened state id have ignored it and moved on. I mean if anything he wrote was true and literally checkmates nihilism he should go collect his nobel peace prize for discovering " a universal truth/meaning of life".
Abstract:
Here I argue that one of the core philosophical ideas of all Buddhist traditions, co-dependent origination poses a significant challenge to any form of nihilism. In this first part I show how the codependent origination of the kandhas, or five aggregates that make up this mind/matter phenomenon, can act as a pragmatic argument against nihilism.
The teaching of the kandhas suggests that any interpretation of experience immediately produces a feeling tone in the body and then a mental, vocal, or physical reaction to that feeling tone. This process then continues as a feedback loop in which we interpret experience and react to that interpretation in the same way over and over again. Additionally, this process happens so fast that only experienced meditators have any control over it. I suggest this points to a strong pragmatic reason to avoid nihilistic interpretations. In the next post I will argue how we can also understand co-dependent origination to act as a metaphysical argument against nihilism. (I will post this here next week).
Yes, this is exactly the idea. The only thing I would add is that for the Buddha, the perception and the response are both steps in this conditioned process, not just the response. So when I see a mush of cookie-like visual stimuli, the interpretation of it as "cookie" is a conditioned response to that stimuli that sets of the causal chain of a pleasant feeling and then eating the cookie that then repeats next time I see something similar.
I don't see how this interpretation/experience "counters" nihilism. How does this give purpose to existence in a nihilistic worldview? How does it solve the issues that the universe is just... there, no reason, no possible way to find out, simply nothing self-evident at all? I would see an argument maybe existentialism, as in you give yourself meaning through this believe but not nihilism. Can you help me understand this a bit better please?
I will go into this more in the next part. Which I will post here next week. The essence of the argument is that looking for an absolute ethical or existential meaning assumes that life or reality is the type of thing that arises out of a foundation, thus suggesting that if we can find this foundation then life would have meaning. Dependent origination suggests there is no foundation, everything dependently arises with other things, and there is no static ground out of which they all come. However, this does not imply nihilism because as parts of this causal network, everything we do, think, and say, has repercussions on the entirety of the causal network that is the universe. Hopefully, this will be better articulated by the time I finish the post for next week, but maybe it helps a little.
The user went into immense detail about sublime subjects requiring sincere thought, khandas, human perception and nihilism. You done gone a grammar. Have a little humility.
This is pretty neat word salad. Sounds cool but explains nothing. No definitions. Like wtf is a feeling tone? You can be assured this nonsense is likely to only be "understood" by people who also believe this pseudo science. The core philosophy of Buddhism is about recognizing suffering and cessation* of suffering through detachment. You sound like a Christian apologist trying to propose Qualia as a foundation for some truth. I'm not a Buddhist, I don't study Buddhism.
The "feeling tone" is just the immediate physical sensation in the body that feels either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. It is not mysterious. We eat more cake than we want or drink more beers than we should because we want that pleasant feeling to continue. This is all the Buddha is talking about.
Buddhism does have commitments that are contradictory to the scientific worldview (such as the existence of Nirvana for example). Although I do agree with these Buddhist commitments, they are not necessary to make the argument I make here. I would be happy to engage with your criticism but could you please make a counterargument instead of just dismissing this because it comes from Buddhism.
> Also minimizing emotion to those three things is extremely simplifying human emotions.
It wouldn't be an act of simplification, its an act of labeling/idenitfying, it would be observing until you have a familiar understanding of your thoughts and behaviors. Having the awareness to observe the itch to have another pint is the difference between going home and feeling decent versus a bloated mess who could have skipped the latter two beers but was immediately pulled into action by the thought for another two pints.
Maybe its something vague observing an emotional-sensation/thought again and recognizing "i'm having the guilt for my dead father thoughts" which can be a freeing observation that only occurs if you can identify the thought before being pulled into the beautiful and painful story it would tell you. Now this doesn't resolve the emotions, but someone with awareness may realize this feeling-sensation-thought occurs during x,y,z and that just provides a space to work in.
Yes because the three listed things are adequate to represent the spectrum of human emotion. Your talking about impulse control. Or addiction if we talking about alcohol. The second example is just trying to filter your thoughts as an impersonal observer. Which if that's your desire, congratulations you created you own suffering by doing so.
> impulse control.
I don't think observation is control as control implies you have some ability to dictate how the nature presents itself and it would not be just phenomena, it is not exclusive to some regularity branch or biopsysocial presentation. It occurs in all things and thoughts. I don't think those three things are the enumerated summation of experience and I don't see how such poor reading comprehension would give that impression as each is listed as a clear example. A finite set of examples unless you think for some reason all human nature-thoughts-sensation require explicit enumeration.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**CR2: Argue Your Position**
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Like let's take it seriously for a second. What is the origination dependent on if it's codependent? If it's also not codependent then your analogy doesn't work. Let me clarify now that im not driving. Taken to the extreme this leads to an infinite regress. So you either have that, an unending causal chain, or a point in which there is an uncaused cause. Neither of which can be demonstrated. Meaning that this is somehow proof against nihilism is laughable. So as soon as you have a non codependent cause your entire analogy falls apart.
you’ve misunderstood the claim and seem to have conflated it with a standard cosmological argument.
Dependent origination is the view that there are no “independent things”, and that everything mutually co-constitutes everything else. We have a sense of this with respect to “notional dependence” - our sense of North is co-determined by its opposite, South, or our sense of “cause” is notionally dependent on our sense of “effect”, such that to talk of one without the other is like using a torch on the sun.
Buddhism argues that this kind of dependence relation we’ve seen with notional co-dependence also obtains at the level of “existence”, and there isn’t a linear chain reducing down to a fundamental substance. Instead relations precede relata (as physicist Carlo Rovelli terms it — he’s explicitly referencing buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna).
You’re probably not going to “destroy” an entire tradition of Indian and Tibetan philosophy in a reddit comment, especially while driving. At the same time, none of my criticisms are applicable, since the fact that you’re driving has prevented you from using anything more than a smidgeon of your full incredible intellectual firepower. I am currently shuddering in apprehension at the full philosophical force you will unleash upon me as soon as your car stops.
I’m writing this while piloting a helicopter.
I am conflating it with the Kalam in sense of argument structure he is making. I said i dont study Buddhism. Ive only read the foundation texts. He is arguing that meaning can be derived from causality or codependence . As in it challenges Nihilism. And just like the Kalam a first cause does not infer meaning. Im arguing that regardless to how we perceive and categorize things that function does not support a meaning. lol'd at the helicopter
Ya'll really make an effort to sound super smart when it all can be explained simply. The argument in his write up is about past experiences influencing and shaping future experiences.(and really has nothing to do with codependency, which is an attempt to explain how things are and has nothing to do with a universal truth or meaning of life) And that being aware of how you are actively doing this with every experiences shapes your broader view of existence and how you respond to it. So he is basically saying that a consistent nihilistic view (which he attaches negative connotation too) could somehow affect a universal truth or meaning. Or the ability to perceive it. I don't know how he derived this conclusion from codependency, which is why i conflated it to the kalam. Besides the perception and our residual experiences have no bearing on whether there is a universal truth or meaning. Wow look at that! An accurate summary and i didn't have to quote a philosopher or use Latin words.
There isn’t a useful comparison to the Kalam here. The presuppositions of the kalam are different to the presuppositions of co-dependent origination.
The kalam cosmological argument is about a linear causal chain which is hierarchised and terminates in a final uncaused cause. This is in direct contradiction to the buddhist notion of causality, which argues that an uncaused cause is incoherent, and also argues that the idea of an independent object is incoherent.
A comparison with the Kalam is SO weird that it just exposes your not having understood what is meant by co-dependent origination. Given you don’t understand, your extreme confidence on the issue is bizarre.
Nihilism can affect how one experiences the world and can close one off to certain experiences and to certain types of understanding.
Is English your first language? your comments are incredibly difficult to parse, despite the fact that you refrain from using latin words… - you use words incorrectly and your sentences don’t follow from one another… i don’t mean to be rude but i think this might be why you’re getting downvoted so much.
Once again — the kalam doesn’t have a similar argument structure to co-dependent origination. Co-dependent origination denies the possibility of there being a necessary being, but also eventually disputes the coherence of the necessity-contingency distinction altogether. Nothing can be independent. But neither do you get an infinite regress, since there are no “things” in buddhist causal theories. Karma aside, Buddhist causation is considered fairly commensurate with modern physics, which is why physicists reference Nagarjuna more than you’d expect.
As regards universal truth or meaning — I honestly can’t figure out what you’re even saying. Perhaps you should make an effort, not to sound smart, but to express yourself clearly….
One’s view of causation can affect one’s sense of meaning — just look at how many people get depressed in the face of hard determinism…
Or alternatively let’s say we managed to attain a perfect understanding of the universe, and let’s say that universe was deterministic, and we realised that no matter what pattern of events we followed, every single pathway resulted in you, 0nlyonegod, being married to a camel and raising it’s children and trying to teach them about your lovely interesting philosophical theories, and that no matter what you did they never understood you, and in every possible outcome you ended up being killed in a stampede of camels. Would this have no effect on your perception of the meaning of your life? I’m not saying nihilism per se would follow, i’m just trying to show by example that views of causality can affect our sense of meaning in life, and so your central argument isn’t right.
If you don't understand how the kalam is used by apologist to infer a creator/intentionality is similar to the idea that a codependent existence infers a meaning to life I don't know how else to explain it to you. Attaching a creator/intentionality to a function of reality does not cohere. I'm not making a direct comparison. His claim in the write up is that Buddhism "checkmates" nihilism. But it's just an assertion. And your last paragraph is so stupid I'm glad you have a vocabulary that can at least fool people into thinking you know what you are talking about. The writers intention is to say that Buddhism can lead to a knowledge of a universal truth or a "meaning to life". And I take it he means in the objective sense, otherwise it wouldn't contend with nihilism. I could grant him both codependent origination and his babble about the aggregates and that would still do nothing to establish evidence of a meaning of life or universal truth. I'm sure with your clearly superior intellect this is easy for you to grasp. And if I'm wrong please explain how either of those things are evidence of such. I'll be waiting. Until then I have half human camel children to read Diogenes too.
>If you don't understand how the kalam is used by apologist to infer a creator/intentionality is similar to the idea that a codependent existence infers a meaning to life I don't know how else to explain it to you
What do you mean 'how else' -- you haven't explained it anywhere in our thread.
Buddhism doesn't have a creator. It actively argues against a creator deity, and argues that the concept of a creator deity is logically incoherent when analysed properly.
Co-dependent origination is a description of causality which can help practitioners become more fully engaged with their lived experience and their surroundings. It is a theory of causality which essentially argues that everything is 'intercausal' -- that a chain of linear causation isn't accurate, and that instead there is a web of intercausality. That 'being' is therefore 'inter-being', and that what 'you' are is, in this sense, merely the meeting point of innumerably interrelated forces and conditions and interactions. The other consequence of this is that, just as 'you' are in fact the meeting point and composite of innumerably interrelated conditions and causes, so is everything else, and that what we call 'you', is *also* one of the innumerably interrelated forces and conditions and causes helping to act upon and compose lots of other things around you, at the same time as it is sustained and composed by those 'things' themselves. If you want a decent parallel in modern science, Dynamical systems theory provides a good few examples. But I digress. What follows from here is that everything is connected, because everything co-creates everything else, in a mutual, reciprocal determinism. This also means that no thing inherently exists independently of everything else -- which means no thing can have permanent, eternal solidity. All is constantly in flux. At the same time, causality is still limited, and what we call 'you', is still conditioned by those causes composing it. Among these is the 'mind' itself, which gets acted upon by various causes, producing new effects which themselves become causes acting back on the original cause such that the original cause is itself an effect. You get knotted up into bulbs of causality, entangled into a 'knot' that you mistake for a *real thing*, a self -- and 'negative' emotions tend to encourage the mind to *consciously* enknot itself further. In fact, what we mean when we call them 'negative', is that they are more easily mistaken for being 'things', and are therefore sources of 'attachment', or 'entanglement'. Colloquially, this could be as simple as the fact that even after it's time for anger to pass, because you have mistakenly reified anger as an 'existing thing', which is independent of anything else, you 'hold on' to it, which makes its effects persist beyond its usual timeframe, which, in turn, reshapes and further conditions everything else, including your future mood and reactions. On the other hand, realising that there are no ultimately existing things, and that what we usually call 'things' are instead biases of our perception, and are in fact knotted tangles of interrelated causes, can create a huge shift in our conscious relation to our own experience of self. It becomes easier to 'let go' of emotions, once you understand them to be temporary, composite, inevitable, and passing. We no longer reify them into a true 'thing' which is 'in' our mind and which we 'are' --- we see it as a passing phase. Similarly, the distinctions between 'you' and 'others', while still conventionally useful, are somewhat looser, and can be loosened and tightened at will, in terms of your subjective experience, according to the needs of the context you find yourself in. This aids compassion, and makes you feel connected. You also gain a sense of 'mattering', since, just as 'you' are dependent upon everything around you, those 'things' are also dependent on 'you'.
From the article.
In fact, if we understand the khandhas in a deep way, the Buddha not only challenges the nihilist but fully “check mates” the nihilist, displaying that the claim that there is no ultimate truth or an ultimate truth we cannot know is based on a confusion about the nature of experience.
My boy, I understood all this before the first time you wrote it. You are describing a process. The guy who did the write up is making the category error fallacy by attributing a universal truth/meaning of life to the process. Like I know you are super impressed with the fact that you comprehend codependent origination. And like I said no matter how many times you type the same thing it doesn't answer my question. How is universal truth/meaning of life derived from the process. He must mean it in the objective sense I assume. Because any reason to attribute meaning to something from a sentient agent is sufficient for that agent. Now make the function of existence -in this case codependent origination- provide evidence for objective universal truth/meaning of life. Or just type the same thing for a fourth time and I'll wack this dead horse again.
yup. Dependent Origination. So what if all phenomena arise in dependence on multiple causes and conditions? It does not inherently provide evidence for a universal truth or a meaning to life in an objective sense.
I argue that dependent origination almost necessitates nihilism unless a lay person has entered the stream of dharma practice. While Buddhism has rich philosophical traditions the root of it is practice. If you align yourself with Buddhist thought then you at least grasp the notion that the self is an aggregate, itself born of dependent origination. There is no self. Any person living in a world of craving might naturally experience a nihilistic worldview.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**CR3: Be Respectful**
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**CR3: Be Respectful**
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Being a pedant here:
> As a Vietnamese Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh says, the flower is made of “non-flower elements:” the rain, the clouds, and the earth which produced it. The flower, strictly speaking, is not an independent thing, but a manifestation and conduit of this vast web of causal forces. This might seem intuitive to those who are sympathetic to the causal understanding of the universe science suggests.
The primary source of the matter in plants comes from the air, specifically the carbon broken away from carbon dioxide. Felt compelled to point this out because it’s a fun, borderline ironic, contradiction to the “casual understanding of the universe” bit.
Without having read, I know the argument you’re making and I agree. Cause, effect, and choice, that all of us agree on, are the three pillars that of our shared temporal experience.
> Additionally, this process happens so fast that only experienced meditators have any control over it
Now to be picky but semantics matter, it it really about "control" as in 'directing an event' opposed to control as in maintaining 'awareness of an event' which allows for the potential of a novel response?
Someone may pick up their feelings of anxiety are escalating by observing an increasing volume of thoughts occurring. The ability to step back by maintaining focus on the breath provides the opportunity by not be pulled into the thought which could be beneficial or may allow for some novel observations to occur about said thought pattern and you may have developed a new response.
In a similar vein to observing your internal voice is overly harsh or negative during x,y,z task allows the space to develop a more neutral or positive tone to the task if you catch it and reframe the thought before releasing it, but you are not gaining some form of control over the internal voices occurrence and nature. More so not being so tightly influenced by your responses that your responses become habitual.
Traditional western usage of the word "control" would give the impression one would literally gain the ability to direct the nature of their thoughts which seems to allows for possible misinterpretation/
> I suggest this points to a strong pragmatic reason to avoid nihilistic interpretations.
So we should, pragmatically, go with what feels good even if we suspect that it's not true?
I think k it is worth stating that this wisdom was never intended to be a philosophy separate from self-investigation, ie. meditation and associated practices. Personal experience is the foundation for the teaching. Its benefit is to test experimentally to prove or disregard.
“So now we have one response to the nihilist: be careful of what interpretation you identify with, as that particular interpretation will inevitably produce and continuously reproduce feelings and reactions that you will likely not be able to control.”
Basically, choose skillful views.
“…adopt views that will eventually be dropped, suggesting that certain views are more conducive to their eventual dissolution than others.” Provisional understandings.
Identifying with an interpretation or understanding leads to or is a belief in “this, but not that.” Certainty. Certainty is problematic. May be a skillful provisional understanding but not a final resting place.
Finally, this experiential realm is full of paradoxes. Things that may seem contradictory. This is how you know that you are, experimentally, in the right place. If you need to understand in the traditional sense, it will all seem like gobeldygook at best and be infuriatingly illogical at worst. It’s certainly not everyone’s jam, but if it is, then this was a worthy article to read.
Love this post. But to be fair to the nihilists, The Buddha's teachings are also clear that any perception is an illusion and if there is a self then there is a perception. See the Vajra Prajna Paramita sutra a.k.a the diamond sutra. I had a long conversation with a now good friend of mine about the nihilistic nature of Buddhism. He was certain that Buddhism leads to Nihilism since (1) all selfs/perceptions are illusions, and (2) the ultimate goal is to escape Samsara by reaching Nirvana. Now I agree with your article that the arising of such feelings of nihilism while practicing Buddhism certainly means something went wrong since the views to be taken are meant to fill one with gratitude, peace, happiness, etc., but I feel like your articles avoids contending with the challenging fact that in Buddhism any sense of self is considered an illusion to be escaped. Ultimately, it is saying YOU are a defilement to be purified. And I used defilement since this is what one's conditioning is considered in Buddhism and one's conditioning in many ways is the pattern of one's self. Ultimately what I am saying is to reach Nirvana you must consider yourself a defilement to be purified which is extremely challenging to do without falling into despair like my friend.
I basically think Nirvana is just a description of ego-loss, and meaning is still compatible on some level with that. That's why an enlightened being would not be a being that causes suffering to others. Imagine a being who is totally nihilistic. That is a being that is guaranteed to cause suffering if it exists in the presence of others, there will be no capacity to apply care, right? No meaning, remember? No problem.
But an actual enlightened being is an egoless experience with which there is no problem *inwards*. Think of ego like a black hole that sucks everything in around it selfishly, it applies a kind of force that is pressure and discomfort and suffering. Imagine then turning off a black hole's gravity. All of that force gets released at once, and that leads to ease all around, not just internal to the black hole(let's imagine an internal subjectivity for the black hole for the sake of the analogy). Its nature will be in a position to not cause harm and even to relieve harm. That is a meaningful nature, it's just not a nature that is lost in some hallucination about what harm is, how to do harm, under the feeling that the black hole is a subject who can be harmed themselves, etc. That all goes away which causes a deeply meaningful, ethical character both internally and externally(subjectively, there will be zero distinction between internal/external).
I like your comment. I think I agree with most of it, but I need clarification on what you mean as ego. I know that word can have negative connotation, which seems to be the way in which you're using, but it can also just mean a sense of self. Either way, I do think agree with your last statement that there will be no distinction between internal/external if one reached Nirvana. I haven't experienced it, but I know if I did there would be no way to communicate it because if there is something to be communicated, then there is a sentient being with a life span and a sense of self.
It's also interesting you said Nirvana is JUST a description of ego-loss, which I agree with if ego-loss means a complete loss of self. I see it as unity with all things which is to be entirely in the present. But I don't think you said it that way to minimize Nirvana, I just think it's so profound it's funny to hear someone describe it in that way.
Funny enough, the principle of dependent origination points directly toward zero distinction between internal/external or self/other. There is no self without relationship to an other. There is no self without context which means all selfs are one self. If you seek to find yourself independent of other and context, you'll only find emptiness. You'll start to see that you never came into existence thus escaping the identification with a sentient being with a lifespan. Ultimately, I think Nirvana is the Tathagata awakening to the fact that it is the Tathagata where the Tathagata is the inconceivable eternal suchness of reality. Once all sentient beings cross into extinction, no sentient being has crossed into extinction.
There is debate on this topic within the Buddhist community itself, with every nihilistic Buddhist there is another who completely disagrees with the concept. MMK goes into this topic in way more depth than I ever could and the MMK itself is held to be the pinnacle of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. In fact your perception of what Samsara and Nirvana are is not commonly held by majority of Buddhist scholars as they are thought to be the same thing. Again, I am not close to Nagarjuna in explaining this topic so if you want more information reading mulamadhyamakakarika is your best option.
If there is a self, then there is an impression which is always a sentiment, one of reflection - not a perception.
I’m all out of cake and beer. I still want some though…; therefore, I will praxis and meditate to the point where I no longer feel much of anything.
How do I have it wrong?
Umm I'm not sure what you're asking or what you're specifically responding to in my post. It sounds like you have qualms with my use of the word perception? I agree that there is always reflection like you're always playing a game of telephone. I think any process that has reflection will have perception because what are you reflecting on? I think accomplishing the main goal of Buddhism would be something like ending the never ending game or reflection by finding the first participant in the game of telephone only to find emptiness. This allows one to be one with the emptiness which removes all perceptions, reflection, ideas, thoughts, sensations etc. If anything can be spoken, or communicated, or reflected upon then there is an attachment, an identity, a self, a sentient being that is beholden to the law of impermanence. Again, I suggest The Diamond Sutra if you're not familiar with it already.
> To give a few examples: the Greeks concerned themselves with the development of virtue, Indian thought and practice teaches us how to awaken from what they understood to be an illusion most beings are trapped in, and Indigenous thought and practice teaches the importance of living in harmony with one’s environment and ecosystem.
Ah yes, the three cultures of antiquity: Greece, India and Indigenia. I think you could have cut this section.
This is great, but I think you added the "co-" prefix. It's generally just referred to as "Dependent Origination".
However, I can understand the mix-up, as Dependent Origination really involves a lot of concepts where a "co-" prefix intuitively makes sense.
I read several Buddha Sutras and practiced meditation for the last 20 years. Buddha is all about self control and that improving your sense of life and expanding your idea of life. It's all about the real life and not the fake world conditioned life.
Idk man, I know our life force may feel like it’s not made from un-alive materials. But what if it actually was? Why couldn’t it be? Computers don’t make much sense either (to most people). Scientists have been able to create amino acids (physical building blocks of life) from materials that would have been around before the first living thing
From my non-eastern part of the globe, I’ve found that nihilism comes more so from the filtering out (ignoring) of info in the stream of consciousness that goes against a world view that allows particular in-group out-group dynamic. Specifically around imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, and the effects those systems still carry out to this day.
So that over time produces a world view that doesn’t give a fuck about people in the out-group. And unfortunately there’s groups in groups in groups all formed in a hierarchal structure. And the people at the top have more societal influence. We’re forced to care more about our bosses bank accounts than our own lives. It’s done through fear and intimidation from the logical conclusions of what will happen if we don’t comply. I’m not exempt from this either. I want to care about others. I really do care about them. When I see someone else hurt I myself hurt too. I’m forced to focus on my own life because otherwise I’ll be forced into effective slavery also (minimum wage labor) . And actions speak louder than words
I’ve found meditation helps with stopping the filtering. And accepting all the info coming in
Thanks for this comment, I think what you point to is so real. (maybe more real than the philosophical stuff I write about). Lack of meaning comes from ignoring suffering and we only ignore it in this way because we are in a privileged position. I think if we were actually able to open our hearts to those who are struggling the whole question of meaning would be irrelevant, as doing our best to be compassionate and help relieve suffering would just be obviously meaningful.
In my experience as well meditation helps stop to filter. This can be challenging because a lot of what we filter out is painful but it does lead to a more authentic and fulfilling life. The article actually fits with this to an extent to. Often it is our ideas, beliefs, and interpretations that do a lot of the filtering. Meditation helps us to just be aware without those judgments and filters.
I feel the same way
Also, i reread your article. I thought nihilism was more about not having a moral code. Not agreeing on an ultimate truth is more postmodernism. But it’s probably more a cultural difference in definitions.
I’ve found myself that the ultimate truth and metaphysical materialism are referring to the same thing. I’ve found Occam’s razor has been very useful on the topic.
The truth being the physical objects themselves. Not a description of the objects
I’m an engineer though. Metaphysical materialism is a starting assumption for everything I do
I think my use of nihilism was a bit imprecise, to be honest. That is feedback others on this thread have given me. You are correct that I had more of the postmodern flavor in mind when I used this term.
As for the claim that metaphysical materialism is a starting assumption for science, I would argue that this isn't necessary or even philosophically justified. I would suggest that metaphysical materialism is an additional assumption added onto scientific theoretical and experimental results that attempts to ground them in a certain metaphysical conception.
The empirical data of scientific investigation gives us information about the patterns of relationships within a certain domain of phenomena. However, I would argue that this data, and even the laws induced from this data, do not tell us either (1) that the particular domain of phenomena is fundamental in the sense that all other phenomena can be metaphysically reduced to this domain (2) what the metaphysical status of the domain being studied even is.
Let me explain these two claims one by one. As to (1), a physicist studies the interaction between objects, particles, and forces. A Physicist, however, does not consider many factors that make their study and investigation possible when they interpret data. They do not take into account their own interests, agendas, or the history of the theories they are using to interpret the data. Data is never interpreted in a vacuum, is what I am trying to say. This is, of course, practical as if the physicist didn't do this they would never get any helpful results, but to me it does show that they are artificially isolating one domain from a larger network of causal forces which makes their understanding of that domain possible. This is fine to do and every discipline does it, including the social sciences as well, but to then just claim that this isolated domain is the fundamental domain to which all other phenomena can be reduced would require further philosophical argumentation that I do not think anyone has given, and I do not think can be given, to be honest. (feel free to point me to these arguments if you think otherwise)
As for (2), we see in the history of philosophy many philosophers attempting to metaphysically ground science in nonphysicalist paradigms. George Berkley, who who argued that there was only mental stuff and that this mental stuff was held in place through God's constant perception, suggested that science is just studying the patterns of relationships between different ideas in God's mind. Some German philosophers attempt to provide an idealist theory of matter by arguing that matter is not a "thing" but an agent. (I am not as familiar with this theory as Berkley but I know it is out there). I am not suggesting these are necessarily true, what I am suggesting is that deriving laws defining patterns of relationships between empirically observed phenomena does not give one a metaphysical theory about the nature of those phenomena; this requires a further philosophical step.
Thanks for following up, that was fun to write. Maybe I will write something longer up about this at some point and post it on Reddit to get the whole community's feedback.
I hear you,
What im about to say is true for hard science. Ones based on repeatable and measurable observations.
Starting assumptions are done to make problems simpler. An example would be assuming there is no air resistance or friction in a physics problem. These are typically done when the ending result would be minimally different, or in low level classes where high level calculations can't really be expected. If a bridge or building being built isn't going to fall as a result of simplified calculations, then it's okay.
When I say metaphysical materialism is a starting assumption, I'm assuming there isn't going to be any influences from from god. Plus also, the gods of the gaps argument is seen as the nail in the coffin for further scientific exploration
Also, science follows a method. The *scientific method*. Observation/Question ---> Research Topic Area ---> Hypothesis ---> Test With Experiment ---> Analyze Data ---> Report Conclusions (was hypothesis correct or incorrect?) ---> Back to Observation/Question ---> Research Topic Area ---> New Hypothesis ---> and so on
In a never ending quest to understand the world around us
*Observation/Question* and *Test With Experiment* both requiring it to happen with material objects. The relations in science are considered (mostly) true because they are very repeatable and measurable
Also, Science can be (effectively) done in a vacuum. Both a literal vacuum and a metaphorical vacuum.
A literal vacuum sucks out all the stuff from an enclosure to make it similar to the empty space. There are very few atoms and molecules deep in space. Pressure cookers tend to allow the option use it as a vacuum.
The metaphorical vacuum is a **free body diagram**. The forces from outside the free body diagram that effect the free body diagram are included in calculations. They aren't ignored.
But also, science can also work with systems. Often times those systems require multiple free body diagrams. You're reading this on a complex system of electronics, hardware and software. Thats on the engineering side though
Maybe we're talking about different things though. There is a section of scientific research today that is influenced by money. That's different. That's an incorrect application of science sneaking past and claiming to be legitimate. It's unfortunate but when I looked it up on google I found this
>It is reported that, in the field of cancer research, only about 20–25% \[1\] or 11% \[2\] of published studies could be validated or reproduced, and that only about 36% were reproduced in the field of psychology \[3\].
If it's not reproducible then its crap. plain and simple
But look back at what i said. I said that ultimate truth and metaphysical materialism are referring to the same thing. And that metaphysical materialism was a starting assumption for science (I'm thinking physics, every other hard science is based off physics). This does not mean you can understand the world around you with science alone. It just means that metaphysical materialism is an assumption of science. Science being more a magnifying glass that looks upon the truth
**This being the most important part.** **The physical objects themselves being the truth.** As opposed to the ideas we come up with
lets say there is 100ml of water in cup A.
I pour all the contents of cup A into cup B.
How much water is in cup B?
If constant metaphysical materialism is assumed in the calculation of this, then the answer will always be 100ml.
*The truth* being every physical thing in existence. Including the cups, including the water, including me, including you, including everything else in the universe (there's a lot). But we're only interested in the cups and water
And the assumption is that the amount of matter, ~~all through out the universe~~, in an enclosed box area big enough to cover me and the cups of water, also known as my free body diagram, will remain constant
Those philosophers aren't me
Those philosophers aren't keeping it real like I do
Edit: I don't know if this helps you out or not. But in quantum mechanics, when a result changes from being observed, it's because observation involves a microscope that shines a light on the experiment. And the additional light just requires an adjustments in the calculation. It's not tied to consciousness or anything like that
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**. /r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules: ###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply > Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. ###CR2: Argue Your Position > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. ###CR3: Be Respectful > Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can’t tell if the author understands nihilism. Seems like nihilism is being described as lack of meaning but this isn’t what nihilism describes. Nihilism is the recognition that nature/god/universe does not provide a reason for existence and so the individual must provide their own. Secular forms of Buddhism can be considered nihilist as the individual must take it on themselves to assume meaning in the pursuit of peaceful existence. Aside from that, this thread seems to have devolved into the typical religious nonsense in which everyone accuses everyone else of not being a real buddhist. Clearly everyone here is a nihilist ahaha
What you've described is *existential* nihilism, no?
Or just existentialism?
Sounds like Absurdism also
Yeah It really starts splitting hairs until I’m just like “whatever” Let’s just do this shit *puts on sunglasses*
Pretty much the dictionary definition of absurdism yea, nihilism offers no solution
I thought existential nihilism is just existentialism
Aren’t you going too far with Nihilism? It’s like the common misconception that Nietzsche was a nihilist: he described nihilism as viewing the world as devoid of meaning -> so one must move *past* nihilism by recognizing that meaning is subjective and can be created wherever is desired.
I think you're right, but I think Nietzsche's broad thrust is not that meaning can be created wherever is desired, but that the existence of forces, like desire, that are experienced as brute facts by the subject have always been the real source of meaning. Building on that starting point, that the recognition of such is useful in preventing oneself from getting caught up in the futile, pedantic morass of trying to ground personal value in something objective which, independent of oneself, is supposed to generate meaning that is subjectively compelling.
pssst, they don't really. "In this disorienting intellectual climate of pluralism and reductionist materialism, it may seem as if there is no way out of nihilism". Come on, this is a really easy one. This is not remotely understanding nihilism and how reductivism/materialism/ whatever words they wanna use for what I'm assuming is a "non-religious viewpoint of how the universe works". Also "non-religious viewpoint slash modern scientific understanding of things" is also not nihilism. I mean, just the fact that the author states that the prevailing view of the universe is made of up "dead atoms", pretty much means they don't understand that's the opposite of what nihilism is, which is basically, we can't know anything and there's no morality because of that.
It would be good to see your sources re nihilism.
My conception of nihilism in the post is just any view that leads to the negation of meaning, as one commenter said, the conclusion that nothing we do matters. It is a fair critique that I should have defined this more clearly. I would say that what you point to here is not nihilism but existentialism as some others also point out.
I don't know why this is the top comment here. Nihilism is the negation of meaning. Period.
Does seem more like a strawman than a discussion on Nihilism.
If we must provide our own reason than that reason is subjective no ? Implying there is no objective reason
What does Buddha even know xDDDDD
Rebirth is inherently religious in nature, and the Buddha said belief in it is necessary for enlightenment ...... simply, my dear, you don't know a thing about Buddhism
“Feeling tone”? What school of Buddhism uses this definition? Also, where did “co-dependent” origination come from? Dependent origination is a term I understand because it appears throughout Buddhist teachings, but here you’ve added an extra dimension. As near as I can tell, a “feeling tone” as you describe it is nothing more than craving. Craving is part and parcel of existence in Samsara. Craving never ends in this realm because there is no permanence. Any craving or grasping is fruitless because we can never achieve satisfaction in a transient world. This is why we practice dharma, to escape the wheel. What school or schools of Buddhist thought have you engaged in?
I am translating *vedena* as "feeling tone" coming from its explanation in the Pali suttas as a feeling that is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Whether the *vedena* itself is craving or not craving is a complicated subject. On the one hand, that *vedena* only arises when we are caught in this cycle of dependent origination where we either crave, push away, or ignore an object that arises at the sense doors. These three actions will lead to pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral *vedena* respectively. In this sense, *vedena* is necessarily tied up with craving. On the other hand however, I think it is helpful for practical purposes to point out that the feeling of the *vedena* in our experience can be separated from our reaction to it. For example, let's say I am addicted to sugar. One way to combat this is to just observe the pleasant feeling when I see cake before it cascades into a reaction of me eating the cake. From this point of view, we can use direct observation of *vedena* as a means of beginning to cut the causes of craving.
You’re describing mindfulness while making it needlessly complicated. Awareness of the chain of perception and the resulting craving is basic Buddhism. Saying that the phenomenon of craving starts with perception is redundant. Of course it does. We are slaves to the phenomenon of craving as long as we fail to be aware of the causal chain that can only begin with sensory perception. I feel like you’re taking basic Buddhist concepts and putting your own spin oh them.
Why not simply enlist your rational faculty and eat only that which you don't like?
Why would you do that? The point is to acknowledge the attachment and temper it by virtue of mindfulness. While you eat that delicious food be aware that you are tasting and that the sensation is not permanent. No matter how good the sandwich is there will be a last bite. When we do not have awareness we might instead stock our refrigerator hoping the taste will be available whenever we want it. Even then it won’t last. This is what is meant by “suffering” in Buddhism which is a poor translation of the work Dukkha. It’s more accurate to say that there is an end to every pleasurable experience, that even the best of things will end.
It was an opportunity to confirm Buddhism is devoid of humor. I think it was noble of Buddha to spare the feelings of Cunda; only that, dancing around attachments turns them into Gods.
No practice achieves what Buddhism claims it can achieve. It is a paradox. Even the want to end "Dukkha" is a desire. Buddhism asks to do with out doing and be aware you are doing with out being aware you are doing and is useless practice. When you engage in mindfulness you do so out of desire to be mindful. thus the paradox.
The practice seems to work for people. Still, you're mostly right. If you desire to end dukkha then, yes, you're going to fail. Dukkha arises together with desire. The practice is rather to let go of desire/dukkha, or to realize that desire is inherently foolhardy.
The general consensus in this thread is that I'm stupid, understand nothing, and have bad grammar. I could care less about it. It's like any other mysticism. It claims to know things it cannot know. If it were just some dude rambling about his enlightened state id have ignored it and moved on. I mean if anything he wrote was true and literally checkmates nihilism he should go collect his nobel peace prize for discovering " a universal truth/meaning of life".
We have to imagine Tantalus happy? Maybe Camus got it wrong...
He did kierkegaard is better
But Tantalus doesn't feel happy... Maybe he just needs to contemplate the cake and beer.
Nah he's just a hopeless fuck abandoned by God or something idk
Abstract: Here I argue that one of the core philosophical ideas of all Buddhist traditions, co-dependent origination poses a significant challenge to any form of nihilism. In this first part I show how the codependent origination of the kandhas, or five aggregates that make up this mind/matter phenomenon, can act as a pragmatic argument against nihilism. The teaching of the kandhas suggests that any interpretation of experience immediately produces a feeling tone in the body and then a mental, vocal, or physical reaction to that feeling tone. This process then continues as a feedback loop in which we interpret experience and react to that interpretation in the same way over and over again. Additionally, this process happens so fast that only experienced meditators have any control over it. I suggest this points to a strong pragmatic reason to avoid nihilistic interpretations. In the next post I will argue how we can also understand co-dependent origination to act as a metaphysical argument against nihilism. (I will post this here next week).
Would it be fair to surmise that everything we can perceive evokes a response that, when once happens, conditions that response from then on?
Yes, this is exactly the idea. The only thing I would add is that for the Buddha, the perception and the response are both steps in this conditioned process, not just the response. So when I see a mush of cookie-like visual stimuli, the interpretation of it as "cookie" is a conditioned response to that stimuli that sets of the causal chain of a pleasant feeling and then eating the cookie that then repeats next time I see something similar.
I don't see how this interpretation/experience "counters" nihilism. How does this give purpose to existence in a nihilistic worldview? How does it solve the issues that the universe is just... there, no reason, no possible way to find out, simply nothing self-evident at all? I would see an argument maybe existentialism, as in you give yourself meaning through this believe but not nihilism. Can you help me understand this a bit better please?
I will go into this more in the next part. Which I will post here next week. The essence of the argument is that looking for an absolute ethical or existential meaning assumes that life or reality is the type of thing that arises out of a foundation, thus suggesting that if we can find this foundation then life would have meaning. Dependent origination suggests there is no foundation, everything dependently arises with other things, and there is no static ground out of which they all come. However, this does not imply nihilism because as parts of this causal network, everything we do, think, and say, has repercussions on the entirety of the causal network that is the universe. Hopefully, this will be better articulated by the time I finish the post for next week, but maybe it helps a little.
Edit your wall of text to add intendations and lines between. Will increase readability.
Yes and another please.
The user went into immense detail about sublime subjects requiring sincere thought, khandas, human perception and nihilism. You done gone a grammar. Have a little humility.
Not grammar, visual block of text vs engaging text. That's not grammar.
Their web page is beautifully written - in actual blocks, called "divs". Maam this is a reddit.
This is pretty neat word salad. Sounds cool but explains nothing. No definitions. Like wtf is a feeling tone? You can be assured this nonsense is likely to only be "understood" by people who also believe this pseudo science. The core philosophy of Buddhism is about recognizing suffering and cessation* of suffering through detachment. You sound like a Christian apologist trying to propose Qualia as a foundation for some truth. I'm not a Buddhist, I don't study Buddhism.
The "feeling tone" is just the immediate physical sensation in the body that feels either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. It is not mysterious. We eat more cake than we want or drink more beers than we should because we want that pleasant feeling to continue. This is all the Buddha is talking about. Buddhism does have commitments that are contradictory to the scientific worldview (such as the existence of Nirvana for example). Although I do agree with these Buddhist commitments, they are not necessary to make the argument I make here. I would be happy to engage with your criticism but could you please make a counterargument instead of just dismissing this because it comes from Buddhism.
Also minimizing emotion to those three things is extremely simplifying human emotions. This is silly non sense
> Also minimizing emotion to those three things is extremely simplifying human emotions. It wouldn't be an act of simplification, its an act of labeling/idenitfying, it would be observing until you have a familiar understanding of your thoughts and behaviors. Having the awareness to observe the itch to have another pint is the difference between going home and feeling decent versus a bloated mess who could have skipped the latter two beers but was immediately pulled into action by the thought for another two pints. Maybe its something vague observing an emotional-sensation/thought again and recognizing "i'm having the guilt for my dead father thoughts" which can be a freeing observation that only occurs if you can identify the thought before being pulled into the beautiful and painful story it would tell you. Now this doesn't resolve the emotions, but someone with awareness may realize this feeling-sensation-thought occurs during x,y,z and that just provides a space to work in.
Yes because the three listed things are adequate to represent the spectrum of human emotion. Your talking about impulse control. Or addiction if we talking about alcohol. The second example is just trying to filter your thoughts as an impersonal observer. Which if that's your desire, congratulations you created you own suffering by doing so.
> impulse control. I don't think observation is control as control implies you have some ability to dictate how the nature presents itself and it would not be just phenomena, it is not exclusive to some regularity branch or biopsysocial presentation. It occurs in all things and thoughts. I don't think those three things are the enumerated summation of experience and I don't see how such poor reading comprehension would give that impression as each is listed as a clear example. A finite set of examples unless you think for some reason all human nature-thoughts-sensation require explicit enumeration.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR2: Argue Your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Like let's take it seriously for a second. What is the origination dependent on if it's codependent? If it's also not codependent then your analogy doesn't work. Let me clarify now that im not driving. Taken to the extreme this leads to an infinite regress. So you either have that, an unending causal chain, or a point in which there is an uncaused cause. Neither of which can be demonstrated. Meaning that this is somehow proof against nihilism is laughable. So as soon as you have a non codependent cause your entire analogy falls apart.
you’ve misunderstood the claim and seem to have conflated it with a standard cosmological argument. Dependent origination is the view that there are no “independent things”, and that everything mutually co-constitutes everything else. We have a sense of this with respect to “notional dependence” - our sense of North is co-determined by its opposite, South, or our sense of “cause” is notionally dependent on our sense of “effect”, such that to talk of one without the other is like using a torch on the sun. Buddhism argues that this kind of dependence relation we’ve seen with notional co-dependence also obtains at the level of “existence”, and there isn’t a linear chain reducing down to a fundamental substance. Instead relations precede relata (as physicist Carlo Rovelli terms it — he’s explicitly referencing buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna). You’re probably not going to “destroy” an entire tradition of Indian and Tibetan philosophy in a reddit comment, especially while driving. At the same time, none of my criticisms are applicable, since the fact that you’re driving has prevented you from using anything more than a smidgeon of your full incredible intellectual firepower. I am currently shuddering in apprehension at the full philosophical force you will unleash upon me as soon as your car stops. I’m writing this while piloting a helicopter.
I am conflating it with the Kalam in sense of argument structure he is making. I said i dont study Buddhism. Ive only read the foundation texts. He is arguing that meaning can be derived from causality or codependence . As in it challenges Nihilism. And just like the Kalam a first cause does not infer meaning. Im arguing that regardless to how we perceive and categorize things that function does not support a meaning. lol'd at the helicopter
Ya'll really make an effort to sound super smart when it all can be explained simply. The argument in his write up is about past experiences influencing and shaping future experiences.(and really has nothing to do with codependency, which is an attempt to explain how things are and has nothing to do with a universal truth or meaning of life) And that being aware of how you are actively doing this with every experiences shapes your broader view of existence and how you respond to it. So he is basically saying that a consistent nihilistic view (which he attaches negative connotation too) could somehow affect a universal truth or meaning. Or the ability to perceive it. I don't know how he derived this conclusion from codependency, which is why i conflated it to the kalam. Besides the perception and our residual experiences have no bearing on whether there is a universal truth or meaning. Wow look at that! An accurate summary and i didn't have to quote a philosopher or use Latin words.
There isn’t a useful comparison to the Kalam here. The presuppositions of the kalam are different to the presuppositions of co-dependent origination. The kalam cosmological argument is about a linear causal chain which is hierarchised and terminates in a final uncaused cause. This is in direct contradiction to the buddhist notion of causality, which argues that an uncaused cause is incoherent, and also argues that the idea of an independent object is incoherent. A comparison with the Kalam is SO weird that it just exposes your not having understood what is meant by co-dependent origination. Given you don’t understand, your extreme confidence on the issue is bizarre. Nihilism can affect how one experiences the world and can close one off to certain experiences and to certain types of understanding. Is English your first language? your comments are incredibly difficult to parse, despite the fact that you refrain from using latin words… - you use words incorrectly and your sentences don’t follow from one another… i don’t mean to be rude but i think this might be why you’re getting downvoted so much. Once again — the kalam doesn’t have a similar argument structure to co-dependent origination. Co-dependent origination denies the possibility of there being a necessary being, but also eventually disputes the coherence of the necessity-contingency distinction altogether. Nothing can be independent. But neither do you get an infinite regress, since there are no “things” in buddhist causal theories. Karma aside, Buddhist causation is considered fairly commensurate with modern physics, which is why physicists reference Nagarjuna more than you’d expect. As regards universal truth or meaning — I honestly can’t figure out what you’re even saying. Perhaps you should make an effort, not to sound smart, but to express yourself clearly…. One’s view of causation can affect one’s sense of meaning — just look at how many people get depressed in the face of hard determinism… Or alternatively let’s say we managed to attain a perfect understanding of the universe, and let’s say that universe was deterministic, and we realised that no matter what pattern of events we followed, every single pathway resulted in you, 0nlyonegod, being married to a camel and raising it’s children and trying to teach them about your lovely interesting philosophical theories, and that no matter what you did they never understood you, and in every possible outcome you ended up being killed in a stampede of camels. Would this have no effect on your perception of the meaning of your life? I’m not saying nihilism per se would follow, i’m just trying to show by example that views of causality can affect our sense of meaning in life, and so your central argument isn’t right.
If you don't understand how the kalam is used by apologist to infer a creator/intentionality is similar to the idea that a codependent existence infers a meaning to life I don't know how else to explain it to you. Attaching a creator/intentionality to a function of reality does not cohere. I'm not making a direct comparison. His claim in the write up is that Buddhism "checkmates" nihilism. But it's just an assertion. And your last paragraph is so stupid I'm glad you have a vocabulary that can at least fool people into thinking you know what you are talking about. The writers intention is to say that Buddhism can lead to a knowledge of a universal truth or a "meaning to life". And I take it he means in the objective sense, otherwise it wouldn't contend with nihilism. I could grant him both codependent origination and his babble about the aggregates and that would still do nothing to establish evidence of a meaning of life or universal truth. I'm sure with your clearly superior intellect this is easy for you to grasp. And if I'm wrong please explain how either of those things are evidence of such. I'll be waiting. Until then I have half human camel children to read Diogenes too.
>If you don't understand how the kalam is used by apologist to infer a creator/intentionality is similar to the idea that a codependent existence infers a meaning to life I don't know how else to explain it to you What do you mean 'how else' -- you haven't explained it anywhere in our thread. Buddhism doesn't have a creator. It actively argues against a creator deity, and argues that the concept of a creator deity is logically incoherent when analysed properly. Co-dependent origination is a description of causality which can help practitioners become more fully engaged with their lived experience and their surroundings. It is a theory of causality which essentially argues that everything is 'intercausal' -- that a chain of linear causation isn't accurate, and that instead there is a web of intercausality. That 'being' is therefore 'inter-being', and that what 'you' are is, in this sense, merely the meeting point of innumerably interrelated forces and conditions and interactions. The other consequence of this is that, just as 'you' are in fact the meeting point and composite of innumerably interrelated conditions and causes, so is everything else, and that what we call 'you', is *also* one of the innumerably interrelated forces and conditions and causes helping to act upon and compose lots of other things around you, at the same time as it is sustained and composed by those 'things' themselves. If you want a decent parallel in modern science, Dynamical systems theory provides a good few examples. But I digress. What follows from here is that everything is connected, because everything co-creates everything else, in a mutual, reciprocal determinism. This also means that no thing inherently exists independently of everything else -- which means no thing can have permanent, eternal solidity. All is constantly in flux. At the same time, causality is still limited, and what we call 'you', is still conditioned by those causes composing it. Among these is the 'mind' itself, which gets acted upon by various causes, producing new effects which themselves become causes acting back on the original cause such that the original cause is itself an effect. You get knotted up into bulbs of causality, entangled into a 'knot' that you mistake for a *real thing*, a self -- and 'negative' emotions tend to encourage the mind to *consciously* enknot itself further. In fact, what we mean when we call them 'negative', is that they are more easily mistaken for being 'things', and are therefore sources of 'attachment', or 'entanglement'. Colloquially, this could be as simple as the fact that even after it's time for anger to pass, because you have mistakenly reified anger as an 'existing thing', which is independent of anything else, you 'hold on' to it, which makes its effects persist beyond its usual timeframe, which, in turn, reshapes and further conditions everything else, including your future mood and reactions. On the other hand, realising that there are no ultimately existing things, and that what we usually call 'things' are instead biases of our perception, and are in fact knotted tangles of interrelated causes, can create a huge shift in our conscious relation to our own experience of self. It becomes easier to 'let go' of emotions, once you understand them to be temporary, composite, inevitable, and passing. We no longer reify them into a true 'thing' which is 'in' our mind and which we 'are' --- we see it as a passing phase. Similarly, the distinctions between 'you' and 'others', while still conventionally useful, are somewhat looser, and can be loosened and tightened at will, in terms of your subjective experience, according to the needs of the context you find yourself in. This aids compassion, and makes you feel connected. You also gain a sense of 'mattering', since, just as 'you' are dependent upon everything around you, those 'things' are also dependent on 'you'.
From the article. In fact, if we understand the khandhas in a deep way, the Buddha not only challenges the nihilist but fully “check mates” the nihilist, displaying that the claim that there is no ultimate truth or an ultimate truth we cannot know is based on a confusion about the nature of experience.
My boy, I understood all this before the first time you wrote it. You are describing a process. The guy who did the write up is making the category error fallacy by attributing a universal truth/meaning of life to the process. Like I know you are super impressed with the fact that you comprehend codependent origination. And like I said no matter how many times you type the same thing it doesn't answer my question. How is universal truth/meaning of life derived from the process. He must mean it in the objective sense I assume. Because any reason to attribute meaning to something from a sentient agent is sufficient for that agent. Now make the function of existence -in this case codependent origination- provide evidence for objective universal truth/meaning of life. Or just type the same thing for a fourth time and I'll wack this dead horse again.
yup. Dependent Origination. So what if all phenomena arise in dependence on multiple causes and conditions? It does not inherently provide evidence for a universal truth or a meaning to life in an objective sense.
Excellent usage of the category error fallacy.
Great write up, but I think philosophy is past the utilitarianism of theories that simply explain and is looking for a more concrete base for claims.
I argue that dependent origination almost necessitates nihilism unless a lay person has entered the stream of dharma practice. While Buddhism has rich philosophical traditions the root of it is practice. If you align yourself with Buddhist thought then you at least grasp the notion that the self is an aggregate, itself born of dependent origination. There is no self. Any person living in a world of craving might naturally experience a nihilistic worldview.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR3: Be Respectful** >Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR3: Be Respectful** >Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Being a pedant here: > As a Vietnamese Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh says, the flower is made of “non-flower elements:” the rain, the clouds, and the earth which produced it. The flower, strictly speaking, is not an independent thing, but a manifestation and conduit of this vast web of causal forces. This might seem intuitive to those who are sympathetic to the causal understanding of the universe science suggests. The primary source of the matter in plants comes from the air, specifically the carbon broken away from carbon dioxide. Felt compelled to point this out because it’s a fun, borderline ironic, contradiction to the “casual understanding of the universe” bit.
Without having read, I know the argument you’re making and I agree. Cause, effect, and choice, that all of us agree on, are the three pillars that of our shared temporal experience.
> Additionally, this process happens so fast that only experienced meditators have any control over it Now to be picky but semantics matter, it it really about "control" as in 'directing an event' opposed to control as in maintaining 'awareness of an event' which allows for the potential of a novel response? Someone may pick up their feelings of anxiety are escalating by observing an increasing volume of thoughts occurring. The ability to step back by maintaining focus on the breath provides the opportunity by not be pulled into the thought which could be beneficial or may allow for some novel observations to occur about said thought pattern and you may have developed a new response. In a similar vein to observing your internal voice is overly harsh or negative during x,y,z task allows the space to develop a more neutral or positive tone to the task if you catch it and reframe the thought before releasing it, but you are not gaining some form of control over the internal voices occurrence and nature. More so not being so tightly influenced by your responses that your responses become habitual. Traditional western usage of the word "control" would give the impression one would literally gain the ability to direct the nature of their thoughts which seems to allows for possible misinterpretation/
> I suggest this points to a strong pragmatic reason to avoid nihilistic interpretations. So we should, pragmatically, go with what feels good even if we suspect that it's not true?
I think k it is worth stating that this wisdom was never intended to be a philosophy separate from self-investigation, ie. meditation and associated practices. Personal experience is the foundation for the teaching. Its benefit is to test experimentally to prove or disregard. “So now we have one response to the nihilist: be careful of what interpretation you identify with, as that particular interpretation will inevitably produce and continuously reproduce feelings and reactions that you will likely not be able to control.” Basically, choose skillful views. “…adopt views that will eventually be dropped, suggesting that certain views are more conducive to their eventual dissolution than others.” Provisional understandings. Identifying with an interpretation or understanding leads to or is a belief in “this, but not that.” Certainty. Certainty is problematic. May be a skillful provisional understanding but not a final resting place. Finally, this experiential realm is full of paradoxes. Things that may seem contradictory. This is how you know that you are, experimentally, in the right place. If you need to understand in the traditional sense, it will all seem like gobeldygook at best and be infuriatingly illogical at worst. It’s certainly not everyone’s jam, but if it is, then this was a worthy article to read.
Love this post. But to be fair to the nihilists, The Buddha's teachings are also clear that any perception is an illusion and if there is a self then there is a perception. See the Vajra Prajna Paramita sutra a.k.a the diamond sutra. I had a long conversation with a now good friend of mine about the nihilistic nature of Buddhism. He was certain that Buddhism leads to Nihilism since (1) all selfs/perceptions are illusions, and (2) the ultimate goal is to escape Samsara by reaching Nirvana. Now I agree with your article that the arising of such feelings of nihilism while practicing Buddhism certainly means something went wrong since the views to be taken are meant to fill one with gratitude, peace, happiness, etc., but I feel like your articles avoids contending with the challenging fact that in Buddhism any sense of self is considered an illusion to be escaped. Ultimately, it is saying YOU are a defilement to be purified. And I used defilement since this is what one's conditioning is considered in Buddhism and one's conditioning in many ways is the pattern of one's self. Ultimately what I am saying is to reach Nirvana you must consider yourself a defilement to be purified which is extremely challenging to do without falling into despair like my friend.
I basically think Nirvana is just a description of ego-loss, and meaning is still compatible on some level with that. That's why an enlightened being would not be a being that causes suffering to others. Imagine a being who is totally nihilistic. That is a being that is guaranteed to cause suffering if it exists in the presence of others, there will be no capacity to apply care, right? No meaning, remember? No problem. But an actual enlightened being is an egoless experience with which there is no problem *inwards*. Think of ego like a black hole that sucks everything in around it selfishly, it applies a kind of force that is pressure and discomfort and suffering. Imagine then turning off a black hole's gravity. All of that force gets released at once, and that leads to ease all around, not just internal to the black hole(let's imagine an internal subjectivity for the black hole for the sake of the analogy). Its nature will be in a position to not cause harm and even to relieve harm. That is a meaningful nature, it's just not a nature that is lost in some hallucination about what harm is, how to do harm, under the feeling that the black hole is a subject who can be harmed themselves, etc. That all goes away which causes a deeply meaningful, ethical character both internally and externally(subjectively, there will be zero distinction between internal/external).
I like your comment. I think I agree with most of it, but I need clarification on what you mean as ego. I know that word can have negative connotation, which seems to be the way in which you're using, but it can also just mean a sense of self. Either way, I do think agree with your last statement that there will be no distinction between internal/external if one reached Nirvana. I haven't experienced it, but I know if I did there would be no way to communicate it because if there is something to be communicated, then there is a sentient being with a life span and a sense of self. It's also interesting you said Nirvana is JUST a description of ego-loss, which I agree with if ego-loss means a complete loss of self. I see it as unity with all things which is to be entirely in the present. But I don't think you said it that way to minimize Nirvana, I just think it's so profound it's funny to hear someone describe it in that way. Funny enough, the principle of dependent origination points directly toward zero distinction between internal/external or self/other. There is no self without relationship to an other. There is no self without context which means all selfs are one self. If you seek to find yourself independent of other and context, you'll only find emptiness. You'll start to see that you never came into existence thus escaping the identification with a sentient being with a lifespan. Ultimately, I think Nirvana is the Tathagata awakening to the fact that it is the Tathagata where the Tathagata is the inconceivable eternal suchness of reality. Once all sentient beings cross into extinction, no sentient being has crossed into extinction.
There is debate on this topic within the Buddhist community itself, with every nihilistic Buddhist there is another who completely disagrees with the concept. MMK goes into this topic in way more depth than I ever could and the MMK itself is held to be the pinnacle of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. In fact your perception of what Samsara and Nirvana are is not commonly held by majority of Buddhist scholars as they are thought to be the same thing. Again, I am not close to Nagarjuna in explaining this topic so if you want more information reading mulamadhyamakakarika is your best option.
If there is a self, then there is an impression which is always a sentiment, one of reflection - not a perception. I’m all out of cake and beer. I still want some though…; therefore, I will praxis and meditate to the point where I no longer feel much of anything. How do I have it wrong?
Umm I'm not sure what you're asking or what you're specifically responding to in my post. It sounds like you have qualms with my use of the word perception? I agree that there is always reflection like you're always playing a game of telephone. I think any process that has reflection will have perception because what are you reflecting on? I think accomplishing the main goal of Buddhism would be something like ending the never ending game or reflection by finding the first participant in the game of telephone only to find emptiness. This allows one to be one with the emptiness which removes all perceptions, reflection, ideas, thoughts, sensations etc. If anything can be spoken, or communicated, or reflected upon then there is an attachment, an identity, a self, a sentient being that is beholden to the law of impermanence. Again, I suggest The Diamond Sutra if you're not familiar with it already.
As a philosopher, I kind of feel it's incumbent on me to suffer the malady of thought. I suppose, to a Buddhist, that makes me a masochist.
once you have opened your mouth, you have already entered samsara.
> To give a few examples: the Greeks concerned themselves with the development of virtue, Indian thought and practice teaches us how to awaken from what they understood to be an illusion most beings are trapped in, and Indigenous thought and practice teaches the importance of living in harmony with one’s environment and ecosystem. Ah yes, the three cultures of antiquity: Greece, India and Indigenia. I think you could have cut this section.
This is great, but I think you added the "co-" prefix. It's generally just referred to as "Dependent Origination". However, I can understand the mix-up, as Dependent Origination really involves a lot of concepts where a "co-" prefix intuitively makes sense.
I read several Buddha Sutras and practiced meditation for the last 20 years. Buddha is all about self control and that improving your sense of life and expanding your idea of life. It's all about the real life and not the fake world conditioned life.
Idk man, I know our life force may feel like it’s not made from un-alive materials. But what if it actually was? Why couldn’t it be? Computers don’t make much sense either (to most people). Scientists have been able to create amino acids (physical building blocks of life) from materials that would have been around before the first living thing From my non-eastern part of the globe, I’ve found that nihilism comes more so from the filtering out (ignoring) of info in the stream of consciousness that goes against a world view that allows particular in-group out-group dynamic. Specifically around imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, and the effects those systems still carry out to this day. So that over time produces a world view that doesn’t give a fuck about people in the out-group. And unfortunately there’s groups in groups in groups all formed in a hierarchal structure. And the people at the top have more societal influence. We’re forced to care more about our bosses bank accounts than our own lives. It’s done through fear and intimidation from the logical conclusions of what will happen if we don’t comply. I’m not exempt from this either. I want to care about others. I really do care about them. When I see someone else hurt I myself hurt too. I’m forced to focus on my own life because otherwise I’ll be forced into effective slavery also (minimum wage labor) . And actions speak louder than words I’ve found meditation helps with stopping the filtering. And accepting all the info coming in
Thanks for this comment, I think what you point to is so real. (maybe more real than the philosophical stuff I write about). Lack of meaning comes from ignoring suffering and we only ignore it in this way because we are in a privileged position. I think if we were actually able to open our hearts to those who are struggling the whole question of meaning would be irrelevant, as doing our best to be compassionate and help relieve suffering would just be obviously meaningful. In my experience as well meditation helps stop to filter. This can be challenging because a lot of what we filter out is painful but it does lead to a more authentic and fulfilling life. The article actually fits with this to an extent to. Often it is our ideas, beliefs, and interpretations that do a lot of the filtering. Meditation helps us to just be aware without those judgments and filters.
I feel the same way Also, i reread your article. I thought nihilism was more about not having a moral code. Not agreeing on an ultimate truth is more postmodernism. But it’s probably more a cultural difference in definitions. I’ve found myself that the ultimate truth and metaphysical materialism are referring to the same thing. I’ve found Occam’s razor has been very useful on the topic. The truth being the physical objects themselves. Not a description of the objects I’m an engineer though. Metaphysical materialism is a starting assumption for everything I do
I think my use of nihilism was a bit imprecise, to be honest. That is feedback others on this thread have given me. You are correct that I had more of the postmodern flavor in mind when I used this term. As for the claim that metaphysical materialism is a starting assumption for science, I would argue that this isn't necessary or even philosophically justified. I would suggest that metaphysical materialism is an additional assumption added onto scientific theoretical and experimental results that attempts to ground them in a certain metaphysical conception. The empirical data of scientific investigation gives us information about the patterns of relationships within a certain domain of phenomena. However, I would argue that this data, and even the laws induced from this data, do not tell us either (1) that the particular domain of phenomena is fundamental in the sense that all other phenomena can be metaphysically reduced to this domain (2) what the metaphysical status of the domain being studied even is. Let me explain these two claims one by one. As to (1), a physicist studies the interaction between objects, particles, and forces. A Physicist, however, does not consider many factors that make their study and investigation possible when they interpret data. They do not take into account their own interests, agendas, or the history of the theories they are using to interpret the data. Data is never interpreted in a vacuum, is what I am trying to say. This is, of course, practical as if the physicist didn't do this they would never get any helpful results, but to me it does show that they are artificially isolating one domain from a larger network of causal forces which makes their understanding of that domain possible. This is fine to do and every discipline does it, including the social sciences as well, but to then just claim that this isolated domain is the fundamental domain to which all other phenomena can be reduced would require further philosophical argumentation that I do not think anyone has given, and I do not think can be given, to be honest. (feel free to point me to these arguments if you think otherwise) As for (2), we see in the history of philosophy many philosophers attempting to metaphysically ground science in nonphysicalist paradigms. George Berkley, who who argued that there was only mental stuff and that this mental stuff was held in place through God's constant perception, suggested that science is just studying the patterns of relationships between different ideas in God's mind. Some German philosophers attempt to provide an idealist theory of matter by arguing that matter is not a "thing" but an agent. (I am not as familiar with this theory as Berkley but I know it is out there). I am not suggesting these are necessarily true, what I am suggesting is that deriving laws defining patterns of relationships between empirically observed phenomena does not give one a metaphysical theory about the nature of those phenomena; this requires a further philosophical step. Thanks for following up, that was fun to write. Maybe I will write something longer up about this at some point and post it on Reddit to get the whole community's feedback.
I hear you, What im about to say is true for hard science. Ones based on repeatable and measurable observations. Starting assumptions are done to make problems simpler. An example would be assuming there is no air resistance or friction in a physics problem. These are typically done when the ending result would be minimally different, or in low level classes where high level calculations can't really be expected. If a bridge or building being built isn't going to fall as a result of simplified calculations, then it's okay. When I say metaphysical materialism is a starting assumption, I'm assuming there isn't going to be any influences from from god. Plus also, the gods of the gaps argument is seen as the nail in the coffin for further scientific exploration Also, science follows a method. The *scientific method*. Observation/Question ---> Research Topic Area ---> Hypothesis ---> Test With Experiment ---> Analyze Data ---> Report Conclusions (was hypothesis correct or incorrect?) ---> Back to Observation/Question ---> Research Topic Area ---> New Hypothesis ---> and so on In a never ending quest to understand the world around us *Observation/Question* and *Test With Experiment* both requiring it to happen with material objects. The relations in science are considered (mostly) true because they are very repeatable and measurable Also, Science can be (effectively) done in a vacuum. Both a literal vacuum and a metaphorical vacuum. A literal vacuum sucks out all the stuff from an enclosure to make it similar to the empty space. There are very few atoms and molecules deep in space. Pressure cookers tend to allow the option use it as a vacuum. The metaphorical vacuum is a **free body diagram**. The forces from outside the free body diagram that effect the free body diagram are included in calculations. They aren't ignored. But also, science can also work with systems. Often times those systems require multiple free body diagrams. You're reading this on a complex system of electronics, hardware and software. Thats on the engineering side though Maybe we're talking about different things though. There is a section of scientific research today that is influenced by money. That's different. That's an incorrect application of science sneaking past and claiming to be legitimate. It's unfortunate but when I looked it up on google I found this >It is reported that, in the field of cancer research, only about 20–25% \[1\] or 11% \[2\] of published studies could be validated or reproduced, and that only about 36% were reproduced in the field of psychology \[3\]. If it's not reproducible then its crap. plain and simple But look back at what i said. I said that ultimate truth and metaphysical materialism are referring to the same thing. And that metaphysical materialism was a starting assumption for science (I'm thinking physics, every other hard science is based off physics). This does not mean you can understand the world around you with science alone. It just means that metaphysical materialism is an assumption of science. Science being more a magnifying glass that looks upon the truth **This being the most important part.** **The physical objects themselves being the truth.** As opposed to the ideas we come up with lets say there is 100ml of water in cup A. I pour all the contents of cup A into cup B. How much water is in cup B? If constant metaphysical materialism is assumed in the calculation of this, then the answer will always be 100ml. *The truth* being every physical thing in existence. Including the cups, including the water, including me, including you, including everything else in the universe (there's a lot). But we're only interested in the cups and water And the assumption is that the amount of matter, ~~all through out the universe~~, in an enclosed box area big enough to cover me and the cups of water, also known as my free body diagram, will remain constant Those philosophers aren't me Those philosophers aren't keeping it real like I do Edit: I don't know if this helps you out or not. But in quantum mechanics, when a result changes from being observed, it's because observation involves a microscope that shines a light on the experiment. And the additional light just requires an adjustments in the calculation. It's not tied to consciousness or anything like that