First thank you for your response, taking your time to comment on my thoughts is flattering. For the most part, I use Nubblies as backup storage to refer to; I do not expect anyone to take the time to take interest and respond to my babble, I agree that nothing I have said is coherent, I am learning.
I’ve said many times that I am full of doubt, I’m well aware that this type of discussion has been taking place in slightly different forms for thousands of years, my desultory approach spikes your accusation of “superior knowledge of contemporary philosophy”.
In my questions to Repug I ask "what for identity?” I do not have a sense of an enduring metaphysical ego, described as empty individualism in the link.
You say, "We act like isolated, scared little bits of "me me me" vs. the World." this is closed individualism and it is not something I have entertained as long as I can remember.
You'll have seen the Hitchens cancer clip "I'm not as I was" unlike the closed individualists I don't see myself as being the same person I was ten years ago, or even one second ago.
This does not mean that I do not plan and try to take into account the needs of my "future self" but it does mean that I do not see "my" future self as being any different from any other future self.
I see all future selves deserving the same consideration, which I believe to be possible by taking a "view from nowhere" and considering all third person states.
This approach is different to the shallow form of hedonism you seem to think I hold, can you agree that if I “desired” pleasure then cranial self-stimulation would be the answer? In addition, that it is not an evolutionary stable position just as yachting around the world with 10 women at your side is not, I believe mr yacht-money is causing far more harm than the pleasure he is experiences, and even if he were harming to create greater pleasure, it's not worth it.
How else to respond to statements like “But when has there not been suffering on Earth?” responding with a Wikipedia link is better than an incredulous stare, or a sigh, but in hindsight maybe not the best approach. I thought you knew that from my view there hasn’t always been suffering on earth.
You have accused me of being a Luddite with my views on asteroid defence, I think the Buddhist approach to eliminating suffering is similar to that of the Luddite, and there is nothing to gain from accepting suffering, fatalism might be a better word for it.
I don’t know what you meant by the “deer abc” thing, the calf link was to show that some people do treat sentients as sentients without categorising.
Can we take a break for a little while to give Repug some time to catch up and extract what he sees as the differences between our views? It hasn’t taken long and we’ve attempted enough philosophy to guarantee making some howlers. I have trouble following what you’re saying, I’m trying to fit it with western concepts that I’ve read about and it doesn’t always work, not that I think it’s likely the Buddhist approach is coherent.
I’m not against argument so long as we try and stick with the second definition, on that here’s my only ctrl-c ctrl-v .
2. a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
|