Credulity

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Credulity

Post by aflatun »

Circle5 wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:36 pm
binocular wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:50 am
Circle5 wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:27 pm On the gronds of logic.
Pigs can fly.
Socrates is a pig.
Therefore, Socrates can fly.


This is logical. But there's a lot of things that this is not.
Pigs can not fly, and neither is socrates a pig.
That was her point
Therefore, your argument is illogical.
The argument is valid, but it is not sound, because the premises are false. That was her point, i.e. the argument is logical but perfectly useless because it rests on false premises.

In order for a logical argument to be sound its premises must be true and its operation must be valid.

True premises don't come from logic they come from elsewhere.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

aflatun wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:43 am The argument is valid, but it is not sound, because the premises are false. That was her point, i.e. the argument is logical but perfectly useless because it rests on false premises.

In order for a logical argument to be sound its premises must be true and its operation must be valid.

True premises don't come from logic they come from elsewhere.
:goodpost:

But what is the point ? This is something even a 3 year old knows. I am pretty sure even my pet jackdaw figured this out.
How can you make logical statements about something that is constantly changing and constantly in process/dependence?
Very simple, through using a time scale. Is the world round right now ? Yes it is. Will it be round 1 billion years into the future ? I don't know.
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

Upeksha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:21 am How can you make logical statements about something that is constantly changing and constantly in process/dependence?
This is done all the time. In fact, every phenomenon is subject to change. 'The table is red'. Next week, 'the table is green'. No one argues whether this is the case or not. The problem arises when you use logic to describe an ultimate. Then, statements like the table is red or green cannot apply. Descriptions are used only for communication purposes and they are relative to what is the case in the present moment.
Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Upeksha »

Saengnapha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:48 am
Upeksha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:21 am How can you make logical statements about something that is constantly changing and constantly in process/dependence?
This is done all the time. In fact, every phenomenon is subject to change. 'The table is red'. Next week, 'the table is green'. No one argues whether this is the case or not. The problem arises when you use logic to describe an ultimate. Then, statements like the table is red or green cannot apply. Descriptions are used only for communication purposes and they are relative to what is the case in the present moment.
Yes, I agree. In Buddhism logic is merely conventional, used only to describe the conventional world/reality.

Well - maybe the issue is a little more complex. What you're describing is fine for two people in conversation in the same time-place. But how many logical statements go beyond this 'relativity to the present moment'? Answer: virtually all of them. So what's the implication? Are they all invalid? I don't think so. But now we're deep in logical-epistemological complexity aren't we? That's all I'm trying to show.
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

Upeksha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:14 am
Saengnapha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:48 am
Upeksha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:21 am How can you make logical statements about something that is constantly changing and constantly in process/dependence?
This is done all the time. In fact, every phenomenon is subject to change. 'The table is red'. Next week, 'the table is green'. No one argues whether this is the case or not. The problem arises when you use logic to describe an ultimate. Then, statements like the table is red or green cannot apply. Descriptions are used only for communication purposes and they are relative to what is the case in the present moment.
Yes, I agree. In Buddhism logic is merely conventional, used only to describe the conventional world/reality.

Well - maybe the issue is a little more complex. What you're describing is fine for two people in conversation in the same time-place. But how many logical statements go beyond this 'relativity to the present moment'? Answer: virtually all of them. So what's the implication? Are they all invalid? I don't think so. But now we're deep in logical-epistemological complexity aren't we? That's all I'm trying to show.
The implication is that logical statements only apply to relativity and cannot describe the ultimate. They can at times infer an ultimate, but you need a different mode of cognition/insight to see the truth of it. Trying to describe 'that' which cannot be described would be a 'wrong view', logically. You don't use thinking to describe something that you cannot possibly 'understand'. This is why in Buddhism, reasoning and analysis play a major part in seeing the trick of self. Chasing the ultimate is only grasping.
Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Upeksha »

Yes Saengnapha - that is indeed the soteriological implication, perhaps reaching its fullest/most refined expression via Nagarjuna. I think it is really important to consider what role logic is playing in this case: it's basically to deconstruct false views of the self.

However, when I said implication, I meant with respect to some earlier posts, which proposed that it is somehow easy or simple to combine inference with empirical data, and that this provides adequate knowledge. What I think we have both have been alluding to, is that from a Buddhist pov, this is not the case.

It's also worth thinking about how the Buddhists treat ordinary perception: the sanjaskandha, by definition, does not offer reliable perceptions of the external world.
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

Upeksha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:43 am It's also worth thinking about how the Buddhists treat ordinary perception: the sanjaskandha, by definition, does not offer reliable perceptions of the external world.
You would have to explain this better for me to understand what you are referring to.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by binocular »

Circle5 wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:44 am
aflatun wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:43 am The argument is valid, but it is not sound, because the premises are false. That was her point, i.e. the argument is logical but perfectly useless because it rests on false premises.

In order for a logical argument to be sound its premises must be true and its operation must be valid.

True premises don't come from logic they come from elsewhere.
:goodpost:

But what is the point ? This is something even a 3 year old knows. I am pretty sure even my pet jackdaw figured this out.
You said:
Circle5 wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:27 pm
binocular wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:01 pm What would that "ultra-rigorous manner" even be? A type of scientific investigation? And if yes, on the grounds of what are we to take for granted that that type of scientific investigation is the right way to discover the truth?
On the gronds of logic.
and I pointed out that logic alone is useless.

How can one know whether a premise is true or not?
Logic can't help in that.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

binocular wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:40 am How can one know whether a premise is true or not?
Logic can't help in that.
Of course logic can help. It can't help if we are talking about things that are not known. If something is not known, there is no question of logic. Logic only applies to cognition. Cognition is what the body and mind are engaged in automatically. If you want to know something outside of cognition, logic can't help.
Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Upeksha »

Saengnapha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:01 am
Upeksha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:43 am It's also worth thinking about how the Buddhists treat ordinary perception: the sanjaskandha, by definition, does not offer reliable perceptions of the external world.
You would have to explain this better for me to understand what you are referring to.
Well, I suppose it is a big topic. But quite simply, the very processes (i.e. the aggregates) of (ordinary) subjective perceptions and interpretations of the external world are deluded/not capable of giving 'truth'. The sanjnaskandha in particular is connected with desire and aversion - we 'see' the world through this lens of distortion.

So the epistemic point is that whoever is making inferences based on what they 'see' is likely to mislead who they are giving inferences to, rather than offering them something true......unless that person develops of panna. Does that make sense?

:anjali:
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

Upeksha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:52 am
Saengnapha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:01 am
Upeksha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:43 am It's also worth thinking about how the Buddhists treat ordinary perception: the sanjaskandha, by definition, does not offer reliable perceptions of the external world.
You would have to explain this better for me to understand what you are referring to.
Well, I suppose it is a big topic. But quite simply, the very processes (i.e. the aggregates) of (ordinary) subjective perceptions and interpretations of the external world are deluded/not capable of giving 'truth'. The sanjnaskandha in particular is connected with desire and aversion - we 'see' the world through this lens of distortion.

So the epistemic point is that whoever is making inferences based on what they 'see' is likely to mislead who they are giving inferences to, rather than offering them something true......unless that person develops of panna. Does that make sense?

:anjali:
Of course. I would like to take this one step further. It is very possible that all religious experience is conditioned in the sense that it operates in the realm of relative truth and through an 'entity' who he/she thinks has some continuity based on stored perceptions that re-organize all phenomenon associated with current sense perceptions as something that is experienced by this entity and creates the illusion of time and space with the entity at its center. The whole notion of Buddhist cosmology or any other cosmology is built the same way through an erroneous belief in self, a being with inherent existence. We don't live as the creative energy that the universe actually is. We seemed to have made a dreadful mistake in interpretation of what experience actually is.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

Without logic, understanding non existence of a self is impossible. If we look at the suttas and hundreds of cases where people have attained stream entry, we see that all did it though contemplating the higher dhamma. And what is the higher dhamma ? It's the technical explanation about how a being actually functions. When Buddha explained it to people, he first explained conditionality, then how the 5 aggregates work, sense bases, etc. and only at the end he explained no self.

The process is very similar to how a bushman would understand how a car works. When first seeing a car, he might believe it is an animal or that it's pushed by some form of spirit. But after a mechanic will show him how every piece of the engine and how the car works in general, he will understand the trickery about how a car actually functions, without the use of a tiger-spirit to push it and without being an animal, despite thing thing looking impossible to him at first.

Buddhism central notion is "the dhamma" - what does dhamma mean ? It means "things as they really are" or "how things really work". According to buddhism, things work in a specific way. And Buddha claims to have found out this specific way and claims to be able to show it to you, same as one could show you that cars work because of the engine, etc and not because of mysterious tiger forces pushing it.

More than this, postmodernism was the only one out of 64 philosophies of the time that Buddhism considers to be a product of sheer stupidity: viewtopic.php?t=29724

What proponents of posmodernism always forget is the very thing that makes it be so stupid. If no idea is correct, then how could postmodernism be correct ? How could things work in the way postmodernism says they do ?
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

Saengnapha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:09 am
binocular wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:40 am How can one know whether a premise is true or not?
Logic can't help in that.
Of course logic can help. It can't help if we are talking about things that are not known. If something is not known, there is no question of logic. Logic only applies to cognition. Cognition is what the body and mind are engaged in automatically. If you want to know something outside of cognition, logic can't help.
:goodpost: But I preffer the term "information" or "information gathered through the senses" instead of "cognition" because some people have a tendency to mystify such words. There is information + ability to process that information.

Logic only works if correct information is avaliable. If wrong information is avaliable, of course correct processing of that information will be useless. And this is something even a 3 year old kid knows. And as I said, I am pretty sure even my pet jackdaw figured this out. Such ideas are fighting a strawman, since not even a 3 year old or my pet jackdaw would claim otherwise. Therefore, towards whom was that argument directed against ?
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

Circle5 wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:25 pm
Saengnapha wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:09 am
binocular wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:40 am How can one know whether a premise is true or not?
Logic can't help in that.
Of course logic can help. It can't help if we are talking about things that are not known. If something is not known, there is no question of logic. Logic only applies to cognition. Cognition is what the body and mind are engaged in automatically. If you want to know something outside of cognition, logic can't help.
:goodpost: But I preffer the term "information" or "information gathered through the senses" instead of "cognition" because some people have a tendency to mystify such words. There is information + ability to process that information.

Logic only works if correct information is avaliable. If wrong information is avaliable, of course correct processing of that information will be useless. And this is something even a 3 year old kid knows. And as I said, I am pretty sure even my pet jackdaw figured this out. Such ideas are fighting a strawman, since not even a 3 year old or my pet jackdaw would claim otherwise. Therefore, towards whom was that argument directed against ?
Information is different from cognition. Information is not interpreted until perception and cognition recognizes it and categorizes it. The raw information of the senses is not personalized at all. They have nothing to do with religious notions. Religious notions are conditioned, only collected and stored like any memory is. It has no significance at all in the way the Buddha or any other body/mind functions. Religion is man-made, not a universal law as some insist upon. Dhamma is not religious in any sense. How could it be?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by binocular »

Circle5 wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:25 pmLogic only works if correct information is avaliable. If wrong information is avaliable, of course correct processing of that information will be useless. And this is something even a 3 year old kid knows. And as I said, I am pretty sure even my pet jackdaw figured this out. Such ideas are fighting a strawman, since not even a 3 year old or my pet jackdaw would claim otherwise. Therefore, towards whom was that argument directed against ?
The question is, How can a person know they have correct information?

"Jesus is your Lord and Savior" -- is this correct information?
"The Buddha attained enlightenment" -- is this correct information?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Post Reply