I needed to use some definition for positivism so I used one that you provided....you have provided several definitions for positivism (the latest being that it is a trend) so I didn't want to muddy the water more by brining in yet another one.danieLion wrote:I provided it. I don't necessarily agree with it. It's hard to define an intellectual trend.chownah wrote:So now if we take a definition for positivism you provided (that definition being:"Positivism asserts that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on sense experience and positive verification.")
Epistemic empiricism claims that all knowledge comes from experience, which the Buddha did not teach, for as you saychownah wrote:and we strip off the verification part we end up with sense expereince being the only basis for knowledge
However, you threw me off with the word "perception"? The Buddha taught a form of knowledge independent of sense experience and perception, right?chownah wrote:which at first seems consistent with the Buddha's teachings but I think the positivist take on this sort of disintegrates when the Buddhistic idea that perception of knowledge is just another experience....
D
You ask if the Buddha taught a form of knowledge independent of sense experience.....assuming that the mind is part of sense experience then I think that answer is that no the Buddha did not teach a form of knowledge independent of sense experience....."The All" is all there is....it is all fabricated and is based on the six sense organs, their objects, and their associated consciousnesses.....if it didn't come from there then it is not part of our experience or at least that is my view of what the Buddha taught...this makes "knowledge" just one more view that eventually must be discarded.....I guess......don't know for sure.....
chownah