Intellectual Integrity

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Mr Man »

danieLion wrote:
Mr Man wrote:...the historical accuracy of the Buddha story...
Do you see the contradiction in this phrase?
Mr Man wrote:...so the personalization here seems rather odd.
Really? Tell me more. I'm interested. Who's "personilization"? How, exactly, does it appear "odd" to you?
Mr Man wrote:I don't agree that "The Buddha's path to "awakening" was intensely intellectual".
Really? Tell me more. I'm interested. Do you think he just sat around stopping his thoughts until he experienced nibbana? How would he even know how to direct his Views, Intentions, Speech, Actions, Livelihood, Efforts, Mindfulness and Concentration without his intellect?
Mr Man wrote:I don't think that there was a even a "pursuit of understanding" (intellectual).
Really? Tell me more. I'm interested. How could he pursue Right View and Right Effort without his intellect?

I do see the contradiction and that is why I found your personalization, of the Buddha, as odd.

if we look at events leading up to Bodhi the four signs are in my opinion something that touch on an emotion level not intellectual, the angst was primordial not intellectual, the struggle was physical not intellectual, and the awakening is transcendental not intellectual.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:then I shall simply refer you back to my previous post.
Buddhism is whatever....
Huh?
I think Buddhism is what it is depending on how you look at it. It can be a religion, psychology, way of life, philosophy....
I think the work of Alain debottom (sp?) is closer now, to what Buddhism was then at that time.
Studying psychology can help frame the teachings, but so can studying philosophy, theology and a number of other subjects. but no one area shows the full spectrum of the teachings.
in other words personal views, and what area is looked at changes what is seen.
if we only look at the psychological aspects we do not get a full picture of the phychology. the same goes for theological. it is all intertwined in the Dhammavinaya. remove one aspect and it is dislodged from other supporting structures and blurred.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by kirk5a »

danieLion wrote: No epistemic method is completely reliable, but it's more reliable than other methods. I'm not after absolute reliabity. I'm after understanding the teachings in terms of pragmatism, especialy the pragmatism of John Dewey, William James and Richard Rorty.
Ok. I'm after absolute reliability.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by daverupa »

Reasoned acceptance of a statement can turn out in one of two ways, in the course of things...
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by danieLion »

Cittasanto wrote:if we only look at the psychological aspects we do not get a full picture of the phychology.
Depends on what, exactly, is meant/you mean by psychology.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:if we only look at the psychological aspects we do not get a full picture of the phychology.
Depends on what, exactly, is meant/you mean by psychology.
the standard definition would suffice.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by danieLion »

Cittasanto wrote:
danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:if we only look at the psychological aspects we do not get a full picture of the phychology.
Depends on what, exactly, is meant/you mean by psychology.
the standard definition would suffice.
There isn't a standard definition that I'm aware of, and my B.A. is in Psychology.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: the standard definition would suffice.
There isn't a standard definition that I'm aware of, and my B.A. is in Psychology.
The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behaviour in a given context.
I believe this would be a general description of most if not all psychological disciplines.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by danieLion »

Cittasanto wrote:
danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: the standard definition would suffice.
There isn't a standard definition that I'm aware of, and my B.A. is in Psychology.
The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behaviour in a given context.
I believe this would be a general description of most if not all psychological disciplines.
This is quite helpful and might help clarify my perspective. I was (and at times still am) partial to behaviorism. But as an undergrad and graduate student, I also took as many philosophy classes as I could, so I was constantly checking those studies against what Skinnner et al called "mentalism," and became especially oppposed (and still am) to it's Freudian Structuralist expression. Skinner himself was also very interested in epistemology, which I found a little strange since knowing implies mind. Granted, Skinner et al (despite Chomsky's serious misunderstandings and propoganda campaing against Skinner) never denied the existence of Mind, but they did seriously question the utility of the using mind experimentally. However, when I became a Buddhist, I further re-examined my views on mentalism and Philosophy of Mind and warmed up more to the value of understanding reality in terms of Mind. This effect was compouned when I was turned on to REBT (Albert Ellis) and CBT (David D. Burns) which combined behaviorsim with the psychology of cognition. Currently, I find that behaviorism is "covered" by the Buddha in terms of karma, but that the "best" general fit for Buddhism (for now) seeems to be with CBT and REBT, especially the lattter.

So, what does this have to do with your OP? This: it's an outline of my attempt to approximate intellectual integrity as a modern Buddhist. How do you think I've done so far?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Post by Cittasanto »

well psychology never left philosophy really, simply because of its nature.
My preference is CBT simply because it combines the two, and so I studied it (just need the supervision now).
my personal vision is thet both effect eachother, and this can be to a greater or lesser externt depending upon the intividual an (intra/extra vert) and the the situation context.............
but I find the two two sides of the same coin (in a general/personal way) each effect equally depending upon the situation. the recent vid I shared (the long one) may explain somewhat what I mean at the beginning of it.
danieLion wrote: This is quite helpful and might help clarify my perspective. I was (and at times still am) partial to behaviorism. But as an undergrad and graduate student, I also took as many philosophy classes as I could, so I was constantly checking those studies against what Skinnner et al called "mentalism," and became especially oppposed (and still am) to it's Freudian Structuralist expression. Skinner himself was also very interested in epistemology, which I found a little strange since knowing implies mind. Granted, Skinner et al (despite Chomsky's serious misunderstandings and propoganda campaing against Skinner) never denied the existence of Mind, but they did seriously question the utility of the using mind experimentally. However, when I became a Buddhist, I further re-examined my views on mentalism and Philosophy of Mind and warmed up more to the value of understanding reality in terms of Mind. This effect was compouned when I was turned on to REBT (Albert Ellis) and CBT (David D. Burns) which combined behaviorsim with the psychology of cognition. Currently, I find that behaviorism is "covered" by the Buddha in terms of karma, but that the "best" general fit for Buddhism (for now) seeems to be with CBT and REBT, especially the lattter.

So, what does this have to do with your OP? This: it's an outline of my attempt to approximate intellectual integrity as a modern Buddhist. How do you think I've done so far?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply