Buddhism: Religion or Philosophy?

Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Applerill
Autistic Princess <3


Gender: Female
Age: 30
Location: Chicago
United States

  • #1
  • Posted: 06/25/2015 02:44
  • Post subject: Buddhism: Religion or Philosophy?
  • Reply with quote
Hey guys, I hope my stupid rambling doesn't rely too much on my feelings, but here goes.

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about Buddhism and Zen, particularly in the contexts of meditation and mindfulness. I've long known a lot of self-described Buddhists that lived really happy lives, and part of me is really tired of being an angst-ridden nihilistic agnostic. Moreover, this kind of thing would seem to tie in so many different elements of my life, including:
*Technological Productivity (particularly the "Getting Things Done" work of David Allen)
*Nineties Female Singer-Songwriters (particularly Alanis Morissette)
*Sentimental Muzak (from Keith Jarrett to Kenny G to that I Am The Center compilation that CripplingAutism likes so much)
*Spirituality that doesn't relate to my mom (who is also Carrie's mom, in case you didn't know)
*David Lynch (Eraserhead was all about meditation, in case you didn't realize)
*Self-love/Poptimism
*Humanism/Sincerity
*Health (I've been going without sugar for about three months, and regularly working out for six, and I've really learned to love the freedom and wellness those disciplines bring)

In general, I just wonder if this lifestyle wouldn't just make me a happier person, but also keep me from falling into all the personality traps that get to users of the deep web. A lot of people say I'm way too sarcastic and "ironic" about things, and I feel like this would help me to branch out of those tics.

But enough about me. What do you guys think of Buddhism and mindfulness? Do you think they fall into the same problems as other religions, and are just "opiates for the masses"? Is Buddhism not a religion, but really just an existential philosophy? Does mindfulness and Zen immediately give you a solid moral compass? Does making spirituality this "simple" keep many from seeing the subtleties and harsh truths of life? And are people leaning towards this route like I am normally doing so due to pathos, or just out of a selfish demand for convenience?
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
zdwyatt



Gender: Male
Age: 45
Location: Madison WI
United States

  • #2
  • Posted: 06/25/2015 13:13
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Whether it's a religion or a philosophy is a source of debate. Is a collection of beliefs and practices a religion? Or does a religion require belief in or worship of a deity? Do Buddhists even believe in a god? For your purposes, I don't think it matters. Any belief system can be an "opiate" if its adherents follow it blindly. If there is something about meditation and mindfulness that is appealing to you, go for it. It won't magically fix all your ills, but a little quiet introspection can't hurt.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Muslim-Bigfoot



Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch

  • #3
  • Posted: 06/25/2015 20:25
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
The list below contains some of the most-cited papers in philosophy; by reading excerpts of some of them anyone can tell for themselves if something is philosophy or not (philosophy being sth which is defined by philosophers and by example; not unlike physics or linguistics and so on)

Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? by Edmund Gettier

Minds, Brains, and Programs by John Searle

On Denoting by Bertrand Russell

The Semantic Conception of Truth by Alfred Tarski

A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic by Saul Kripke

Counterfactuals and Comparative Possibility by David Lewis

How Many Lives Has Schrodinger's Cat? by David Lewis

A Defense of Abortion by Judith Thomson

Justice as Fairness by John Rawls
_________________
"I feel like for the last two years there’s been sort of a sonic evolution happening and I’ve been experimenting more and more."
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
sp4cetiger





  • #4
  • Posted: 06/25/2015 21:03
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I think many people don't appreciate just how logically rigorous philosophy is meant to be. Academic philosophers work very hard to strip away as many ambiguities and unwarranted assumptions as possible from their words, so as to communicate their ideas as clearly as possible. That may seem a bit counterintuitive, since professional philosophy probably appears quite abstruse to most non-specialists, but that's only because common speech is often insufficiently precise to communicate the subtle distinctions philosophers need to make in their papers.

Mysticism, by contrast, is often purposely vague. In another thread, I backed off from phrases like "higher planes of consciousness" and "alternate states of awareness" because they're often used in spiritual and new age writing without any clear definition. That's not to say that those phrases are meaningless to those who use them, but rather that their interpretation may vary wildly from one individual to the next. And that's okay -- the goals of mysticism and spirituality are not the same as those of academia -- but it's not within the umbrella of "philosophy" as it's understood in the academic world.
Back to top
meccalecca
Voice of Reason


Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment
United States

  • #5
  • Posted: 06/25/2015 23:15
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
You don't necessarily need to become a Buddhist in order to embrace Transcendental Meditation, or to make changes to your lifestyle that may reflect some Buddhist principles. I think it's definitely worth looking into and figuring out what works best for you.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
SquishypuffDave



Gender: Male
Age: 33
Australia

  • #6
  • Posted: 06/26/2015 02:04
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Subtle but important semantic distinction between "philosophy" and "a philosophy". Academic philosophy is concerned with ontology, epistemology, etc. whereas a philosophy in the colloquial sense is something to be lived rather than known. Kind of ties in with that Eckhart Tolle discussion a while back; his language is intended to shape the way the listener experiences themselves rather than to describe a set of objects in reality. I don't think he's arguing for mind/body dualism. (If the "spiritual" language is too much of a barrier, Sam Harris for example is both a naturalist and an avid supporter of mindfulness meditation, and offers vipassana as an example that can be taught in an entirely secular way.)

Anyways, my understanding of Buddhism is that it similarly refuses to make concrete claims about the contents of reality. Here's the proper Buddhist response to the question of God:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Silence

As to whether Buddhism is "the opiate of the masses", I think that question can only be answered by looking at a person's lived experience. I don't know enough Buddhists to comment on how it expresses itself, but I think that truly following the tenets of anti-materialism and simplicity must require tremendous discipline and independence, especially in the context of western society.

An "opiate of the masses" religion is one which promises to fulfill our desire. The opposite of this is a religion which evokes transformation in the very way that we desire. To model oneself after Gautama Buddha is to rebel against narcotization. I don't think anyone could argue that he avoided the harsh truths of life.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
sp4cetiger





  • #7
  • Posted: 06/26/2015 02:29
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
SquishypuffDave wrote:
Subtle but important semantic distinction between "philosophy" and "a philosophy". Academic philosophy is concerned with ontology, epistemology, etc. whereas a philosophy in the colloquial sense is something to be lived rather than known. Kind of ties in with that Eckhart Tolle discussion a while back; his language is intended to shape the way the listener experiences themselves rather than to describe a set of objects in reality. I don't think he's arguing for mind/body dualism. (If the "spiritual" language is too much of a barrier, Sam Harris for example is both a naturalist and an avid supporter of mindfulness meditation, and offers vipassana as an example that can be taught in an entirely secular way.)


Well put, I especially like the highlighted phrase. The pursuit of spiritual fulfillment more closely resembles art than science, I think.

Just to be clear, I don't mean to discourage people from pursuing meditation, spiritualism, or even religion. I feel that those things are (or should be, anyway) very personal in nature. My own interests have mostly been in academic philosophy lately, but I understand that many don't find that path very fulfilling.
Back to top
Muslim-Bigfoot



Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch

  • #8
  • Posted: 06/26/2015 12:52
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
SquishypuffDave wrote:
Subtle but important semantic distinction between "philosophy" and "a philosophy". Academic philosophy is concerned with ontology, epistemology, etc. whereas a philosophy in the colloquial sense is something to be lived rather than known. Kind of ties in with that Eckhart Tolle discussion a while back; his language is intended to shape the way the listener experiences themselves rather than to describe a set of objects in reality. I don't think he's arguing for mind/body dualism. (If the "spiritual" language is too much of a barrier, Sam Harris for example is both a naturalist and an avid supporter of mindfulness meditation, and offers vipassana as an example that can be taught in an entirely secular way.)


Well the issue is semantic obviously but there's always room for objection I think. Philosophy (love of knowledge) starts with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as they invented two methods for rational argumentation, namely dialectic and syllogism. Philosophy in its whole history, as sp4ce put it very clearly, has striven to be clear and methodic. Very often you find that philosophers clearly define the terms they use, esp. if the term is used in natural language. For this word (philosophy) to be used in the sense totally opposite of what it has tried to be in its whole history rubs the people who have studied the subject the wrong way. I understand that the word has become synonymous to "ideology" or "governing principle" in everyday language ("my philosophy" along with "a philosophy"; or "the business philosophy" or "the philosophy behind our spiritual endeavor") but my whole qualm is that why use it that way? I know that words can have radical semantic shifts and use is what is important in ordinary language; but I think if someone doesn't like a word being used in a way that is used, she can defend her case despite it not being a linguistically-correct descriptive approach. After all what we're saying is not that you are "supposed" to use this word in this way but that we'd be glad if you considered in what way it originally meant to be used. It's overall unfortunate for the discipline of philosophy that this semantic shift has occurred because it gives a very distorted view of what philosophy and philosophies are all about (after all first example of "a philosophy" was a system developed by a philosopher) and it would be better if this hadn't happened at all.
_________________
"I feel like for the last two years there’s been sort of a sonic evolution happening and I’ve been experimenting more and more."
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
SquishypuffDave



Gender: Male
Age: 33
Australia

  • #9
  • Posted: 06/26/2015 14:09
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
That's fair.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Gigantic




Location: [color=green]Christmas Island[/color]
Christmas Island

  • #10
  • Posted: 07/08/2015 02:10
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:
Well the issue is semantic obviously but there's always room for objection I think. Philosophy (love of knowledge) starts with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as they invented two methods for rational argumentation, namely dialectic and syllogism. Philosophy in its whole history, as sp4ce put it very clearly, has striven to be clear and methodic. Very often you find that philosophers clearly define the terms they use, esp. if the term is used in natural language. For this word (philosophy) to be used in the sense totally opposite of what it has tried to be in its whole history rubs the people who have studied the subject the wrong way. I understand that the word has become synonymous to "ideology" or "governing principle" in everyday language ("my philosophy" along with "a philosophy"; or "the business philosophy" or "the philosophy behind our spiritual endeavor") but my whole qualm is that why use it that way? I know that words can have radical semantic shifts and use is what is important in ordinary language; but I think if someone doesn't like a word being used in a way that is used, she can defend her case despite it not being a linguistically-correct descriptive approach. After all what we're saying is not that you are "supposed" to use this word in this way but that we'd be glad if you considered in what way it originally meant to be used. It's overall unfortunate for the discipline of philosophy that this semantic shift has occurred because it gives a very distorted view of what philosophy and philosophies are all about (after all first example of "a philosophy" was a system developed by a philosopher) and it would be better if this hadn't happened at all.


eastern phil and western phil have different pedigrees and values. i mean, fuck, your list of examples itself seems to greatly favour analytic over continental philosophy basically exclusively so that colours the opinions i imagine you probably have on the subject.

this "distorted" view of philosophy, which often has its roots in eastern phil and is usually channeled in the west through dudes like alan watts, people who academics tend to snobbishly look down on as being "not real phil" because it relies so heavily on spirituality, romanticism, and a sense of individual application not unseen in the "self help" circuit. well, this "distorted" vein of philosophy (the definition of which people usually use when they say talk about "their philosophy") is almost 2,500 years old. frankly, ive never seen any reason why eastern phil is in any way invalid - simply because it doesnt adhere to the typical language of western phil or its dialectics (logic, reason)?
_________________
~❅ ❄ ❆ hµM△₪ FESTIVE †®å§h ❆ ❄ ❅~

add me on FESTIVE msn messanger

festive signature! ho ho ho!


⛄⛄⛄
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Sticky: Why a separate 'religion & politi... albummaster Politics & Religion
philosophy of music Guest Music
Philosophy thoughts - In Off Topic Guest Suggestions
Religion RFNAPLES Politics & Religion
[ Poll ] What's Your Religion? Guest Politics & Religion

 
Back to Top