Buddhism vs. Western Tactics
I will try to briefly compare them.
In the West, there is usually an emphasis on progress and improvement as a whole or as an individual (economically, scientifically, culturally, aesthetically, socially, intellectually, and there are probably more) or doing the many things you desire.
In Buddhism, the practice is precisely to destroy all your desires or not to listen to them.
From a small survey I conducted, the reason for doing what you enjoy, according to respondents, is “because it’s satisfying/useful,” and as far as I can think of, I haven’t found any other justification.
But of course, this is a naturalistic fallacy. As you put it in notebook 5, in about these words, “There is no bridging argument between facts and actions.” In the end, any action for the sake of your own good feelings is an instinct that has not received philosophical justification and there is no good reason to do it.
To be clear, I don’t think you should categorically oppose every wish, because even to oppose your own wishes you need a bridging argument that doesn’t seem to exist. I argue for the difficulty in deciding.
I’ll just add that there are psychological claims for Buddhists that those who do the practice live a better life (I don’t know exactly what kind of good, maybe moral, maybe happier, maybe something else). If it turns out that there is a reason to do the pleasant thing, then it could certainly be that this monasticism is preferable.
I didn’t notice the Rabbi’s comment on the subject. What position should they take?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The claim “you should do what satisfies you” is really an implicit assumption, and it is an attempt to connect the facts with the actions. I am just saying that this claim needs proof and that I cannot find one. Everyone treats it as an axiom.
Why is it a naturalistic fallacy? Because you simply take a fact (X satisfies you), take an action (doing X), and simply claim that the second follows from the first. This is not a reasoned argument that bridges the facts with the actions, but simply an empty declaration that there is a bridge that requires explanation.
Why is the argument “you should *not* do what satisfies you” less logical? This is also exactly the same logical leap, only in a different direction.
I will explain again because it seems that you did not understand what I said. An argument that attaches a norm to a fact is an invalid argument (the naturalistic fallacy). But this is a theoretical statement. In practice, people are not precise in their speech, and therefore when someone makes a claim that bases a norm on a factual assumption, they usually intend to assume another assumption that they do not say (usually because it seems obvious to them). Therefore, in everyday language, it is very difficult to detect a naturalistic fallacy, because the formulation is not always precise. This is called “completion of antonyms.”
After you have completed the missing assumption in the argument, you have a normal and valid argument. Now you can of course wonder why this or that assumption is true, and of course also not accept it. But you cannot expect a person to justify all his assumptions. Such a justification will itself be based on assumptions, and you can demand justification for them as well, and there is no end to the matter.
When there is a dispute between two views based on different assumptions, you must decide which of the assumptions you like, but the claim that because there is a dispute here, no one is grounded and everyone needs to justify their position is a misunderstanding. As stated, every position is based on some assumptions, and a dispute will usually remain a dispute over basic assumptions.
So the main question is why (as far as I understand) the rabbi did not choose the basic premises of Buddhism but those of the West.
Because that sounds more likely to me.
The truth is, it seems to me that the bodies in the world are continuous and not made of discrete matter, and when I close my eyes, the entire universe seems to disappear.
Is there a logical reason to choose the Western path?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
