Q&A: Buddhism versus the Western Tactic
Buddhism versus the Western Tactic
Question
I’ll try to compare them briefly.
In the West there is usually an emphasis on progress and improvement, whether in general or on the personal level (economically, scientifically, culturally, aesthetically, socially, intellectually, and surely more), or on doing many of the 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 to do what you enjoy, according to the respondents, is “because it is satisfying / beneficial,” and as far as I can tell, I haven’t found any other justification.
But of course this is a naturalistic fallacy. As you phrased it in Notebook 5, roughly in these words: “there is no bridging argument between facts and actions.” In the end, every action for the sake of your own good feeling is just desire that has received no philosophical justification, and there is no good reason to do it.
To remove any doubt, I do not think one should categorically oppose every desire, because even in order to oppose your desires you need a bridging argument, and it seems there isn’t one. I am arguing that there is a difficulty in deciding.
I’ll just add that Buddhists have psychological claims that someone who practices this lives a better life (I don’t know exactly what kind of “better”—maybe more moral, maybe happier, maybe something else). If it turns out there is a reason to do what is pleasant, then it may well be that this asceticism is preferable.
I haven’t noticed the Rabbi addressing this issue; what position is one supposed to take?
Answer
No naturalistic fallacy at all. In arguments like these, not all the premises are usually stated explicitly, but they are assumed without being said. Thus, someone who wants to do whatever he feels like doing does so because it will satisfy him, plus there is the additional premise that he wants to do what satisfies him.
Discussion on Answer
I’ll explain again, because it seems you didn’t understand what I said. An argument that grounds a norm in a fact is an invalid argument (the naturalistic fallacy). But that is a theoretical claim. On the practical level, people are not precise in their speech, and so when someone raises a claim that bases a norm on a factual premise, he usually means to assume another premise that he doesn’t state (usually because it seems obvious to him). Therefore, in everyday language it is very hard to identify a naturalistic fallacy, because the formulation is not always precise. This is called “completing enthymemes.”
Once you supply the missing premise in the argument, you have a normal and valid argument. Now, of course, you can ask why this or that premise is true, and of course you may also reject it. But you cannot expect a person to justify all of his premises. Such a justification would itself be based on premises, and you could demand justification for those too, and it would never end.
When there is a dispute between two outlooks based on different premises, you have to decide which premise seems right to you. But the claim that because there is a dispute here, therefore no one is well-grounded and each side must justify its position, is a misunderstanding. As stated, every position is based on some premises, and a dispute will usually remain a dispute about first principles.
So the question is basically why, as far as I understood, the Rabbi did not choose the basic premises of Buddhism but rather those of the West.
Because that seems more reasonable to me.
Honestly, it seems to me that bodies in the world are continuous and not made of discrete things, and when I close my eyes it seems that the whole universe disappears.
Is there a logical reason to choose דווקא the Western path?
The claim “it is worth doing what satisfies you” really is an implicit premise, and it is an attempt to connect facts and actions. I’m only saying that this claim needs proof, and I can’t find one. Everyone treats it as an axiom.
Why is this a naturalistic fallacy? Because you simply took a fact (X satisfies you), took an action (do X), and simply claimed that the second follows from the first. That is not a reasoned argument bridging facts and actions, but just an empty declaration that there is such a bridge, one that needs explanation.
Why is the argument “it is worth not doing what satisfies you” any less logical? That too is exactly the same logical leap, just in the other direction.