6 ms·

Pragmatism is central tenet of Buddhism. Has been thus since Gothama. Do not "believe"; learn, try, experience and then understand. About 2000 years before Amer

Pragmatism is central tenet of Buddhism. Has been thus since Gothama. Do not "believe"; learn, try, experience and then understand. About 2000 years before Americans. But maybe I'm biased or ignorant. Happy to be enlightened (pun intended).

ta8645 2y ago
My impression is that Buddhism has a focus on "inner life" rather than the material world. So their pragmatism would naturally be employed on spiritual attainment, rather than science. After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion.
- rramadass 2y ago
  > After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion. There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe. Here is wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism
  - ta8645 2y ago
    > There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. On top of which, you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago.
    - hmm37 2y ago
      I suppose it depends on which branch of Buddhism people are talking about. There are obviously some which practice extreme idealism, but almost all branches believe that reality (as we commonly define it) DOES exist, but merely that it's a changing reality, rather than a truth that remains forever true, thus unchanging.
    - rramadass 2y ago
      > There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. I was pointing to your assertion that "large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion" is not quite right. The wikipedia page is really good in elaborating the nuances. The phrase "Reality is mere Illusion" is the worst translated from Sanskrit/Pali into English. In the original texts "Illusion" does not mean "it does not exist" but that "it does not exist independent of a more fundamental substratum". The common analogy given is that of waves in a ocean of water. The waves are dependent on the water for their manifestation and come and go. The other point is that we only "Perceive Reality" and not as it truly is. All together we get a picture of Reality which is very simplistically called a "Illusion". >you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago. This is easily explained. If by various internal practices we can modulate our understanding of "Reality" (a subjective viewpoint) then the motivation to explain the "workings" of the Universe independent of us becomes no longer important. That is the reason Hindu philosophies (Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism are all derivatives) focus exclusively on the "Mind" and understanding "our true nature".
      - ta8645 2y ago
        > .. by various internal practices we can modulate our understanding of "Reality" You just restated my explanation in more flowery language.
        rramadass 2y ago
        That's only part of it. My main point was that simplistic phrases like "Reality is mere Illusion" are wrong.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        In a sense it's kind of tautological: if someone genuinely experiences something, if "reality" is the only existent realm or category they have knowledge of (as opposed to Maya for example), then it basically has to "be" reality. Also relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity Another good analogy would be how people used to talk about the physical world before science arrived on the scene: crude approximations, that "everyone knows".
    - mistermann 2y ago
      > There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. The illusion (as opposed to mere illusion) in action.
flanked-evergl 2y ago
What facts of nature helped you understand that it is wrong to murder someone based on their skin colour or religion?
- abc123abc123 2y ago
  I like the pragmatic nature of pragmatism (pun intended!) but this is the best critique against it. By its nature, it is descriptive and not normative, so it could be argued that it in fact, is not a philosophy at all, but instead "proto-science" or perhaps science for the common man.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I don’t get that feeling from reading James himself. He offers a VERY good philosophical and logical basis for the golden rule, and one that clearly points toward an ever-expanding “inclusion” of other beings to be taken care of/treated with respect. Far more sound and defensible than any other moral system I’ve encountered. TLDR of that basis: minds depend first and foremost on categorization and distinction. They must have a built-in way to discriminate types of things and they must have a preference for treating like things alike. As a conscious person develops, they understand other people to be like themselves and therefore ought to have a preference for treating others like themselves. That’s not to say this imperative can’t be overridden by other concerns, but those other concerns all seem quite obviously more superficial than this extremely fundamental one of “how do I even discern this thing from that thing.” Pair this with some of the work on “what is stuff” that the Buddhists made a ton of progress on, and you have a logically sound moral system that should compel you to treat everything (and certainly all living things) with respect (using “respect” as a catch-all for “the range of behaviors you’d expect from following the golden rule”)
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
      >they must have a preference for treating like things alike Suppose I recognize a type of thing, "dollars". I spend some of my dollars to buy food. Given this "preference for treating like things alike", does that mean I now have to spend all my dollars to buy food? >As a conscious person develops, they understand other people to be like themselves and therefore ought to have a preference for treating others like themselves. I imagine an egoist/solipsist could respond by saying "well, I put myself in a special category, a category with just one object in it". - - - In my view, the is/ought boundary is fairly inescapable here. Imagine a hypothetical intelligent species that's predatory, 100% carnivorous, and solitary. Like a coyote, but with the reasoning and philosophy ability of a human. It lacks mirror neurons, and it kills daily or weekly for its very survival. Can you think of an argument that would actually work to persuade a coyote philosopher that it should adopt a vegan diet? I can't. IMO, human compassion is downstream of us being a social species. Once you have compassion for at least one fellow human, you can at least argue that restricting that compassion to just a subset of humans, or just a single species, seems rather arbitrary. But bootstrapping compassion from an egoist perspective, and convincing a sentient coyote philosopher to go vegan, seems a bit harder. I imagine from the coyote philosopher's perspective, "suffering is bad when it happens to you, and you're not special, therefore suffering is also bad when it happens to other beings" would seem like a rather trippy and counter-intuitive argument. - - - An interesting question on the boundary between is and ought: "Are shrimp capable of suffering?" (See HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42172705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42172705 ) People generally treat it as a factual question that can be resolved through ordinary scientific discourse, but it's also a key values question -- if shrimp can suffer, that ought to change our values re: the importance of humane treatment. And there's a chance we'll never know the 'fact of the matter' regarding whether shrimp can suffer. I'm not sure an experiment can, in principle, provide a definitive answer. Same line of argument goes for advanced AI models. If AI passes the Turing test, can one argue that it's morally irrelevant merely because it runs on silicon substrate? Seems dubious. (If I gradually replace the neurons in your brain with transistors, do you gradually become morally irrelevant?) So if we're going to regard advanced AI as non-sentient, what's the key differentiator supposed to be? Is there actually any way to definitively answer this question, even in principle?
renox 2y ago
> Pragmatism is central tenet of Buddhism. Has been thus since Gothama. Do not "believe"; learn, try, experience and then understand. Uh? AFAIK buddhism is full of "belief" such as reincarnation, karma etc.
tananan 2y ago
You may not be ignorant - there may be an analogy there. But the post does come off as a bit tone-deaf.
Toppenhimoff 2y ago
It's a huge part of the 12 step programs too. Or at least had a huge influence.

ta8645 2y ago

My impression is that Buddhism has a focus on "inner life" rather than the material world. So their pragmatism would naturally be employed on spiritual attainment, rather than science. After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion.

rramadass 2y ago
> After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion. There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe. Here is wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism
- ta8645 2y ago
  > There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. On top of which, you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago.
  - hmm37 2y ago
    I suppose it depends on which branch of Buddhism people are talking about. There are obviously some which practice extreme idealism, but almost all branches believe that reality (as we commonly define it) DOES exist, but merely that it's a changing reality, rather than a truth that remains forever true, thus unchanging.
  - rramadass 2y ago
    > There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. I was pointing to your assertion that "large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion" is not quite right. The wikipedia page is really good in elaborating the nuances. The phrase "Reality is mere Illusion" is the worst translated from Sanskrit/Pali into English. In the original texts "Illusion" does not mean "it does not exist" but that "it does not exist independent of a more fundamental substratum". The common analogy given is that of waves in a ocean of water. The waves are dependent on the water for their manifestation and come and go. The other point is that we only "Perceive Reality" and not as it truly is. All together we get a picture of Reality which is very simplistically called a "Illusion". >you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago. This is easily explained. If by various internal practices we can modulate our understanding of "Reality" (a subjective viewpoint) then the motivation to explain the "workings" of the Universe independent of us becomes no longer important. That is the reason Hindu philosophies (Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism are all derivatives) focus exclusively on the "Mind" and understanding "our true nature".
    - ta8645 2y ago
      > .. by various internal practices we can modulate our understanding of "Reality" You just restated my explanation in more flowery language.
      - rramadass 2y ago
        That's only part of it. My main point was that simplistic phrases like "Reality is mere Illusion" are wrong.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      In a sense it's kind of tautological: if someone genuinely experiences something, if "reality" is the only existent realm or category they have knowledge of (as opposed to Maya for example), then it basically has to "be" reality. Also relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity Another good analogy would be how people used to talk about the physical world before science arrived on the scene: crude approximations, that "everyone knows".
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. The illusion (as opposed to mere illusion) in action.

flanked-evergl 2y ago

What facts of nature helped you understand that it is wrong to murder someone based on their skin colour or religion?

abc123abc123 2y ago
I like the pragmatic nature of pragmatism (pun intended!) but this is the best critique against it. By its nature, it is descriptive and not normative, so it could be argued that it in fact, is not a philosophy at all, but instead "proto-science" or perhaps science for the common man.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I don’t get that feeling from reading James himself. He offers a VERY good philosophical and logical basis for the golden rule, and one that clearly points toward an ever-expanding “inclusion” of other beings to be taken care of/treated with respect. Far more sound and defensible than any other moral system I’ve encountered. TLDR of that basis: minds depend first and foremost on categorization and distinction. They must have a built-in way to discriminate types of things and they must have a preference for treating like things alike. As a conscious person develops, they understand other people to be like themselves and therefore ought to have a preference for treating others like themselves. That’s not to say this imperative can’t be overridden by other concerns, but those other concerns all seem quite obviously more superficial than this extremely fundamental one of “how do I even discern this thing from that thing.” Pair this with some of the work on “what is stuff” that the Buddhists made a ton of progress on, and you have a logically sound moral system that should compel you to treat everything (and certainly all living things) with respect (using “respect” as a catch-all for “the range of behaviors you’d expect from following the golden rule”)
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    >they must have a preference for treating like things alike Suppose I recognize a type of thing, "dollars". I spend some of my dollars to buy food. Given this "preference for treating like things alike", does that mean I now have to spend all my dollars to buy food? >As a conscious person develops, they understand other people to be like themselves and therefore ought to have a preference for treating others like themselves. I imagine an egoist/solipsist could respond by saying "well, I put myself in a special category, a category with just one object in it". - - - In my view, the is/ought boundary is fairly inescapable here. Imagine a hypothetical intelligent species that's predatory, 100% carnivorous, and solitary. Like a coyote, but with the reasoning and philosophy ability of a human. It lacks mirror neurons, and it kills daily or weekly for its very survival. Can you think of an argument that would actually work to persuade a coyote philosopher that it should adopt a vegan diet? I can't. IMO, human compassion is downstream of us being a social species. Once you have compassion for at least one fellow human, you can at least argue that restricting that compassion to just a subset of humans, or just a single species, seems rather arbitrary. But bootstrapping compassion from an egoist perspective, and convincing a sentient coyote philosopher to go vegan, seems a bit harder. I imagine from the coyote philosopher's perspective, "suffering is bad when it happens to you, and you're not special, therefore suffering is also bad when it happens to other beings" would seem like a rather trippy and counter-intuitive argument. - - - An interesting question on the boundary between is and ought: "Are shrimp capable of suffering?" (See HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42172705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42172705 ) People generally treat it as a factual question that can be resolved through ordinary scientific discourse, but it's also a key values question -- if shrimp can suffer, that ought to change our values re: the importance of humane treatment. And there's a chance we'll never know the 'fact of the matter' regarding whether shrimp can suffer. I'm not sure an experiment can, in principle, provide a definitive answer. Same line of argument goes for advanced AI models. If AI passes the Turing test, can one argue that it's morally irrelevant merely because it runs on silicon substrate? Seems dubious. (If I gradually replace the neurons in your brain with transistors, do you gradually become morally irrelevant?) So if we're going to regard advanced AI as non-sentient, what's the key differentiator supposed to be? Is there actually any way to definitively answer this question, even in principle?

renox 2y ago

> Pragmatism is central tenet of Buddhism. Has been thus since Gothama. Do not "believe"; learn, try, experience and then understand. Uh? AFAIK buddhism is full of "belief" such as reincarnation, karma etc.

tananan 2y ago

You may not be ignorant - there may be an analogy there. But the post does come off as a bit tone-deaf.

Toppenhimoff 2y ago

It's a huge part of the 12 step programs too. Or at least had a huge influence.