[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 16 KB, 220x287, 220px-Kant_gemaelde_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13225305 No.13225305 [Reply] [Original]

Does Kant btfo the Buddhist concepts of non-self and non-being?

>> No.13225381

you want people to formulate your shadow of an idea for you.
explain what you mean like a normal person or gtfo

>> No.13225494

>>13225381
I'll be frank, I'm still working through Hume and haven't gotten to Kant yet but it seems to me that Kant's arguments could just as easily be applied to Buddhist thought as to Hume's skepticism. I was hoping someone who understood Kant better than me would confirm/deny/elucidate this idea. Alternatively I hoped someone well versed in Buddhism could refute or address it, although I doubt a true Buddhist would care to since Buddhism doesn't really concern itself with philosophical debate.

>> No.13225496

>>13225494
have you even read any Buddhist works either?

>> No.13225536

>>13225496
In the Buddha's words and a handful of shitty to mediocre western commentaries. I never claimed to be an expert, just thought it was an interesting question.

>> No.13225546

>>13225305
It depends on who you ask. The argument could go a number of different ways.

We might try to argue that Buddhist's have no notion of Kant's thing-in-itself, because they regard appearance not merely as appearance but as illusion also, something Kant would have regarded as absurd, since you cannot have appearance without the implication of a thing-in-itself. For Kant the empirical world is not Māyā or illusion, it is empirically real, not inherently deceptive, although not absolutely real, that is to say, not independent of the human mind.

On the other hand, some Buddhists might say that their system is in agreement with Kant's, since they have concepts like Nirvana, which is what lies beyond the categories of thought and the appearances of sensibility. You might say that Kant's empirical self, not being our true, intelligible self or the thing-in-itself, bears a similarity to "non-self", even if this latter term is more ambiguous than Kant's exposition.

>> No.13225562

>>13225305
Haven't got much into Kant but from the secondary lit I've read he seems to be pushing a nonduality that is saved ethically by a teleological assumption about the nature of god that doesn't really jive. Maybe this is completely off.

>> No.13226652

>>13225305
No?

>> No.13226674

>>13225305
No, in fact he supports it