>believing the self doesn't exist or believing you should kill the ego So what's it like being a cold autistic? buddhists and neuroscientists (pop-neurosciene that is as true neuroscience shows the self exists) are wrong

File: 10 KB, 279x305, soitbe.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 00:21:42 2012 No.2780594 [DELETED]

>believing the self doesn't exist or believing you should kill the ego
So what's it like being a cold autistic?

buddhists and neuroscientists (pop-neurosciene that is as true neuroscience shows the self exists) are wrong

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 00:23:41 2012 No.2780597 0/10 >>>/2002/

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 06:19:29 2012 No.2781095
File: 27 KB, 421x283, stirner8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2780594
>thinking Stirner's Einzige is related to the Freudian ego or the Dharmic ātman
>not realising Stirner's self, also called the Creative Nothing, is closer to the Buddhist concept of anātman (no-self)

"By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is — world's essence (world's doings). ...."

... [F]or 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 06:27:29 2012 No.2781105 >>pop-neurosciene that is as true neuroscience shows the self exists wtf

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 06:35:32 2012 No.2781110

I honestly wonder what people can even mean when they say "the self doesn't exist" and think they're saying something of significance. Obviously they can't mean that we don't persist through time on average for around ~70 years, for clearly we do; to deny that fact is to deny basic human biology. Perhaps they mean that there's no single, indivisible entity conserved throughout the human lifecycle that we can point to and say "that's us". But then we can point to absolutely any macromolecular object and say the same thing about it - of bananas, chairs, balls, whatever. The obvious questions seems to me to be: what difference does it mean? and who cares? What we should care about, surely, are that there are delicious bananas that function exactly as we think they do, chairs that remain stable on a level surface and support the human body, etc, and, going back to us, that there are humans that have conscious experiences, desires, memories, etc, that live and die. Not having some indivisible object to call ourselves does not mean we magically escape death, or the end of conscious experience, or any of the other things we deeply care about and fear the loss of.

tl;dr self does/doesn't exist; who gives a fuck?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 06:37:33 2012 No.2781113 >>2781110 >what difference does it mean? meant >what difference does it MAKE?

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 06:58:36 2012 No.2781132
File: 59 KB, 275x375, buddha3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2781110
>But then we can point to absolutely any macromolecular object and say the same thing about it - of bananas, chairs, balls, whatever.

Indeed. In Buddhism they call this sunyata, or emptiness.

> The obvious questions seems to me to be: what difference does it mean?
Seeing the emptiness (sunyata) and impermanence (anitya) shows us that there is no use clinging to things. When we stop clinging to things, we thereby become free of desire (not of all wants necessarily, one has to eat, but desire in the sense of thinking you truly must have and need some things). Being free from grasping around us all the time, we free ourselves from suffering. So in short, the people who want to free themselves from suffering and have lasting contentedness give a fuck.

Or so the Buddhists roughly see it as far as I know.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 07:19:33 2012 No.2781145 >>2780594 > neuroscience shows the self exists I would post the trolololo guy but it makes me too sad. :(

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 07:20:33 2012 No.2781147 But I prefer to think I'm God, not some puny ego.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 07:28:33 2012 No.2781153 A sense of self comes from the human body creating a narrative to make sense of memory. It's an adaptation. Every act of remembering is a reconstruction, an adaption.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 07:45:29 2012 No.2781162 File: 272 KB, 576x3086, 20120705.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2781110

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:01:31 2012 No.2781183 >>2781110 >>2781110 You are everything that is right about this world.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:04:31 2012 No.2781188

>>2781183

No he isn't. He's a douchebag. One of those typical "lolo who gives a fuck smoke weed and fuck bitches fuck philosophy fuck thought" assholes that posts in every thread like this. He just fluffed it up. He's still a thoughtless hedonist at the core.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:08:19 2012 No.2781200 >>2781153 This does not explain qualia though, as they predate any temporal coherence of the sort that could be called narrative. Just saying.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:11:20 2012 No.2781213

>>2781188

He is by no means a hedonist. He is a wise man who has realized the limits of the human brain in contradiction to the religous people who seems to be so starving in their search for meaning in this world that they have to create an artificial one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:12:20 2012 No.2781214 >>2781213 Nah.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:14:19 2012 No.2781225 >>2781213 areyouawizard.jpeg

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:25:21 2012 No.2781253 >>2781110 No fair, you stole my thoughts and presented them in a more meaningful way than I can.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:29:21 2012 No.2781265 >>2781213 But you seem to be implying that a belief in God is somehow more irrational than a belief in anything. I don't believe in God but I believe in the value of Pagan Greeks and Romans and that's every bit as arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:40:22 2012 No.2781296 >>2781110 Anti-intellectual faggot.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:43:22 2012 No.2781307

>>2781296

I don't think he is anti-intellectual any more than Lao-Tzu was. He realizes the fluidity of human nature. The only way to respond to this fluidity in a healthy way is to be an intellectual, find the things that are meaningful to you and do everything in your power to make other people think the same way.

inb4"arrogant asshole" and "sage"

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:48:24 2012 No.2781317

>>2781188

Down-to-earth person =/= thoughtless hedonist

Also, isn't this thread about entry level intellectualism anyways? Most intellectuals would say that the self versus anti self is a very superficial way to examine ourselves and each other, and at worst a false dichotomy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 08:57:24 2012 No.2781326 >>2781317 If you're going to paraphrase other intellectuals, please provide sources.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 09:33:33 2012 No.2781372

>>2781132
>Seeing the emptiness (sunyata) and impermanence (anitya) shows us that there is no use clinging to things. When we stop clinging to things, we thereby become free of desire (not of all wants necessarily, one has to eat, but desire in the sense of thinking you truly must have and need some things). Being free from grasping around us all the time, we free ourselves from suffering. So in short, the people who want to free themselves from suffering and have lasting contentedness give a fuck
1) Why does emptiness and impermanence show us there's no use clinging to things? If I cling to this piece of meat rather than allowing you to take it, surely I'm better off?
2) Desire is never a case of thinking you truly must have and need some things, because the latter is a belief, not a desire. Sure, desires can be *accompanied* by such beliefs, but they never need be, and they probably rarely are.
3) Being free from desire frees us from the chance of suffering, yes, but it also 'frees' us from the chance of acquiring what we desire and thereby of pleasure. People presumably would want to know that overall the relinquishing of desires is worthwhile, and I doubt they'd take your (or the Buddha's) word for it, especially in this modern capitalist society where desires frequently are capable of being fulfilled with a little effort.
4) Finally, and most importantly: What does whether or not one frees oneself of desire and thereby (according to Buddhism) suffering have to do with whether or not one believes in the self? What is there to prevent or impede one who believes in the self from recognising his/her impermanence and from freeing his/herself of desire?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 09:51:39 2012 No.2781393 >>2781307 >inb4 >>>/b/

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 09:59:22 2012 No.2781403

>>2781372
Not him, but the idea is basically that the contentment that you gain from fulfillment of desire is basically temporary and sort of unsatisfactory compared to the feeling of contentment you get from even shrugging some desire, i'm sure you can have experienced this to some extent.

Also when you talk about 'modern capitalist society' you're talking about the upper classes who pretty much CAN get whatever they want, Buddha came up with his ideas surrounded by poverty, the sort of people for whom shrugging off discomfort and desire can mean a huge amount.

Last point is that the self is the source of desires, the idea is that the bigger your ego the more you sort of feel you deserve and the more you get caught up in imagined problems like wanting respect and admiration etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:17:21 2012 No.2781429 >>2781213 OH RELIGIOUS PEOPLE HUH?

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:37:27 2012 No.2781475

>>2781110

think about how much importance people place on "the self", and what happens when we realize that it is a fictitious entity of our own making. we create "the self" out of the flow of energy and matter that is always in flux, and what we think of as a self is always in the moment, impermanent, never existing through time but inside of it. the self is outside the skin. it permeates throughout the environment it exists in, itself just a node in a circuitous series. there are no bananas or chairs, just parts in a machine. and machines connected to other machines. we are parts of something larger, just as cells make us up, all doing their little parts to sustain the "self". and molecules making those up, etc. the difference is in the perspective. it is subtle but effective and affective. thoughts can be overwhelming. it can overturn whole orders of belief. but it takes a while and a lot of contemplation, something that today seems an archaic proposition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:39:27 2012 No.2781477 >>2781475 I'm glad the self exists and you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:40:27 2012 No.2781478 Also good luck getting people to your side when comparing them to just cogs in a machine or nodes in a circuitous series. Probably a hard determinist too?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:41:27 2012 No.2781482 >>2781477 >two minutes later dohohohoho anon you card but seriously, what is this self and how is it separate from everything else?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:43:27 2012 No.2781485 >>2781478 >Threatened egos throwing up all the defense mechanisms at their disposal ITT

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:47:28 2012 No.2781491 >>2781482 back to /sci/ with you >hurr so enlightened >still continues on the same boring faggot i hate your guts oh wait a "i" and "your" does not exist HURRHURR

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:48:28 2012 No.2781494 >>2781491 but they don't see i just did what you did

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:48:28 2012 No.2781495 >>2781475 You wont find modern philosophers with such a belief (because it is wrong) and with such arrogance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:49:27 2012 No.2781496 >>2781494 The fact you are still the same with such oh so amazing revolutions just makes me angry with you. What's the point of such beliefs? being right? (as if you are right?

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:50:27 2012 No.2781497

>>2781372
You got this all wrong. The self represents the conscious mind, the one filled with fears, at the whims of reactivity. Identifying with it means being bound. The "annihilation of self" is symbolic for diving into the great subconscious mind, bringing awareness into it and seeing what truly drives you. This will shift the focus from the apparent impact the external world has on your psyche, to the very real impact you have on yourself. In this way, the "Self" has very little to do with anything, it is an irrelevant surface manifestation of very deep elements.

As for desire and why there is an emphasis on getting rid of it, you probably realize that the surface desire does not have its roots in something real, but in emotions and as such anything you desire is incapable of fulfilling you to a great extent (try excess) until you address its underlying cause at which point that desire ceases to exist if it is not essential.

That's all, nothing more. Buddhism is more psychology than anything, and all the mystical bullshit is there as symbolism (remember that its two thousand years old and there was no better way to reach people than this back then). What Buddhism teaches is the way to become free by turning inwards and facing your subconscious. Rebirth is a symbol for the many iterations of personality, karma is a symbol for cause and effect and maybe genetics (karma that stretches lifetimes), Buddha is a symbol.

At least, that's what I got out of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:51:27 2012 No.2781499 ding dong drop it like a cherry bomb

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:51:29 2012 No.2781500 >true neuroscience shows the self exists really, how? I don't think science can prove anything like that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:54:29 2012 No.2781504 >>2781497 what's the point when all meaningless, death is the end, materialism and hard determinism is right? i would end you just because fuck your wrong beliefs you don't understand the implications of this

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:54:29 2012 No.2781506 >>2781500 and it cant prove it wrong either

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 10:59:25 2012 No.2781515 >>2781495 it's less wrong than it is a perspective that one can take amongst many. also you haven't read every modern philosopher, child

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:02:25 2012 No.2781521 >>2781496 it's never about being right. it's always about opening your mind to things. what's wrong with these ideas, anyway? give them a chance, and they might even teach you something

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:02:25 2012 No.2781522

>>2781496
See, the point is that there's no such thing as an amazing revolution. And all your mad is the product of the series of values and rationalizations you've created out of ego, mayb if you take yourself less seriously you won't be so mad all the time.
If you're complaining about people who transcend ego in any meaningful way (not me btw) having the same problems and acting the same as egoists I disagree. The feats of asceticism of Jainism is a good example, also the total calmness and happiness that certain practitioners of zen seem to radiate Dalai Llama or even John Cage definitely makes me think that even if you're an existentialist who doesn't concern themselves with the metaphysical nonsense of emptiness etc. killing the ego does seem like more fun that just keeping on feeding it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:03:25 2012 No.2781525 >>2781521 >it's never about being right. it's always about opening your mind to things. >give them a chance, and they might even teach you something What is the point of that if it wont give me a peace of mind and sanity?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:05:26 2012 No.2781528 >>2781522 >metaphysical nonsense closeminded sciencetism

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:05:26 2012 No.2781532 >>2781522 What is the point of having a such a belief if you aren't going to free yourself from the ego? maybe down inside you realize the ego is superior to nonego

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:06:26 2012 No.2781533 >>2781532 Being right so I can feed my ego even more through bullshit such as "nonego".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:07:25 2012 No.2781536 >>2781497 100% best post of the thread for me. I disagree about the symbolism in Buddhism though, most of the mystical stuff is not intentional symbolism as much as Hindu interpretations of literal stuff.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:07:25 2012 No.2781537 File: 17 KB, 288x400, piss_poop_American_flag_cut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >interesting thread with thought provoking discussion at 6 AM EDT >turns to shit right around 11 PM EDT

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:10:27 2012 No.2781543 Killing the ego doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of your individuality. It's coming to view that you are no more important than anyone else who has ever existed. Everyone is as important and special as everyone else is.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:13:27 2012 No.2781556

>>2781543

oh no "killing" the ego is a far more serious and difficult endeavor than you make it sound. it's also more than just thinking of everything as equal. it is also losing the boundaries that separates the "self" from everything else in the universe. and losing all the boundaries that separate a thing from everything else. no more segmentations, only flows of boundless energy

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:17:28 2012 No.2781571

>>2781533
The point is that it's a personal aspiration, it's not superior to or inferior to egoism. Anyway, the idea that it's just some concept i've come up with on the spot to win an argument with you is absurd, especially seeing as I don't see any real meaningful difference between your goals and mine. Saying 'nonego is superior to ego' is about as arbitrary a value construction as saying 'brown hair is superior to blonde hair'

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:18:27 2012 No.2781574

>>2781504
What the fuck are you talking about?

Meaning and meaninglessness are not implicit in life. Life does not guarantee either of those. Meaning is a human concept it does not exist and as such you find meaning. Have you felt that tingle in your stomach when you manifest yourself truly and reach godlike heights, heights that you were never aware you could ever reach. I'm talking about the flow state, being in the zone, psychological congruence, that's something to live for. It's all subjective you idiot.

Materialism is external and bullshit, determinism is a deeply flawed concept (in that everything is determined, only some things are), and death. Death is the ultimate freedom. Knowing that you can end it all whenever you want? Well, I don't know about you but I'm glad we have death (I'm being facetious here but I hope you get my point).

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:20:27 2012 No.2781580

>>2781556
I do view things that way. I suppose I just forgot to point it out really. OP seemed to imply that loosing your ego would be akin to loosing your individuality.

And even viewing everything as a boundless flow of energy still doesn't make people loose their individuality. In fact that's one of the things that makes this overall energy so amazing. It is all so different yet still made out of one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:24:27 2012 No.2781588 >>2781580 lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:27:29 2012 No.2781591 >>2781556 Explain ghosts and paranormal things then. >>2781574 >implying God (not the Abrahamic one) and not life wasn't the one who did not create things such as meaning or meaningless YOU CANT CONVINCE ME

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:34:29 2012 No.2781605

>>2781403
>Not him, but the idea is basically that the contentment that you gain from fulfillment of desire is basically temporary and sort of unsatisfactory compared to the feeling of contentment you get from even shrugging some desire, i'm sure you can have experienced this to some extent
I have, but I've found even the satisfaction I get from being free from desire is temporary. I've found it to only really be *satisfying* in the short term as a release from the frustrating burden that having desires sometimes is. After time, the satisfaction fades and I become more of an emotional non-entity: neither feeling suffering nor satisfaction. I don't consider that preferable to a life animated with desire.
>Buddha came up with his ideas surrounded by poverty, the sort of people for whom shrugging off discomfort and desire can mean a huge amount
But I've met Buddhists many times and they always treat Buddha's message as applying universally and to everyone in equal measure.
>the self is the source of desires, the idea is that the bigger your ego the more you sort of feel you deserve and the more you get caught up in imagined problems like wanting respect and admiration
Surely you mean *believing in a self* is the source of desires, since the Buddhism idea is that there are no selves!
Anyway, believing that you are a self is not the same as being egotistical. Many Christians, who sure as shit believe in a self, believe in giving and not asking anything in return. And many western philosophers and neuroscientists, who don't believe in selves (Metzinger, Dennett, Ramachandran, Churchland, etc), show no signs of being any less egotistical than the rest of us. There really doesn't seem to be any connection here at all.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:35:29 2012 No.2781608
File: 205 KB, 466x625, buddha.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2781372
1/2

I see a few other people have already responded to you, but I'll do it myself too.

1. The clinging is rather meant in a psychological way than a physical one. For example, clinging to your youthful appearance while aging. You refuse to be at peace with the fundamental reality that everything is in flux, and by this unrealistic desire you create a perpetual suffering for yourself.

If you approach things aware of the fact that they hold no inherent value, identity or essence and will also wither away again, you live with a clarity that is prepared for the basic nature of life. Most people downright refuse to do this, and thereby create a lot of suffering for themselves. The ability to let go will free you from this.

2. I'd say desire often is, if not always consciously so. Plenty of people are bummed out because they can't have a certain car or house or gadget or anything, and they can go very far to attain those things, even if it causes themselves and others great suffering. They also often feel entitled. Seeing through the triviality in such matters can be a great relief. Becoming concious of your desires in the right way enables you to deal with them in a way that doesn't cause any harm. Then one can follow the middle way, by just maintaining the body and neither falling prey to decadence nor asceticism.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:36:29 2012 No.2781609
File: 151 KB, 367x570, buddha2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

2/2

3. Buddhism is fairly epicurean in that matter. There is nothing wrong with nice things in themselves. It only goes wrong when it causes conflict, both inner and outer. I'd say it doesn't deprive us of pleasure to live simply once we adjust ourselves to a new life. You just learn to gain pleasure from different things.

The funny thing is, if I'm correct there have been studies that Buddhist monks with advanced meditation skill can stimulate the pleasure center directly. So where one is working his ass of to buy a Ferrari and feel good driving it, the monk simply sits down and puts on the pleasure switch. Without any hassle, conflict or misery caused to himself or others.

4. Believing in the self carries a lot of suffering with it. For example, if you belief in the self, there is something as death of the self. This alone is enough to cause a lot of anguish. A life free from self-obsession is free from a lot of suffering most experience daily, because a lot of our problems are image based.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:39:31 2012 No.2781614

>>2781475
>think about how much importance people place on "the self", and what happens when we realize that it is a fictitious entity of our own making
Well I don't know about other people but I don't please much importance on 'the self' as a metaphysical concept. I place a lot of importance on myself as in me, my continued existence and my wellbeing, etc, if that's what you mean. But that's a different thing. I would care about that one way or the other, regardless of what philosophy of the self I believed in. Buddhists care about their health and happiness just as much as everyone else!

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:48:31 2012 No.2781639

>>2781608
>If you approach things aware of the fact that they hold no inherent value, identity or essence and will also wither away again, you live with a clarity that is prepared for the basic nature of life. Most people downright refuse to do this, and thereby create a lot of suffering for themselves. The ability to let go will free you from this.
You are putting an inherent value to "freeing" yourself from this.

you're probably a sociopath to

you know, you can still believe there is an inherent value in everything and still be "free" from such things.

this is why asia is so shitty and the west while somewhat shitty is powerful and comfortable, Abrahamic religions may be barbaric at times but they aren't well shitty like eastern.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:49:31 2012 No.2781642

>>2781614

That poses questions like: how far are you willing to go to protect YOURSELF from OUTSIDE things? What would you sacrifice to keep your integrity on that matter?

For eastern thinkers, there is no distinction between the outside and the inside, the you, the me and the him. Afterall, what is a war if not everyone working to protect themselves? It is a noble act for the self, but if there is no distinction between beating an opponent and being beaten, then there is no reason to fight at all.

By war I don't mean just war between people. Existence is a war, we suffer to get beat the problems life present us, because we feel them as a threat to the self. If you don't see it like that, there is no problem. "But then, I would let them kill me!", while one is right to think that, the negative conotation is not present, as everything will die anyway and, at the same time, as you are the same with the universe and the universe goes on without the self.

(new to thread btw, didn't even read a lot of posts)

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:50:31 2012 No.2781643

>>2781497
> The self represents the conscious mind, the one filled with fears, at the whims of reactivity. Identifying with it means being bound. The "annihilation of self" is symbolic for diving into the great subconscious mind, bringing awareness into it and seeing what truly drives you. This will shift the focus from the apparent impact the external world has on your psyche, to the very real impact you have on yourself
I don't really see what you're getting at here. What do you mean "The self represents the conscious mind"? Do you mean that Buddhists mean by 'the self' just 'the conscious mind'? If they do, then why do they use the phrase 'annihilation of self' for coming to know what truly drives you, as you suggest? This all seems like a bizarre use of terms.
>you probably realize that the surface desire does not have its roots in something real, but in emotions and as such anything you desire is incapable of fulfilling you to a great extent (try excess) until you address its underlying cause at which point that desire ceases to exist if it is not essential
Well I'm all for realising what it is that truly fulfills us and ridding ourselves of misplaced, futile desires based on faulty understands of ourselves and the world we live in. But that's a very different thing from wanting to be free from desire. That's more like wanting to be free from ignorance.
>What Buddhism teaches is the way to become free by turning inwards and facing your subconscious. Rebirth is a symbol for the many iterations of personality, karma is a symbol for cause and effect and maybe genetics (karma that stretches lifetimes), Buddha is a symbol.
That all seems fair enough, and I could dig that. I just wish they'd update the terminology a bit, so it's clear the central message is knowing thyself, rather than anything to do with destroying the self or getting rid of desires.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:52:31 2012 No.2781648

>>2781609
>car house gadget
Don't need to be a fucking life denier to realize this and deal with it.

>It only goes wrong
What's wrong? says you.

>4. Believing in the self carries a lot of suffering with it. For example, if you belief in the self, there is something as death of the self. This alone is enough to cause a lot of anguish. A life free from self-obsession is free from a lot of suffering most experience daily, because a lot of our problems are image based.

you don't understand what a self is and obsessing with pleasure and freeing yourself shows you are a hypocrite and scoundrel.
don't try excusing it either.

>So where one is working his ass
>ass
american detected

>Without any hassle, conflict or misery caused to himself or others.

See? you're a hypocrite, you placed inherent value to not causing issues with yourself or others.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:53:31 2012 No.2781649 >>2781609 You say to "free" yourself but here you are on 4chan arguing. "OH BUT IT IS AN ASPIRATION" No it is not, just ego masturbation. >oh boy the ego

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:56:10 2012 No.2781655

>>2781605
You're right about the first two, I misrepresented, >>2781608 explains it better than i did.

About the third one, it's pretty much an issue of definitions. It's hard to deny that 'the self' exists in an existential sense, I mean even if it's an illusion it's still part of our experience. I can't really talk much about Buddhism seeing as i'm not an expert, but for me it's less about overcoming the illusion of the self as I don't really believe it's possible to transcend our own experience. It's more about devaluing the self and thus devaluing your own values and judgements. Marcus Aurelius said "Get rid of the judgment, get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt itself."

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 11:59:08 2012 No.2781667

>>2781608
>If you approach things aware of the fact that they hold no inherent value, identity or essence and will also wither away again, you live with a clarity that is prepared for the basic nature of life. Most people downright refuse to do this, and thereby create a lot of suffering for themselves. The ability to let go will free you from this.
This just seems flat out like the wrong way to understand people's suffering. Surely people suffer because they have dumb desires for things that won't bring them satisfaction, like desires for ipads or smartphones or expensive clothing or other random shit. That seems like a simple and sensible explanation to me, and it doesn't invoke any of this stuff about the value, identity or essence of objects, subjects I'm pretty sure the average person has no opinions on whatsoever.
>Plenty of people are bummed out because they can't have a certain car or house or gadget or anything, and they can go very far to attain those things, even if it causes themselves and others great suffering
Go up to one of your acquaintances next time you observe them behaving in such a way towards the latest faddy commodity, and ask them if they believe they actually NEED to have it. I don't think you'll receive the answer you expect.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:00:08 2012 No.2781670

You don't need to "free" yourself from anything, you could simply accept but still enjoy life.
you should simply off yourself right there and then or go into a catatonic state, fuck buddhists.

if you truly had no desire and no care you just go catatonic and thats that.

>>2781642
>as you are the same with the universe and the universe goes on without the self.

prove it

so you seem to think of life's challenges as well problems and not challenges. weak and prone to suffering.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:01:08 2012 No.2781672 >>2781649 He wasn't arguing, he was discussing. He didn't even use caps lock once. You, on the other hand.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:01:08 2012 No.2781674
File: 238 KB, 500x500, arhat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2781639
I view not suffering as something preferable in itself, yes.

Of course you can believe such things, but it will make it harder to not get caught up in it. Buddhism is fairly down to earth in this. The Buddha basically said: "Look, such is life and some things suck, but I've found this way to deal with it, if you want the same results you should do as follows". You can take it or leave it.

I'd say the economic conditions of Asia aren't so strictly relatable to Buddhism. There is a culture influenced by Buddhism, but that doesn't mean that they are strict practitioners all around.

Same goes for the West. There's plenty of self-labeled Christians around, but rarely anyone lives up to it. I'd say your average monks, be it Christian or Buddhist, lives a life of greater contentment than most.

And conditions being shitty of course have a lot to do with your state of mind.If you can be happy living in a tub like Diogenes, you are in a better position than someone who needs to live in a mansion to feel happy. Both might lead to happiness, but the first has a lower overhead expense and is therefore easier to achieve and maintain. One is putting on shoes, the other is covering all the roads in carpet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:02:08 2012 No.2781677 >>2781655 Easy "truths" to come up like that are useless and most likely wrong as they come from common men all over and not correct for subtle engagement with the subtle details in reality's big picture truths.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:04:08 2012 No.2781679 hey buddhist, tell that there is no need to suffer to someone truly on the edge from all the genuine suffering they have had in very dire situations over the years. I'd like to see your throat ripped out, you boring carcass.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:05:08 2012 No.2781680

>>2781609
>Believing in the self carries a lot of suffering with it. For example, if you belief in the self, there is something as death of the self. This alone is enough to cause a lot of anguish
Sorry to break it to you dude, but death happens one way of the other. It's a biological fact of life. Not having a self doesn't change the fact that in 50 or so years you'll be dead, whereas once you were alive. Also, many people who believed in a self throughout history managed to find ways to free themselves from fear of death. See Epicurus.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:08:08 2012 No.2781690 >>2781680 And? you are implying that death is nothing. >>2781674 >arhat yeah, free yourselves and have a brutal and stupid caste system.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:09:08 2012 No.2781694

>>2781680
If there is no self, there is no death as a rigid line between one thing or the other. When a wave forms in the sea and it flows back into the mass of water, would you say it has died? I wouldn't. I would say that if I was a wave obsessed with holding that particular form though.

So without a self there really is no death, since there is nothing that can die. There's merely perpetual change. I'm talking about death as a human, psychological concept now of course, not the biological process of disintegration of a bunch of cells.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:10:10 2012 No.2781696 >>2781642 I don't really see what the things you're saying have to do with belief in the self. You sound like you're just talking about altruism. Westerners can be altruistic just as much as Easterners.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:10:10 2012 No.2781698

>>2781677
I'm not sure what that means or if it was an actual sentence, but from what I understand the implication is that my beliefs are 'common' and 'not compatible with objective truths' which I actually agree with sans maybe 'objective truth' (relativism yo) but you can't say that without applying it to yourself and your favorite philosopher as well, because nobody experiences reality objectively.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:19:10 2012 No.2781717

>>2781690
>And? you are implying that death is nothing
I fail to see the dialectic significance of this. But anyway, whether or not I in fact implied that death is nothing, it IS nothing, at least in a sense, for it's a term for the ABSENCE of various biological processes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:21:10 2012 No.2781721 Hey Stirnerites: How does it feel being intellectual frauds in a post Mannheim world? You're not technically autistic if you simply refuse to listen to scads of bullshit emanating out of the mouths of frauds.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:25:10 2012 No.2781730 >>2781717 Then we are talking about a different death then. a discontinuation of "you"

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:25:10 2012 No.2781733

>>2781694
>When a wave forms in the sea and it flows back into the mass of water, would you say it has died? I wouldn't.
Neither would I, because waves aren't alive.
>So without a self there really is no death, since there is nothing that can die.
Yes there is, there are all the human beings.
>I'm talking about death as a human, psychological concept now of course, not the biological process of disintegration of a bunch of cells
Well that's odd, seeing as death is not a psychological concept, but a biological one. Either way though, death has psychological significance, in that it causes the cessation of consciousness (presumably). And just to repeat my point from before, whether people care about this is independent of whether they believe in a self or not. People who believe in a self are very much capable of being cool with biological death and a permanent end to conscious experience, and people who don't believe in a self are very much capable of being pissed at it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:26:12 2012 No.2781735 >>2781721 >post Mannheim world What is that? implications of that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:28:12 2012 No.2781741 >>2781733 Well then assuming it isn't in a cessation of consciousness then I wouldn't be caring about a non self or self or anything philshopy actually. wait, this is all just to try to accept death somehow. well i'm never going to if death is that

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:28:12 2012 No.2781743 >>2781735 You have to pay me to tell you or learn to use wikipedia. Sorry, times are tough.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:28:13 2012 No.2781740 >>2781730 Oh. What kind of death were you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:29:12 2012 No.2781745 >>2781740 >a discontinuation of "you"

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:29:12 2012 No.2781748

>>2781670
>prove it

I'm just trying to explain a concept, not to prove or disprove anything. Geez.

>so you seem to think of life's challenges as well problems and not challenges. weak and prone to suffering.
You seem to think I'm trying to impose what I think over what you think. Or that I'm even talking about what I think.

But anyway, eastern thinking is linked to yin yang, the idea that for everything that is good, there is something that is bad. Because in fact, these are values that we atribute to things. So that when you overcome a challenge, you are not doing much but creating a new challenge because of it. It's the cycle of suffering and desire they constantly mention. You survive a little longer just to fall in the very same way later on. There is no urgency to solve things, as they know that you can't really solve all the things or, from a different perspective, everything is already solved and we are the ones creating complications.

>>2781696
I understand your reading, but the difference is that altruism is about giving yourself for the other, while eastern thinking make no distinction between yourself and the other. The result in attitude might be similar from a distance, but the mindset is very different.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:30:12 2012 No.2781749 >>2781743 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=post+Mannheim&title=Special%3ASearch there is no such thing as a "post mannheim" world

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:30:13 2012 No.2781750

Both ideas on the existence of or lack of existence of the self are correct.

They are views that people hold, which to the individual are either true or false. To say that one way of thinking is more correct than the other would be, in my opinion, silly. Though everyone is free to hold the opinions in the first place, and everyone is free to try and get other parties to perceive such ideas as they do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:30:13 2012 No.2781751 http://deoxy.org/watts.htm Watch some.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:30:13 2012 No.2781752

>>2781643
Well put, freedom from desire is more a freedom from ignorance. Freedom from desire taken literally is just as ignorant as believing all desires have substance.

As for the "annihilation of self" I see it as a realization of the inherent weakness of the conscious mind, the simple truth that its view is very narrow, at which point it loses its importance for the being (for the lack of a better term). For me Buddhism is mostly symbolism for the psychology of man and for the process of achieving psychological integration. I do not regarded as anything more than this. And if I'm wrong, and Buddhism is to be taken literally, then it holds no value to me and I've made a personal interpretation of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:31:13 2012 No.2781753 >>2781748 What do you think then?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:32:13 2012 No.2781755 >>2781748 OMG look at that! Money just magically started appearing in my bank account.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:34:12 2012 No.2781760 >>2781755 faget stirner is right you cant prove him wrong

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:35:12 2012 No.2781764 >>2781760 >prove laughingwittgenstein.tiff

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:37:15 2012 No.2781768

>>2781745
Ah. And by "you" I assume you mean the self, right? In that case it seems to me like you've just come up with a definition of 'death' tailor-made for the Buddhist philosophy, that functions in such a way that anyone who believes Buddhist philosophy cannot possibly fear death, because they don't believe it ever happens! A neat trick, but I don't see it having any real import. Whether or not Buddhists are less likely to fear this "death" you talk of than people who believe in a self, they're just as likely as far as I can tell to fear the event of the decaying of the body and the end of conscious experience as anyone else. You know, the event most people call 'death'.
So it still seems to me there's no reason think think belief in the self is connected in any significant way to suffering.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:38:15 2012 No.2781771 We've taken to referring to ourselves in the plural because the ego is too fragile. We are a multiplicity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:38:15 2012 No.2781773 >>2781755 I don't even get what you mean by that, man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:39:16 2012 No.2781774 >>2781764 typical philosophy fan. roach reading wittgenstein wikipedia page wittgenstein is not relevant other than in analytic circles

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:41:17 2012 No.2781778 >>2781774 >roach Time to leave /lit/ for a while

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:42:17 2012 No.2781780 >>2781768 OH YEAH DEATH ISN'T HE END OF CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK TO /SCI/ AND OR CALL THIS DOLL A FAGGOT AND SPIT IN HIS FACE en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Doll

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:43:36 2012 No.2781781 >>2781752 Ok. Your interpretation makes it sound cool. It's just a shame the terminology is misleading.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:43:36 2012 No.2781782 >>2781773 I was lampooning the idea that problems solve themselves in some kind of magical fashion if you look at problems as challenges rather than problems.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:43:36 2012 No.2781783
File: 69 KB, 500x333, robert_the-doll2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2781780
>Hundreds of letters have been sent to the Museum by visitors who beg Robert's forgiveness and ask him to remove his curse

fuck that shit

why is nigger magic so powerful?

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 12:44:36 2012 No.2781784

Stirner is really simple.

One looks at "emptiness" or "nothing" and that to him is the end. He cannot be.

Another looks at "emptiness" or "nothing" and sees in it everything, even freedom but not in any strict sense. Freedom from ideology, from thinking you "need" to do certain things. He predates from Heidegger even and the metaphysics in his work is very faint but it is there.

He is not a Hegelian but a contra. That is his Hegelian influence and he criticized the Young Hegelians.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 13:58:18 2012 No.2781917 ITT: Quite a lot of people with an insufficient grasp of Buddhism getting mad at something they don't understand nor are willing to understand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:01:21 2012 No.2781924 >>2781917 Why post that without trying to help clear things up? Or did you just want to show off some air of superiority?

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:05:21 2012 No.2781928

>>2781924
Not him, but why should people be willing to clear things up for others?

Now that's why students go to their masters in search for enlightenment in Asia. Not comparing a zen master to a 4chan poster, but anyway, the initiative to understand should come from the one who wants to understand and with that comes sacrifice. One has to trust the other for one to learn anything, except in 4chan you get "prove it" and mocking greentexts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:06:21 2012 No.2781935 >>2781928 What's wrong with wanting some substantive discussion? If he has nothing to add to the conversation other than 'none of you know anything', then isn't he just as bad as the other posters?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:08:21 2012 No.2781942 >>2781935 I'm not defending him.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:09:21 2012 No.2781945 >>2781942 Okay, fair enough. It just would be nice if people who allegedly know more about the subject than the posters they're decrying would step up and try to heighten the level of discourse a bit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:20:25 2012 No.2781986 >>2781928 >trust 4chan ruined this i hope the majority of young men don't browse this site or else

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:22:24 2012 No.2781991

>>2781782
They never said problems solve for themselves and they don't see it as challenge, I was making the example from the western point of view. Also, having or not having money is far from a problem, to a buddhist that would be not only a sign of vanity, but a form of compensating real life with something as abstract as money.

That is, if one wants money, one will suffer because there is none. But let's suppose it works out and one ends up with all the money one wants. That satisfaction is the gateway to new problems. So now you get a spoiled rich guy who is miserable because all that money didn't bring his highschool love back. But even so, let's suppose he lives happily with all the money he's got and his life is a paradise in which all is perfect and he couldn't ask for more. Eventually, time will drain that paradise from him, either he will lose the money, or die of natural causes at the age of 100. So best case scenario is that he still won't have the money for all eternity. Also, don't forget this whole example is already based on something a buddhist would call vain and that more money to some means less money to others.

What buddhism says is that we have a tendency to cling on the things we have, being that our physical possessions, our summer vacations or our own life. And it is because we want more of good things and less of bad things that we suffer, that we have trouble adapting, that we cry when something is gone. There are many schools of thought in buddhism and each one will approach the issue in a different way. Taoism will make the goal to flow at the pace of the universe, that is, to adapt instantly to whatever happends, not to rush things up with anxiety or to cry over what is gone.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:25:24 2012 No.2782001

>>2781991 here
Thinking about it, I guess you could say problems solve for themselves, but not in the way you were thinking. So, for example, after we are dead, the rich man's happiness comes to an end and the poor man's suffering comes to an end in a very same way. All that is perfect is corrupted, all that is fire will eventually burn all there is to burn. It's an endless cycle.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:27:24 2012 No.2782005 >>2781991 enjoy your boring reality and no dramatic emotions if the taoists or buddhist won then there would be no great works today or music or anything fuck ur shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:28:24 2012 No.2782007 >>2782001 >implying death is the end just go be a new-atheist or check your beliefs

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:34:26 2012 No.2782022 >>2781924 There were also plenty of people trying to clear things up and share their knowledge, but that effort seems to be have gone unappreciated. Which is a shame.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:37:26 2012 No.2782028
File: 188 KB, 1695x2340, 1341438405953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Jesus Christ dudes, I'm trying to ease your doubts on the subject (because you were asking it), not trying to prove anyone wrong here.

>>2782005
>won
?
There is nothing to win or lose here.

>>2782007
Death is the end of life. They don't see death as the end of everything, because even that is transitory. But it is indeed the end to your money as you won't be able to use it, that was the example.

Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:38:26 2012 No.2782032

>>2782005
You're missing the buddhist point. What the buddhist are saying is that there are no difference between "great" things and "not great" things. It is only because of our ignorance that we separate those and bring suffering to ourselves. The distinction of "you" "me" "them" arises purely from ignorance to buddhist. Do you think the rich/king of 2000 years ago think of themselves as retards/stupid? They dont have cars, they dont have great things like mona lisa, or nuclear power, or science or anything like that, and YET they still think of themselves as being Great and Powerful. What the buddists are saying is when we continue to separate "great" "you" "them" from the "not great" "not you", the suffering will forever perpetuate itself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 14:50:28 2012 No.2782049 >>2782032 An alternative Buddhist pov is, "Great" "Not great" are both present in all things. Similarly "you" "me" "them" are all present in yourself.

Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz Thu Jul 5 17:14:58 2012 No.2782437
File: 57 KB, 800x600, 7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2782028

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class at Uni, and I've been involved in numerous debate club championships, and I have over 300 confirmed wins. I am trained in Classical speaking and I'm the top rhetor in the entire US mercantile forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never before been seen before in this market, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of agents across the USA and your stock portfolio is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your nest egg. You're investments are fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill a business in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in mergers and acquisitions, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States media and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 5 17:25:01 2012 No.2782494 File: 63 KB, 550x404, diogenes4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2782437 Lol typical longwinded Plato

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature