[ 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: 60 KB, 357x500, A guide to the good life.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939006 No.939006 [Reply] [Original]

favorite personal philosophy books?

>> No.939013
File: 10 KB, 320x320, 41M3MP2Y18L._SS500_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939013

>> No.939014
File: 38 KB, 505x730, sample_daaac4a1f46f7a0f3c349f431bf21046948e5c1c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939014

>> No.939025
File: 165 KB, 640x1097, atlas-shrugged-book-cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939025

>> No.939063
File: 27 KB, 219x350, Marcus-Aurelius-Meditations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939063

>>939006

>> No.939065
File: 358 KB, 500x373, Tripitaka_Koreana-632f3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939065

The Tipitaka. Well some of it anyway. I mean good lord. Too many books.

But reading on Buddhism in general has been the biggest influence of my philosophy as of late.

>> No.939094

>>939065
op here,

yeah same. it seems like such a great idea, wonder why it never got popular among Europeans. i think it may be because it markets itself as a religion when it's not. Buddhists are atheists.

>> No.939116

>>939094
I know right. It seems like so many people misunderstand the origin and meaning behind their own beliefs that they are seldom able or willing to look into other modes of thinking about the world. As I ramble and make half as much sense as i'd like but only a quarter of the time.

>> No.939140
File: 38 KB, 640x480, 1211510086863.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939140

>>939094
>Buddhism
>Not a religion

>> No.939186

Hey OP, looked up the book in your first post. Seems pretty awesome, will add it to my reading list.

>> No.939246

Meditations, or The Prince

>> No.939256
File: 54 KB, 253x380, ist2_8161193-laughing-girl-with-book.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939256

>>939094

>Buddhists are atheists
>mfw

>> No.939259

>>939140
it's a philosophy, not a religion you ignorant kid.

>> No.939269

>>939256
you are amazingly dumb.

>> No.939290

>>939259
No, it's a religion. Philosophies don't have monastaries, and rituals, gurus or mysticism.

You can distill philosophy from it in the same way you can distill philosophy from Jesus' teachings but that doesn't make it any less of a religion.

>> No.939300

>>939259
Explain all the goddamn temples.

>> No.939304

>>939290
>thinks monastery is strictly religious

anyway, buddhism is a system of belief that doesn't emphasize metaphysics but ethics/value

>> No.939311

>>939300
"pagan" worship.

>> No.939319

>>939304
> buddhism is a system of belief that doesn't emphasize metaphysics but ethics/value

I don't see how that makes it any less religious. In fact, ethics and value is MORE central to religion than metaphysics.

>> No.939322

>>939311
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

>> No.939325

>>939311
Pagan as in meaning not believing in the god of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity?

Look up the poison arrow story and you'll know exactly where Buddhist's stand on metaphysics.

>> No.939332

>>939304
>doesn't emphasize metaphysics
>karma
>samsara
>emptiness
>impermanence

Not buying. Try again.

>> No.939337

>>939319
no.

religion is belief in deity. it's a body of metaphysical beliefs.

>> No.939342

>>939337


re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

>> No.939345

>>939006
The Way by Josemaria Escriva

>> No.939346

>>939337
>religion is belief in deity

lolno. Religion is the belief in something sacred, practice of devotion, ritual, ceremony pertaining to a cosmological view and set of values/ethics.

Buddhism meets all of these. Your definition of 'religion' is pointlessly narrow.

>> No.939349

>>939332
well, if you push the line on what is religion, then what is philosophy is also pushed. transcendence and karma are philosophical notions.

>> No.939369

>>939349
> transcendence and karma are philosophical notions.

Yes, they are. But in Buddhism they form a part of a religion.

No one ever denied Buddhism involved philosophy. So does Christianity, but that doesn't make it any less religious.

>> No.939380

>>939269

No, you are amazingly dumb. You don't know anything about Buddhism.

Buddhism is not atheistic.

>> No.939381

>>939346
sacred what?
devotion to what?

i guess metaphysics here is causing some problems, because the ancients were all metaphysically promiscuous and made totalizing claims on how the world is. it would still make sense to make distinctions in that context though, between the particularly religious and the not so religious.

anyway, the idea is that in buddhist society belief is revolving around ideas rather than deities. rulers saw religions not as a choice of deities and guardians but as a choice of wisdoms.

>> No.939385
File: 189 KB, 460x303, Picard_Facepalm_small.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939385

>>939369
So I think we can all agree that there is a sliding scale, that is completely subjective, of what is or is not considered religious. Welp. Solved another argument on the internet. Man i'm so awesome.

>> No.939390

>>939349

>transcendence and karma are philosophical notions.

And so is Trinitarianism.

>> No.939391

>>939369
well, let me say this then. the focus of christian devotion is to the other, while the buddhist devotion is to the subject. it's not worshiping anything outside of you.

>> No.939392

ITT: westerners with a pop-culture understanding of Buddhism

Buddhism is not atheistic.

>> No.939395

>>939385
>sliding scale

Ok.

> that is completely subjective

No. It's pretty fucking clear man. Look at how the majority of Buddhists behave in the world. They fucking pray, and chant and go to temples or become monks.

Buddhism is not near the ambiguous part of the sliding scale. It's not subjective. It's a religion.

>> No.939396

>>939392
what's the buddhist deity

>> No.939404

>>939395
>They fucking pray, and chant and go to temples or become monks.
oh geez, totally sensible criteria for what religion is.

>> No.939409

>>939404
You must be joking.

How is that NOT sensible? Name me something, anything, that involves those practices that isn't Buddhism or Daoism and ISN'T a religion.

>> No.939413

>>939404
So if I get enough people to do all of those things to a stick it will be a religion?

Hey where is some one who can come and tell us about the flying spaghetti monster religion? That would be an interesting example.

>> No.939420

>>939409
you are pretty fucking dumb. look up asceticism. oh, and visit some modern cults like falun gong

>> No.939422

Straight from the horse's mouth:

>Is Buddhism a religion? To the approximately 300 million practitioners worldwide, Buddhism is considered their religion. Like all major religions Buddhism contains an explantion of the origin of existence, a morality, and a specific set of rituals and behaviors. However, as generally Buddhists do not ascribe to the belief in a sentient, all-pervasive Creator, some claim that Buddhism fails to be a religion. However, this reflects both an extremely narrow definition of religion and fails to consider what Buddhists would regard as the "nature of god," which is extremely close to the description of God offered by many of the earlier "Fathers" of Christianity. Nevertheless, like the other major religions, Buddhism presents a transformational goal, a desire to improve one's situation, and a distinct moral code.

http://www.drepung.org/resources/kbase/faq/2.cfm

>drepung.org

inb4 16-year-olds arguing with me, leaving thread now.

>> No.939429

>>939413
>So if I get enough people to do all of those things to a stick it will be a religion?

Assuming there's some set of beliefs motivating it, yes.

>>939420
Asceticism and Cults are both religious.

>Asceticism (from the Greek: ἄσκησις, áskēsis, "exercise" or "training" in the sense of athletic training) describes a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from various sorts of worldly pleasures often with the aim of pursuing religious and spiritual goals. Some forms of Christianity (see especially: Monastic life) and the Indian religions (including yoga) teach that salvation and liberation involve a process of mind-body transformation effected by exercising restraint with respect to actions of body, speech, and mind. The founders and earliest practitioners of these religions (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, the Christian desert fathers)

>> No.939439

>>939422
it's buddhism. people believe what they believe. the point of saying buddhism is not a religion is just to point out the different role of the deity in that belief system.

>> No.939445

>>939439
>the point of saying buddhism is not a religion is just to point out the different role of the deity in that belief system

And it's a horrible way of doing so. Why not just say what you mean?

>> No.939446

>>939429
noooooo. cults can stem from retarded world views.

asceticism is a philosophy just as hedonism/epicureanism
stop misreading wikipedia

>> No.939451

>>939445
because it happens to be a good way of saying it if you weren't so fucking dense as a brick.

>> No.939453

>>939446
>cults can stem from retarded world views

Which doesn't make them any less religious.

>asceticism is a philosophy just as hedonism/epicureanism
>stop misreading wikipedia

Care to make some citations regarding this? I can see certain philosophy involving ascetic rigor, but Buddhism's asceticism is of the religious variety.

>> No.939458

>>939451
>because it happens to be a good way of saying it if you weren't so fucking dense as a brick

No, it really isn't. Because it involves a single instance misuse of a word without any indication that you are deliberately misusing it, it's pretty fucking terrible in terms of communication.

>> No.939479

>>939453
not really. a cult can be organized around a belief in an alternative human biology, involving vital energy and whatnot.

>asking me citations when you just googled asceticism a minute ago.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/#XenLeg

now please apply ctrl+f and type in philosophy

>> No.939484

>>939458
i'm sorry, when i am speaking to a presumably western person on the difference between religion and philosophy, it is reasonable to expect some understanding that this deity/supernatural intelligence business is involved.

>> No.939489

>>939479
The only mention of the word "ascetic" or any variation:
> A pronounced ethic of moderation, sometimes bordering on asceticism, runs through much of ancient Greek ethical thought
>bordering on asceticism

This is not good support for the idea that asceticism is not practiced religiously in the vast majority of cases, including Buddhism.

>a cult can be organized around a belief in an alternative human biology, involving vital energy and whatnot

As long as it has ritual, ceremony, devotional practice etc..., it's a religion.

>> No.939491

>>939458
allow me to educate you again.

>They define philosophy as a kind of practice or exercise (askêsis) in the expertise concerning what is beneficial (Aetius, 26A). Once we come to know what we and the world around us are really like, and especially the nature of value, we will be utterly transformed.
well fuck, sure isn't like buddhist Religion.

>> No.939494

>>939484
> it is reasonable to expect some understanding that this deity/supernatural intelligence business is involved

That's like refusing to call dolphins mammals because most people assume furry land animals when they hear the word.

>> No.939496

>>939489
you happen to be some kind of anthro guy?

>> No.939500

>>939494
except...it's really not that similar

>> No.939502

>>939491
Sure sounds like Christianity, Daoism, Buddhism, Jainism, and a shit-ton of other religions.

Guess none of them are religions either.

Also Buddhism as practiced involves more than that. You know, like all that chanting and praying and devotion and building temples.

>> No.939509

Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Explain to me how Buddhism doesn't fall under that.

And Buddhism is non-theistic, not atheistic. They're very different things. Many Buddhists believe in gods and worship them.

>> No.939513

>>939502
if you define christianity as an exercise revolving around a value system, welllllllllll that's very cute.

>> No.939518

>>939509
many buddhists also have no claim to what buddhism is. in fact, there is no church of buddhism to decree what buddhism is and of fucking course there is a bit of idolatry, pardon the directness here, in the stuff as is practiced. however, if you were to write an entry of what buddhists believe, it would consist of philosophical notions rather than designations of supernatural powers.

>> No.939521

>>939513

>if you define christianity as an exercise revolving around a value system, welllllllllll that's very cute.

How is Christianity not an exercise revolving around a value system?

(not being facetious here, sincerely asking for your opinion)

>> No.939525
File: 63 KB, 480x333, 000044.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
939525

The Tao of Pooh and the Te of Piglet.

>> No.939526

>>939518

>no true scotsman etc. etc.

>> No.939533

>>939521
it posits a deity, which has power in the foucauldian sense.

if jesus performed no miracles, claimed no godhood, it would be some kind of exercise revolving around a system of values.

>> No.939535

>>939518
Yeah, because one Westerner on the internet arguing about Buddhism has way more authority on what it is than the hundreds of thousands of actual practitioners.

>> No.939540

>>939526
hurrr

realize to make the scotsman fallacy you need the premise that scotsman are p. here, taking that premise amounts to a circular fallacy on your part.

>> No.939543

>>939533

So, because it posits a supreme deity, it is not a value system?

Stop smoking so much pot kid, it's making you stupid.

>> No.939546

>>939533
>citing Foucault
>the presence of a deity magically makes the practice involved in Christianity not have a value system around which it revolves, including somehow actual Ascetic Christians

Holy shit what the fuck are you babbling about? Can you even form logical connections at all?

>> No.939552

>>939535
>implying anyone has a claim to what buddhism actually is.
oh and if you actually took a survey to buddhists and ask them what religion they follow, you'd have to first explain religion means because it is a western notion heavily dependent on the idea of belief in a deity.

they ARE obviously buddhists.

>> No.939556

>>939543
>>939546
obviously christianity has a system of values. but a system of values does not christianity make. hey, logic!

>> No.939557

itt: someoneswrongontheinternet.jpg

>> No.939560

>>939556
Nor does it Buddhism make.

>> No.939561

>>939556

You really are stupid.

Read the whole exchange again, slowly, then come back to us.

>> No.939562

>>939552
>oh and if you actually took a survey to buddhists and ask them what religion they follow, you'd have to first explain religion means because it is a western notion

Look, ma, Orientalism!

>> No.939573

>my face when someone mentions continental philosophy.jpg

Anyways,-
Epictetus, Enchiridion
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations (which was already mentioned)

>> No.939578 [DELETED] 

>>939561
right, but completely in support of my position as well.

>> No.939586

>>939562
look, intellectual laziness. please explain to me why the notion that a monotheistic faith is a peculiar situation that shapes the meaning of words like religion in a special way is orientalism.

>> No.939594

>>939560
of course, but also completely in support of my position as well. monastic life and meditation can be the result of philosophy, and thus not unique to religion

>> No.939598

Personal Philosophy?
Why does anyone else's world views have more validity than your own? Are you that unsure about your own worth of your life and experiences that you necessitate another person's entire world view?

>> No.939599

>>939561
you really are stupid. learn to read then come back to me.

>> No.939601

>>939586
It's the notion that Buddhists and other humans from the East would be incapable of understanding what the word religion delineates that is Orientalist, especially as if they are somehow innocent of the notion of worshiping a deity. It's completely silly and inaccurate.

http://www.sacu.org/religion2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_(Chinese_religion)

>> No.939613

>>939601
they are obviously capable of UNDERSTANDING the phenomenon of religion. it is however a mistake to say you can directly TRANSLATE WITHOUT LOSS this notion of religion.

in fact you are the retard who cited a survey and assume they take religion to mean the same thing that you do.

>> No.939621

>>939601
>神
oh gee, let's see. ask what a buddhist's shen is.

>> No.939632

>>939613
> it is however a mistake to say you can directly TRANSLATE WITHOUT LOSS this notion of religion.

That's linguistic, not cultural. It's also not relevant.

It's like saying that "blue" does not accurate describe Japanese painting because back in the day "blue" and "green" were designated by the same word.

>in fact you are the retard who cited a survey

No I didn't. Where the fuck did I cite a survey?

>> No.939641

ok guy. you are obivously a westerner if you think something like taoism's development is like that of a religion. ever heard of the warring states period and the schools of philosophy then? it's much more of an ancient greece situation than anything, and we call the greek guys philosohpers even though half of their shit is written on the role of gods.

again, to highlight the problem for those of you who are unable to read, this fucking debate is not over whether religion and philosophy are truly separate. they are not. it is over the CLASSIFICATORY criteria for both.

>> No.939645

>>939621
I linked to that to give a specific word which deals with deities (to show that it's not alien to China as an example), not to somehow say that it applies to Buddhism.

>> No.939646

>>939632
you are using language to convey, guess what, cultural notions. sit the fuck down.

>> No.939657

>>939645
how the fuck are you even in this predicament of actually misreading me so much that you think i believe the chinese are foreign to the notion of deities?

>> No.939659

>>939646
Cultural notions with objective criteria. Just because some other culture lacks the notion doesn't mean nothing practiced in said culture fits said criteria.

>> No.939664

>>939657
>you'd have to first explain religion means because it is a western notion heavily dependent on the idea of belief in a deity.

Gee, I don't know. Maybe it was this.

>> No.939668

BUDDHISM IS SPESHUL GUYZ

STAWP IT! GUYZ!

>> No.939677

>>939641
>you are obivously a westerner if you think something like taoism's development is like that of a religion. ever heard of the warring states period and the schools of philosophy then?

Yeah, shit like that happened in Christianity too. Especially early Christianity.

What's your fucking point?

>> No.939680

Though Theravada Buddhism doesn't have a personified Absolute, Theravada does in fact posit an Absolute. The Buddhist "Void" is none other than God, and unification with this immutable reality is available through nirvanic salvation. The Buddhist liberation from the cycle of rebirth corresponds to the Christian heaven.

>> No.939684

>>939659
again, that's a classificatory act. you are measuring another culture with notions of your own. there is a translation involved. now, if the cultures are actually the same, the translation would be without loss. however, this is not true.

>> No.939685

>debating semantics

"HURR SHOULD WE CALL BUDDHISM A RELIGION OR NOT GUYS????"

What a stupid debate.

>> No.939689

related

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63869

>> No.939691

>>939684
>there is a translation involved

No there isn't. I don't have to explain it to a Buddhist. I just have to look at what Buddhists believe and practice to apply it.

>> No.939694

>>939664
ok. you are pretty retarded if you can read "deity is a specifically western notion" from that.

>> No.939700

>>939691
you know why we are even talking about translation? because that particular line of this debate concerns an actual "report from the mouth of the horse" that's supposedly authoritative.

scroll up and then sit the fuck down.

>> No.939711

>>939700
>concerns an actual "report from the mouth of the horse"

No it doesn't, it involves you misreading a post and then running with it.

The "report" was simply the fact that objectively, hundreds of thousands of Buddhists engage in behavior that fits all the criteria for the word "religion."

>> No.939712

>>939677
the point is...christians see that as a SCHISM, ie different interpretations of the one truth, rather than schools of thought.

>> No.939713

Why don't we talk about what Buddhism IS rather than what we should call it?

That would be a way more interesting discussion. Probably less heated too.

>> No.939716

>>939711
actual report here. since you are too lazy
>>939509

>> No.939729

I love how one mention of the Tripitaka and presto change-o it all becomes a horrible flame war about Buddhism. The world burns but it still turns bitches.

>> No.939733

>>939716
Er...

That "report" is coming from a Westerner, on the internet, describing the beliefs and practice of Buddhists. I don't see how it involves any translation.

>> No.939744

>>939733

oopsss
>>939422
that's the report.

anyway, are you some kind of anthro guy because i can totally understand the practicality of classifying the study of buddhism etc as religious studies in anthro.

>> No.939750

>>939713
Really though.

>> No.939761

>>939744
Still missing the survey part.

It pretty much seems to me that the person who wrote that FAQ was using the Western term religion, looking at the practice and beliefs of 300 million Buddhists and realizing that they fit the description of the Western word "religion."

Once again, no translation.

No, I am not a student of anthropology.

>> No.939778

>>939761
actually, it seems to be an effort made by serious buddhists to call their thing a religion to make use of the special privileges accorded to religions in american (at least) politics.

>> No.939792

>>939778

>basic faq-type question on a major Buddhism website
>"they're just looking for tax benefits!"

Grow up.

>> No.939803

>>939792
not tax benefits, but equal standing.

>> No.939804

>>939778
Except, you know, the vast vast majority of Buddhists really do have practices and beliefs that are described by the word "religion."

Sure, maybe it's for tax benefits. The boot still fits.

>> No.939818

/lit/ (well, 4chan for that matter) is so narrow minded. Most people hardly know anything about the shit they argue about. You guys probably don't know shit about Buddhism, maybe a little you picked up from here or there. Most people here probably don't even understand Buddhist concepts of nirvana or karma. They're just like, "Haha, Buddhists don't really worship Budha, im so smart I know this now!"

>> No.939822

>>939804
described by you. they are belief systems, like christianity and reductive materialism.

anyway, obviously classificatory words are hugely flawed and dated, butttt if we are to choose between "religion" and "philosophy" in all honesty i'd have to go with the latter.

>> No.939835

Buddhism has everything you'd expect to find in a religion.

It has an absolute reality, salvation, divine revelation, saints, scripture, and monks among other things.

>> No.939858

>>939835
except you know, if there was no christianity, such some things may not be identified as religious notions and people would be in hermit camps and shit.

>> No.939890

>>939858
Prove it.

>> No.939904

>>939858

>if there was no christianity, such some things may not be identified as religious notions
I see what you're saying and I think I agree with you, but why shouldn't we use standard western categories? Was this addressed above? I'm new to this conversation.

>> No.939912

>>939858
Everything is contingent on other shit.

We should just stop using words, eh? They don't apply to anything BECAUSE THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.

>> No.939921

>>939890
i'd treat the development of monasticism in early mid christianity as the interaction of stoicist philosophy and christian doctrine. but mostly the philosophy.

obviously, without a notion of the inapproachable sacred, there won't be all that many monasteries, but it is safe to say that hermits and the like would still exist.

>> No.939933

>>939904
it's whatever.

i actually don't give a fuck about this stuff, except i think these guys who are trying very hard to deny that buddhism is a bit different from traditional western notions of religion have some sort of agenda.

in fact, the truth here is really that newfangled religions without clear deity worship!! has changed western notion of religion to be one centered around belief rather than worship.

>> No.939943

>>939933
> deny that buddhism is a bit different from traditional western notions of religion

No one did this. All we did was deny it's not a religion.

It is.