I mean with articles like this how can anyone not find it to be nihilistic
Stop obsessing.
Those who don’t read Poe’s The Raven are doomed to repeat it.
It’s hard not to when much of what they say has a truth that I cannot argue against and that no one I talk to seems to be able to either so they just hand wave it.
It’s hard to argue against gibberish that seems to actively reject rational thought, but you can’t say I haven’t been trying.
And by “trying” I mean I’ve blown everything you tossed at me to shreds, but you just keep finding more crap to throw at me, for that to be blown to shreds, in an unending cycle.
I’m curious about your take on a line in that: “These projections are handy when we want to ask for some cinnamon on our cappuccino, but to realize ultimate reality we need to distinguish appearances from our own projections.”
What do you make of that?
Do you figure he still wants stuff, per that quote? Do you figure that, upon saying the cinnamon and the cappuccino are appearances as distinguished from ultimate reality, he then shrugs and puts one on the other and apparently drinks?
It’s actually very easy. Do what most people do if they want to avoid bullshit that will only serve to fuck up their life. Don’t click on the link. Don’t spend any time reading or thinking about it. Problem solved.
Be honest now. If you didn’t spend your entire days endlessly obsessing about all this bullshit, you’d be a happier person and you’d have more time to enjoy life instead of irritating people on a message board with having them talk you down from your latest needless existential crisis.
I mean, on a slow day, sure, it’s slightly amusing to check out how you’ve wrapped yourself around the same axle, again. But mostly it’s pretty much the same shtick though. Aren’t you tired of it by now?
Honestly this junk isn’t too hard to debunk.
So this guy looks down at his arm and says, “Oh my! This is an arm! And it’s also part of my body! This quandary is SOOOO confusing. My mind can’t wrap itself around the idea of things that are made up of parts. It certainly can’t understand the idea that the whole could be greater than the sum of its parts - if a mechanical clock’s gears don’t individually know the time, then a clock made of them couldn’t possibly tell the time either!”
“So clearly, when we realize that we’re all just made of billions of atoms, there is no person there, because no clock that contains gears can possibly function. And also for a topper, I’m going to declare that the next step after recognizing you have billions of atoms is to say that’s the same thing as having NO atoms, being nothing at all, because when it comes to being a completely incorrect dumbfuck, go big or go home!”
So you are the famous fan!
That reminds me of the ontological argument for [del]cheeseburgers[/del] God, which is just as idioticly silly but millions of people for hundreds of years have thought a deep and meaningful argument.
Except I cannot resist it because the pain of not knowing is worse than that of knowing. I’m tired of it yes, but I can’t deny there is some sort of truth to what they say, as much as I wish it was not so.
I think by that it means that there is no independently existing entity of a body, that the existence of a body is dependent on other parts which depend on other parts, thus it lacks any true essence. Though personally there is something iffy about that, and if I understand some basic level of quantum physics there are interactions that occur independent of each other.
Like Schrodinger, lock Buddhism in a box. As long as it’s in a box, it is both true and not true. If you try and look at it, you’ll get confused. Don’t look at it. Keep it in the box. Dig a hole in your backyard. Put the box on the hole. Fill in the hole. Forget where the hole was. Then join the French Foreign Legion.
Lack of “knowledge” is not your problem. Obsessive thought leading to obsessive actions and lack of control over those is your problem. Are you seeking and getting the professional help you need? Because that is the only truth & knowledge you need to face and accept. If not, you won’t find “knowledge” even if it bites you on the ass.
As propounded by that British political movement, the London Underground.
I’m not sure what you’re specifically referring to (I haven’t read every post in this thread), but I’ve been exchanging semi-infrequent PMs with him for months now. I think he decided to start the exchange because I’ve been pretty consistent about not insulting him over his fixation on this stuff, and because I’m happy to debate darn near anything with darn near anybody for darn near ever.
And because I’m I’m happy to debate darn near anything with darn near anybody for darn near ever, I don’t mind the exchanges at all. Even though I don’t really expect them to go anywhere.
Naah. He’s pretty clear that he’s trying to play dumb definitional games to refute the existence of everything - he does it several different times and ways in that article. It’s like if you refrain from assigning a name to a color, the color doesn’t exist; if you irrationally insist that you can’t clearly define your body, you don’t have any body at all.
It’s all very obviously fallacious as shit, but the logic doesn’t matter to him: he has a conclusion they want to reach, and he’s willing to accept the shittiest logic on earth if it supports his desired conclusion. And that conclusion, the Buddhist conclusion, is that reality is fundamentally unimportant - or rather that it should be viewed as fundamentally unimportant. Viewing reality this way will, apparently, give you mental superpowers, through the mechanism of going insane, probably.
Who?
That’s the question I keep coming back to: Who?
Who told you this? Those last six words in your post: where do they come from? The rest of the sentence marches from A to B to C, and then all of a sudden there’s this claim that just sort of — shows up. Who came up with it?
Let’s say I meet a guy who tells me he’s got, uh, ‘a true essence’. Let’s say I figure, well, maybe that’s true; but maybe it isn’t. And as I’m trying to decide if he’s telling the truth, I see him drink some water. Curious about hoo-mans, I ask him about this. “Oh, yeah,” he says; “I’m dependent on water; if I don’t drink it, I’ll die.”
So . . . is that what you think makes all the difference? Before he brazenly drank the water in front of me, it was possible that he had ‘a true essence’; but once he told me why he drinks the stuff, then and only then could I say he’s wrong?
If so, then, again, in all seriousness: Who Told You That? Who told you that, if a guy says he has ‘a true essence’, you should ask if he depends on other stuff?
Was it a submarine commander? A rookie cop? My wife? Who?
I’m referring to the quoted text in my reply:
You are the fan that the shit is hitting.
Ah. I parsed you as saying that he had said that somebody was a “fan” of his ideas.
The English language sucks.
It was the man in the article that I read it from. The thing is that I lack the knowledge to reject this because there is some truth to it, which makes it harder to reject. I can throw out Christianity because it’s utter nonsense. BUddhism just seems a little more thoughtful than that though and he does explain what he means in the article.