Objectivism versus Buddhism.

[Oliver Twist]

I'm a Buddhist and I'd like to debate with you guys, if you don't mind, because it would be enjoyable (the rule about "Consistency with the purpose of this site" has me a bit worried, though).

Objectivism seems to be contradictory to Buddhism and modern Hinduism.

Two key points of contention:

#1. Desire and aversion are the cause of suffering.

#2. Anatta\Anatman - The non-existence of self. Some claim that this means there is no self at all, while others say that this means the self is not intrinsic. Your sense of identity is a totally arbitrary thing chosen but without a chooser. When you are attached to your sense of self, you suffer.

I don't totally disagree with Objectivism, but see it as being largely the "conventional truth" aspect of the two-truths doctrine.

In the Buddha's day, there was a school of philosophy called Carvaka, which teaches basically the same thing Objectivists do today. They only believed in material things you could see and touch, mocked people who were concerned with ethical behavior or religion, didn't believe in gods or the afterlife, and believed in simply living a life of pleasure, as best as possible. On the other hand, you had Jains who believed in starving themselves out of a sense of ethical duty towards all life and then you had the Brahmins (and their followers in lower castes) who believed in ritual sacrifices and the caste system. All of these philosophies are partial truths, from a certain point-of-view.

Within Hinduism, there are said to be four possible activities in life:

1. Sensual pleasure (physically and emotionally enjoyable stuff, a hedonistic lifestyle)

2. Wealth (having a good career, starting a business)

3. Dharma (developing ethical behavior and transcendental wisdom)

4. Liberation (transcending the world entirely)

If your goal in life is sensual pleasure and wealth, the first two activities, then Objectivism makes perfect sense. It is simple: There is you, there is what you want, there is the way to get what you want, and then you do it. Still, psychologically, this may be more difficult than it sounds, we might be unsure of what we want, we are disappointed when we get what we want, or feel even more suffering because we have to worry about it being lost.

So, Objectivism isn't totally false, but it is a good starting point. Dharma and liberation are considered "higher" than sensual pleasure and wealth, but pleasure and wealth can still be pursued. If your goal is truly happiness for yourself and you recognize that you often depend on others for your happiness, then that is a good thing. This is called "enlightened self-interest," where altruism and selfishness do not contradict because they both complement eachother. The Objectivist idea of "rational self-interest," must distinguish itself from narcissistic hedonism, which is extremely irrational, painful, and unethical.

[softwareNerd]

Your topic's title belies the subject matter in the body of your post.

What has all that about Carvaka and Jains and the rest have to do with the topic? They might be useful analogies if they were widespread, but instead you focus on them and treat Objectivism -- purportedly your main topic -- as if it were the side analogy.

The two statements that you make about Objectivism are both false, aka strawmen. You say:

"[Objectivism]... only [believes] in material things you could see and touch, mocked people who were concerned with ethical behavior".

and, also...

"If your goal in life is sensual pleasure and wealth, the first two activities, then Objectivism makes perfect sense. "

These are such gross misrepresentations that I don't see any point debating --- though anyone who wishes to do so is welcome. My adivce is: read something written by Ayn Rand, and then debate that content, not someone else's mistaken view.

To illustrate my point, if I were to reply with similar strawmen, I would have to say that Buddhism is wrong because it advocates murder of all non-Aryans, and the persecution of the Jews. How do you defend these atrocities in Buddhism?

Edited May 18, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Zip]

Your sense of identity is a totally arbitrary thing chosen but without a chooser

Explain this please, how can something be chosen, but then at the same time have no chooser? There are no contradictions, a moth can not simultaneously be a rock, a choice by definition can not be an imperative.

[Greebo]

Objectivism seems to be contradictory to Buddhism and modern Hinduism.

Objectivism contradicts all mystic belief systems.

#1. Desire and aversion are the cause of suffering.

Can you please elaborate on why Buddhism believes this to be the case.

#2. Anatta\Anatman - The non-existence of self. Some claim that this means there is no self at all, while others say that this means the self is not intrinsic. Your sense of identity is a totally arbitrary thing chosen but without a chooser. When you are attached to your sense of self, you suffer.

Objectivists accept as given three fundamental axioms:

1) Existence exists. (This is)

2) Existence is identity (This is that)

3) Consciousness exists (Someone is observing this which is that)

Your point two would be interesting to discuss further as it seems to be in direct contradiction with axiom #3. If there is no self, then who is reading this post? Who has written the questions the non-you has posed? If you do not exist, how do you claim you do not exist? To make claim, you must exist.

Axiom number 2 teaches Objectivists that there are no contradictions. There is nothing in all of existence which both is and is not itself. A rock is a rock, it is not Not a rock. A tree is a tree, it is not an avalanche. Things can change, but only in accordance with their attributes. 1 does not equal 0, or -1. A is A.

So to say that you have no self, your self must say it, and the fact that your self says it means that it is impossible for there not to be a self.

As for the rest, as others have said, you have failed to understand Objectivism, and the statements you have made about what it teaches are, I'm sorry, flat out wrong. For there to be a debate with Objectivism, you must actually first be debating Objectivism. *Personally*, I think "Philosophy: Who needs it?" is an excellent starting point for learning about objectivism. While you read it, pay particular attention to the chapter dealing with Hellen Keller and consider the idea of whether she had a self, as you do. I believe its the essay that starts out talking about the scientist who didn't use observation... Chapter 10 or so.

[DavidOdden]

You can't just debate at random and willy-nilly. You have to debate something specific. What in the world do you think there is to debate? Try something concrete, not a free-ranging lashing out. I'd suggest that in preparation, you should read up on the Objectivist ethics, especially as it relates to the concept "purpose".

[RationalBiker]

(snip)

In the Buddha's day, there was a school of philosophy called Carvaka, which teaches basically the same thing Objectivists do today. They only believed in material things you could see and touch, mocked people who were concerned with ethical behavior or religion, didn't believe in gods or the afterlife, and believed in simply living a life of pleasure, as best as possible.

(snip)

If your goal in life is sensual pleasure and wealth, the first two activities, then Objectivism makes perfect sense. It is simple: There is you, there is what you want, there is the way to get what you want, and then you do it. Still, psychologically, this may be more difficult than it sounds, we might be unsure of what we want, we are disappointed when we get what we want, or feel even more suffering because we have to worry about it being lost.

As softwareNerd has plainly stated, and DavidO alluded to as well, you are grossly misrepresenting Objectivism with these comments. It is highly suggestive that you have not really read any of Rand's own work on the philosophy.

I concur that some reading on your part and a more specific focus on what is being debated would be essential for the debate to be meaningful. As it is, you appear to be debating Buddhism vs. Something Else.

[BrassDragon]

As it is, you appear to be debating Buddhism vs. Something Else.

Not to mention, lecturing us at length on Buddhism.

NO THANKS!

[Inspector]

In the Buddha's day, there was a school of philosophy called Carvaka, which teaches basically the same thing Objectivists do today. They only believed in material things you could see and touch, mocked people who were concerned with ethical behavior or religion, didn't believe in gods or the afterlife, and believed in simply living a life of pleasure, as best as possible.

As sN said, that's not even close to what Objectivism says. Far from being a Materialist system that mocks all ethics, Objectivism is famous for having an ethical system that it says is NON-optional.

I agree with sN: you'll do better to learn a lot more about Objectivism before you attempt any debate. As it stands right now it would be futile.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

He does have a few nice quotes.

The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows.”

Buddha quote

When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky”

Buddha quote

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

Buddha quote

“To conquer oneself is a greater task than conquering others”

Buddha quote

But also a lot of bad ones.

Life is suffering.”

Buddha quote

The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.”

Buddha quote

To understand everything is to forgive everything”

Buddha quote

There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it.”

Buddha quote

In other words someone who said a lot of things a long long time ago.

[Tomm]

I wish there was a specific question here, but I'll respond anyway. From my understanding, Buddhism has many layers. There's many different schools besides the main schools (Geluk, Kagyu, Nyingmapa, etc.), each with common aspects (ie. 4 noble truths, 6 Perfections, and so on) and their own views. For instance, while the Geluk school balances meditation with logic/debate, the Kagyu school -as far as I remember- focuses primarily on meditation and less logic. Similarly, each school has their own deities with which they use to practice with (personalizes the teachings to the students). What I'm getting at, is that Objectivism as a philosophy is kind of like another school out there. There are practical aspects of it, as there are in different schools of Buddhism, but to cling to one idea or philosophy as the ultimate truth of existence would be absurd. If I cling myself to the idea that I in fact do exist, I will tend to reject the idea that I might not exist.

In terms of ideas and existence, as the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna once said, "The Ultimate Truth is itself nothing specific." In the same sense, perhaps my "self" is itself nothing specific. I mean, according to the laws of thermodynamics, the matter that makes up me and my body is never constant because it always changes. Actually, it's constantly changing. So then where is the self? Oh, gotta, go.. Will write more later.

[prosperity]

What I'm getting at, is that Objectivism as a philosophy is kind of like another school out there.

Uhhh....no.

My first question for the Buddhist would be: what is your (or the) 1st premise or proposition of your philosophy?

[Axiomatic]

Uhhh....no.

My first question for the Buddhist would be: what is your (or the) 1st premise or proposition of your philosophy?

They would probably answer:

1. Life is suffering - Thats an anti-life position straight off the bat.

[Zip]

They would probably answer:

1. Life is suffering - Thats an anti-life position straight off the bat.

That's my understanding as well. More of the "You can never really be happy here. That can happen only in Heaven!" crap that every other religion spouts ad nauseum. It's a simple con game to get people to cease trying to live the lives they have, and instead build up credit, which is usually directed at making gains for the religion either monetarily, through altruistic donations, or spiritually, through convincing others to give up on life.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

It's the spiritual Nigerian Banker Scam: Give up your threescore and ten (or today more like Fourscore and change) now, for eternal happiness later. Of course once they've got your fourscore and change, you get nothing....

[Axiomatic]

"You can never really be happy here. That can happen only in Heaven!"

Not true, Buddhist generally see happiness as a lacking of suffering, basically its just another neutral zero worshipping cult.

[MichaelH]

Uhhh....no.

My first question for the Buddhist would be: what is your (or the) 1st premise or proposition of your philosophy?

I'm posting as someone who was interestd in Buddhism but never quite a convert. I hope a true Buddhist will correct me if I misrepresent the religion at any point. I'm pretty comfortable with the basics, however...

The four noble truths are the basis of Buddhism:

1. Life means suffering. (Every living thing suffers; it's not personal.)

2. The origin of suffering is attachment. (We want things and people to be permanent but they are not. That is why we suffer.)

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. (through non-attachment)

4. The path to the cessation of suffering. (The eightfold path where we enjoy without expectation or clinging.)

There are a few points where objectivism and Buddhism agree:

1. No supernatural being "god". Buddha is held as an example to learn from rather than a mystical fairy father figure. (Some types of Buddhism emphasize worship of various Buddha-figures, but this is not universal.)

2. The mind is not separate from the universe.

Others have already pointed out where the philosophies conflict, and they definitely do. I just want to clarify the basic points of Buddhism so it's clearer where we disagree, and why.

[thinkforyourself]

I'm posting as someone who was interestd in Buddhism but never quite a convert. I hope a true Buddhist will correct me if I misrepresent the religion at any point. I'm pretty comfortable with the basics, however...

The four noble truths are the basis of Buddhism:

1. Life means suffering. (Every living thing suffers; it's not personal.)

2. The origin of suffering is attachment. (We want things and people to be permanent but they are not. That is why we suffer.)

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. (through non-attachment)

4. The path to the cessation of suffering. (The eightfold path where we enjoy without expectation or clinging.)

There are a few points where objectivism and Buddhism agree:

1. No supernatural being "god". Buddha is held as an example to learn from rather than a mystical fairy father figure. (Some types of Buddhism emphasize worship of various Buddha-figures, but this is not universal.)

2. The mind is not separate from the universe.

Others have already pointed out where the philosophies conflict, and they definitely do. I just want to clarify the basic points of Buddhism so it's clearer where we disagree, and why.

I have studied Buddhism extensively over the last few years. What you call "Buddhism" today has degenerated into a bunch of "know it all, let's shave our heads and spout wisdom" garbage. You must understand where Buddhism came from, and that there isn't even an "ism" in this whole thing. Hinduism is the name given to the religion by the British, I believe. The Buddha was a "Hundu" if you can call him that. They followed dharma, or the law. I can't go on too much about this because it's so circular, like their philosophy. Yes, there is suffering in life, we all know that. Why make a religion out of it? This "religion" is full of apathy, negativity, and anything else that makes you feel like s**t. I've tried his noble 8 fold path. No one will ever be free of suffering even following that path. Buddhism in its "true" early way was about liberation from suffering. Life was to be shunned, life was bad, etc. The mere fact or myth, that the Buddha left his family to find "enlightment" says something about his views. Buddhism today, I don't care how "positive" a slant you put on it, is not what Buddhism was originally. It was a protest against the Brahman priests, who had all the power, and Buddha simply stated that anyone can find enlightment. Whatever that is. Buddha also said to to a light unto yourself and not to believe what anyone had to say, not even him. Much like everything else, people will have to be sheep and try to be "buddhists" instead of finding their own way. There was only one "buddha'' just like there was only one "jesus". You can't be him. Who would want to be? Do you realize how the monks lived back then? Read some more. No dancing, no music, living off the scraps of others. And for what?? Yes, the "medicants" were beggers. Got get a job, I'd say! And to top it off, only the Arhants had wisdom. You, poor common slob, would have to go through many lives to attain moksha. I think people are looking for something to believe in, and I believe Nietzsche said something to the effect that Buddhism would become the next European religion. It is spreading, and it looks as if he's right. I was kicked off a Buddhist forum for stating my opinion on the death penalty. I called someone an idiot and said they had to be insane for thinking that even Hitler was worthy of compassion, or Charles Manson. They also didn't like what I had to say about vegetarianism. If they knew their Buddhist history, they would know that the buddha was against animal sacrifice. That's quite different killing for food. Everything feeds on something else. That's nature. Do you think the Lion says, Oh, excuse me, Mr. Zebra, I don't mean to harm you......etc. These people into Buddhism are a bunch of crackpots. I don't even want to get started on this as it makes me angry to see so many young people into this way of thinking that is so wrong. Yes, WRONG. Don't you have your own mind? Use it! Meditate? How about a nice nap to clear your mind. It does the same thing. It's all BS. One last thing: There was one poor girl on this Buddhist forum saying how depressed she was, life is suffering, etc. I'll bet she feels a whole lot better now. If she's still around. Don't be tricked in by these people. They will have that "compassionate" look on their face, "lets love everyone, even criminals"......Compassionate idiots! I guess I got off the track here, but anyway, don't read those stupid books written by those know-it-alls that know nothing. If you want a good one, read Rahula Walpola's What the Buddha Taught. Buddhism in its original form, Theravada. Visit some sites. Not the "feel good" zen, etc. and try to find out what it was originally about 2,500 years ago. You can't live like that now, and even if you allow for changes, the whole philosophy is negative, no matter what anyone tells you. Enjoy your life and don't let anyone lay a guilt trip on you for being one of those "bad" humans who are responsible for destroying our planet and eating our fellow creatures.