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.

And if I agreed with you, where would that leave Objectivism? There are two ways of understanding existence ("Two truths doctrine"). Existence in the ultimate sense is absolute, holistic, indivisible, and empty. Existence in the practical sense is subjective, reductionist, distinguishable, and in physical form. The reason two truths exist is because of the two different ways of going about understanding the world. A person can either blindly accept what seems to be true on the surface, or they can reflect deeply and courageously disassemble the axioms of their most basic beliefs. Most of the time, most people understand truth conventionally. I can sense all kinds of physical objects, each which seem distinct. I can sense that I have the ability to reason and experience things as they actually are. And I sense that I exist as a distinct person. I understand all of these things, yet don't even need to actually think at all. I can simply take reality and existence for granted. In this regard, you could regard it as conventionally true that persons exist. Ultimate truth, however, is understood by probing conventional truth, as pointed out in the original post. There is no method by which ultimate truth may be understood. If such a method were put forth, it would be inconsistent because an assumption of what truth is, is made when putting forth such a method. Ultimately, you don't exist, nothing you do matters, and everything that has happened was bound by destiny, just as the future is unavoidable. These facts should not yield melancholy or despair, because acting in such a way signifies that the purpose of life is to be depressed over life's purposelessness... Far from it. Conventionally, you exist, you can make a difference in the world, and clearly, in this subjective moment, you have free will. You decide to move your hand and it moves. Also, you have the freedom to create meaning in your life. God doesn't exist either, yet billions of people speak to him every day and in the minds of those who pray, it is far from pointless. No, it's just an intuition. Is that a joke? I concede that an entity can be a system, but why define the self as a specific system? As it seems to me, there is only one system. The Greeks called it the Logos, the Chinese called it the Tao. You could argue that there are multiple systems, with the "grand order of things" merely being the only closed system, with the self being an open system, but a distinct system nonetheless. But still: Such a distinction would again be unfounded, because the definition of "system" would be arbitrary. You could theoretically construct a virtually infinite number of "systems" within reality. Biology is exactly the point. Microscopic cells could be regarded as being distinct "selves." On the opposite end, you have gaia theory, which suggests the entire planet is essentially a single organism. And if you agree the definition of self is arbitrary, how does it support the rest of Objectivism? Self-consciousness is irrelevant to this point at least, because you don't need to be self-conscious to have a self. We're talking about the existence of self, in addition to how you might know you have a self. A dumb animal can't engage in philosophy, but that doesn't necessarily prevent it from having an ego. I also don't think you can require self-consciousness as a prerequisite for defining self, since the definition "self" is included in the previous term (a circular argument). I agree we need to agree on certain basic axioms. I don't understand what the program proves? The program was written by an actual person. Also, this person certainly has their own assumptions about what truth is, what the program is meant to do, and what the words mean. In order to nullify any argument, it takes only one erroneous premise. For instance, let's take a deductive logical argument: Roses are red Violets are blue Therefore, roses and violets are different colors. Now, let's say that mankind builds a spaceship and flies zillions of miles across the galaxy and he happens to find a blue rose. Even with the perfect ability to reason, anyone without an access to the blue rose wouldn't be able to know that not all roses are red. Even stranger examples are better. In a distant corner of the universe, we may find that the color spectrum operates differently. Perhaps in such space, roses appear to be a different color, despite giving off the same frequency of light. Or perhaps colors work altogether differently. The point is that even with the perfect ability to reason, one piece of evidence can nullify any argument, whatever the argument is. If you know any assertion which is absolutely true, put it forth. As I said, "I think therefore I am" is an invalid argument because it's only two premises. Look closely at what you just said. There's a missing premise and the second sentence is essentially just a grammatical restatement of the previous sentence. Cogito ergo sum, with the missing premise in bold: -I think, -The act of thinking and\or being a thinker implies existence, -Therefore I exist. If that is not the missing premise and cogito ergo sum is a valid syllogism, what would the three premises be? Our intellectual superiority over granite doesn't remove the fact that we're heavily influenced by cognitive biases, on a daily basis. A person's rationality varies throughout their life, based upon their energy level, their emotional state, their health, their age, their diet, and their experiences (particularly their education). That seems like a non-sequitor. Because we include ourselves in our conclusions is just one reason of many that we can't be certain of our conclusions. Conclusions can only be objective if they are made while not under the influence of the subject-matter at hand. If I am a drug addict, my opinion on drugs is not as likely to be as reliable as a cold, detached scientist with no involvement with drugs (and no other biases). Buddhism isn't wholly centered on altruism. In Zen, there are said to be several different paths to enlightenment or, to avoid the religious dogma, useful worldviews for improving one's quality-of-life. One way of going about it is the path of service. You can become a monk, shave your head, give away all of your possessions, and live as a beggar, in compassionate service towards others. But this is not the only way. Another way is to focus on one's own life: the path of cultivation. It is to improve yourself morally, emotionally, even financially. It is a common misconception that Buddhism supports radical asceticism and opposes personal gain or large sums of personal wealth. Then there's also the "path of no path," whereby a person does nothing in particular, but simply approaches life with continual mindfulness and diligence. Through mindfulness, effortless progress is made. And so, of those three, only one is focused so heavily on altruism. There is also a relevant Buddhist story: A man's brother was a gambling addict and he kept giving money to his brother, to keep him out of poverty. Frustrated, the man went to the Buddha and asked him what to do. The Buddha told the man to stop giving his brother money. Shortly after, the man's brother was killed by one of those he owed outstanding gambling debts to, the man went to the Buddha and asked him how he could let his brother die. The Buddha said simply that the man couldn't be helped and giving him charity would simply be a fuel for his own suffering. I try as much as possible, but it's unavoidable. However, this should save space, Miles: If you're going to attack me personally, immediately following a paragraph filled with a handful of fallacies I can count and name offhand, along with very few actual relevant points (what's the relevancy of invoking humanity's need for survival?), I'm not going to respond to you anymore. As for Tenure, Ender, and softwareNerd, as I've said above, emptiness is not nihilism and a recognition of the ego conventionally has no bearing on its ultimate existence. That's a genuine criticism, probably the most thoughtful post in this thread. Knowledge and ignorance isn't black-and-white, but a spectrum of certainty and uncertainty. Pieces of relevant evidence logically interpreted support for a conclusion. The stronger the evidence -- the more pieces and the more relevant it is to the conclusion -- the more firmer a conclusion is. Hence, there is the distinction in science between hypothesis, theory, and law. As more evidence is gathered, a hypothetical conclusion can either be swept away by the evidence or solidify into a theory and eventually a law. What I claim may be false, but I believe it to be true based upon the limited amount of evidence I've seen and my limited ability of analyzing it. I've put forth both here. I did not say "Existence does not exist," but that the world is empty. Being that the world is thoroughly relative, in the absence of choosing a reference point, the world is a void. Asking, "What exists?" without asking, "Who is existing?" is like asking, "What time is it?" without specifying where and by what standard. Being thoroughly relative, absolute existence is as false as absolute time. Also, why do you say that knowledge is finite? I am not disagreeing with you, but if you do not know every piece of knowledge in the set of "all possible knowledge," it is possible knowledge may be infinite. What you've described is the core of Buddhism. Stephen Batchelor refers to Buddhism as a challenge to act in a certain way rather than a set of beliefs. I think his argument is weak, but his proposal makes sense based upon the Buddhist story about the poisoned arrow. How consciousness works and whether or not subjective qualia implies individuality is unknown. In fact, I would go so far as to say that whether or not others have experiences is even more uncertain than whether we ourselves have egos. Because in the case of myself, I at least have direct experiences. In the case of others, for all I know, they are mere robots. An analogy between me and others establishes nothing, because a philosophical zombie could still share the same physical characteristics. Whether or not the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhism hold true is disputable. Whether or not accepting its basic premises and practices are useful is not disputable. And it's because they improve our existential condition they are said to hold truth.

(Note: I use the terms "self" and "ego" interchangeably. If you dispute that usage, let me know. Also, if I use the terms "I" or "me," etc, such usage doesn't imply a belief in said terms, but is simply a practical manner of speaking. Refering to myself in the third person as "this form" would be confusing.) I am a Buddhist. Do not quickly dismiss me as a new age spiritualist who finds solace in eastern superstitions and dogmas. I am an atheist and I believe in what could be called "skeptical Buddhism." Skeptical Buddhists see Buddhism as a useful and truth-bearing philosophy, which has been corrupted or at least unnecessarily adorned by religious elements. See Stephen Batchelor's book, "Buddhism Without Beliefs." I see existentialism and postmodern philosophy as western re-discoveries of ancient eastern ideas, with psychology, sociology, and quantum physics giving such arguments scientific support. With that out of the way, onto the main topic: The most critical aspect of Objectivism is the ego. The entire philosophy is ego-centered. And so, if the ego's existence is disproven, the entire philosophy of Objectivism is swept away. Buddhism has taught for centuries that there is no ego and many Hindus share fairly similar beliefs as well. I find the argument convincing. The idea of self is an artificial concept created by the brain, which uses various algorithms to come to truthful conclusions about the world when faced with only a limited amount of data and processing power. Logically, we cannot conclude any fact about the world absolutely, because of our mental limitations. Even if we had the most perfect means of reasoning, we have access to limited information and simply one piece of information could change everything. And, on the other hand, even if we somehow had access to all information, we have limited means of analyzing it, as we have natural tendencies towards irrationality. And even if we had god-like mental ability, having the ability to know all facts and reason flawlessly, our conclusions are still uncertain because we cannot separate ourselves from reality so as to grant a truly objective analysis. As a result, we have created symbols, which are simplified abstractions of reality. The proof for this is abundant in the history of philosophy. Because in reality things lack intrinsic identity, when philosophers apply reason to reality, they come across the problem of universals. Because "mind" and "body" are mere abstractions, treating them as distinct objects creates the mind-body problem. And finally, because symbols are simplified abstractions of reality, there is the problem of induction. The self is such a symbol. When we talk about "me," there is no physical counterpart with which we can identify the self with. For instance, we can't say the self is the body, because the body is made up of molecules that change over time. The way we define "self" in relation to this change is arbitrary. For example, as I understand it, Objectivists identify death with the annihilation of the ego. However, the actual physical changes in one's body from life to death, in its initial moments at least, isn't any more of a substantial change than, for example, puberty or regular aging. Most often, we define the self as the abiding feeling of personhood created by the brain. However, it is possible that this feeling may exist without a feeler. In fact, the distinction between "feeling" and "feeler" is yet another set of symbols which, while possibly useful, isn't actually found anywhere in reality. Our inability to escape the cage of symbolic thought has led many to accept "cogito ergo sum," as true, despite the fact that it clearly isn't a valid syllogism, as it has only two premises. Since the self, then, is nothing more than a transient feeling created by the brain and since feelings can exist without feelers, there is no reason to believe that there is any abiding self, any "ego." Lastly, central to my argument is the Buddhist concept of emptiness. The existence of emptiness (no pun intended) is implied in the above argument (as I said, above "things lack intrinsic identity"), but I didn't go into great detail because emptiness is such a broad topic that it would need another thread to cover. A quick summary of the argument is as follows: In order to have an intrinsic identity, a thing must either be separable or abiding. All things are connected to all other things, with no part separable or distinguishable from the rest (holism). All things are in constant change. Therefore, all things lack intrinsic thing-ness (relativism). Please don't mistake the above argument for an argument for nihilism. The law of identity stands. Objects can hold an identity, but such an identity isn't intrinsic to the object itself. Reality is acknowledged to exist, but thoroughly relative or, in other words, "empty." Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata