False distinction

im of the thought that pantheism is nothing more than materialism with metaphysical seasoning on it ala Jacobi

if we’re talking about panentheism then we are getting somewhere

simply calling the universe God is deifying an object, if not really creating an idol imho

Ghost b**** and death valley 69 are very underrated tracks

mind elaborating?

Then you need 3 men

Yes that is a prime example.

Real but I'm just messing with @op

There is a materialist argument for the existence of God. Sure the most popular, and in many cases oldest, theories about materialism are often atheistic or even anti-theistic, but there's some great 20th century work on trying to reconcile metaphysics with materialism. Murray Bookchin as I cited earlier itt is a great example, as is "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin, which albeit doesn't really dwell directly on metaphysics or even materialism explicitly but touches on both in its own way. Top 5 book I ever read btw, everybody of any persuasion should read it

Also "Buddhist Economics in Practice"

Finished Meditations the other day. Took notes of course like a good schoolboy.

Onto, not necessarily philosophy but certainly wisdom nonetheless, Bell Hooks' All About Love.

Read Murray Bookchin my man

I think you'd love his work. He and Kropotkin are unintentionally two of the sharpest materialist thinkers ever

And A.T. Ariyaratne is amazing too

Monism can be expressed through Dualism though, occurs multiple times in Mahayana teaching particularly in the Heart Sutra and in the conceptualization of two truths doctrine. Taoism similarly has its own expressions of nature in ways that do not align wholly to either monist or dualist understandings but a hybrid of both.

DV69 is like one of their biggest 80s songs

Amazing song but def not underrated lol they did a whole tour playing nothing but that album straight thru

i can get behind dualism (and i think it’s a step in the right direction obv) materialism is just firmly rejected

Exposed myself

good

The only philosophical conflict today is between realism and anti-realism, though the anti-realist has innumerable faulty reified categories that he can fit his "philosophy" into, or even make up a new one if he wants to. The realists essentially put up no fight because the ourobors of philosophic anti-realism is a unending alchemic fire not unlike this so-called "capitalism" so many of them make up as the real enemy in their heads.

Karma is an extremely complex topic that doesn't really lend itself to a simplified explanation, unfortunately. In order to understand it deeply, it will take a lot of research, or else you'll be left with more questions than answers. This is a long read, but I'll paste below Bhikku Bodhi's distillation of Karma from his introduction to the Dhammapada:

"(ii) In its second level of teaching, the Dhammapada shows that morality does not exhaust its significance in its contribution to human felicity here and now, but exercises a far more critical influence in molding personal destiny. This level begins with the recognition that, to reflective thought, the human situation demands a more satisfactory context for ethics than mere appeals to altruism can provide. On the one hand our innate sense of moral justice requires that goodness be recompensed with happiness and evil with suffering; on the other our typical experience shows us virtuous people beset with hardships and afflictions and thoroughly bad people riding the waves of fortune (119-120). Moral intuition tells us that if there is any long-range value to righteousness, the imbalance must somehow be redressed. The visible order does not yield an evident solution, but the Buddha's teaching reveals the factor needed to vindicate our cry for moral justice in an impersonal universal law which reigns over all sentient existence. This is the law of kamma (Sanskrit: karma), of action and its fruit, which ensures that morally determinate action does not disappear into nothingness but eventually meets its due retribution, the good with happiness, the bad with suffering.

In the popular understanding kamma is sometimes identified with fate, but this is a total misconception utterly inapplicable to the Buddhist doctrine. Kamma means volitional action, action springing from intention, which may manifest itself outwardly as bodily deeds or speech, or remain internally as unexpressed thoughts, desires and emotions. The Buddha distinguishes kamma into two primary ethical types: unwholesome kamma, action rooted in mental states of greed, hatred and delusion; and wholesome kamma, action rooted in mental states of generosity or detachment, goodwill and understanding. The willed actions a person performs in the course of his life may fade from memory without a trace, but once performed they leave subtle imprints on the mind, seeds with the potential to come to fruition in the future when they meet conditions conducive to their ripening.

The objective field in which the seeds of kamma ripen is the process of rebirths called samsara. In the Buddha's teaching, life is not viewed as an isolated occurrence beginning spontaneously with birth and ending in utter annihilation at death. Each single life span is seen, rather, as part of an individualized series of lives having no discoverable beginning in time and continuing on as long as the desire for existence stands intact. Rebirth can take place in various realms. There are not only the familiar realms of human beings and animals, but ranged above we meet heavenly worlds of greater happiness, beauty and power, and ranged below infernal worlds of extreme suffering.

The cause for rebirth into these various realms the Buddha locates in kamma, our own willed actions. In its primary role, kamma determines the sphere into which rebirth takes place, wholesome actions bringing rebirth in higher forms, unwholesome actions rebirth in lower forms. After yielding rebirth, kamma continues to operate, governing the endowments and circumstances of the individual within his given form of existence. Thus, within the human world, previous stores of wholesome kamma will issue in long life, health, wealth, beauty and success; stores of unwholesome kamma in short life, illness, poverty, ugliness and failure.

Prescriptively, the second level of teaching found in the Dhammapada is the practical corollary to this recognition of the law of kamma, put forth to show human beings, who naturally desire happiness and freedom from sorrow, the effective means to achieve their objectives. The content of this teaching itself does not differ from that presented at the first level; it is the same set of ethical injunctions for abstaining from evil and for cultivating the good. The difference lies in the perspective from which the injunctions are issued and the aim for the sake of which they are to be taken up. The principles of morality are shown now in their broader cosmic connections, as tied to an invisible but all-embracing law which binds together all life and holds sway over the repeated rotations of the cycle of birth and death. The observance of morality is justified, despite its difficulties and apparent failures, by the fact that it is in harmony with that law, that through the efficacy of kamma, our willed actions become the chief determinant of our destiny both in this life and in future states of becoming. To follow the ethical law leads upwards — to inner development, to higher rebirths and to richer experiences of happiness and joy. To violate the law, to act in the grip of selfishness and hate, leads downwards — to inner deterioration, to suffering and to rebirth in the worlds of misery. This theme is announced already by the pair of verses which opens the Dhammapada, and reappears in diverse formulations throughout the work (see, e.g., 15-18, 117-122, 127, 132-133, Chapter 22).

(iii) The ethical counsel based on the desire for higher rebirths and happiness in future lives is not the final teaching of the Buddha, and thus cannot provide the decisive program of personal training commended by the Dhammapada. In its own sphere of application, it is perfectly valid as a preparatory or provisional teaching for those whose spiritual faculties are not yet ripe but still require further maturation over a succession of lives. A deeper, more searching examination, however, reveals that all states of existence in samsara, even the loftiest celestial abodes, are lacking in genuine worth; for they are all inherently impermanent, without any lasting substance, and thus, for those who cling to them, potential bases for suffering. The disciple of mature faculties, sufficiently prepared by previous experience for the Buddha's distinctive exposition of the Dhamma, does not long even for rebirth among the gods. Having understood the intrinsic inadequacy of all conditioned things, his focal aspiration is only for deliverance from the ever-repeating round of births. This is the ultimate goal to which the Buddha points, as the immediate aim for those of developed faculties and also as the long-term ideal for those in need of further development: Nibbana, the Deathless, the unconditioned state where there is no more birth, aging and death, and no more suffering."

Note that the concept of Brahman or Atman is not really emphasized in the Theravada school of thought. You'll more likely see terms such as The Deathless or Nibbana.

Bhikku Thanissaro gives a very in-depth a***ysis of Karma in the form of a Q&A here: dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Ebooks/KarmaQ&A210221.pdf but it is 120 pages long. If you are truly interested, I recommend reading Bhikku Bodhi's full introduction to the Dhammapada as well as the link I've included above

”The principles of morality are shown now in their broader cosmic connections, as tied to an invisible but all-embracing law which binds together all life and holds sway over the repeated rotations of the cycle of birth and death.”

thank you very much for this, s*** is beautiful and very informative, i will add that bhikku book + this introduction to my backlog

is Theravada your denom of Buddhism that you practice/study? i was reading a bit about Mahayana before i got sidetracked by other books

Glad you found it insightful, man. Yeah, I've followed the Theravada school of Buddhism for some time now, but I've only recently considered becoming initiated as a layperson formally. I still have so much to learn

Thread is extremely interesting but got me kind of overwhelmed:

1) Where do you start?

2) How do you come across different people and texts to read? There's so much in here that I've never seen mentioned anywhere else

1) i would personally recommend you to simply investigate questions that you might have, and seek out what fields of philosophy correlates with them, you could even really start on a Wikipedia rabbit hole to get a sort of general briefing, there will most likely be positions related to the questions that you have (e.g. is math independent from a human mind? if you think it is, you would be a mathematical realist, if you do not then, you would be a mathematical anti-realist)

2) through investigating the questions you have, there will be a wealth of books and/or philosophers that have written about these questions and/or address them in their writings

above all else i would just recommend going with whatever you’re curious about versus feeling some sort of duty to read one particular philosopher, you’ll get burned out—once you have a decent foundation in one aspect of philosophy knowledge wise, it’ll allow you to start connecting the dots in between each field (and tbh, different sections of philosophy are rarely wholly just stuck to their particular subject when they’re being discussed about on length, like metaphysics and epistemology are pretty fairly intertwined as far as i can see)

Y’all b thinking 2 much fr

Good start points imo are the greeks since most western philosophy follows from them or the master of suspicion (Marx, Nietsczhe, Freud) since they don’t require reading other philosopher as much to understand them compared to someone like Kant who you kinda need a decent understanding of the empiricists and rationalists before and with them you can decide after if u wanna go back and see what they were influenced by or go forward to understand more contemporary discussions.

The way i’d recommend is ignore all that bs and just start with whoever ur interested in no matter how hard they are or easy they are and don’t be afraid to fail to understand someone or not and revisit them later. Think of learning philosophy as a root system where you might go into one direction then get stuck so you decide to read someone else changing the direction of the root and you can extend the former root direction when you’re ready to attempt that topic/philosopher once again.

plato.stanford.edu
this website is a good source just to search up whoever ur interested in read up on a bit before you wanna tackle their work i recommend just searching up whoever ur interested and then checking out their work after

What’s a good critique of existentialism?