The Self
Feb 24, 2013What is a self? Merely a human being? Or perhaps a soul? Hume claimed he could not find a self when he looked within, only a succession of impressions.
Why do many of us assume that Buddhism and science are polar opposites—that Buddhist teachings are so paradoxical and mysterious they are not even meant to be understood? Is it possible instead that the teachings of Buddhism actually far predate certain scientific conclusions the West is just now discovering? What can be said about the scientific verifiability of Buddhism?
This article by Robert Wright onThe New York Timesphilosophy blog, The Stone, takes a stab at vindicating Buddhism in this way:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/opinion/buddhism-western-philosophy.html
What is a self? Merely a human being? Or perhaps a soul? Hume claimed he could not find a self when he looked within, only a succession of impressions.
大卫·休谟是一位杰出的散文家、杰出的哲学家和世界级的享乐主义者。他在伦理学上的哲学观点……
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Does Zen Buddhism provide a unique perspective on the world that transcends the wisdom in Western Philosophy?
Descartes considered the mind to be fully self-transparent; that is, he thought that we need only introspect to know what goes on inside our own minds.
我们打造个人品牌或形象,在各种情况下陪伴或代表自己。这些角色是可塑的——我们如何欣赏……
What is a self? Merely a human being? Or perhaps a soul? Hume claimed he could not find a self when he looked within, only a succession of impressions.
大卫·休谟是一位杰出的散文家、杰出的哲学家和世界级的享乐主义者。他在伦理学上的哲学观点……
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Does Zen Buddhism provide a unique perspective on the world that transcends the wisdom in Western Philosophy?
Descartes considered the mind to be fully self-transparent; that is, he thought that we need only introspect to know what goes on inside our own minds.
我们打造个人品牌或形象,在各种情况下陪伴或代表自己。这些角色是可塑的——我们如何欣赏……
Comments(2)
MJA
Saturday, December 9, 2017 -- 7:24 AM
Science has been reduced to aScience has been reduced to a single simple truth, that unifying truth is One. Buddha is One. Be One, =
Harold G. Neuman
Tuesday, December 12, 2017 -- 12:47 PM
I don't believe that scienceI don't believe that science is polarity opposite to any religious OR philosophical system of thought. The reason for my conclusion rests, in part, on the notion proposed by Stephen Jay Gould a number of years ago. He was soundly ridiculed by some thinkers at the time, but to myself and some others, his proposal made perfectly good sense. He said that science and religion were NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria. By this he meant that they are independent of one another and the precepts, tenets and, if we will, rules of one have nothing to do with those of the other. It made sense when he first brought it forward, and, nothing has changed, as far as I can detect...