(July 17, 2020 at 6:11 am)Porcupine Wrote: Jainism is certainly not the worst of all religions. (In my opinion, it's the least bad of all religions).

However, can anybody else make sense of this?

The Wikipedia article on the seven-valued logic of Jainism Wrote:The Saptabhangivada, the seven predicate theory may be summarized as follows:

The seven predicate theory consists in the use of seven claims about sentences, each preceded by "arguably" or "conditionally" (syat), concerning a single object and its particular properties, composed of assertions and denials, either simultaneously or successively, and without contradiction. These seven claims are the following.

Arguably, it (that is, some object) exists (syad asty eva).
Arguably, it does not exist (syan nasty eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist (syad asty eva syan nasty eva).
Arguably, it is non-assertible (syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably, it is non-assertible (syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).

There are three basic truth values, namely, true (t), false (f) and unassertible (u). These are combined to produce four more truth values, namely, tf, tu, fu, and tfu(Three-valued logic). Though, superficially, it appears that there are only three distinct truth values a deeper analysis of the Jaina system reveals that the seven truth values are indeed distinct. This is a consequence of the conditionalising operator "arguably" denoted in Sanskrit by the word syat. This Sanskrit word has the literal meaning of "perhaps it is", and it is used to mean "from a certain standpoint" or "within a particular philosophical perspective".

In this discussion the term "standpoint" has been used in a technical sense. Consider a situation in which a globally inconsistent set of propositions, the totality of philosophical discourse, is divided into sub-sets, each of which is internally consistent. Any proposition might be supported by others from within the same sub-set. At the same time, the negation of that proposition might occur in a distinct, though possibly overlapping subset, and be supported by other propositions within it. Each such consistent sub-set of a globally inconsistent discourse, is what the Jainas call a "standpoint" (naya). A standpoint corresponds to a particular philosophical perspective.

In this terminology, it can be seen that the seven predicates get translated to the following seven possibilities. Each proposition p has the following seven states:
p is a member of every standpoint in S.
Not-p is a member of every standpoint in S.
p is a member of some standpoints, and Not-p is a member of the rest.
p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
Not-p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
p is neutral with respect to every standpoint.
p is a member of some standpoints and Not-p is a member of some other standpoints, and the rest are neutral.

Perhaps those who are partial to Dialectalism will find it less nonsensical than I do. Or at least those who think that the non-assertability of a proposition can count as a truth value. Or at least those who think that a proposition can be neither true nor false. Or at least those who think that something can not exist.

But, I guess, even if this is terrible logic ... at least it's still logic, terrible or otherwise, which is more than can be said for most---or maybe even all---other religions.

Honestly, coming from a religion I still find this mightly impressive. Comparatively-speaking. Incoherent or otherwise ... you gotta admit it's a huge step up from at least most religions. I know that's not saying much, but still. It seems to even outdo Buddhism.

The problem with every religion, past and present, worldwide, are that they are nothing but our species excuses to lay claim to morality. 

The truth of our species is that there will always be good and bad people.  Religion is nothing but a human invented concept to justify social pecking orders. There is not one nation, friend or foe that does not have hospitals AND prisons. 

Give any group a majority and unfettered power, any group can become abusive.  

There has never been a period in our species history where there has not been competition and tribalism. Asia is no different. 



I wouldn't look to the east or any religion  thereof and falsely presume one is more peaceful than another.  

The only argument to be had about religion or politics to be had is context of time in history and geography. 

Ultimately all 7 billion humans, regardless of our personal positions, can lead to compassion or cruelty.  It all depends on individuals holding leadership regardless of beliefs to account.

(July 18, 2020 at 8:59 am)Sal Wrote: I read "non-assertible" as unfalsifiable. I.e. a statement (in logic) that can't be proven or disproven.

I also noticed that it could be read that way but I actually didn't read it that way in order to be charitable because I think that's even worse as that makes the mistake of conflating truth with knowledge.

---

(July 19, 2020 at 12:02 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(July 17, 2020 at 1:37 pm)Porcupine Wrote:

---

Then they weren't practicing Jainism. The fundamental rule in Jainism is "Don't be violent" ... so when a person who self-identifies as a Jain ends up being violent ... it's because they're human and humans can be violent. There's nothing in Jainism that says "Sometimes it's okay to be violent." Even self-defense is said to hurt oneself and be a bad thing, in Jainism.

So, yes. Their magic book told them to do something and they failed to do it. So, silly or not, magic or not, they still were failing to practice Jainism while they were being violent.

Negatron.  Ahimsa is not non violence in the sense that you're thinking of, and as a doctrine was formed by their historic interactions with other cultures.  Killing enemies in combat is a-okay with ahimsa.  Just as it's a-okay with our own non-violence™.  Jain monarchs and soldiers weren't doing jainism wrong.

Isn't Ashima also in Hinduism and self-defence is acceptable in Hinduism but not in Jainism?

I think you're getting a bit mixed up. It may be acceptable for lay practitioners but to be a Jain to a full---a Jain monk, say---even self-defence is absolutely ruled out. There is no part of the Jain principle of non-violence that includes violence, as far as I can tell.

The point being that the less violent you are the more you are successfully practicing Jainist Ashima.

(July 19, 2020 at 3:35 am)Porcupine Wrote: Isn't Ashima also in Hinduism and self-defence is acceptable in Hinduism but not in Jainism?

From what little I've read, it appears that Jainism isn't monolithic. 

There are adherents who take ashima to be absolute -- to the point of denying any just war or self-defense. But others justify some violence. 

I don't know if this has to do with differences between northern and southern traditions, or whether it's just a general disagreement.

(July 19, 2020 at 3:49 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(July 19, 2020 at 3:35 am)Porcupine Wrote: Isn't Ashima also in Hinduism and self-defence is acceptable in Hinduism but not in Jainism?

From what little I've read, it appears that Jainism isn't monolithic. 

There are adherents who take ashima to be absolute -- to the point of denying any just war or self-defense. But others justify some violence. 

I don't know if this has to do with differences between northern and southern traditions, or whether it's just a general disagreement.

I know that self-defense can be justified in Jainism but the overarching purpose is still about good and bad karma and although you don't receive bad karma for defending yourself I don't think I'm mistaken that if one doesn't defend oneself then one may get extra good karma and that Jain monks are perhaps supposed to not fight back even in self-defence.

I mean, even if Jainism does allow violence in some instances ... the point is that it allows it far less than any other religion or, indeed, any other ideology.

It's why I would never simply become a Vegan. I'd sooner become a secular Jain. Because from the POV of the Jainist principle of non-violence Vegans look very much like Vegetarians do to Vegans.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if even the self-defence exceptions specify that one has to defend oneself with the minimum force---and that if your defense uses as much or more force as your attacker then it is unacceptable. That would make sense if the whole purpose is to reduce bad karma and if hurting others is said to hurt oneself, no? It seems to me that if violence in Jainism is to ever make sense it's only to make sense in situations where it actually does make sense.

Jainism doesn't seem to produce any meaningful difference in violence. Like any religion or, as you mention, any ideology, it allows for whatever violence may be useful or necessary.

(July 19, 2020 at 4:54 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Jainism doesn't seem to produce any meaningful difference in violence.  Like any religion or, as you mention, any ideology, it allows for whatever violence may be useful or necessary.

That does, again, seem to be confusing 'in practice' with 'in principle', though.

I mean, look at religious Jews nowadays---their book contains far more violence than any other holy book in principle but in practice they're not generally more violent than Muslims or Christians.

So, just as Judaism, in principle, may call for a lot of violence, nevertheless, in practice, at least nowadays, religious Jews themselves don't tend to be more violent than other folks---Jainism, in principle, may call for a lot of non-violence, nevertheless, in practice, at least nowadays, religious Jains themselves don't tend to be less violent than other folks. Two sides of the coin there, yes? Flip-sides.

Why do you think it contains more violence than any other magic book?

We have euphemisms for good violence, which we support and encourage. Jain non violence, like our non violence, is a term of art. When we implore ourselves or others to non violence we tend to memory hole the euphemised set, and this is exactly what the authors of jain myths did. Again, jain kings and soldiers weren't doing jainism wrong. You have a sanitized view of jainism.

(July 19, 2020 at 5:43 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:  You  have a sanitized view of jainism.

I think you have an uncharitable view of Jainism.

Hardly. I'm simply pointing out that jainism, like every other ideology human beings hold, allows for whatever violence may be useful or necessary.

Whatever issues you have with violence, that might make my comments seem uncharitable, are your own.

Violence is a spectrum. It ranges from pure evil to something that is holy.