RE: Jainism
July 18, 2020 at 8:15 am
(This post was last modified: July 18, 2020 at 8:20 am by Porcupine.)
I agree that i may be not being sufficiently charitable because all I have is mere Wikipedia. But what I meant by 'to be charitable to Jainist logic' was 'to be as charitable as I can be to Jainist logic given my circumstances'.
I would love the opportunity to study these things more formally. Unfortunately, though, I do not have that opportunity. I happen to just be a depressed person who understands things by themselves as much as they can while they are unable to have the mental energy to study these things as formally as I would like to.
I agree that no matter how charitable I try to be I will probably still be being very uncharitable. But because of my situation I will have to make do with very uncharitable as it's still, at least, a mild improvement over extremely uncharitable. And, even if I am deluding myself, I will have to make do. All I can do is try to understand given the sources I have access to and the mental effort I am capable of summoning whilst still remaining in the mental and emotional condition that I remain in.
I am doing what I can. I am trying to understand what I can. And that's all I can do.
I can go from very uncharitable to not uncharitable at all, though, if I simply stipulate that: I am not arguing against Jainist logic per se. I am arguing against Jainist logic as presented by Wikipedia. Wikipedia may be strawmanning Jainist logic, but I am not strawmanning Jainist logic ... because I have stipulated that I am fighting the strawman, if it is a strawman, rather than Jainist logic as presented by a more credible source.
I forgive you for everything besides suggesting that I am proud, if that's what you are suggesting. No hard feelings, though. And I accept that you may not have been insinuating anything. To me, pride is a---secular---sin ... not because God says so ... but because being prideful ultimately tends to lead to negative consequences and is therefore unwise. Pride can, at times, be a good thing ... and it may be better than shame. But overall it's not worth it. Think of it as like taking a gamble against the odds---sometimes it works out but it's not a good idea. That's what all sins/vices are like for me.
And I am lucky to not be proud or egotistical, regardless of how I appear. My style of writing seems arrogant, at times, to some.... but I'm really not. And I don't think it's arrogant for me to not believe that I am arrogant.
It's easier to see me as less arrogant once I also stipulate the following: every statement I make is a belief claim rather than a knowledge claim unless I also claim to know what I state.
I would love the opportunity to study these things more formally. Unfortunately, though, I do not have that opportunity. I happen to just be a depressed person who understands things by themselves as much as they can while they are unable to have the mental energy to study these things as formally as I would like to.
I agree that no matter how charitable I try to be I will probably still be being very uncharitable. But because of my situation I will have to make do with very uncharitable as it's still, at least, a mild improvement over extremely uncharitable. And, even if I am deluding myself, I will have to make do. All I can do is try to understand given the sources I have access to and the mental effort I am capable of summoning whilst still remaining in the mental and emotional condition that I remain in.
I am doing what I can. I am trying to understand what I can. And that's all I can do.
I can go from very uncharitable to not uncharitable at all, though, if I simply stipulate that: I am not arguing against Jainist logic per se. I am arguing against Jainist logic as presented by Wikipedia. Wikipedia may be strawmanning Jainist logic, but I am not strawmanning Jainist logic ... because I have stipulated that I am fighting the strawman, if it is a strawman, rather than Jainist logic as presented by a more credible source.
(July 18, 2020 at 7:32 am)Belacqua Wrote: Forgive me if I seem strict on this, but we've all seen too many Dawkins-like cases where someone proudly disproves and dismisses a system of thought that he's almost entirely ignorant of, based on wild misinterpretations of what it actually says.
I forgive you for everything besides suggesting that I am proud, if that's what you are suggesting. No hard feelings, though. And I accept that you may not have been insinuating anything. To me, pride is a---secular---sin ... not because God says so ... but because being prideful ultimately tends to lead to negative consequences and is therefore unwise. Pride can, at times, be a good thing ... and it may be better than shame. But overall it's not worth it. Think of it as like taking a gamble against the odds---sometimes it works out but it's not a good idea. That's what all sins/vices are like for me.
And I am lucky to not be proud or egotistical, regardless of how I appear. My style of writing seems arrogant, at times, to some.... but I'm really not. And I don't think it's arrogant for me to not believe that I am arrogant.
It's easier to see me as less arrogant once I also stipulate the following: every statement I make is a belief claim rather than a knowledge claim unless I also claim to know what I state.
"Zen … does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts