Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 4:24 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jainism
#11
RE: Jainism
(July 17, 2020 at 6:03 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(July 17, 2020 at 1:37 pm)ModusPonens1 Wrote: I meant to say "Dialetheism".

I can't tell from the part you quote whether the Jain version ends up agreeing with Christian dialetheism.

Christian dialetheism? Huh?

I mean dialetheism in the sense of the logical system that thinks that there are true contradictions.

I was about to link a video series but then I remembered that I can't post links yet.

So, let's just say that there's a very good 4 part video series on dialetheism by the YouTuber/philosophy channel called 'Kane B'.
"Zen … does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts
Reply
#12
RE: Jainism
(July 18, 2020 at 5:51 am)ModusPonens1 Wrote: Christian dialetheism? Huh?

Coincidentia oppositorum.

Nicholas of Cusa. 

Etc. Etc.
Reply
#13
RE: Jainism
Okay, well, the sort I was talking of has nothing to do with theism. I was merely talking of the logical system that says that there can be true contradictions.

The point being that, to me, Jainst logic, while impressive by religious standards, is a system of logic that appears to be incoherent and it seems to think that something can both be or not be. i.e. that seems like saying that there are true contradictions.
"Zen … does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts
Reply
#14
RE: Jainism
(July 18, 2020 at 6:33 am)ModusPonens1 Wrote: Okay, well, the sort I was talking of has nothing to do with theism. I was merely talking of the logical system that says that there can be true contradictions.

Depending on your view of infinity, the coincidentia oppositorum could be non-theistic. 

Quote:The point being that, to me, Jainst logic, while impressive by religious standards, is a system of logic that appears to be incoherent and it seems to think that something can both be or not be. i.e. that seems like saying that there are true contradictions.

I don't think it's incoherent at all. It says that things may appear to be true from one viewpoint and not true from another. 

You haven't explained to me yet whether the Jains hold all viewpoints to be true, even the contradictory ones, or whether they rule out some according to their own metaphysics. I'm assuming that since they are mind/body dualists they wouldn't accept a monist's viewpoint as true. They might lay out a structure detailing where a monist's viewpoint accords with theirs and where it doesn't. 

But if they're structuring ideas and looking at logical compatibility, that's different from saying that a viewpoint is true or not. Just as a syllogism can be valid but not sound. 

If like the Christians, they hold that God (or the Brahman, or whatever it is Jains hold to) is infinite, then they might well think that both A and not-A can be true. 

As for saying "impressive by religious standards," that indicates to me that you haven't studied much religious thought. A lot of it is extremely impressive. And if you want to jettison things that had their origin in religious thought, you're going to end up throwing out a lot of stuff atheists still believe -- e.g. "action at a distance," which the very religious Newton renamed "gravity." 

Don't assume that just because a thinker is religious that he's dumb or sloppy.
Reply
#15
RE: Jainism
(July 18, 2020 at 6:57 am)Belacqua Wrote: I don't think it's incoherent at all. It says that things may appear to be true from one viewpoint and not true from another. 

I'd just categorize that as people talking past each other and using different understandings of the term. To be charitable to Jainist logic, I guess I could suppose that Jainist logic sees using different interpretations of the same term as expressing different truths about the same thing that are equally, relatively, true. But to me, that's a fallacy of equivocation because, to me, having a different understanding of a term is actually to express different truths about different things ... and not to express different truths about the same thing. So, yes, people can express different truths using the same term ... but because their understanding of the term is different they're actually expressing different truths about different things and not different truths about the same thing.

Another quibble I have is that, according to Jainist logic, it seems that it is thought that there are three truth values: true, false or non-assertable. I would understand non-assertable to mean "not actually a proposition", though. So to me there are only two truth values: true or untrue/false. It's ultimately a true dichotomy as far as I'm concerned. i.e.: X or not X. It's true that something can be neither true nor false but only in virtue of that very something not being a proposition at all and only propositions have truth values. Therefore, there are still only two truth values because all propositions are either true or false. Only non-propositions get to be neither true nor false. "Please pass the salt!" is neither true nor false. But "Please pass the salt!" doesn't have a truth value because it isn't a proposition.
"Zen … does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts
Reply
#16
RE: Jainism
(July 18, 2020 at 7:11 am)ModusPonens1 Wrote: be charitable to Jainist logic


The OP has a passage from Wikipedia on Jain logic. Have you worked on the subject with a teacher, or with serious academic resources? 

If someone's knowledge of any subject begins and ends with Wikipedia, I don't think he has any business being "charitable" to it. You seem to be plugging in more familiar terms in order to make sense of it, but I have no confidence that the terms you're using are applicable, or that your knowledge of the Jain system is extensive enough to pass judgment. For example, do they think of "truth values" in our familiar way when they think of the three types of statements? What is the term in the original language, and what are its nuances? Can we be confident that it is exactly the same as the English term "truth value"? 

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.
Reply
#17
RE: Jainism
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.

(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
Reply
#18
RE: Jainism
I read "non-assertible" as unfalsifiable. I.e. a statement (in logic) that can't be proven or disproven.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
Reply
#19
RE: Jainism
Quote: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.
Nah it's just that you engage in long winded but ultimately meaningless apologetics of the absurd
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
Reply
#20
RE: Jainism
(July 17, 2020 at 1:37 pm)Porcupine Wrote:
(July 17, 2020 at 9:46 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:  Ultimately, jain princes and societies acted just like any other, regardless of what their magic books told them to do.  

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.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Jainism dyresand 24 4020 March 28, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Last Post: dyresand



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)