Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by MysteriousStranger, May 24, 2009.
so there is no Human Spirit ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
they do actually
they do. every religion does. and most of them choose to imagine that there is good and bad spirits.
so the answer is no?
Of course there's more "goal" to life than the ones I mentioned but those are for you to seek out yourself. I can go on and on about important things but I'm sure you know allot of things that are important ...don't you?:shrug:
OK, being a Buddhist doesn't mean that one is inherently free from superstition. Also because it doesn't come with any particular set of supernatural entities it has a tendency to absorb the local color. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, absorbed the native shamanism (Bon) and has a ton of spirits, gods, ghosts, divas, etc.
That said, one of the three founding tenets is "no soul" (anatta). I.E. there is no inherent soul or spirit to a person. There is just your compounded form (body) and actions (karma). This is why Buddhists talk about things being "empty."
Because compounded forms are subject to decay and dissolution (impermanence or anicca), a person tends to be dissatisfied about being this way (dukkha). This gives us the starting point for Buddhism, aka the three marks of existence: anatta/no soul, anicca/impermanence, and dukkha/dissatisfaction with the first two.
Do that much first and then worry about more you greedy monkey boy.
That's a nice fantasy, but unfortunately the evidence hasn't born out that conclusion.
To reiterate... science doesn't bother much about "The Truth." (note he used the big "T" version prefaced with "The" which is how metaphysicians mark their territory). Generally that sort of thing is left to theologians and philosophers.
For science, being able to not prove something is false is generally enough.
You are defining truth in a very specific way. As something bound to a particular point in time and in some of these a particular place. Science is often/generally trying to determine truths of more lasting nature.
You first examples are not likely to be subjects of a scientific investigation.
I'm defining it. Period.
The only way that makes any sense.
Anything claimed to be true or false must be done so concerning time & place or it's taken out of context.
They are pertinent to the scientific explanation.
which every child born has faith the elders are providing 'truth' when a question is asked.
but since we can all see knowledge evolving, then the renditions of truth are always changing, same with EVERY religion.
to understand life
as we of this generation owe it to the next to evolve
we must give our next generations a chance beyond what we had; that is a duty (or we are all worthless)
the pursuit of truth is requisite as it is like seeking justice and without the continually pursuit of equality, life and the continuance of; then we are all worthless to the next generations.
you'll die before you do that much..THAT's why i'm asking for more..to do WITH that..
..since i'll only live once..:shrug:..i need to know what to do all at once..
So you would then, I assume, expect scientists to always qualify their claims by saying they are relevent to this or that time period and specific places, even if they are dealing with laws or constants applying to the universe? (and please don't assume I am disagreeing with you. I do think, however, that many scientists would, if not most) To put this specifically
Do you think scientific constants - Velocity of Light c, Elementary Charge e, Mass of the Electron me, Mass of the Proton mp, Avogadro Constant NA, Planck's Constant h, Universal Gravitational Constant G, Boltzmann's Constant
should have time and place qualifiers?
Including that claim?
Because they have so little to do with what scientists generally set out to discover it seems tangential to me. The OP focuses on truth in relation to scientific explantions of truths.
So to raise the issue of where you as an individual did something shifts the context away from relevent scientific issues that are often vastly more general. I think to use these as examples is to miss the main point of the OP.
It is not wrong what you said, in fact I agree, I just think it's a poor fit with the topic.
I have to agree with swarm here.
Why is it you feel this need for 'more' (whatever that might be...)?
because whatever you say..it'll end by death..ending your preception..end of everything..
at least that's how i understand it..so i'm asking if there's some thing that goes beyond that..if the answer is no..then no..
The short answer is we don't know.
"no" is shorter than "we don't know".. and i'm not sure if the question was directed to you in anyway..
Separate names with a comma.