• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There are no material objects

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
And even those are models, arbitrary (and necessarily subjective) definitions. There is no significant difference (no matter how we want to believe it) between "table" or "a collection of atoms". Both models work for certain language games, but one is no more, well, objective or real than the other.

That said, when people says that the table is not "really a table" but a collection of atoms with certain properties, or a figment in the mind of god, is not advacning to a better description or a more objective description.
Click to expand...

as the AHB said it is better to remove the arrow than to figure out where it came from and who fired it
 
Dancing David said:
as the AHB said it is better to remove the arrow than to figure out where it came from and who fired it
Click to expand...

True. My late wife was a Theosophist and they were more interested in who made the arrow,what it was made from,is there a Platonic archetype, could the arrow have been fired in a previous life, are arrows merely an illusion caused by Maya,etc etc........
 
JoeBentley said:
It certainly wasn't meant as a trollish comment.

I was being completely serious. It's impossible to actually apply solipsism to everyday life. It is literally impossible to operate under the idea that reality isn't real and still function in anything resembling a normal life.

It's only used as a pseudo-intellectual and semantic "gotcha."
Click to expand...

And not a very good one, at that.
 
Jonesboy said:
Objects do not set their own physical limits. An object is a set of physical limits that we alone have drawn upon materials and space. For example, only the concept of entertainment distinguishes a TV from the carpet it stands on.

While this doen't rule out materiality, it rules out material objects. An object is a construction of sentient creatures.
Click to expand...
Nah solid objects exist. I've see them.n
 
Dancing David said:
Alleged Historic Buddha, sorry
Click to expand...

Got it, but he then was referring to the "ultimate goal" and not to philosphical ramblings. What I mean, any Buddha will eat and go to the bathroom, even when they (presumable) are able to see what we call reality from a different perspective.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Got it, but he then was referring to the "ultimate goal" and not to philosphical ramblings. What I mean, any Buddha will eat and go to the bathroom, even when they (presumable) are able to see what we call reality from a different perspective.
Click to expand...

Laying flat on their backs?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Lol...

I refer to an altered state of consciousness, of course, and imply that, to a point, we also live immerse in an altered state of consciousness (caused by a large extent by our culture).
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that. I am of the opinion that there is only one reality. I have experienced altered states of consciousness by dint of industrial strength doses of Owsley's acid,but they were not real.
 
dafydd said:
Not so sure about that. I am of the opinion that there is only one reality. I have experienced altered states of consciousness by dint of industrial strength doses of Owsley's acid,but they were not real.
Click to expand...

Oh.. they WERE real! thats the whole point!... a different way to perceive reality... I dont see the problem.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Got it, but he then was referring to the "ultimate goal" and not to philosphical ramblings. What I mean, any Buddha will eat and go to the bathroom, even when they (presumable) are able to see what we call reality from a different perspective.
Click to expand...

Or he was reffering to suffering, that you should remove it and not dwell on it
 
OP: In short, concise sentences, define "Material" and define "Immaterial" for us, please.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
OP: In short, concise sentences, define "Material" and define "Immaterial" for us, please.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Then we'd know exactly what we're supposed to be arguing in favor of the existence of. It would be the ◊◊◊◊◊ if we spent an lot of time arguing for the existence of "Material", only to find that he meant something entirely different from what we thought he meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom