1. God hates Mars

Comment #199892 by Lil_Xunzian on June 26, 2008 at 1:15 pm

That's odd. God made the earth, the beasts, and the birds for man. Didn't he? The whole universe is just Mr(s). Human's giant dinner plate isn't it? Didn't God put any snacks for us on Mars for when we get the munchies? I would think that Christians would be all for exploring Mars, so that once we've eaten the Earth and the Moon, we can gobble up Mars. Then it's off to Venus. Then Mercury, then the asteroid belt, then the Jovian planets' moons, then the Jovian planets, then the Oort cloud, then the Sun, then Proxima Centauri...

2. Science is not philosophy

Comment #198702 by Lil_Xunzian on June 24, 2008 at 11:26 am

I agree with Spinoza. I'm not even sure the author of this article knows what type of intellectual activity philosophy is. In any event, no philosopher would take Stein's "film" seriously. Even catholic philosophers at places like Boston College are more than happy to point out that ID is bonkers.

3. Christianity 'could die out within a century'

Comment #197355 by Lil_Xunzian on June 21, 2008 at 8:43 pm

"At Aish we know that Judaism provides real meaning and enrichment to one's life. Whilst we have attracted many disinterested Jews back to Jewish identity it is clear there is much work to be done."

I've always been bothered by the way religious people try to recruit. Reminds me of junkies who actively recruit.

"At Wasted we know that heroin provides real meaning and enrichment to one's life. Whilst we have attracted many disinterested junkies back to heroin it is clear there is much work to be done."

4. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197222 by Lil_Xunzian on June 21, 2008 at 11:50 am

I'm happy to see this! I've been thinking of writing a paper for an upcoming conference on how selfish gene theory can enrich our understanding of classical moral philosophy. Now I have one more reason to.

5. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197193 by Lil_Xunzian on June 21, 2008 at 10:17 am

Brilliant!

6. Flea of the week

Comment #196599 by Lil_Xunzian on June 20, 2008 at 7:42 am

Well, it's been over two months. Maybe the fleas are done biting.

7. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #196228 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I've given you examples. Get a grip. I'm no longer interested in being drafted into making claims I've never made. I don't have to baby you either. The evidence is readily available, I'm not obligated to dig it up and supply it to you in a feedbag. I've made my point. Take it or leave it. I'm not going to keep wasting my time talking to an hysterical and pugnacious nut who refuses to engage me in a way that takes account of what I've actually said, nuances and all. I'm done talking to you. Good-bye.

8. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #196223 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 1:28 pm

I've already answered the questions you're asking. Rather, any legitimate questions you've asked I've already answered. The problem with worshipers of the Dorje Shugden is by itself enough to answer them. Of course I don't KNOW it will never happen. Sorry, I didn't realize that you were trying to pick a fight, or else I would have explicitly said what I meant without hyperbole, as if I were talking to a child, would you like that? Here: It is extremely unlikely that Tibet will gain independence, so much so that one can casually say "it's never gonna happen."

I said "full" of nonsense, which is a different claim than "100% nonsense." I don't think any human being is capable of that. He speaks of karma and reincarnation, which I would entitle nonsense.

I never denied that the present government in exile is much improved over the feudal theocracy of the good old days. The CIA wouldn't fund and India wouldn't host them if they were THAT tyrannical and wicked. He is to be commended for that.

I just said "I" wouldn't call what he does philosophy. I didn't say it ISN'T philosophy. The way I phrased it made it fairly clear that it's just my opinion.

I highly recommend you learn the English language. It will clear up your misunderstandings of the arguments being made. You will see, for example, how opinions are phrased differently than statements of fact. You will also notice how intelligent people can effectively employ rhetorical devices without being misunderstood by other intelligent people. When people take as literal something which is clearly not intended to be, we English-speaker reserve the word "idiot" for them.

You seem to completely misunderstand the argument I'm making.

It's not a gut feeling. I've already cited some reasons why doubt the sincerity of things he's said.

I am contesting what the Dalai Lama really has to add to discussions of Tibetan independence, etc.

More importantly, I am annoyed by my fellow liberal-minded Americans' tendency to accept what the Dalai Lama says uncritically. If you're not an American, perhaps you don't appreciate this point. The reason for trusting the Dalai Lama is generally of a circular nature.

"Why do you trust the Dalai Lama?"

"Because the Dalai Lama wouldn't lie."

"How do you know?"

"Because he's the Dalai Lama."

I have merely attempted to supply examples that make it crystal clear that the Dalai Lama does lie and that he has no aversion to lying. For this reason, his claims should be received skeptically and critically, something which is not done very much. For starters, simply take note of how disproportionate the ratio of sycophantic to critical interviews there are of His Holiness. Come to think of it, I've never seen the Dalai Lama interviewed by a reporter who wasn't a total sycophant. I'd love to read/watch some if you can provide any.

As far as I know, Mr. Gyatso hasn't come clean about the historical reality of Tibet's past. When someone has a history of lying, I generally don't find it helpful to just assume that they're telling the truth without being given a rational reason.

9. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #196180 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 12:11 pm

"We are discussing the same Tenzin Gyatso who has increasingly brought democratic principles to the Tibetan refugees in Dharmsala and has stated that if Tibet regained its freedom the post of Dalai Lama should be done away with outright, right?"

Tell that to the worshipers of the Dorje Shugden whose lives he's ruined. According to "His Holiness" the worshipers of Dorje Shugden "are wrong." Wrong? On what authority does he say that his constellation of imaginary friends are right and that theirs are wrong? Someone who truly believed in tolerance, religious freedom, and democracy wouldn't publicly marginalize a segment of the pertinent population and then use thuggery and terrorism to try intimidate them out of believing.

10. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #196177 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I've read his books and seen him speak. He constantly contradicts himself. It's easy enough to SAY something. For example, it's easy enough to say "I love you," but acting in a loving fashion is another thing completely. His actions tell a different story. He rules like a theocrat, not a democratically elected leader, because he isn't a democratically elected leader. His books are full of nonsense. He talks a lot of nonsense. I wouldn't call what he does "philosophy" exactly. He doesn't practice what he preaches. If he really believed what he said, he would give his charade up in Dharamsala and implement the government he says he wants for Tibetans. It's easy enough to say those things when it's implied that you only want them for a free Tibet, and especially when you know that that's a future that is never going to materialize. Hitchens says it all when he refers to the government in exile as the Dalai Lama's "crummy little dictatorship in Dharamsala."

11. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #196149 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 11:08 am

I also think there's the problem of the "false dichotomy" going on here.

It's the Dalai Lama's fault, since he has sold himself as the alternative to Beijing. As the panacea to Tibet's ills. It's simply ASSUMED that if you're anti-Dalai Lama, you MUST BE pro-CCP. Of course, that's bullshit. Being anti-Dalai Lama doesn't logically entail being pro-CCP, although goofs on the other side seem to think that being anti-CCP does logically entail being pro-Dalai Lama.

12. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #196147 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 11:01 am

It also seems fairly well established by NON-Chinese sources that the suppression of Tibetan culture--language, religion, music, etc.--that took place even into the Jiang Zemin era is no longer a central issue. You can read about Beijing's attempt to expunge Tibet of its culture in a book called "The Snow Lion and the Dragon." From what I gather, Tibetans are now instructed in Tibetan as well as Mandarin in the schools. I once tried to learn Tibetan. There's an alphabet, but nothing is spelled the way it sounds. It's not even comparable to the English spelling/pronunciation mismatch. It's just preposterous. Mandarin is actually easier to learn. If it's being taught in schools, this may be the first time in Tibet's history that all Tibetans will actually speak the same dialect of Tibetan: the Lhasa dialect. For once, a Tibetan living in Lhasa might actually be able to speak fluently to a Tibetan in Qamdo IN TIBETAN.

13. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #196033 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 8:28 am

autonomy54,

Well, I just spent an hour typing a response to your post, but when I tried to post it, it went missing, so I'm not going to type it again. If you want me to show you where you're wrong, hit me up by email (eusticea@bc.edu) or instant messenger (gignoskein hodon). Or you could just read the previous posts more carefully. I'm using facts, not propaganda. Or you could go to a library and do the research.

I will, however, point out the most disturbing thing about your comment that I suggest you retract immediately, because it is VERY offensive.


"if someone stole your land and committed cultural genocide against your people wouldn't you be mad too?" Don't you see how you just assume that Tibet is his to rule? Like he owns it?

In brief, I argued that the Dalai Lama has no right to rule Tibet. A "free" Tibet would not be one in which he is king.

14. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #194054 by Lil_Xunzian on June 16, 2008 at 10:40 am

stevenlebeau,

It is amazing how much blind trust the Dalai Lama inspires. Even many otherwise skeptical people accept his every word as something akin to divine revelation. His claims can't be substantiated. Some of the them are downright absurd. It's amazing how he can get away with advocating theocracy, racial segregation, and the caste system just because he's the Dalai Lama. There's no way of knowing, but had Tibet achieved real independence after its de facto independence prior to 1950, it would probably have remained a feudal theocracy, something akin to a Buddhistic Afghanistan, and become a breeding ground for Buddhist fandamentalism, something which, contrary to popular belief, does exist. Who knows, it could even have become an exporter of terrorism. Whatever one thinks of the CCP, there's no doubt that China has eliminated two potentially dangerous theocracies, Tibet and Uighurstan, and at the very least introduced secular education into those cultures.

15. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193323 by Lil_Xunzian on June 15, 2008 at 10:15 am

My final testimony is this: we need to distinguish between something like a moral duty or virtue and something that's just a feeling. Empathy is not a virtue. In fact, the word "feeling" (pathos) is built right into the word. Empathy and sympathy can't be more than mere feelings just as apathy and antipathy can be. The question is about whether or not morality exists at the level of emotion or cognition. If you say that it exists at the level of emotion, then you're committed to saying it's something we just feel, not something we think. You remove anything rational or intellectual from ethics. I think we fall right into the hands of the religionists by saying that ethics is just something I feel (and is, therefore, subjective). We don't abstain from gratuitous lying because it feels wrong (the yuck factor) or, as is the case with dimmer wits, because we're commanded not to, but because we wouldn't want to live in a society where nobody could be trusted, where nobody could be trusted as a credible source of information.

16. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193053 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Peacebeuponme,

All I can tell you to do read up on the difference between a moral sentiment and a moral virtue. The former could have come about by natural selection, but not the latter. The latter requires a prosthetic device.

17. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193048 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Morality has we understand it doesn't seem to have come into its own until moral philosophy came into its own in the axial age. Religions have gotten us used to the idea that acting ethically isn't an intellectual exercise (just obey these rules!). For Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Dai Zhen morality is something intellectual and requires some modicum of ratiocination. It's not that primitive peoples coudn't do this, it's that they didn't live in an environment conducive to it. Contemplating the Good requires leisure, time, and an education among other things. That only became possible when people began to live in settled communities with argriculture and, therefore, a surplus of resources. Human may have had moral sentiments for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but have probably only had moral virtues for a few thousand.

18. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193037 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 1:29 pm

That's why I don't adopt the naturalistic view of ethics we see in Aristotle and modern virtue ethics. My view, consistent with certain Confucian philosophers, I dub "artificialism." Morality is only possible after a prosthesis, that lovely thing we call "civilization," has been installed. There may have existed a proto-morality that served as the nascent basis for a genuine ethics, but it's not the same thing.

19. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193035 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Genuine altruism would entail opting out of the competition for finite resources that drives evolution. Evolution CAN'T create altruism. Giving a homeless person 20 bucks would be injurious to my genes, assuming he's not related me. Now I'm out 20 bucks. I can only do that by opting out of the competition for a finite resource, namely cash, and adopting a wholly different attitude, namely one that is anathema to my designated function as a gene machine. Acting altruistically is not acting as a gene machine, because you're acting in such a fashion as to not contribute to the fitness of your genes. It's literally un-natural, so much so that it's anti-natural.

20. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193031 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 1:12 pm

"Is altruism really just self-centered stuff tied up in semantics? Seems to me that we will always operate in a "selfish" mode. That is, even when we are acting in an altruistic matter, it's really because it makes us feel good in some way. I can't imagine anyone doing anything that didn't have some kind of pay off. Either feeling good/better or quenching guilt..."

Well thanks. I saw that episode of Friends too.

21. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193028 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 1:09 pm

I would distinguish between genuine and merely apparent altruism. I think there are other and better explanations for most cases of apparent altruism. What does altruism have to do with cooperation? Duh, you need cooperation to accomplish civilization. To equate "cooperativeness" with "altruism" is to seriously misunderstand the meaning of the word "altruism." A moral philosopher would probably contest the cogency of your use of the word "altruism" with respect to kin. That's not altruism. It's still self interest. We're invested in our kin because they share our genes. You're using "altruism" in a very sloppy way. Biologists use "altruism" in a different way than moral philosophers do. Dawkins makes the distinction in The Selfish Gene. He also acknowledges that in biological jargon "altruism" doesn't really mean altruism. I'm not going to waste my time with a purely linguisitc dispute. In fact, The Selfish Gene seems to demonstrate that genuine altruism doesn't exist by nature, a point he clearly makes in the book:

"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism--something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." - Richard Dawkins

22. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193017 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 12:49 pm

The way Buddhism discusses the "self" also seems to be caught up in a lot of linguistic confusion and equivocation. The statement "I have no self" makes no sense, since the subject contradicts the predicate. It's like saying "A pencil is not a writing utensil." If you understand what is meant by "pencil" and what is meant by "writing utensil"...

Since "I" refers to that self who is speaking, it amounts to saying "the self has no self," which is like saying "red has no color." Or to put it another way, you'd be saying that a specific self, an I, lacks the general predicate of selfhood, just as you would be saying a specific color, red, lacks the general predicate color.

23. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193015 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 12:46 pm

As Hitchens once put it (I think), "If a religious figure makes a genuinely moral preachment, it's a COINCIDENCE!"

24. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193014 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I don't agree with the notion that altruism is hard-wired into us. There would be no reason to select for altruism. Altruism arises with the advent of civilization. Sure, of course some religious people might be genuinely altruistic and just attributing it to their religion. Those people, however, aren't giving themselves enough credit. They are also deeply confused about the logical relationships between concepts like "religion" and "altruism." I had a buddy who performed the necessary ethical calculations and decided to become a vegetarian. When asked why he was a vegetarian, he said it was for religious reasons. Of course it wasn't, but he had yet to clearly distinguish between doing moral philosophy and being religious. A religious person who performs a genuinely moral act ("moral" in the philosophical sense) isn't doing because of their religion, but in spite of it. They may be confused about the causal relationship, but that doesn't prove there is a causal relationship. What kind of argument is that? They THINK they do good because God therefore they DO do good because of God?

25. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193002 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 12:26 pm

I should add: by "morally equivalent" I'm not suggesting that eating a cat and eating a pig are equally MORAL. I'm suggesting that they are equally IMMORAL.

26. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192999 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 12:18 pm

A good example of an arbitrary preference is meat-eating. We, at least in the industrialized world, live in a time and place where everyone can and should be a vegetarian. We don't need to eat flesh to survive. The arbitrary preference of one species to another is also evident when people who are content to gobble up pounds of pork, beef, and poultry in one sitting yelp that people in other countries who eat dogs and cats are barbaric. Why, we may ask if we're thinking clearly, are cats and dogs more entitled NOT to be eaten then cows, pigs, and chickens? To look at it objectively, eating a dog or cat is morally equilavent to eating a pig or cow. However, we keep cats and dogs as pets, and thus prefer them ARBITRARILY to food animals.

27. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192996 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Exactly.

28. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192994 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 12:06 pm

No one is contesting THAT religious people care about other people. Give teapot and me a little credit. We're asking WHY they care about other people. The argument, let's call it "religiosity = narcissism," doesn't state that religious people DON'T care for others, it states that the REASON they care/the CAUSE of their caring is solipsistic. They care (see how the actual argument depends on that admission?) about x as a proximate end, which is a means to an ultimate end, y, which I do for MYSELF. The distinction between a "proximate" and "remote" or "ultimate" end is kind of important.

29. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192990 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 11:56 am

Since natural selection doesn't work on entire species, there's no evolutionary basis for an arbitrary and pathological preference for one's own species. Firstly, I doubt other animals have a robust enough concept of a "species" to be speciesists. Secondly, I doubt other animals have a robust enough notion of "self" be narcissists. They may be selfish, but words like "narcissistic" and "solipsistic" don't really apply to non-human animals. No one is suggesting that all living things have the same moral status. The key word, the one that should have tipped you off that that point wasn't being made is "arbitrary." If a cayote is trying to eat me and I, by whatever means, manage to kill him/her, I didn't exhibit an arbitrary preference for my own species. I just defended myself. That's not arbitrary. He/she also didn't exhibit an arbitrary preference for his own species. He needs to eat. I happen to be the nearest prey animal. End of story. If I defend myself against another human, no would accuse me of exhibiting an arbitrary preference for myself. If I tried to kill someone and he resisted, I wouldn't counter his resistence by looking him in the eye and saying, "look, you're just exhibiting an arbitrary preference for yourself, just let me kill you, okay?"

30. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192977 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 11:25 am

"Solipsism" is so the perfect word to interject into this conversation!

31. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192976 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 11:22 am

"Sorry, but concern for my tribe is a form of egoism, a little extended but not by much."

Indeed. Narcissism operates on multiple levels. "Selfishness" does just mean "myselfishness," it can also mean "ourselfishness." Sexism is narcissism operating at the level of gender. Racism, race. Agism, age. Speciesism is just species-level narcissism. Narcissism just means a form of pathological self-love. Speciesism, for example, just refers to a type of collective, pathological self-love whereby we show an arbitrary preference for own species at the expense of every other.

32. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192972 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 11:13 am

It does seem correct to say that trying bring other people to a "saving knowledge," or whatever, is altruistic. You are, however, confusing the drive to be religious, which is narcissistic, with the drive to convert others to said religion, which is not. Being religious is by definition narcissistic because it's (a) teleological and (b) the telos is yourself (in some way, shape, or form). The ultimate "hou heneka" (for-the-sake-of-which, to speak Aristotelese) for being religious is your own salvation, enlightenment, etc. There may be other proximate ends, but they are subordinated to the ultimate end (me, me, me!), and are, therefore, a means. Religion is a glorified for of:

Why do you do community service?

Because it will look good on my college resume.

We would find this contemptible, yet we find "altruistic" acts directed at proximate ends done in the name of religion laudable.

33. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192966 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:55 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad,

I feel your pain. It makes me ill to think that anyone could be so self-absorbed.

34. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192965 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:50 am

I assume trying to convert family members is a misfiring of the otherwise useful instinct for looking out for our own kin. I certainly don't want my mommy to burn in hell, but since I don't believe in hell, I'm not too worried.

35. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192963 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:46 am

Unfortunately that's not the way religion works. If I'm a Christian, my being a Christian isn't going to do a damn thing about my little sister who practices wicka. All the good deeds in world aren't going to save poor little Annie. No matter how much I do God's bidding, she'll still burn in hell forever. All I can hope to do is convert her. An individual is religious for narcissistic reasons. Why they try to convert others is another matter. Maybe it has something to do with selfish memes or selfish genes, rather than selfish individuals. Christianity for example, doesn't grant the option of redemption for your little sister vicariously through you, BECAUSE JESUS ALREADY DID THAT. Religions only give you the option of saving yourself, everyone else has to save him- or herself, all you can do is point the way. Your criticism is null and void.

36. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192960 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:36 am

Steve Zara,

That's not the claim I made. You also didn't bother to follow the argument. I said religion is the product of human narcissism. I didn't make a single claim about human nature. Where did you get that from?

37. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192957 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:33 am

A simple illustration:

Why do you feed the hungry and care for the sick?

Because God wants me to.

Well, why are you doing what God wants?

So he will save my eternal soul.

In Kant's "Kingdom of Ends," you couldn't have any religion, because religion, I think, ultimately boils down to using people as a means to an end.

38. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192949 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:24 am

Religion is, I think, an incredibly narcissistic exercise, period. You make the whole of existence about YOURSELF. Any selfless or altruistic acts you do perform you only perform with yourself in mind. In religion, the other is a subordinate telos. The good you do for others is only a proximate end, where the remote end, for which the proximate end is only a means, is your own enlightenment, salvation, or passport into heaven. Hitchens makes this very clear in the case of MT.

39. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192944 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:14 am

I disagree. Spinoza's solutions to the very same problems are many magnitudes more sophisticated and elegant. You would have to be a total narcissist to want to organize your entire life around the alleviation of YOUR OWN suffering. Pain sucks, but we just have to deal with it. The satisfaction of knowing that you live an ethical life and pursue and speak the truth, perhaps even at the cost of your own happiness, more than makes up for the pain.

40. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192940 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 9:51 am

I find it difficult to defend Buddhism. Sure, it's more ratioanl than the other religious proclivities that were dominant at the time. However, just saying "Oh look how less stupid it is!" isn't an argument. Comparing it to Hinduism or Judaism or the worship of Baal certainly makes it look more enlightened and it certainly sounds fair. If we're really going to be fair we should compare it to the standards of the day and not to 21st century standards. Fair enough! The Buddha lived at roughly the same time that philosophy was flourishing in Greece and China. Although Buddhism might have been an improvement over religion, it still didn't live up to the standards of reason and clear-thinking that thinkers like Aristotle and Mozi taught us to expect. By the standards of the day, Buddhism, in my opinion, just wasn't that sophisticated.

What's worse. It's built on the eightfold path, which is built on the fourth noble truth, which is built on the thrid, the third on the second, and the second on the first. In order to be a Buddhist you must accept the first noble truth, or else you have no reason to accept the second, third, and fourth, and the eightfold path and, therefore, Buddhism. What is the first noble truth: all life is suffering (dukkha). I see no rational reason to accept THAT. If you do, for whatever reason, accept THAT, I don't care to know you. A religion whose usefulness is contingent on the veracity of a universal statement that is obviously false is no friend of reason's.

41. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192924 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 9:02 am

Thanks ThoughtsonCommonToad!

42. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192917 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 8:28 am

That's the reason I was attracted to Tibetan and Zen Buddhism as a young man. I was raised in a secular home and wasn't prepared to embrace God. A Buddhist can be a polytheist or a monotheist, but it isn't CATEGORICALLY theistic the way Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are. I think Hinduism is fascinating for the same reason. The word "Hinduism" usually brings to mind polytheism, but India's history is saturated with atheistic forms of Hinduism. The Dalai Lama, as far as I know, is in fact a polytheist, although this fact is not widely advertised to those who want to buy the sterilized version of Lamaism that's wrapped in plastic and has a "fun for all ages" sticker prominently displayed on it. Advancing the good cause of polytheism isn't part of the Dalai Lama's PR campaign.

43. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192910 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 7:56 am

I agree with Hitchens's view of the Dalai Lama. I loved the guy and everthing he said...when I was 14. Reading his books, I found certain things disturbing, such as his views on karma, but as a little boy, I tried my best to just rationalize them. One thing he said, which suggests a deeply anti-scientific attitude on his part, is that he would renounce the doctrine of reincarnation if it could be proven false. He wants evidence against reincarnation. I believe he said that in "Ethics for a New Millenium." He doesn't realize that the onus is on him to supply evidence for reincarnation, not the other way around. I can't regard the Dalai Lama as either a philosopher or an ethicist. He really is just as sleezy as Mother Theresa (Ol' Bojax), or at least that's where I'd put my money. Hitchens's observation about MT in the Missonary Position (that her actions are judged by her reputation and not the other way around) could be equally applied to the Dalai Lama for anyone who bothers to do the research. Food for thought:

The Dalai Lama believes that the "Government in Exile" is the rightful government of Tibet purely in virtue of being the incumbant. Tibetans are never consulted on this matter.

He says one thing and does another. Preaches tolerance, but is abusive and terroristic in his treatment of people in sects other than his own, the Yellow Hat Sect.

He lies. He's lied about Tibet's history. Both with respect to it's relation to China and to the nature of the theocrcy's rule (95 percent of people were either slaves or serfs). He screams genocide, but the population of Tibetans in Tibet has icreased by over one million (the one child poicy does not apply to Tibetans). He's lied about the territorial extent of Tibet prior to 1959. "Cultural genocide" seems to be code for "modernization." I had an art teacher who went to Tibet and complained that "the Chinese are building all these modern buildings." You mean, like hospitals and schools?

He is not the spiriual leader of Tibet, only one sect (there are four).

He makes claims, but supplies no evidence. He is believed for the same reason the pope is believed: we don't hold religious leaders to the same standard's of evidence that we hold historians and scientists nor to the same standards of reason as scientists and philosophers.

Whether or not Beijing gets to rule Tibet is an unrelated matter. What claim does the Dalai Lama have to Tibet? What sense does it make to lift Tibet from the hands of an authoritarian regime only to place it in the hands of a sectarian theocrat?

There's a lot of bullshit to unravel about this situation.

44. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188184 by Lil_Xunzian on June 3, 2008 at 10:16 am

Well, at least the lawsuit crippled Expelled theater debut.

45. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181612 by Lil_Xunzian on May 17, 2008 at 4:46 pm

I find the idea that God is behind evolution insulting to my intelligence. If God is behind evolution, then he is very very cruel.

46. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175554 by Lil_Xunzian on May 5, 2008 at 3:21 pm

"Hmm. Mr. Beck, your inane (read: retarded, ignorant) comments about Peter Singer lead me to conclude that you are the worst person in the world."

Spinoza,

I feel your pain, specifically that little pang in the neocortex that feels like brain cells dying...

Beck takes sadistic pleasure in fantasizing about the grim fates of animals, then ridicules the author of Animal Liberation. Why do we tolerate people like this (unscrupulous, illiterate morons) on our airwaves?

47. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175549 by Lil_Xunzian on May 5, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Well, to Ben Stein's credit, Beck is Dumber. What was up with the deer and cats? I don't know how anyone could be so glib about killing animals. What an abjectly stupid and evil person.

48. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174911 by Lil_Xunzian on May 3, 2008 at 7:55 pm

I love Chick comics. They're so funny. One of these days I'm gonna bake some magic brownies, invite over some friends, and then we can read chick comics aloud to each other until we've laughed ourselves to death, or at least into comas.

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169336 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Bonzai,

OH YES! I love Mozi. A real genius. Jian'ai is a brilliant idea; however, I think when western analytic philosophers pin Mozi as consequentialist, I think they're letting their own need to impose analytic categories on other philosophical traditions, which is the same thing they do with phenomenology-existentialism. On my reading jian'ai is part consequentialistic, but part categorical imperative. The unborn ghost of Kant can be seen in Mozi. I will send you a list of primary and secondary sources on Mozi if you like. I actually think Mencius' critique of Mozi is fair and from a selfish gene perspective, Mencius' ethics make more sense. The only real qualm I have with Mozi, however, is that he was a strong theist and believed in things like the will of God (tianzhi) and he believed in the "standards" or "paradigms" (fa), which are virtually identical to Plato's "forms" or "ideas" (eidoi). He said that the fa exist in the mind of God (tianxin), just as Plato stipulated that the forms exist in an eternal realm of the forms.

Best,
AE

P.S. There is a Chinese film out about the Mohists called "Mo gong." I have not seen it.

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169301 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 6:27 pm

P.S. We really should do this via email.