Thanatos13

Religion operates on somewhat different rules. But it’s not a matter of dogmatism. Radical skepticism is just not true, and also rather impractical. Without beliefs we would never do anything. Even radical skepticism a form of belief. I have already sowed doubt into my own things. But they actually stand the test, unlike more spiritual concepts.

Assuming enlightenment exists or that one knows what it is. You can’t escape belief, not even through “enlightenment”. They say “you’ll know when it happens” but really that’s still just belief.

I know what it is. What I am referring to is how the munchausen trilemna hasn’t stopped science, or how ancient skepticism (or pyrrhonism) was defeated. That requires more philosophical knowledge than I have a level of interest to study. But I know enough to sow doubt.

Same thing as nonduality, which is a self refuting term.

Actually even that something must exist is debatable. But for my daily life, such questions don’t matter. Just like the creation of the universe. I don’t care what the answer is, I am here now.

Truth is a prickly term. I’m not the person to debate this with. I’m sure I’m missing some of the terminology and nuance. I’m sticking with what has worked for me so far. Leave me out of “ultimate nature and truth”.

The existence of anything can be disputed even awareness. But all the Trilema states is that nothing can be said with absolute certainty. All we have is probability. Again, I’m willing to bet money on science. Because in the end all we have are our senses.

It’s the ugly and unsatisfactory truth that any claim must do, no matter what it is. It all starts on faith. The existence of an external world, that materialism is false, that other minds exist. It’s the only way to build a philosophy and practice. Science is merely the study of the interactions of the world we live in. It doesn’t claim certainty, that’s why they have theories and even the strongest ones are ready to be abandoned at a change in evidence. It’s something I’m willing to trust based on the success it has had.

It’s like the belief that the ground won’t cave in on me when I take a step. I have evidence based on the numberous times that it didn’t before. Therefor I am justified in that belief. Things like other people not being P zombies and having minds and feelings is a leap of faith however. Even their very existence is merely having faith in it, since there isn’t really anything pointing to their existence or not in either direction. There is even a dispute as to the existence of the mind.

Actually it doesn’t have to account for consciousness for consciousness is itself an assumption we make, just like the existence of other minds. We can argue for a duality, an A and not A. That will always be true. You are misinterpreting what knowledge is, which in this case is justified true belief. All that exists is evidence, proof is only for mathematics. It’s not self deception, for you aren’t actually deceiving yourself. The trilemna extends to any claim to knowledge not just science, but science works on evidence and not proof

But Leo is conflating evidence with proof, a common mistake in epistemology. Its funny watching him fumble at philosophy. Absolute certainty is an impossible standard to meet. That’s why ancient skepticism had to evolve into fallibalism. Stating that all knowledge is, at best, approximate.

I don’t think it’s the position that is left when others are indefensible. It can be argued that there are more than two halves to things. But non duality is the assumed position when others are done. It’s not what’s left, it’s just one of many. But something either is or isn’t, at least for some things. So that takes nonduality out the window. All nonduality is is a viewpoint, a judgment. It’s hardly the truth.

It’s also ironic because how do you defend the position of every position being indefensible. Its almost comical.

Without criticism some ideas would likely dominate us and still be harmful, or at least the people acting on them would still exist. If every position is indefensible then why listen to Leo or pay for his course?

That’s incorrect. It’s nothing to do with duality but rather with challenging ideas to make us think about what we says. The part about being indefensible is not entirely correct either. For if that were the case then Leo would be unable to make money of his site or videos, let alone be able to post videos. If every position (including non duality) is indefensible then what you are left is either paralysis from being unable to pick a side or people staying attached to what they know because you cannot convince them otherwise. The chicken or egg question isn’t solved by nonduality, rather it just ignores the question. I mean it really doesn’t matter which came first. Duality is also not groundless for something is either A or not A. That’s simple logic, but unfortunate existence it a bit more complicated than that. Even existence and non existence are opposite ends, there isn’t a middle ground there. Objective reality does exist, we just can’t know it. But that’s not really mind blowing, that’s high school biology. Criticism is tenable to a degree. Those who say otherwise don’t understand how much they benefit from its fruits. And positions are most certainly not indefensible for again, nothing spawned by humans would exist. Opinions and beliefs clash against each other. There is a reason that Skepticism didn’t flourish beyond Ancient Greece and why the munchausen Trilema isn’t insurmountable. Science is proof of that. No matter what you believe you must accept somethig on faith to get anywhere. Sadly people just assume nonduality to be truth, but it is ultimately as “indefensible” as any other position.

It is the mark of a first rate intelligence to hold two opposing ideas in the mind and still be able to function.

The wiki image isn’t an accurate portrayal of criticism. The irony of his video of criticism is that he engages in the very act. Spirituality itself is born out of criticism for the material existence they take issue with. Ignore the nonsense of manta day or hyena, those don’t exist. What I heard in philosophy discussions is that criticism is more like challenging your ideas with the intent to improve or to shore up weak points. Ideas are like ore and through criticism they are smelted. Without criticism you have dogma, and that is never good. Heckling is just pointing out flaws with the intent to belittle someone else. It’s far from constructive. I guess the difference between heckling and criticism is intent. Just because you don’t like hearing criticism doesn’t make someone a heckler.

The law of attraction is absolute bunk

There is no deception. That fact that you think there is any is itself the deception. To claim deception you need to know truth, but how can you know truth? Ultimately we call enemies of our beliefs deceived. But there is no deception. All people do is follow what they believe to be true, because there is nothing else we can do. Everything we act on is a belief because there is no ultimate grounding for any of it (including nonduality). Its like I said, for a guy who is a pyrrhonist Leo doesn’t act like it at all.

I mean, it’s been strongly evidenced that humans don’t have free will.

This is automatic admission of defeat. When you tell someone to “do their research” it usually mean you have jack. As for dreams and hopes, there is no prize for reaching them. Whether you “chase your dreams” or live a life of senses (video games and tv), the end is the same. I think fulfillment is something humans have to trick themselves into believing. The same way they think meditation has the answers but don’t question whether the information is true or not. How one one lives their life is irrelevant, since you can’t take it with you. Also you do realize that losing dreams and goals is part of meditation (at least that’s what the creators of the method had in mind). Also it supposedly gives self control, it’s not a guarantee. Also millions arent able able to fulfill their dreams because of circumstances beyond their control. It hardly has anything to do with distractions or self control.

Define “functional knowledge”.

The “threats” of links aren’t greater than the actual links. I’m willing to bet that you don’t have any links, which is typical of those who say they have the data but are “too tired” to provide it. Benign condescendsion, typical on these sort of forums. I mean, you cannot say that he is unaware he is getting his face kicked in because you aren’t that person.

That’s not entirely true. It’s merely the belief that everything is a distraction. But that’s assuming there is some grand overarching goal to life, which there isn’t. Beyond being a distraction to meditating, there isn’t much else here.

I actually have, for a few years actually. But it didn’t make me more aware of things than I already was. The internet did that. Plus reading and debating some philosophical concepts. Evidence wise there isn’t reallt proof that mindfulness raises awareness. All it real does is quite you down and bring some level of peace, but just doing breathing exercises does that.