Arbitrary Marks

As the school year starts (in two days), I’ve been reading a few books and articles on the subject of Indian philosophy as well as India in general. The first book is Jonardon Ganeri’s Philosophy in Classical India, which is an overview of some of the major strands of thought, with a particular focus on [...]

In my last post, I asked a roughly formed question about connecting experience and ontological claims. I recognize that many of these posts need to be more carefully exposited in light of actual Buddhist texts and specific traditions–but while I’m in a bit of a summer holding pattern and reading mostly Western analytic philosophy, I [...]

Assume it is the case that there is no privileged ontological way to “carve the world at its joints” and so some form of mereological ontological nihilism is correct.
Also assume that the sense of oneness that meditating persons receive can be explained in terms of neurobiology.
Is there any connection, logical or causal between the two [...]

First, thanks all for participating in these discussions. I view my blog entries as a sort of reading club of one-plus. Basically, I’m putting up notes from readings and seeing who else has thoughts. Soon I’ll be able to do this in person, which will probably increase the quality of the posts you see. And [...]

No time for a detailed post, but I want to draw your attention to this podcast from Buddhist Geeks. In it, the Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche says, in response to questions about the need for Westerners to believe in rebirth, that the concept isn’t necessary for practice, but it doesn’t hurt to assume it’s true. It makes for good living now.

In connection, I recommend Jay Garfield, “Nagarjuna’s Theory of Causality: Implications Sacred and Profane,” Philosophy East and West, Vol 51, No 4, 507-524. The article discusses just to what extent belief in rebirth is necessary, particularly for bodhicittas. The abstract is below:

I have an instinct that (theistic) theological studies are far less useful than philosophy. As an atheist and non-Christian, to me it is like spending years studying the properties of phlogiston.

However, there are fellow philosophers spending years working on problems I think are wrong-headed. So is there any larger distinction to make between theology and philosophy, or, as human exercises in reflection, are they equally valuable?

I think that this has a lot to do with problems in contemporary philosophy of mind regarding mental causation, reduction, etc. For now, the quote will stand on its own, but later I’ll continue with Kim and try to tie them together:
If one reifies phenomena–including such things as one’s own self, characteristics (prominently one’s own), [...]

In a few hours, I’ll be on a flight back to Chicago after spending the weekend in Austin, checking out UT and finding housing. I’ve spent so long aiming towards a PhD program that it’s mind-boggling to realize I’m going to actually start it in a few months.

Anyway, as I’m loitering at Mozart’s with my puppy, I thought I’d write a few comments on Kim’s chapter, “The Supervenience Argument” in Physicalism, or Something Near Enough.

Since I’m back to my near-daily commute to the suburbs of Chicago, at least for the next three months, I’ve been scouting the Internet for substantial philosophy podcasts that I can listen to in my car. (Nothing personal, Krista Tippett, but I want a little more meat!)
I found a recording of a seminar on A.N. [...]

As a former Reformed Presbyterian, I knew the work of Jonathan Edwards pretty well, or so I thought. I had read his Banner of Truth publications and knew more about him than just “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Not so: in the past month, I’ve come across his thought in two different [...]