[Buddha-l] Moment of individuation

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 16:04 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
> > It seems to me correct to say that the sort of food an organism will
> > assimilate depends on the sort of being that organism is.
>
> Isn't it just that we call an organism by a certain name by observing
> what it eats?

I'm behind (not that anyone would mind).  Inasmuch as we use such
classifications as "carnivore" or "herbivore" I agree.  But taxinomies are
not based simply on what an organism eats; there are others.

> > A carnivore will eat meat because it is a carnivore, not because meat
> > as a food source determines it to be a carnivore. What essentially
> > determines an organism to be animate and carnivore is the kind of soul
> > that is the dynamism of its particular individuation.
>
> This seems hopelessly confused. Surely what any organism eats is
> influenced strongly by what kinds of food it can find, eat and digest.
> Those are all functions of the body. What need is there to introduce a
> discussion of souls? What explanatory value does talking of souls have
> that is not already provided by referring to such things as claws, teeth
> and guts?

The reason I focused upon food at all was due to Bob's bringing the matter
to the discussion.  The question of souls had already been introduced.
With regard to explanatory value I tend to think that it lies in the
sphere of inquiry into why something exists and is alive rather than non-
existent, or why, granting that it exists, it exists as this particular
subsistent an not another.  Further qustions have to do with whether a
soul is self-existent or whether there are other causal explanations.

> > Of course, it is true that some carnivores also eat fruits
> > and/or vegetables, but essentially they are carnivores.
>
> Why speak of essences at all? What is gained by introducing that sort of
> language. Surely anything that eats only meat is a carnivore, while
> anything that eats only vegetable matter is an herbivore, and gorillas
> in the human family are best described as omnivores (except those whose
> circumstances and/or persuasions lead them to avoid eating meat).

If you would not prefer the adverb "essentially" how about "basically" or
"fundamentally"?  That said, since you've brought up the matter of
essences, it is the case that such referents are found in Greek, Indian,
and related philosophies, is it not?

> Your comments show, now doubt, the influence of your convictions, just
> as mine show the influence of mine. Your educational background
> predisposes you to speak in terms of souls and essences, and my
> educational background predisposes me to eschew such talk as otiose.

Fair enough.  Eschew away.  I've been wondering, though, whether the
notions of soul that Buddhists deny are the same notions of soul held by
philosophers and theologians in the West.  This is perhaps too broad a
question.  The philosophical and theological notions with which I am more
familiar do not lead one ultimately to conceive of a soul as eternally
existing or even self-existing.  These attributes of eternality and
self-existence appear to be central to the notion of soul to which
Buddhists object.  Is this off the mark?

Regards,

Stan Ziobro