[Buddha-l] The arrow: its removal and examination

[Richard Hayes]

On Monday 25 June 2007 16:01, David Kotschessa wrote:

> As for myself, I have never been able to ascertain
> what the point of "western philosophy" is.  What are
> "they" getting at?  What is their goal, and what
> happens when they get it?  Will it end their
> suffering?  If not, then what will it do, and for what
> purpose?

If one reads Greek philosophy, all these questions are answered quite 
thoroughly. Indeed, the answers are pretty similar to answers to those 
questions found in ancient Indian philosophy.

> Not only does Buddhism have a clearly defined goal,
> but it has already reached it!

Buddhism can't reach any goals at all. It is a system of theory and practice, 
and systems can't do much of anything. People who apply systems may do 
something. It is alleged, for example, that a small number of people who 
follow Buddhism reach the goal, but I personally have never seen any evidence 
that this allegation is true.

> No "western" philosophy asks this of us.

This claim suggests to me that either you have not read widely enough in 
Western philosophy or you do not consider Greek or medieval philosophy 
Western.

> Buddhism uses utility (does it work?) rather than
> truth (???) as a criteria for whether a teaching is
> valid. 

This is the claim of Pragmatism, too. So are you suggesting there may be an 
affinity between Buddhism and Pragmatism? You certainly wouldn't be alone in 
making that claim. There is a large and growing literature on that very 
topic.

> My prediction is that philosophers will 
> debate, until the sun fizzles out, on the nature of
> truth.  That is, unless they figure out that what they
> were really trying to do in the first place was end
> their suffering.

Strange as it may seem, ending suffering is not, and need not be, everyone's 
goal. Most modern philosophers are not especially interested in that goal. 
Neither, for that matter, are most linguists, archeologists, mathematicians, 
political scientists, baseball umpires, and cordon bleu chefs. So it may be a 
bit silly to say that all these people are doing badly what you think they 
ought to be doing. Why not give credit where credit is due, acknowledge that 
many of these people are doing rather well what they actually are trying to 
do, and acknolwege that your interests are so restricted that you fail to 
appreciate anyone who does not pursue your goals?

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico