[Buddha-l] buddhism and brain studies

[Richard Hayes]

On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 11:18 -0500, Alberto Todeschini wrote:

> > The book you mention on Satisfaction sounds like an excellent example of
> > presenting meaningless data.
> 
> Actually, no, not really. Perhaps if you were to read it you would 
> discard it as that.

Why would a sane man spend his time reading a book that he knows from
the outset is meaningless (unless, of course, a pursuit of
meaninglessness makes him happy)? 

Needless to say, I hope, I have no objection to anyone else finding
anything interesting. Being interested is a highly personal thing---and,
incidentally, a subjective thing that, like happiness, cannot in any way
be measured or determined by external behavior. All I am saying is that
as a Buddhist and as an amateur philosopher, I am not especially
interested in the findings of people who try to measure things that by
their very nature cannot be measured.

> But we aren't really getting anywhere with this discussion.

Of course not. There is no discussion taking place, because we cannot
find a common ground on which to begin an inquiry that would settle a
question. In short, there is no truth to the matter of whether happiness
is, to at least some extent, an objective state or a purely subjective
one. Where on stands on the question of the nature of happiness is
purely a matter of taste, not a question of well-defined questions that
can be decided by an appeal to carefully and impartially gathered data.

> > Contrary to popular belief, philosophers almost never discuss
> armchairs.
> 
> I kid you not, an acquaintance of mine here at UVA was put off 
> philosophy because of a discussion he had about chairs with a philosophy 
> professor during a dinner.

Anyone who talks about philosophy while having dinner is objectively
off-putting. Spoiling a good meal with discussions of metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, theology or aesthetics is just plain boorish. And
that's a fact. (I can send you the data if you'd like.) Of course,
talking about chairs is another matter. It can be useful to have some
method of determining who will sit in which chair at the dinner table.
But any ruffian who tries to use chairs as a philosophical prop after
the food is served should be sent to bed without supper.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico