[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 19-5-2010 10:48, Dan Lusthaus schreef:
> Incidentally, Erik's observations on Batchelor and Sartre are on target.
>
> One minor correction. Contingency is not the opposite of causal. That would
> be "accident" or random. In the Greek and medieval systems (i.e.,
> Aristoteleanism), there are three levels: Necessity, Contingency, and
> Accident.
>
> Necessity concerns causes leading ineluctably to their effects, or, in terms
> of formal causes, what is necessarily the case. Contingency happens for
> reasons, has causes, but the results *could have been otherwise*. Accidental
> means no rhyme or reason, absence of any sort of causal necessity at all.
>
> So, by Aristotelean lights, that a "human" is a "rational animal" is
> necessary. That she was born on a particular date, or has hair of a
> particular color, is contingent. Only anarchists and Western Carvakas argue
> for accidents. The essential nature of something is "necessary." Whatever
> could be otherwise (she could have been a he, had red hair instead of brown,
> been born on a Tues. instead of a Wed., etc.) is contingent. That she has
> brown hair, happened for reasons, but that was not necessary. The fact of
> birth and death is necessary, but the facts of anyone's particular birth and
> death are contingent. Buddha understood the twelve links as necessary, not
> contingent. Because there is death, there necessarily is birth. And so on.
>
>
>    
Dan,
thanks for the enlightening excursion into Medieval philosophy. As you 
mention: we find the trinity mainly the Aristotelian-Thomistic view. 
Sartre was not very much bothered by the difference between contingency 
as God's will and contingency as coïncidence. He was closer via 
Descartes to the tradition Augustine-Duns Scotus where contingency is 
just unnecessary and besides it was all être en-soi to him. In this 
respect it may be interesting to mention that contigent events or things 
were seen to be caused by God also in the Augustinian tradition. So 
Batchelor runs the risk of coming back to God by a detour. The only 
thing that can save him is karma, but karma is statistic probability and 
still has an element of contingency. The Thomistic trinity is very 
useful to explain this, because karmic ripening could be otherwise, but 
it has a reason.

Erik

Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
Weblog: http://erik-hoogcarspel.blogspot.com/
Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl