There are many people who enjoy teaching, but won't consider it because of the pay. Teaching is one of those jobs that is a last resort for many people.
Sure, raising pay will attract worse teachers, but it will also attract better teachers. That means a larger pool of teachers to draw from, more competition for jobs, and an overall increase in quality.
Why does a teacher's underlying motives matter? I hear this argument all the time, and it makes absolutely no sense. If they do an excellent job, then it shouldn't matter if they do it for the money.
Would you rather have an effective teacher who only does it for the salary, or someone who LOVES teaching, but is absolutely horrid at it?
\sarcasm
I know, TF2 is racist against Scottish people. Oh, just because the Demoman is Scottish, he has to be an alcoholic? Those bigots over at valve better get their act together.
Could that second bullet point about Buddhism be rephrased as follows?:
"Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures, such as certain sense of existence or selfhood. Thus if you think you exist or have a self, then you are causing yourself pain."
If so, then I have a problem with Buddhism. (Namely, I rather like the idea that I exist, and I don't believe giving up my sense of self is the best way to end my suffering; or if it is, then ending my suffering is not such a great idea.)
Else, please explain the difference (besides me chopping out the other examples of worldly pleasures).
No they are different statements. First of all pain and suffering are different concepts entirely. While it is true that pain can sometimes cause suffering, this is not always the case. Secondly, Buddhists believe that everything that exists is in a constant state of flux (this belief is called impermanence) which is one reason why clinging to worldly possessions causes suffering; they are impermanent, and eventually they will be lost. The concept of self implies something that is permanent and unchanging. If you read carefully, the second bullet point says that clinging to a certain sense of existence causes suffering. Here's what wikipedia says on the subject:
Anatta (PÄli) or anÄtman (Sanskrit) refers to the notion of "not-self". In Indian philosophy, the concept of a self is called Ätman (that is, "soul" or metaphysical self), which refers to an unchanging, permanent essence conceived by virtue of existence. This concept and the related concept of Brahman, the Vedantic monistic ideal, which was regarded as an ultimate Ätman for all beings, were indispensable for mainstream Indian metaphysics, logic, and science; for all apparent things there had to be an underlying and persistent reality, akin to a Platonic form. Buddhists reject all these concepts of Ätman, emphasizing not permanence, but changeability. Therefore all concepts of a substantial personal self are incorrect, and formed in the realm of ignorance.
In the Nikayas, anatta is not meant as a metaphysical assertion, but as an approach for gaining release from suffering. In fact, the Buddha rejected both of the metaphysical assertions "I have a self" and "I have no self" as ontological views that bind one to suffering.[53] By analyzing the constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas") of a person (or object), the practitioner comes to the conlusion, that neither the respective parts, nor the person as a whole comprise a self.
Note here that the Buddha rejected both statements "I have a self" and "I have no self".
One example of how clinging to your sense of self might cause you suffering is the following: You will die one day, and your "sense of self" will end; thus, as you cling vainly to your sense of self, you will be suffering. This is only one example, and I'm sure it's not the best, but I'm sure that you can think of another.
I respect the fact that Buddhism might not be right for you. In my original post, I was not trying to push Buddhism on anyone, or assert that it's correct in all aspects. I was merely trying to correct another poster's mistake. I encourage you to read more about Buddhism and educate yourself about its beliefs and practices, if only to be able to know exactly what it is you are rejecting. Wikipedia is a good start.
Also, I take issue with this wording:
"Science is based on faith that the laws of nature are omnipresent and universal"
Science is based on trust that the laws of nature are omnipresent and universal.
Trust is that which is accepted based on evidence. Faith is that which is accepted without evidence.
I agree with you 100%. As I said to someone else, I shouldn't have used the word 'faith'. 'Trust' is a much better word to use there.
Buddhism is a lot more than that. I just quoted the "Four Noble Truths" of Buddhism. I'm far from an expert on either Buddhism or Stoicism, but from what I've read (on Wikipedia) the two are quite different from each other. The only similarities that I can see after a cursory glance are that both teach self-control and discipline, although with somewhat different goals in mind.
"In fact with science it is a requirement to always check the assumptions, be a skeptic and never accept any bit of information on faith.
This is why it is so powerful a tool for investigating and understanding the universe."
I agree with you completely. What I was trying to get at in my post was that when it comes down to it, you can never prove any theory with science; you can only disprove it. Anyone can gather strong evidence in support of a theory, but all it takes is one counterexample to prove the theory wrong.
Interesting post, and you bring up some really good discussion points.
"One with omnipresence would be easy to prove. What would be accepted as proof of God ? There are more than enough structures in space that are omnipresent... The gravity field of, well, anything, is by definition omnipresent (even though it's not so at every last moment in time, it's just everywhere any human will ever go, or even any photon that will ever touch a human). The laws of nature are omnipresent and eternal. Force carrying particle fields are omnipresent and eternal,... If you only need a "mechanical" God, the bet is won already."
One needs to be very careful when saying "prove" or any conjugation of the word. Unfortunately the main problem - one that many people, even scientists, ignore - is called the problem of induction (you can learn about it in any Philosophy 101 class), which says that one cannot prove something based on prior experiences (i.e. it's possible that you're prior experiences can lead you to the wrong conclusion). If you forget about the problem of induction, you may be a turkey (Every day, the turkey gets fed by the farmer, and grows to believe that the farmer is a good guy and is looking out for the turkey's best interest. Then one day, right around Thanksgiving...). Science is based on faith that the laws of nature are omnipresent and universal (they might be), because if they aren't then science fails. It is possible that the laws of nature change on a nonlinear/discontinuous function that appears to be constant on the limited timescale of human existence, but changes dramatically -or even slightly - sometime in the future. It is also possible that if there is an omnipotent god, that He(she/it) might decide to change the laws of nature just to fuck with us.
There is a lot more I could say about the problem of induction, but entire books have been written on the subject, and I'm spent. So on to a new topic.
On Buddhism you say:
"you can check buddhism : since the world only exists as part of the mind of people, it is not possible for people to cause accidents due to "not knowing" something, since they know about the entire world. So dig a hold in the sidewalk, camouflage it, and if someone falls into it you're sure buddhism is wrong."
You are confusing buddhism with solipsism: the view that the existence of anything external to your own mind is questionable, at best. So, yes you can easily prove solipsism wrong.
Buddhists don't really believe in a god; in fact, there are many Buddhists who are practicing members of other religions as well. The four main beliefs of Buddhism are the following (from Wikipedia):
Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering in one way or another.
Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures of all kinds. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or people that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.
Suffering ends when craving ends, when one is freed from desire. This is achieved by eliminating all delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment.
Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.
economists may not be right all the time, but they're more right than the average Joe the Plumber.
Actually, there have been studies (I forget how many) that showed that when it comes to predicting what a market (i.e. an economy) will do, people with Ph.D's in economics do no better than "average Joe the Plumber".
For further reading see:
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, "The Black Swan"
and
Benoit Mandelbrot, "The (Mis)Behavior of Markets"
Slashdot Mirror
There are many people who enjoy teaching, but won't consider it because of the pay. Teaching is one of those jobs that is a last resort for many people.
Sure, raising pay will attract worse teachers, but it will also attract better teachers. That means a larger pool of teachers to draw from, more competition for jobs, and an overall increase in quality.
Why does a teacher's underlying motives matter? I hear this argument all the time, and it makes absolutely no sense. If they do an excellent job, then it shouldn't matter if they do it for the money.
Would you rather have an effective teacher who only does it for the salary, or someone who LOVES teaching, but is absolutely horrid at it?
I do, I do! Here's an example: Walking down the street in mid-October, the trees looked beautiful in full color to Julie.
\sarcasm I know, TF2 is racist against Scottish people. Oh, just because the Demoman is Scottish, he has to be an alcoholic? Those bigots over at valve better get their act together.
Could that second bullet point about Buddhism be rephrased as follows?: "Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures, such as certain sense of existence or selfhood. Thus if you think you exist or have a self, then you are causing yourself pain."
If so, then I have a problem with Buddhism. (Namely, I rather like the idea that I exist, and I don't believe giving up my sense of self is the best way to end my suffering; or if it is, then ending my suffering is not such a great idea.) Else, please explain the difference (besides me chopping out the other examples of worldly pleasures).
No they are different statements. First of all pain and suffering are different concepts entirely. While it is true that pain can sometimes cause suffering, this is not always the case. Secondly, Buddhists believe that everything that exists is in a constant state of flux (this belief is called impermanence) which is one reason why clinging to worldly possessions causes suffering; they are impermanent, and eventually they will be lost. The concept of self implies something that is permanent and unchanging. If you read carefully, the second bullet point says that clinging to a certain sense of existence causes suffering. Here's what wikipedia says on the subject:
Anatta (PÄli) or anÄtman (Sanskrit) refers to the notion of "not-self". In Indian philosophy, the concept of a self is called Ätman (that is, "soul" or metaphysical self), which refers to an unchanging, permanent essence conceived by virtue of existence. This concept and the related concept of Brahman, the Vedantic monistic ideal, which was regarded as an ultimate Ätman for all beings, were indispensable for mainstream Indian metaphysics, logic, and science; for all apparent things there had to be an underlying and persistent reality, akin to a Platonic form. Buddhists reject all these concepts of Ätman, emphasizing not permanence, but changeability. Therefore all concepts of a substantial personal self are incorrect, and formed in the realm of ignorance. In the Nikayas, anatta is not meant as a metaphysical assertion, but as an approach for gaining release from suffering. In fact, the Buddha rejected both of the metaphysical assertions "I have a self" and "I have no self" as ontological views that bind one to suffering.[53] By analyzing the constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas") of a person (or object), the practitioner comes to the conlusion, that neither the respective parts, nor the person as a whole comprise a self.
Note here that the Buddha rejected both statements "I have a self" and "I have no self".
One example of how clinging to your sense of self might cause you suffering is the following: You will die one day, and your "sense of self" will end; thus, as you cling vainly to your sense of self, you will be suffering. This is only one example, and I'm sure it's not the best, but I'm sure that you can think of another.
I respect the fact that Buddhism might not be right for you. In my original post, I was not trying to push Buddhism on anyone, or assert that it's correct in all aspects. I was merely trying to correct another poster's mistake. I encourage you to read more about Buddhism and educate yourself about its beliefs and practices, if only to be able to know exactly what it is you are rejecting. Wikipedia is a good start.
Also, I take issue with this wording: "Science is based on faith that the laws of nature are omnipresent and universal" Science is based on trust that the laws of nature are omnipresent and universal. Trust is that which is accepted based on evidence. Faith is that which is accepted without evidence.
I agree with you 100%. As I said to someone else, I shouldn't have used the word 'faith'. 'Trust' is a much better word to use there.
Buddhism is a lot more than that. I just quoted the "Four Noble Truths" of Buddhism. I'm far from an expert on either Buddhism or Stoicism, but from what I've read (on Wikipedia) the two are quite different from each other. The only similarities that I can see after a cursory glance are that both teach self-control and discipline, although with somewhat different goals in mind.
"In fact with science it is a requirement to always check the assumptions, be a skeptic and never accept any bit of information on faith.
This is why it is so powerful a tool for investigating and understanding the universe."
I agree with you completely. What I was trying to get at in my post was that when it comes down to it, you can never prove any theory with science; you can only disprove it. Anyone can gather strong evidence in support of a theory, but all it takes is one counterexample to prove the theory wrong.
Good point. I should have used the word assumption, rather than faith.
LMAO ... I love xkcd.
Interesting post, and you bring up some really good discussion points.
"One with omnipresence would be easy to prove. What would be accepted as proof of God ? There are more than enough structures in space that are omnipresent ... The gravity field of, well, anything, is by definition omnipresent (even though it's not so at every last moment in time, it's just everywhere any human will ever go, or even any photon that will ever touch a human). The laws of nature are omnipresent and eternal. Force carrying particle fields are omnipresent and eternal, ... If you only need a "mechanical" God, the bet is won already."
One needs to be very careful when saying "prove" or any conjugation of the word. Unfortunately the main problem - one that many people, even scientists, ignore - is called the problem of induction (you can learn about it in any Philosophy 101 class), which says that one cannot prove something based on prior experiences (i.e. it's possible that you're prior experiences can lead you to the wrong conclusion). If you forget about the problem of induction, you may be a turkey (Every day, the turkey gets fed by the farmer, and grows to believe that the farmer is a good guy and is looking out for the turkey's best interest. Then one day, right around Thanksgiving ...). Science is based on faith that the laws of nature are omnipresent and universal (they might be), because if they aren't then science fails. It is possible that the laws of nature change on a nonlinear/discontinuous function that appears to be constant on the limited timescale of human existence, but changes dramatically -or even slightly - sometime in the future. It is also possible that if there is an omnipotent god, that He(she/it) might decide to change the laws of nature just to fuck with us.
There is a lot more I could say about the problem of induction, but entire books have been written on the subject, and I'm spent. So on to a new topic.
On Buddhism you say:
"you can check buddhism : since the world only exists as part of the mind of people, it is not possible for people to cause accidents due to "not knowing" something, since they know about the entire world. So dig a hold in the sidewalk, camouflage it, and if someone falls into it you're sure buddhism is wrong."
You are confusing buddhism with solipsism: the view that the existence of anything external to your own mind is questionable, at best. So, yes you can easily prove solipsism wrong.
Buddhists don't really believe in a god; in fact, there are many Buddhists who are practicing members of other religions as well. The four main beliefs of Buddhism are the following (from Wikipedia):
I heard that he's an alien from the planet Tralfamadore and is actually a pseudo-human cyborg, who can see in four-dimensions. ...so it goes.
economists may not be right all the time, but they're more right than the average Joe the Plumber.
Actually, there have been studies (I forget how many) that showed that when it comes to predicting what a market (i.e. an economy) will do, people with Ph.D's in economics do no better than "average Joe the Plumber". For further reading see: Nassim Nicholas Taleb, "The Black Swan" and Benoit Mandelbrot, "The (Mis)Behavior of Markets"