[MD] Priest's paper terrible rubbish, unfortunately

Wed Feb 15 12:01:35 PST 2012

Mark, Marsha,
I mean, we are in the same boat here. I think we all could be astonished 
why the paper was so bad. There's no need to be judgemental. A professor 
of philosophy even _trying_ to do something like this is a _good_ thing. 
But it is astonishing why he made such a simple mistake.

-Tuukka

15.2.2012 21:58, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
> Mark, Marsha
> hmm. I can sometimes be too mean. But it was reasonable of Marsha to 
> ask for something substantial. I don't yet have the thing I promised. 
> I guess I don't sufficiently distance other people from me, and need 
> to attack them in order to not feel hurt myself, when I perceive them 
> as disappointing. Maybe I need to think about my behavior more.
>
> Anyway, I was annoyed by already taking into account that it's not 
> Marsha's fault the paper was bad. And her defence of the paper... oh 
> wait, she's defenceless, right? I guess I won't start this 
> conversation then. I didn't mean to personally attack. I just tried to 
> find some reason why she reacted in a way I could not understand. What 
> I said may have been somehow difficult to stomach, but I did not say 
> it in a way that was tailored to hurt. I perceived the tone as neutral.
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> 6.2.2012 19:16, 118 kirjoitti:
>> Gee Tuukka,
>> You are so mean to Marsha :-).  Can't you see she is defenseless?
>> Keep in mind that whatever you post will be seen as a personal attack
>> to some.  Having said that, it can be interesting to stir up the
>> hornet's nest.
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On 2/6/12, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>  wrote:
>>> Marsha,
>>> It is as if you were replying to a different message than I sent. Your
>>> response is hysteric, even though this is not quite personal. I get the
>>> feeling that you crave attention from me by seeming vulnerable and
>>> getting upset when nobody even challenged you.
>>>
>>> -Tuukka
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6.2.2012 8:11, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>>> Tuukka,
>>>>
>>>> There always will be some scholar that you can accuse me of being in
>>>> disagreement with.  And there are many subtle differences between 
>>>> schools
>>>> and branches of Buddhism and interpretations of Nagarjuna's many 
>>>> works.
>>>> Do you think all scholars will agree on what RMP has said?  Do you 
>>>> think
>>>> all Jamesian scholars agree on what William James meant?  No!
>>>> Voices-in-unison is not the way of scholarship?  I bet you will find
>>>> scholars who disagree on what Aristotle meant, especially since his
>>>> original writing has never been discovered.  -  I read, I consider, 
>>>> I test
>>>> and investigate ( I am conventionally speaking of course), I meditate,
>>>> and I draw my own conclusions based on my experience, and I leave 
>>>> room for
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> So what is your point?  And why should your opinion/interpretation of
>>>> Priest matter to me?   What kind of academic credentials can you 
>>>> produce
>>>> to validate your opinion that Priest is right, wrong, all of the 
>>>> above or
>>>> none of the above???    And, btw, where's your rubbish?  Do you have
>>>> anything a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e to present?  If your point is to prove me 
>>>> wrong,
>>>> than let me assure you, as one who understands truth to be 
>>>> relative, I am
>>>> never absolutely right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Tuukka 
>>>> Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In addition, Priest ends up claiming, that according to orthodox 
>>>>> Mahayana
>>>>> Buddhism, everything is//samvṛtisatya, and there is no 
>>>>> paramārthasatya.
>>>>> So he denies the Two Truths Doctrine without even mentioning it, 
>>>>> as if he
>>>>> were unaware of such a doctrine.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Tuukka
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.2.2012 2:22, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
>>>>>> Marsha, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> remember the paper by Graham Priest, called Structure of Emptiness?
>>>>>> Cite:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "S'u-nyata-, in the sense we are going to understand it here, is 
>>>>>> simply
>>>>>> the doctrine that /every/ entity that exists has relational 
>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>> There is no entity that has intrinsic existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot think of any Western philosopher who has endorsed 
>>>>>> exactly this
>>>>>> view, but it is orthodox in Maha-ya-na Buddhism. A canonical 
>>>>>> defence of
>>>>>> the view was provided by Na-ga-rjuna, the second century Indian
>>>>>> philosopher, particularily in his text /Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika-/. In
>>>>>> this text, Na-ga-rjuna goes through all the things that one might 
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> to have self-existence, and argues that they do not. Many of the
>>>>>> arguments employed concern the kind of thing in question, such as
>>>>>> matter, time consciousness. But some of the arguments are quite 
>>>>>> general.
>>>>>> Here is one such argument from Chapter 5 (or at least, my 
>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>> of it --- interpreting Na-ga-rjuna is always a sensitive issue).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take an object that one might suppose to have self-existence. 
>>>>>> Since the
>>>>>> argument is quite general, /anything/ will do, but for the sake of
>>>>>> illustration, suppose we take Aristotle. Aristotle had various
>>>>>> properties: having certain parents, being born in Stagrya, being 
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> '???????????', and so on. Now, to be Aristotle is to be the 
>>>>>> bearer of
>>>>>> those properties. Any entity which bore (related to) those 
>>>>>> properties
>>>>>> would /be/ Aristotle. Aristotle, then, does not have 
>>>>>> self-existence: to
>>>>>> be (identical to) Aristotle is to be related to those properties 
>>>>>> in that
>>>>>> way."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just terrible rubbish. He hasn't apparently read
>>>>>> /Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika-. /Na-ga-rjuna says:
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /"If we cannot find an entity with an essence, that does not 
>>>>>> prove the
>>>>>> non-existence of such entities. Some say that an entity that 
>>>>>> changes is
>>>>>> a nonentity."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "To say "it is" is to be attached to essentialism. To say "it is 
>>>>>> not" is
>>>>>> to lapse into nihilism. Therefore, judgments of "it is" or "it is 
>>>>>> not"
>>>>>> are not made by the wise."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The author terribly misrepresents Na-ga-rjuna. I don't know why. 
>>>>>> This is
>>>>>> so obvious, it's not about Buddhism anymore. It's just about 
>>>>>> reading the
>>>>>> damn work you're writing about. Any academic should have done 
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the article was interesting, thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Tuukka
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html