Tyrrany versus Freedom

[I Miss Trudeau]

You seriously can't get your head around this, can you?

Rather, I think the problem is your inability for self critical thought.

In order for all humans to have liberty

You've yet to provide a basis for why all humans ought to have liberty, and furthermore, why the liberty of other individuals is any of my concern. Of course, you won't do this because you can't. The majority moral philosophers have long since abandoned the project that you're undertaking because it is entirely fruitless.

the natural ending-points of that liberty are 1) where it infringes on another's liberty (the only way around that is to say that some humans are more deserving than others, which is logically indefensible)

Its not logically indefensible in the least. Repugnant, perhaps, but not inconsistent. At any rate, the easiest way around this is to reject the entire premise from the get go.

It doesn't even need saying. If you think you can construct an argument against this, please try.

Whoa...wait a minute. You're the one making these assertions. YOU construct an argument to support them.

It isn't enforcing. Such a situation is merely a defence against aggression and the defender would not be trying to enforce anything on the aggressor, just to prevent an infringement of his rights without reciprocation.

This claim has been so thoroughly refuted that it literally pains me to see it yet again.

So far, Thelonius (and Trudeau) your only avenue of attack against libertarianism has been that you think there is no such thing as morality and human action should be limited by nothing but practical possibility.

More to the point, I've merely attacked your conception of morality.

Therefore, you reject a priori rights

Of course I do. I also reject your nonsensical claim that human behavior can be known a priori, but thats neither here nor there.

However, your arguments elsewhere in this forum clearly show that you don't take this argument seriously. If you two don't pay any attention to your arguments, why should I, exactly?

Nonsense.

[Hugo]

You've yet to provide a basis for why all humans ought to have liberty, and furthermore, why the liberty of other individuals is any of my concern.

No, I have provided that argument. See above. See also the quote from Murray Rothbard. You've not been paying attention, so it's unsurprising that you're five pages behind in this argument.

The majority moral philosophers have long since abandoned the project that you're undertaking because it is entirely fruitless.

Mention some names. How do you know it's the majority? What moral philosophers have you studied and what are their major theories?

Its not logically indefensible in the least.

Then defend it. Convince me that some humans are more worthy than others.

Whoa...wait a minute. You're the one making these assertions. YOU construct an argument to support them.

As I said, I have done so. In debate it is customary to posit a counter-argument. I'm waiting for your counter-argument.

This claim has been so thoroughly refuted that it literally pains me to see it yet again.

Where? How? Quote, link or repeat, please.

Of course I do. I also reject your nonsensical claim that human behavior can be known a priori, but thats neither here nor there.

Quote me saying that human behaviour can be known a priori, please, or stop putting words in my mouth.

Nonsense.

It isn't nonsense. You've argued for social justice, taxing corporations heavily, wealth redistribution, international peace, etc. All of these things are completely contrary to the "law-of-the-jungle" ideas you're putting forward now. If you really supported them, then you could not assert that the weaker members of our society could have any rights to "social justice" that they could not assert for themselves. You shouldn't see any problem with corporations exploiting people, with the gap between rich and poor growing ever wider, with some people living in multi-million-dollar mansions while others starve and die of exposure in the streets, with the US military flattening villages and towns in Iraq, or with the killing and destruction in the Sudan. All of those examples are of the strong exploiting the weak, which according to you is ethically acceptable, but which you rail against anyway. So basically, you don't believe what you are saying, and again, if you don't take yourself seriously, why am I to?

Not really, I heard the Dalai Lama speak on TV a while back espousing the idea that every thing on the planet is 'sentient' (including rocks, trees, etc), and therefore deserving of existence.

That wasn't what you said. You told me that the purpose of life is "to be". The Buddhists believe that the purpose of life is "not to be", that all life is suffering and the goal of any living entity is to cease to live, and exit the living world. And there are 350 million of them, so your idea that there is any objective and a priori purpose to life is thus proven false.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

And there are 350 million of them, so your idea that there is any objective and a priori purpose to life is thus proven false.

That proves nothing, for faith is not proof.

QUOTE

Not really, I heard the Dalai Lama speak on TV a while back espousing the idea that every thing on the planet is 'sentient' (including rocks, trees, etc), and therefore deserving of existence.

That wasn't what you said. You told me that the purpose of life is "to be".

Correct, I was quoting the Dalai Lama, on what I believe his take on the situation was.

The 'Four Noble Truths' of Buddhism are supposedly: that existence is sorrowful and impermanent; that the roots of existence are desire and ignorance, which lead to rebirth;, that nirvana, or transcendence, can be attained by overcoming these causes, and that the way to accomplish this goal is through the eightfold path of right views, right speech, yadda, yadda, yadda.

My views are similar, though not the same. Overcoming the impermanence is the real 'purpose' to life, and I don't believe in all the 'Karma' rubbish. As to the rest of those who don't pursue the goal, they can be left behind, without 'transgressing their rights'.

[Hugo]

That proves nothing, for faith is not proof.

I never said it was. However, if you are going to say "the purpose of life is to be", and the Buddhists say, "the purpose of life is to cease to be", one of you has to be wrong. Go ahead and try to establish which, if you want - the arguments against Buddhism haven't swayed 350m Buddhists, and the arguments for it haven't swayed everyone else. Bear in mind that your personal beliefs are meaningless here, and only objective, substantial proof will be sufficient. However, do consider that while things like the atomic weight of copper or the wavelengths of visible light have been discovered and are now agreed upon, none of the multitudinous attempts to "discover" the meaning of life have ever reached anything even vaguely resembling such a consensus or irreproachability. I'd ask you to ponder whether or not that could mean there is no meaning to life.

Alternatively, the purpose of life is whatever the living deem it to be, which is the libertarian stance, and one that necessitates libertarian rights theory if it isn't to be denied to some of humanity. Basically, this would say that you are right, but only for yourself, and the Buddhists are right, but only for themselves. The meaning of life is like beauty or goodness: it's entirely in the eye of the beholder, and no attempt to objectively define it will ever be successful.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE

That proves nothing, for faith is not proof.

I never said it was

Not in those words, but you implied I was wrong by virtue of the number of believers, by saying...

And there are 350 million of them, so your idea that there is any objective and a priori purpose to life is thus proven false.

if you are going to say "the purpose of life is to be", and the Buddhists say, "the purpose of life is to cease to be", one of you has to be wrong.

The I will say that the Buddhists are 'demonstrably' wrong. Besides, 350,000,000 doesn't mean squat, all I have to do is prove Buddha wrong. As I shall.

My 'theory', or 'analytic dissection of that which is', is both empirically and a priori, a demonstrable truth. Here goes....

'To be' or being, is divisible by it's boundaries. That which 'does be' is surrounded by an infinite assortment of that which does not be. Even 'cogito ergo sum' means that you are what you are and not what you're not. For example, before me is a computer, but there can only be one thing that is occupying that space...ergo there is an infinite number of things that aren't. Sixteen pails of buffalo snot, for instance. A blow up doll with oral and rectal orifices, and a face fashioned after Ronald Reagan (that one is in my closet, so I know it isn't here lol) is another example.

One can only profess 'cogito ergo sum' if one does be. One cannot make this claim from a position of 'not being'. The 'Sixteen Pails of Buffalo Snot' (that isn't before you, along with the infinite other things) cannot claim to you..."I am not" (Just "I am snot", lol).

Evolution would not occur if the meaning of life was 'not to be'. Evolution means "to be, more efficiently'. No creature would fill a niche, no creature would evn bother to reproduce, if 'being' was not the goal. (this could only suggest that 'self preservation, and the urge to reproduce' is guided by genes, and not by choice, which would still prove or lend credence to the notion that 'being' is a priori) The theory of 'not being' as the meaning of life would be contradictory to being, for it would imply 'being' is a mistake. Reproduction, then could only be driven by spite or malice toward one's self.

There are indeed some, mostly religious types, that deny evolution, but I would say that there is enough empirical evidence to suggest evolution is an empirical truth. (I visited a few 'creationist' websites, and have seen enough ignorance to add those people to the list of 'those that will be left behind', and it will most likely be of choice. Their problem is not acknowledging the possibility that evolution was 'God's way of covering his tracks', for it does not nor cannot disprove the existence of a 'God' and maybe 'He' wanted it that way, to make 'faith' important).

So, nature woudn't waste time on 'being' nor evolving, if the goal was 'not to be'. It would have geared itself to that end, not the other way around.

[Hugo]

Evolution would not occur if the meaning of life was 'not to be'. Evolution means "to be, more efficiently'

Even if you were perfectly correct, all you have established is that God/nature has equipped us to be. It offers no explanation of why we should be. It also does not deduce that existing is the correct thing to do, as the Buddhists dispute. For instance, God/nature has given us an urge to eat sugar. However, it's bad for us. God/nature has also given us an appendix. We never use it. You have to concede that just because we are endowed with certain drives or qualities does not mean that they are necessary for or defining of our existence.

So, nature woudn't waste time on 'being' nor evolving, if the goal was 'not to be'. It would have geared itself to that end, not the other way around.

You might also consider that the human body is designed to wear out and cease functioning after a limited span of years, which contradicts your point that nature has designed us to be. It seems that, conversely, nature has designed us to die. The ultimate conclusion of human existence is death, not life. Why, therefore, should the unattainable be the actual goal of our existence?

There are indeed some, mostly religious types, that deny evolution, but I would say that there is enough empirical evidence to suggest evolution is an empirical truth.

But which kind of evolution? There are several schools of evolutionary thought, and no consensus as to what evolution is, how it happens or why it happens. Even here, there's no objectivity.

I still see absolutely nothing here that proves Buddha wrong. All he'd say is that you're still being duped by your own desire to live, which, like your urge to eat sugar, is not compatible with your own best interests.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

The ultimate conclusion of human existence is death, not life. Why, therefore, should the unattainable be the actual goal of our existence?

But which kind of evolution? There are several schools of evolutionary thought, and no consensus as to what evolution is, how it happens or why it happens.

The 'evolution' I refer to is that of overcoming obstacles to 'being' which were previously insurmountable. Adaptation (or evolution) allows creatures to do things to successfully 'be' that otherwise would have killed them. The advantage humans have is an awareness of these obstacles( an evolution of the mind), and our goal is immortality. There are advancements being made in this field, (arresting cellular degeneration, etc) which do indicate that" when an end is chosen, the path to it becomes apparent". Death is but a previously (and current, but possibly temporary) insurmountable obstacle on the path to 'always being'.

[Hugo]

This still doesn't address anything I've said. The development of the food industry and division of labour have also enabled us to consume massive quantities of refined sugar, which we have a natural drive to do. Does that mean, then, that one of the primary goals of humanity must be to consume tons of sugar? I'd say it doesn't.

Therefore, it's also impossible to say that since medical technology extends our lifespan, and since we have a natural desire to live, that means the goal of life is to continue living. Just as the drive to eat sugar is usually defeating to what you would say are a human's best interests (to be, since it causes disease and premature death), and just as the sugar-product industry is facilitating that drive, so also the Buddhists may be right when they say that the goal of living is to escape life, and what life offers is but a distraction and a hindrance in attaining that goal.

Your argument assumes its conclusion as a premise. You say that the goal of life is to continue living, and that this is proven by evolution and developments that permit us to live longer. However, this assumes that continued life must be the goal, otherwise evolution and extended lifespans wouldn't be a development at all. You still haven't proven anything. I think your boast that you could refute the Buddha was made in haste!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Your argument assumes its conclusion as a premise. You say that the goal of life is to continue living, and that this is proven by evolution and developments that permit us to live longer.

Yes, I do say this, but I do not use the technological developments as proof, but merely as a refutation that life is (or rather, will always be) impermanent.

The development of the food industry and division of labour have also enabled us to consume massive quantities of refined sugar, which we have a natural drive to do. Does that mean, then, that one of the primary goals of humanity must be to consume tons of sugar? I'd say it doesn't.

Good lord man, you must be kidding. You can't seriously be arguing that having a 'sweet tooth' is a plausible refutation for the nature of being!?

Suicide, too, is a common occurence that shorten's a life-span, but that 'proves' nothing either. According to the buddhists, then, our goal for living would be to commit suicide at the earliest possible opportunity, which we both know isn't really the case.

[Hugo]

Yes, I do say this, but I do not use the technological developments as proof, but merely as a refutation that life is (or rather, will always be) impermanent.

Assuming that the only cause of death is old age. However, the statistics seem to show that life is rather fragile and the human body is quite vulnerable to trauma. It seems to me that the risk-taking nature of human beings means that we'll have to deal with our own mortality indefinitely. Again, this refutes the notion that our goal is to live, because humans are instinctively driven to do a great many things likely to cause an early death.

Good lord man, you must be kidding. You can't seriously be arguing that having a 'sweet tooth' is a plausible refutation for the nature of being!?

Strawman. I'm arguing that it refutes the notion that having a desire to live, procreate and preserve the self means the true goal of humanity is to do any of those things any more than having a desire to eat sugar means the true goal of humanity is to eat sugar.

According to the buddhists, then, our goal for living would be to commit suicide at the earliest possible opportunity, which we both know isn't really the case.

Another strawman. I think we both know that that isn't really what Buddhism teaches at all.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Assuming that the only cause of death is old age. However, the statistics seem to show that life is rather fragile and the human body is quite vulnerable to trauma. It seems to me that the risk-taking nature of human beings means that we'll have to deal with our own mortality indefinitely.

I'll agree with you here. However,

Again, this refutes the notion that our goal is to live, because humans are instinctively driven to do a great many things likely to cause an early death.

I will disagree that this is a viable refutation. Were old age and death not inevitable, people would not take as many risks as they do now. The old saying, "if at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving" would be even more true. People like living, and for some, risk taking is 'living'. However, when one gambles anything, they look at what they can stand to lose. The possibility of immortality can skew the stakes infinte-fold.

it refutes the notion that having a desire to live, procreate and preserve the self means the true goal of humanity is to do any of those things any more than having a desire to eat sugar means the true goal of humanity is to eat sugar.

As far as the 'will to be' for all things goes, your argument is the strawman. As with the buddhists. 'Being' is, in and of itself, diametric to the 'will to not be', as would be procreation (which would be somewhat unnecessary with immortality) and evolution.

[Hugo]

People like living, and for some, risk taking is 'living'.

No. You're confusing enjoying life with living. The two aren't always compatible. Some would rather live a short live and die in a blaze of hedonism, others would prefer comfort and old age. This is what I'm trying to get across to you: the objective of life is subjective.

However, when one gambles anything, they look at what they can stand to lose. The possibility of immortality can skew the stakes infinte-fold.

There will never be immortality or the possibility of it. As Chuck Palahniuk said, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero on an infinite timescale. Even if medical technology is capable of treating all diseases and injuries, there will still be accidents where a man is dead within seconds, and medical technology cannot save him because it can't get to him. There are guns, and cars, and farm machinery, and so forth. Lots of people die every year from slipping in the shower. If you live for a thousand years, and shower every day, that's 365,000 opportunities for you to slip in the shower and die. Basically, death comes to all men, and it's always going to be a question of when. The only way around that is to reconstruct the universe so that harm cannot be done to anything by anything - and then it's difficult to see how humans could even live in the first place since our very existence necessitates harm to other things.

On the first count then, your argument is fallacious because the key premise is an unattainable scenario. It's one of those "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" questions. On the second, it is fallacious because it is purely speculative. Since immortality is not achievable we have no way of knowing what effect it will have on risk-taking. There is also no evidence to suggest that risk-taking decreases as longevity increases, which poses a grave concern to your argument.

As far as the 'will to be' for all things goes, your argument is the strawman. As with the buddhists. 'Being' is, in and of itself, diametric to the 'will to not be', as would be procreation (which would be somewhat unnecessary with immortality) and evolution.

This doesn't address the issue of your strawman arguments at all.

You had said, and I quote directly: "this could only suggest that 'self preservation, and the urge to reproduce' is guided by genes, and not by choice, which would still prove or lend credence to the notion that 'being' is a priori".

However, self-preservation and procreation are urges and drives exactly like consumption of sugar.

You also have not addressed the fact that your arguments on procreation and evolution assume their conclusions. You tell me that humanity's goal is "to be" and that is illustrated by these things, however, that presupposes that the goal is "to be" because otherwise procreation and evolution would be hindrances, like wanting to eat sugar or take crazy risks. What is to say that it is not vice-versa, and that the will to live is the incorrect one, and the urge to self-destruction the true goal?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

However, self-preservation and procreation are urges and drives exactly like consumption of sugar

No, they are not 'exactly the same'. There is an innate 'fight or flight' drive from danger associated with self-preservation. There is no 'Do I stand in the headlights or do I eat sugar? drive. Besides, not everyone eats sugar, especially not 'refined sugar'.

There will never be immortality or the possibility of it. As Chuck Palahniuk said, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero on an infinite timescale

This is speculation, though not entirely unbelievable. It does not address the 'will to be for eternity', however.

What is to say that it is not vice-versa, and that the will to live is the incorrect one, and the urge to self-destruction the true goal?

Because if the will of all things was 'not to be', then evolution and choices would be made by all things to not survive. This would lead eventually lead to nothingness, and I dare say that there is ample evidence that the opposite is true.

[Hugo]

No, they are not 'exactly the same'. There is an innate 'fight or flight' drive from danger associated with self-preservation. There is no 'Do I stand in the headlights or do I eat sugar?

Yes, they are the same. Humans are predisposed to consume as much sugar as they can find when they can find it. It's an instinct. This is why chocolate is addictive and people will continue eating it even after they start to feel nauseous. The fight-or-flight drive is another instinct.

Besides, not everyone eats sugar, especially not 'refined sugar'.

No, and every soldier disobeys (or should disobey) his 'fight or flight' instinct. Neither means anything except that humans have the ability to overpower their instincts.

This is speculation, though not entirely unbelievable.

It isn't speculation at all, just simple math. In a given lifetime the chance of having a fatal accident is X. If the lifetime lengthens infinitely, the likelihood of a fatal accident also increases infinitely. An infinite chance is also called "certainty", a probability of 1.

It does not address the 'will to be for eternity', however.

First we need to establish that that will to be is actually the correct instinct. So far, you're not having much luck.

Because if the will of all things was 'not to be', then evolution and choices would be made by all things to not survive.

This is basically a reiteration of your earlier statement and not an address to my point. You are still assuming your conclusion as a premise and cannot demonstrate why any evolution, instinct or choice has to be in aid of a true human goal and not a hindrance.

Basically, you say: "Our purpose is to exist. Many things like evolution and instincts help us achieve our goal of continued existence, therefore, our goal is to continue existing." It's a circular argument.

Analogy: Our purpose is to eat sugar. Our instincts help us achieve our goal of eating sugar, therefore, our goal is to eat more sugar.

Or: Our purpose is to own more material goods. Our instincts help us achieve our goal of owning more material goods, therefore, our goal is to own more material goods.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

First we need to establish that that will to be is actually the correct instinct

According to whom? Not the buddhists, apparently, but I say that they are mistaken.

Evolution would not occur if the meaning of life was 'not to be'. Evolution means "to be, more efficiently'

Even if you were perfectly correct, all you have established is that God/nature has equipped us to be

This is forward and linear, not cyclical.

Yes, they are the same. Humans are predisposed to consume as much sugar as they can find when they can find it. It's an instinct. This is why chocolate is addictive and people will continue eating it even after they start to feel nauseous.

I wish you'd pick another example. This one simply isn't as universal as you seem to think. I don't eat chocolate at all. (well, not entirely true, I do get some as gifts from customers at Christmas, but give almost all of it away to other customers and staff)

cannot demonstrate why any evolution, instinct or choice has to be in aid of a true human goal and not a hindrance.

Not all 'evolution', instinct or choice is, in fact, beneficial to the end goal. Some indeed, are 'dead ends'.

[Hugo]

According to whom? Not the buddhists, apparently, but I say that they are mistaken.

And they say you are mistaken. My argument is that there is no conclusive argument and no irrefutable proof. The very meaning of the word "purpose" is subjective. A human purpose exists only with thinking humans. Copper, however, retains its attributes regardless.

I wish you'd pick another example. This one simply isn't as universal as you seem to think. I don't eat chocolate at all.

Of course, and there are large numbers of people who deliberately kill themselves every year. Do you feel that invalidates your point about the purpose of life being "to be"?

Not all 'evolution', instinct or choice is, in fact, beneficial to the end goal. Some indeed, are 'dead ends'.

How do you reconcile that with your argument?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE

Not all 'evolution', instinct or choice is, in fact, beneficial to the end goal. Some indeed, are 'dead ends'.

How do you reconcile that with your argument?

Without evolution, or the need for it, the implication would be that everything is already perfect. Then there would be no need to 'try'. Yet all things try 'to be, more efficiently'. This, however, is immensely influenced by environment. (Humans have tainted the natural course of things, and we see some 'evolution' or adaptation occuring to cope with the changes to environment that mankind himself has created)

Nature is fragile and fallible. What does live on, however, and what encompasses all existence, is the 'will to be'. That doesn't mean that the ability or the favourable environment is there, and some 'experiments' don't work. That is the test. The end goal is 'to be', (or should I say 'to be, for eternity') and nature and humans experiment. Any scientific test is deemed successful if it produces the desired results, consistently.

If the Buddhists believe that the goal is 'not to be', and that one is subject to reincarnation until one achieves perfection, what are the standards that they apply to 'getting it right'? The only thing in common with all things is 'being', (if one were reincarnated as a radish or a yak, for example) so 'being' is the only common 'means test'.

[Hugo]

I thought perhaps you had some new arguments, but I was wrong. This is just repetition of your earlier viewpoints without development.

Without evolution, or the need for it, the implication would be that everything is already perfect.

The assumption that perfection is either static or objective isn't one I'll just accept without an explanation.

Nature is fragile and fallible. What does live on, however, and what encompasses all existence, is the 'will to be'. That doesn't mean that the ability or the favourable environment is there, and some 'experiments' don't work.

You are still assuming your conclusion. You say that evolutionary success proves that the goal is to be, and evolutionary failures are just attempts at success gone awry. But whether or not they are successes and failures depends upon the purpose of life being 'to be'! You still have not established that what you call success and failure aren't actually reversed. Your argument presupposes what you are trying to prove as an essential premise and is therefore invalid.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

You say that evolutionary success proves that the goal is to be,

No, I don't say that, and perhaps this is the source of the confusion. I do not use the criteria of success as 'proof'. I am saying the absolute universality of the attempt is the proof. (suicide be damned, it is a cognitive choice, usually made of despair and mental defect)

The assumption that perfection is either static or objective isn't one I'll just accept without an explanation.

It'll have to be later, but yes, static.

[Hugo]

I do not use the criteria of success as 'proof'. I am saying the absolute universality of the attempt is the proof.

But it isn't universal. You just told me it's not universal. Look:

Not all 'evolution', instinct or choice is, in fact, beneficial to the end goal. Some indeed, are 'dead ends'.

-- Theloniusfleabag, Jun 13 2005, 07:36 AM

Besides, you assume the motives behind these attempts are 'to be further', when that is precisely what you are trying to prove with this example. You're still assuming your conclusion. You still fail to address the point that evolutionary 'dead ends' could actually be the true successes, and the individual creatures wiped out through evolutionary 'failure' may actually have achieved what 'successful' creatures have not but were supposed to.

suicide be damned, it is a cognitive choice, usually made of despair and mental defect

If the will can override what you claim are natural inclinations, and humans naturally have this free will, what makes you think that the purpose of human existence is not to successfully override natural inclinations (like eating too much sugar) and cease to be?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE

I do not use the criteria of success as 'proof'. I am saying the absolute universality of the attempt is the proof.

But it isn't universal. You just told me it's not universal. Look:

QUOTE

Not all 'evolution', instinct or choice is, in fact, beneficial to the end goal. Some indeed, are 'dead ends'.

I speak of the attempt, not the success or failure. We could also say that the failure is universal, for to the best of human knowledge, all things change or die. The only exception, I hope, would be existence itself.

All things are surrounded by an infinite amount of things that do not be, or in other words, surrounded by nothing. So, all things will either join infinite not being, or strive to remain within the boundaries of being. 'Not being', therefore, cannot be a goal, as it represents no achievement or reward.

[Hugo]

I speak of the attempt, not the success or failure.

But an attempt needs a goal. You cannot attempt nothing, to attempt to get nothing is not to attempt. You assume the nature of the goal but that is the very thing you must prove.

All things are surrounded by an infinite amount of things that do not be, or in other words, surrounded by nothing. So, all things will either join infinite not being, or strive to remain within the boundaries of being. 'Not being', therefore, cannot be a goal, as it represents no achievement or reward.

Insufficient explanation. Why does not being have no achievement or reward? Buddhists say it does. What do you mean by 'nothing'? Empty space?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

What do you mean by 'nothing'? Empty space?

Sixteen pails of buffalo snot.

But an attempt needs a goal. You cannot attempt nothing, to attempt to get nothing is not to attempt.

Thank you Hugo, this is what I was trying to explain. Yet the buddhists say that getting 'nothingness' is the goal.

Why does not being have no achievement or reward? Buddhists say it does

That is why I say that they are wrong. 'Not being' is the absence of everything, including a goal or reward. Again, 'being' means being surrounded on all boundaries by 'not being' (or, 'nothing', or if you like , an infinite number of things that do not be, in the same place at the same time, such as sixteen pails of buffalo snot)

I think, personally, that the profundity of Siddhartha's encounter with a sick, a dying, and a dead man tainted as well as enlightened. He claims that the goal achieved by 'not being' is the end of suffering. But you get that anyway.

[Hugo]

Thank you Hugo, this is what I was trying to explain. Yet the buddhists say that getting 'nothingness' is the goal.

But this is not attempting nothing. This is attempting to attain nothing, because the Buddhists see nothingness not as something we already have but as something that one has to achieve.

For instance, I have two oranges. If I want to have no oranges, I actually have to do something to get there. I can give them away, throw them in the sea, leave them on the ground and run away, but I need to do something, and abandoning the oranges is my goal.

That is why I say that they are wrong. 'Not being' is the absence of everything, including a goal or reward.

Right - once you achieve the goal you have no more goals. Once you cross the finish line, no need to keep running.