What do you mean? They were used as examples of random groups of people. They’re good examples of that, right? Just like postmen, cyclists, gingers, diabetics… They’re groups of people that have one thing in common and can be completely different in many other aspects.
You’re right, in many ways it isn’t, but I don’t think it’s relevant in this context. We’re talking generalization when it comes to random groups. When you’re a cyclist, it’s reasonable to think you like cycling. It’s not reasonable to judge your morality, taste or family status. It works for all kinds of groups. We’re talking about the fact that groups of any kind are not homogeneous.
Some groups are very much homogeneous by design. Religious dimwits and police come to mind. I judge the morality of those groups all the time and I sleep fine. Meanwhile I feel kinda bad for swiping whichever way is ‘reject’ on dating apps. I’ll agree that is not right for most groups. But groups founded on hatred (police and rekigion) or for the purpose of being obnoxious/attention seeking (ABATE motorcycle chapters) can absolutely be generalized.
Now keep in mind we’re discussing in a thread where the top level comment was from an admitted Nazi sympathizer.
In some respects, yes. In the respect they are talking about in this comment, not so much.
The point of their comment is that even if you’re born with something in common with another person, say both of you are born left handed, what else can we infer about both of those left handers? Nothing, nothing at all. Sure they may have other things in common, they may both like the same music, but that isn’t due to their left handedness.
In some ways you can infer a few things about a group, for the book club example, you know they like books and that’s it, if it’s a science fiction book club then you can also infer they like science fiction, but can you tell me the race, age, sexuality, gender, food preferences, music preferences, TV preferences, medical history, yadda yadda, anything else about all the members of that book club? No, you can’t. Because (and this was the point of their comment) book clubs and those in them (and all other groups that aren’t used for examples here too) are not a monolith incapable of individual thought.
One could say the same thing about Christianity. Jesus basically ripped his notes from the Stoics.
But the answer is that in both cases there’s a lot of supernatural stuff in the texts. When you look at the totality of the scriptures and appended lore Buddha isn’t just some wise man who had and epiphany, while early scriptures were closer to that interpretation a lot of the later scriptures that describe enlightenment and elaborate on it… it’s basically more describing that people who reach enlightenment get superpowers, mostly omniscience but also like a bunch of other stuff. There’s also a lot of writings and different sects that elaborate on the afterlife and how one earns their place there. Like there is legitimately a Buddhist version of hell and it looks fairly familiar to the Christian one because both got cross contaminated with Hinduism’s Naraka and depictions of the Greek afterlife just like Christianity did.
A philosophy I think is a discussion about observations of life and how it is lived and particularly opinions on how it is lived well. When you start appending supernatural rewards and punishments to that discussion you get a religion or a cult.
I really disagree here. Religion and book clubs are essentially special interest groups that involve choice to join or continue participating in.
Religion is for weak minded people.
Edit: I knew I should have trusted my gut when I got weird vibes from your post. Then I saw your Nazi apologia below.
What do you mean? They were used as examples of random groups of people. They’re good examples of that, right? Just like postmen, cyclists, gingers, diabetics… They’re groups of people that have one thing in common and can be completely different in many other aspects.
Being part of a group of your choosing is very different from being part of a group you are born into.
You’re right, in many ways it isn’t, but I don’t think it’s relevant in this context. We’re talking generalization when it comes to random groups. When you’re a cyclist, it’s reasonable to think you like cycling. It’s not reasonable to judge your morality, taste or family status. It works for all kinds of groups. We’re talking about the fact that groups of any kind are not homogeneous.
Some groups are very much homogeneous by design. Religious dimwits and police come to mind. I judge the morality of those groups all the time and I sleep fine. Meanwhile I feel kinda bad for swiping whichever way is ‘reject’ on dating apps. I’ll agree that is not right for most groups. But groups founded on hatred (police and rekigion) or for the purpose of being obnoxious/attention seeking (ABATE motorcycle chapters) can absolutely be generalized.
Now keep in mind we’re discussing in a thread where the top level comment was from an admitted Nazi sympathizer.
In some respects, yes. In the respect they are talking about in this comment, not so much.
The point of their comment is that even if you’re born with something in common with another person, say both of you are born left handed, what else can we infer about both of those left handers? Nothing, nothing at all. Sure they may have other things in common, they may both like the same music, but that isn’t due to their left handedness.
In some ways you can infer a few things about a group, for the book club example, you know they like books and that’s it, if it’s a science fiction book club then you can also infer they like science fiction, but can you tell me the race, age, sexuality, gender, food preferences, music preferences, TV preferences, medical history, yadda yadda, anything else about all the members of that book club? No, you can’t. Because (and this was the point of their comment) book clubs and those in them (and all other groups that aren’t used for examples here too) are not a monolith incapable of individual thought.
Thank you, yes, exactly.
What’s your problem with Buddhism?
What makes Buddhism a religion and not just a philosophy?
One could say the same thing about Christianity. Jesus basically ripped his notes from the Stoics.
But the answer is that in both cases there’s a lot of supernatural stuff in the texts. When you look at the totality of the scriptures and appended lore Buddha isn’t just some wise man who had and epiphany, while early scriptures were closer to that interpretation a lot of the later scriptures that describe enlightenment and elaborate on it… it’s basically more describing that people who reach enlightenment get superpowers, mostly omniscience but also like a bunch of other stuff. There’s also a lot of writings and different sects that elaborate on the afterlife and how one earns their place there. Like there is legitimately a Buddhist version of hell and it looks fairly familiar to the Christian one because both got cross contaminated with Hinduism’s Naraka and depictions of the Greek afterlife just like Christianity did.
A philosophy I think is a discussion about observations of life and how it is lived and particularly opinions on how it is lived well. When you start appending supernatural rewards and punishments to that discussion you get a religion or a cult.