• About me
  • About this blog
  • Comment rules
  • Other writings

Love of All Wisdom

~ Philosophy through multiple traditions

Love of All Wisdom

Category Archives: Action

Becoming good through repetition

12 Sunday Jul 2020

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Flourishing, Greek and Roman Tradition, Meditation, Practice, Virtue

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, Caelan Huntress, Nicolas Bommarito, Śāntideva, Will Durant

I recently attended a remote presentation by Boston University students about how to thrive in the COVID-19 setting. One student rightly stressed the importance of creating good habits and structure. In the chat window, one attender said that advice reminded her of “Aristotle’s quote” that “We are what we repeatedly do.”


That is not a quote I had heard cited before, and it piqued my interest. It sounded quite in keeping with Aristotle’s thought, but seemed like a different idiom from Aristotle’s. Of course, one of the joys of the internet is it is quite easy to look up quotes. So within seconds I found a short essay from a writer named Caelan Huntress who was crushed to discover that, as far as we know, Aristotle did not in fact ever say this.

Continue reading →

The workings of karma, naturalized and otherwise

26 Tuesday May 2020

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Anger, Death, Flourishing, Foundations of Ethics, Hermeneutics, Karma, Mahāyāna, Modernized Buddhism, Natural Science, Psychology, Supernatural

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, Dalai Lama XIV, Evan Thompson, hell, rebirth, Śāntideva, virtue ethics

As noted last time, I don’t identify the philosophical core of the concept of karma with its origins (which are pre-Buddhist), but with the way it functions in Buddhist philosophical texts. There, I submit, the core idea is indeed “that an agent’s good actions and good states of character typically improve that agent’s well-being”.

To show this point I turn to Śāntideva, as one of the most systematic and powerful writers on ethics in the Buddhist tradition. Karma and rebirth pervade his works, more than they do the Pali literature. But his works on karma are not directed to the question Thompson discusses – to the past results of karma as an explanation for present misfortunes. Rather, Śāntideva puts great stress on the future results of karma: the good and bad states that will befall us as a result of our good and bad deeds now. These include the hells, which Śāntideva delights in graphic depictions of. And they also include the results we get in this life. Consider this passage on anger:

Continue reading →

Is karma about why bad things happen to good people?

24 Sunday May 2020

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Death, Early and Theravāda, God, Jainism, Karma, M.T.S.R., Modernized Buddhism, Supernatural

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Evan Thompson, Gananath Obeyesekere, Pali suttas, rebirth, Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha), theodicy, Upaniṣads

Continuing my reply to Evan Thompson, I will focus next on karma, because the reinterpretation of karma is central to my own eudaimonist Buddhism, and therefore it forms a focal point in Thompson’s critique. Karma is Thompson’s example of how I and other Buddhist modernists “recast Buddhist concepts in a way that makes them incongruent with their traditional meanings and functions.” Why? Thompson asserts that eudaimonism is not the core idea of karma, “if ‘core’ means what lies at the heart of the concept’s formation. On the contrary, the core problem, which drove the formation of the concept, is to explain why bad things happen to good people.”

I disagree entirely with this assertion.

Continue reading →

Absurd trolleys

15 Sunday Mar 2020

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Analytic Tradition, Metaphilosophy, Morality, Play, Prejudices and "Intuitions"

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Cyanide and Happiness, Michael Schur, pedagogy, Philippa Foot, technology, trolley problem

It appears that the trolley problem is, as they say, having a moment. Possibly due to its newfound relevance to autonomous cars and other robots – a relevance that would have been entirely science-fictional when Philippa Foot formulated the modern version of the problem in 1967 – it is now making multiple appearances in popular culture. In that respect it is a notable counterpoint to the claim I made years ago that analytic philosophy doesn’t make for good visual media.

Two years ago I noted how the problem is the focus of an excellent episode of Michael Schur’s The Good Place. The Wikipedia entry on the trolley problem lists several other appearance from the past decade. Perhaps most entertainingly of all, the writers of the webcomic Cyanide and Happiness have released a hilarious party game (in the matching style of Apples To Apples or Superfight) called Trial By Trolley.

trial by trolley

Continue reading →

Ethics of disposition, not decision

18 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Analytic Tradition, Early and Theravāda, Foundations of Ethics, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Morality, Psychology, Unconscious Mind, Virtue

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

Andrew Ollett, Aristotle, Buddhaghosa, Damien Keown, Daniel Kahneman, Śāntideva, trolley problem, virtue ethics

I’ve been thinking further on the decision/capacity distinction first articulated by Andrew Ollett, and I want to take a further step. So far Andrew and I have merely acknowledged the existence of this distinction – identifying different thinkers on either side and exploring the distinction’s implications for philosophical methodology. But I am, at this point, ready to make a more substantive claim: the “capacity” approaches are better. In ethics, we should be “capacity” rather than “decision” thinkers. I had stressed before that we can and should address the “capacity” approach philosophically and not merely historically; now I want to actually do so, and say that it is correct. Continue reading →

On the very idea of Buddhist ethics

17 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Analytic Tradition, Early and Theravāda, Foundations of Ethics, Free Will, Greek and Roman Tradition, Hermeneutics, M.T.S.R., Metaphilosophy, Modernized Buddhism, Morality, Self

≈ 27 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, Buddhaghosa, Christopher Gowans, Damien Keown, David Chapman, John Rawls, Maria Heim, Peter Harvey, virtue ethics

I’ve recently been reading Christopher Gowans’s Buddhist Moral Philosophy: An Introduction. It is an introductory textbook of a sort that has not previously been attempted, and one that becomes particularly interesting in the light of David Chapman’s critiques of Buddhist ethics. While Gowans and Chapman would surely disagree about the value and usefulness of Buddhist ethics, they actually show remarkable agreement on a proposition that could still be quite controversial: namely, that the term “Buddhist ethics” or “Buddhist moral philosophy” names above all a Yavanayāna phenomenon. That is: the way that Gowans and Chapman use the terms “Buddhist ethics” and “Buddhist moral philosophy”, what they name is a contemporary Western (and primarily academic) activity, even if it is one conducted primarily by professed Buddhists. Continue reading →

How a sensible person could hold the radical Zhuangist view

09 Sunday Jun 2013

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Daoism, Flourishing, Hermeneutics, M.T.S.R., Metaphilosophy, Serenity, Unconscious Mind

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Chris Fraser, Śāntideva, Thomas Kuhn, Zhuangzi

Last week I critiqued Chris Fraser‘s readiness to discard the “implausible, unappealing radical” view that he found in the Zhuangzi. My reflections there were general and methodological. Here I want to plunge into the details and see what might happen if we read the Zhuangzi in the way that I recommended there, rather than the way that Fraser takes in his article.

Let me be clear that what follows is the work of a rank beginner in the study of Daoism. Indeed, most of what I know of the Zhuangzi comes from Fraser himself. So I acknowledge that my attempted interpretation here may be totally wrong. But just based on the passages Fraser himself translates, I find it a more satisfying interpretation than the one that Fraser takes. Continue reading →

On the ethics of robots

10 Sunday Jun 2012

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Analytic Tradition, Consciousness, Free Will, Morality

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

David Chalmers, Economist, Immanuel Kant, nonhuman animals, obligation, technology, trolley problem, utilitarianism

Last week the Economist ran a cover story on a philosophical topic: the ethics of robots. Not just the usual ethical question one might ask about the ethics of developing robots in given situation, but the ethics of the robots themselves. The Economist is nothing if not pragmatic, and would not ask such a question if it weren’t one of immediate importance. As it turns out, we are increasingly programming machines to make decisions for us, such as military robots and Google’s driverless cars. And those will need to make decisions of the sort we have usually viewed as moral or ethical:

Should a drone fire on a house where a target is known to be hiding, which may also be sheltering civilians? Should a driverless car swerve to avoid pedestrians if that means hitting other vehicles or endangering its occupants? Should a robot involved in disaster recovery tell people the truth about what is happening if that risks causing a panic? (Economist, 2 June 2012)

Continue reading →

What it means to have a reason for action

29 Sunday Jan 2012

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Analytic Tradition, Biology, Foundations of Ethics, Free Will, God, Greek and Roman Tradition, Morality, Philosophy of Science, Social Science, South Asia

≈ 67 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, Charles Darwin, Drew Schroeder, Friedrich Nietzsche, Immanuel Kant, Talcott Parsons

One of the most fundamental things a philosopher does is to ask why. When someone says “you should do x” or “y is good,” it seems to me, the true lover of wisdom needs to ask why this is the case. If someone tells me I should do something and can’t provide a reason, I see this as grounds for questioning whether it really is something I should do at all. Nietzsche, if he does nothing else, shows us that the things we take as obvious may well not be so.

So what happens when we try to take our reasons all the way down? When we continue asking why we should do anything? We begin to get to a complex meta-ethical question: what constitutes a reason for action? What is it to have a reason to do something? (Warning: this will be an abstract and theoretical post, but it is important to fundamental questions like why we should do anything at all.) Continue reading →

Can collectivities be virtuous?

24 Sunday Apr 2011

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Buddhism, Christianity, Epistemology, Foundations of Ethics, Humility, Philosophy of Science, Politics, Social Science, Virtue

≈ 67 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, Ben (commenter), Carl Sagan, Jabali108 (commenter), Jim Wilton, justice, law, Margaret Thatcher, religion, T.R. (Thill) Raghunath

There’s been a great discussion going on in the comments to last week’s post on humility and science. This week I’m going to focus on only one of the themes mentioned, which takes us in a different direction from that post but is interesting in its own right.

My post recounted Carl Sagan’s claim that although “religions” claimed an ideal of humility, science was actually more humble; I argued that the two were in fact very similar. A comment from Ben acutely pointed out something I had been missing, a way in which Sagan was right that the tradition was different. Sagan, Ben points out, is defending “not the humility of individuals, but the humility of the whole tradition.” Science as a whole is able to admit when it is wrong, in a way that Christianity and Buddhism are not. In a following dialogue, Ben and I agree that science maintains an institutional humility that “religious” traditions do not, though those other traditions likely do a better job of promoting individual humility.

Other commenters took issue with this agreement, however. If you follow the comment threads on this site with any regularity, you will know that Thill and Jim Wilton do not usually agree on very much. But this time, they unanimously condemn the point shared by Ben and myself: “There is a category mistake here,” says Thill. “Traditions cannot be said to be humble or arrogant. Only individuals can be said to be humble or arrogant.”

And this is a question that well deserves further philosophical exploration. Can an institution or a tradition possess a virtue? Can a government be courageous? Can a corporation be honest? Can a tradition be humble? Continue reading →

Welcome to Love of All Wisdom.

I invite you to leave comments on my blog, even - or especially - if I have no idea who you are. Philosophy is a conversation, and I invite you to join it with me; I welcome all comers (provided they follow a few basic rules). I typically make a new post every other Sunday. If you'd like to be notified when a new post is posted, you can get email notifications whenever I add something new via the link further down in this sidebar. You can also follow this blog on Facebook or Twitter. Or if you use RSS, you can get updates through the RSS feed.

Recent Comments

  • Amod Lele on In praise of cultural appropriation
  • Nathan on In praise of cultural appropriation
  • Amod Lele on In praise of cultural appropriation
  • Albert Lin on In praise of cultural appropriation
  • Amod Lele on In praise of cultural appropriation

Post Tags

20th century academia Alasdair MacIntyre Aristotle ascent/descent Augustine autobiography Buddhaghosa Canada conferences Confucius conservatism Disengaged Buddhism Engaged Buddhism Evan Thompson Four Noble Truths Friedrich Nietzsche G.W.F. Hegel gender identity Immanuel Kant intimacy/integrity justice Karl Marx Ken Wilber law Martha Nussbaum Mencius modernity Pali suttas pedagogy Plato rebirth religion Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha) T.R. (Thill) Raghunath technology theodicy Thomas Aquinas Thomas Kuhn Thomas P. Kasulis United States utilitarianism Śaṅkara Śāntideva

Categories

  • African Thought (11)
  • Applied Phil (237)
    • Death (36)
    • Family (34)
    • Food (17)
    • Friends (12)
    • Health (20)
    • Place (21)
    • Play (6)
    • Politics (133)
    • Sex (18)
    • Work (31)
  • Asian Thought (368)
    • Buddhism (265)
      • Early and Theravāda (103)
      • Mahāyāna (111)
      • Modernized Buddhism (78)
    • East Asia (80)
      • Confucianism (51)
      • Daoism (12)
      • Shinto (1)
    • South Asia (125)
      • Bhakti Poets (3)
      • Cārvāka-Lokāyata (5)
      • Epics (15)
      • Jainism (23)
      • Modern Hinduism (35)
      • Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika (6)
      • Sāṃkhya-Yoga (13)
      • Vedānta (33)
      • Vedas and Mīmāṃsā (7)
  • Blog Admin (24)
  • Method (222)
    • M.T.S.R. (128)
    • Metaphilosophy (148)
  • Practical Philosophy (321)
    • Action (10)
    • Aesthetics (37)
    • Emotion (135)
      • Anger (28)
      • Attachment and Craving (20)
      • Compassion (5)
      • Despair (3)
      • Disgust (3)
      • Faith (17)
      • Fear (5)
      • Grief (5)
      • Happiness (46)
      • Hope (14)
      • Pleasure (25)
      • Shame and Guilt (6)
    • External Goods (43)
    • Flourishing (75)
    • Foundations of Ethics (99)
    • Karma (42)
    • Morality (59)
    • Virtue (134)
      • Courage (2)
      • Generosity (10)
      • Gentleness (5)
      • Gratitude (10)
      • Honesty (13)
      • Humility (22)
      • Leadership (4)
      • Mindfulness (12)
      • Patient Endurance (26)
      • Self-Discipline (6)
      • Serenity (24)
      • Zest (4)
  • Practice (101)
    • Karmic Redirection (5)
    • Meditation (28)
    • Monasticism (36)
    • Physical Exercise (2)
    • Prayer (13)
    • Reading and Recitation (10)
    • Rites (19)
    • Therapy (9)
  • Theoretical Philosophy (309)
    • Consciousness (14)
    • Epistemology (102)
      • Certainty and Doubt (14)
      • Prejudices and "Intuitions" (25)
    • Free Will (17)
    • God (61)
    • Hermeneutics (47)
    • Human Nature (25)
    • Logic (27)
      • Dialectic (15)
    • Metaphysics (84)
    • Philosophy of Language (17)
    • Self (60)
    • Supernatural (48)
    • Truth (57)
    • Unconscious Mind (13)
  • Uncategorized (1)
  • Western Thought (389)
    • Analytic Tradition (87)
    • Christianity (134)
      • Early Factions (8)
      • Protestantism (20)
      • Roman Catholicism (45)
    • French Tradition (46)
    • German Tradition (81)
    • Greek and Roman Tradition (103)
      • Epicureanism (23)
      • Neoplatonism (2)
      • Pre-Socratics (5)
      • Skepticism (1)
      • Sophists (6)
      • Stoicism (17)
    • Islam (34)
      • Mu'tazila (2)
      • Salafi (3)
      • Sufism (8)
    • Judaism (33)
    • Natural Science (81)
      • Biology (18)
      • Philosophy of Science (46)
    • Social Science (131)
      • Economics (24)
      • Psychology (51)

Recent Posts

  • In praise of cultural appropriation
  • Literature as representation and rasa
  • The Mary Ellen Carter and the secret of happiness
  • Would eternal life be meaningless?
  • Defending the removal of suffering

Popular posts

  • One and a half noble truths?
  • Wishing George W. Bush well
  • Do Speculative Realists want us to be Chinese?
  • Why I am not a right-winger
  • On faith in tooth relics

Basic concepts

  • Ascent and Descent
  • Intimacy and integrity
  • Ascent-descent and intimacy-integrity together
  • Perennial questions?
  • Virtuous and vicious means
  • Dialectical and demonstrative argument
  • Chastened intellectualism and practice
  • Yavanayāna Buddhism: what it is
  • Why worry about contradictions?
  • The first philosophy blogger

Personal favourites

  • Can philosophy be a way of life? Pierre Hadot (1922-2010)
  • James Doull and the history of ethical motivation
  • Praying to something you don't believe in
  • What does postmodernism perform?
  • Why I'm getting married

Archives

Search this site

All posts, pages and metadata copyright 2020 Amod Lele. Comments copyright 2020 their comment authors. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA) licence.

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.