/lit/ - Literature

>>19567741
There is nothing nihilist about Buddhism, People who claim this are just projecting their own nihilism onto Buddhism
>>no essence
what is "essence"
>>everything is dependent on mental/social constructs
what do you mean by "everything is dependent"
>>emptiness itself is empty
yes just like all attributes have that attribute.
is strength not strong?
is fear not afraid?
>>there is no objective truth, only dependent truths
no there is objective truth
>>no objective morality
this is just a falsehood, not what has ever been taught
>>no objective interpretation of buddhism
again this is just incorrect.
>>samsara and nirvana are neither the same nor different from each other, as both lack an essence
so there is a definite destination between samsara and nirvana idk where you're getting some of this from.
half of what you said you either made up or are repeating outright lies.

Buddha

Where does the Buddha teach that there is no soul

Wouldn't it be preferable to just stay in samsara and enjoy the good lives and suffering through the bad?
Like in your individual life you enjoy the good times and suffer through the bad instead of suicide?

Is Nirvana "none existence" or is there something more to it?

Why the FUCK would anyone want to stop existing as opposed to living in eternal bliss?

I was wondering if moral statements were truth apt or not and if so how you would be able to tell what is good or bad? Would we use the categorical imperative, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, or maybe just error theory and we have no way of knowing even if there are objectove moral truths. To me this seems like it couldn't be the case as how would you ground the morality to the point it isnt rejectable?
As utilitarianism runs into the issue that I can even beg the question whether or not happiness/euphoria is the same as good. If it was good wouldn't we just naturally understand the two as the same without arguement? But we don't as we can think of many potentially pleasurable situations, or net happy occasions, that would seem bad like fucking a corpse or five guys slapping and kicking unconscious person for their own sadistic joy. Also with the categorical imperative I see no reason to believe it as objective truth rather then the arbitary creation of Kant. Lying for example seems pretty justified in alot of situations.
To me I think emotivism makes the most sense as afterall morality differs from culture to culture and there is nothing to ground any morality as objectively true as far as I can see. Moral statements seem to be an result of personal hurrah or boo.
But what do you guys think? Also, are there any good books that go over all the different moral philosophies? And, if you want to talk on VC or in a discord text channel feel free to join my discord sKgx3esa