🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Some of the comments clearly demonstrate the effects of rhetoric. Lol. I deeply appreciate your efforts to present information without bias and rhetoric. 🙏🏼
Dr. Doug, a very interesting comparison between Plato and the Buddha. Plato, an aristocratic conservative, as well as Socrates of the dialogues and most probably Socrates himself, disparaged unbridled rhetoric because it had such a powerful negative influence within the courts and within their direct democracy. Your video touches upon something very important, what to consider when choosing a teacher. (Just as an aside, as a Buddhist studying Plato many years ago, I was struck by how Socrates used the elenchus (Socratic Method) as not simply a way to arrive at the truth (because to my knowledge I don't think he ever did in the dialogues), but seemed to use it almost the way a Zen master might employ a koan; over and over again, the elenchus' effect is described as having a "sting ray" effect (shocking and frustrating) upon those Socrates engaged.) Anyway, thank you again for such thoughtful videos.
Hi Doug, I think you've got a bit in your allusion to science wrong. Science should be viewed, I think, as an ever evolving set of ideas. Any consensus is constantly open to scrutiny and in this context any 'fringe' scientists are invaluable. Such skeptics maybe a bit frustrating to have around but sometimes turn out to be correct (or at least form the latest consensus)! What is wrong is to exclude legitimate viewpoints from open discussion (eg by labelling people effectively as heretics such as anti-vax or climate deniers)
A very small percentage of fringe scientists become the next Einsteins, but the vast majority remain just that: fringe. Statistically speaking, they should be ignored by the public until their ideas become accepted by the mainstream, which again is extremely unlikely in any given case. Anti-vax and climate denial are two prime examples of stances that should be ignored.
Yes, I think this video really missed the mark. I mean, the Buddha himself could be considered “fringe”. The truth is rarely found in the mainstream by design.
“Fringe” scientists in this context implies pseudo scientists who express their delusional beliefs as facts or purposefully present misinformation as facts. Skepticism may be healthy or harmful, depending upon whether it’s founded in wisdom or foolishness.
@@randomanda there will always be people with fringe views on every topic. Should we always accept their viewpoints? For the most part no, especially when the consensus is clear. There is consensus that precipitation is part of the water cycle; if someone said this wasn't true, how much attention would you expect that viewpoint to get?
@@joltee9317 That’s strawmanning what I said though. I never said anyone had to accept anything anyone else said. We must all utilize our own discrimination and discernment at all times and decide for ourselves what we believe. If someone has an incorrect impression or opinion we certainly may point that out and give evidence to show what is correct. What I do not think we should do is label and judge others *especially* when the topic is such that we can not possibly prove and/or know for absolutely certainty directly for ourselves. Believing the consensus is all fine and well and frequently practical. But consensus does not guarantee truth and it would not be practical if that was our only metric.
Hi Doug, I have question , if I follow 4 noble truths and 8 fold path without any mystical aspect of Buddhism then would it be sufficient. Please let me know your view
@@DougsDharma Thanks Doug, I as a rational person find these two more appealing, mystical aspects of Buddhism I feel is somewhat not in tune with Buddha's teaching.
I’m a rhetoric teacher who is earnestly interested Buddhism, and I'm concerned. This video was carefully crafted, edited, and assembled using compelling language that was spoken clearly and that featured images and examples calculated to make certain points. Is that not rhetoric? Is it possible to communicate without being in some way persuasive? And if persuasion really isn’t important, then why take the time to craft this video with such care? More broadly put, what is the Buddha’s stance on communication and the value of talk at all? Are we only to be convinced of the truth when someone is a really BAD speaker (and is therefore not seductively appealing)?
Plato's point about doctors and so on convincing us through knowledge of their subject matter doesn't assume they are bad speakers. Rhetoric is like power; in the right hands (of those who really know), it can be useful. Otherwise, it is dangerous.
Some of the comments on this video remind me of a line from the video “How to Radicalize a Normie” by Innuendo Studios: “The adage about bros on the internet is: ‘political’ means anything I disagree with.”
Very interesting video! I clicked on it despite not being to interested in rethoric or debate, and I found myself learning new things about both Buddhism and the skills of persuasion. I love the way you search for intersections between Buddhism and aspects of daily life. However, I have one note - when you say "his or her" / "he or she", especially several times in a row, it can feel to others burdainsome and unnatural. You may want to consider watching for that and using a shorter, more ecompassing word like "they" instead. Hope this comment finds you well!
Fox and CNN to name a few. When I speak about something, I try to keep check of my intentions and emotions to make sure that I'm not motivated by pride or ego. I'm not attractive physically and have found people are often unconvinced by what I have to say; nevertheless, as long my motivation is pure I do not feel hurt by not being believed. There's noone to hurt. On the other side of the coin, i may have been fooled once or twice by rhetoric. I imagine I wouldn't have recognised if I had been fooled. I think I place great value on the substance of a message but we all probably think this.
I think better examples of the use of rhetoric is how the war mongers on left wing news convince so called wise people to constantly start wars or to take experimental unproven medications.
