Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!its63b!aiva!jeff
From: jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Science and Aesthetics
Message-ID: <150@aiva.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: aiva.150
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 01:44:13 EDT
References: <120@snark.UUCP> <86@thirdi.UUCP> <8707@ut-sally.UUCP> <20070@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8727@ut-sally.UUCP> <2495@ames.arpa> <94@thirdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeff@uk.ac.ed.aiva (Jeff Dalton)
Distribution: world
Organization: Dept. of AI, Univ. of Edinburgh, UK
Lines: 20
Keywords: no mind

In article <94@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:

>In article <2495@ames.arpa> yamo@orville.UUCP (Michael J. Yamasaki) writes:
>>All philosophy is not Western, nor is it logical, [...]
>>Please explain in the context of logic the notion of no mind in Zen
>>Buddhism or the Tao.  Are these not Philosophy?

>When you put it that way, I'd say "No. They are religion."  I think parts of
>Buddhism are philosophical and -- guess what? -- these are the rational parts,
>not the mystical parts.

To me, this seems to be almost begging the question.  If you are
willing to call only the rational parts philosophical, then you will
of course find no non-logical philosophy in Buddhism.  But the
question is whether philosophy should be so narrowly defined, not
whether Buddhism fits a given notion of philosophy ...

That is: the distinction between the philosophic and religious aspects
of Buddhism doesn't match all that neatly with that between rational
(logical) and mystical.