Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed; Is there real proof

[rossum]

Can it really be documented that any of these "Individuals" actually existed? Is there really any actual contemporary documentation discovered that prove beyond reason that they existed. Really wanting to learn on this subject. Beyond Faith, beyond oral stories passed down over centuries by word of mouth to finally end up on paper per say. Is there really any actual proof? Honestly curious.

The Buddha was a younger contemporary of the Jain Mahavira. The Buddha is mentioned in Jain scriptures and the Mahavira is mentioned in Buddhist scriptures.

It is possible that we have some physical remains of the Buddha from the Kanishka casket.

rossum

[shunyadragon]

Thank you. Although I disagree with you, I respect your opinion although I see it as you are applying more of a philosophical view point to proof than hard evidence. If Ol McDonald had a farm, and there are city, county, and state records, letters, a diary that show he had a farm, then I think there is definite evidence that Ol McDonald existed and would think that is pretty black and white. Again, though I understand and respect your thoughts.

The word 'proof' has specific meanings in the context of logic and math, and of course laymen's definitions in everyday use. To throw it around loosely in history or science (science too has a specific use of 'proof') to justify what one believes fails to communicate legitimate arguments in these disciplines. It is best to use concepts and terms as they are used in science and history.

[Carrikature]

Shuny must be extremely bored.

[Doug Shaver]

Proof . . . becomes very fuzzy and meaningless in history and science.

Only if it suits you to make it so. History and science deal with evidence. You can use logic to connect your evidence with your conclusions. If you do, then you're using inductive proof, which is neither fuzzy nor meaningless.

[technomage]

Only if it suits you to make it so. History and science deal with evidence. You can use logic to connect your evidence with your conclusions. If you do, then you're using inductive proof, which is neither fuzzy nor meaningless.

Where things become fuzzy (and can become meaningless) is that all of us as human beings choose what evidence we allow into the inductive process. The standards we use to make that choice are subjective.

[Doug Shaver]

all of us as human beings choose what evidence we allow into the inductive process.

Of course. Given any question, some facts are evidence for the answer and others are not. We have to discern one from the other as best we can.

The standards we use to make that choice are subjective.

Not always, and not entirely. And even if "always, at least to some extent" were the case, it would not follow that intellectually defensible choices were impossible.

Of course, nobody's choices about allowable evidence can be infallible, but I don't regard human fallibility as a barrier to knowledge. We don't have to infer "I don't know about X" from "I could be wrong about X."

[technomage]

Not always, and not entirely. And even if "always, at least to some extent" were the case, it would not follow that intellectually defensible choices were impossible.

Impossible? No, but they are difficult, and they are more difficult if one has strong preconceptions (in either direction).

As a species, we tend to be pretty hardheaded. It's one reason science has the "peer review" requirement: having someone else, who doesn't share your preconceptions, review your work is a good way to double-check to see if you're actually seeing the facts, or seeing your preconceptions. (Nb: I'm quite aware that you know all this--the exposition is mainly to present this information to the readers.)

I don't regard human fallibility as a barrier to knowledge.

It does in certain areas, and human fallibility does make precision more difficult to attain. We do better when we are able to exclude our preconceptions from the process, but that's not always possible.

[Doug Shaver]

it would not follow that intellectually defensible choices were impossible.

Impossible? No, but they are difficult, and they are more difficult if one has strong preconceptions (in either direction).

Sometimes difficult, sometimes not. A great many of the claims we make about history are trivially easy to defend. We can justifiably be almost as certain about who won World War II as we can that the sun will rise tomorrow. But even when our preconceptions make a critical analysis difficult, it does not follow that the pertinent logic is itself "very fuzzy and meaningless." If logic were, in some contexts, fuzzy and meaningless, then it would be useless in those contexts, but no tool is useless just because it is difficult to use the way it is supposed to be used.

As a species, we tend to be pretty hardheaded. It's one reason science has the "peer review" requirement

"Hardheaded" is a pejorative. You mean we find it difficult to change our beliefs. I agree with that: We do find it difficult. But I don't agree that that's necessarily a bad thing. It can be bad, sometimes, but there is a broad range of situations we may find ourselves in where some intellectual stubbornness is good for us.

[technomage]

But even when our preconceptions make a critical analysis difficult, it does not follow that the pertinent logic is itself "very fuzzy and meaningless."

Now, that's Shunya's argument, not mine. I'm arguing for something related, but not identical.

And Shunya's not arguing that logic is useless in those situations. He is, I sincerely believe, acknowledging the difference between rigorous study (with peer review and the whole academic process), and individual decision making (where the preconceptions do come to the fore, and unbiased peer review is not usually available). In both situations, the word "logic" is used ... but in the later, it's much more of a subjective process.

"Hardheaded" is a pejorative.

It's one I also apply to myself.

[Doug Shaver]

But even when our preconceptions make a critical analysis difficult, it does not follow that the pertinent logic is itself "very fuzzy and meaningless."

Now, that's Shunya's argument, not mine.

So it was. My apologies.

And Shunya's not arguing that logic is useless in those situations.

He probably didn't intend to, but my observation stands. Whenever, if it happens, logic actually is fuzzy and meaningless, then it is useless.

He is, I sincerely believe, acknowledging the difference between rigorous study (with peer review and the whole academic process), and individual decision making (where the preconceptions do come to the fore, and unbiased peer review is not usually available). In both situations, the word "logic" is used ... but in the later, it's much more of a subjective process.

There is nothing subjective about logic qua logic. It's just a tool. Some people can use it better than others, even if nobody can use it perfectly.

Besides philosophy, I do woodworking. A professional woodworker could go into my workshop and, using just the tools I have there, build a desk or chest of drawers or anything else that would be a lot better than anything I could build. Same tools, different result depending on who is using them.

[technomage]

There is nothing subjective about logic qua logic.

Like many words in English, the word "logic" is multi-valent. There is nothing subjective about logic qua logic. However, individual decision making (with all the subjective preconceptions that it entails) is also called logic.

[Doug Shaver]

Like many words in English, the word "logic" is multi-valent.

Well, then, if you and I are going to discuss it, I guess we'll have to agree on which of those valences we're going to use.

The one I always use in these forums is classical logic as described in some detail by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/. Will that one work for you?

[technomage]

Well, then, if you and I are going to discuss it, I guess we'll have to agree on which of those valences we're going to use.

Doug, this is not about you and I, nor is it about our discussions.

How many times have you heard someone make an argument that's actually based from their preconceptions, then say "But how can you disagree--it's so logical!" These ae the foks I'm speaking of--those who use the word "logic" or "reason" to mean "It agrees with my worldview, therefore it must be right."

[Doug Shaver]

Doug, this is not about you and I, nor is it about our discussions.

Then please excuse me. I didn't realize I was changing the subject.

[gerry]

Can it really be documented that any of these "Individuals" actually existed? Is there really any actual contemporary documentation discovered that prove beyond reason that they existed. Really wanting to learn on this subject. Beyond Faith, beyond oral stories passed down over centuries by word of mouth to finally end up on paper per say. Is there really any actual proof? Honestly curious.

Before the invention of writing there was history by oral words which do not last at all; but oral words make up what we might call oral tradition, so we can say that oral tradition is a testimony to what people knew by experience at a time when there was still no writing at all.

Then man invented writing but the material for recording was not so readily available, just the same, they wrote in stones rocks marbles, etc.

Afterwards they wrote in anything that could withstand the ravages of the elements.




Buddha, Krishna,* Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, they all have records of their existence in writing which are still with us today; the question is whether their manuscripts are reliable and how reliable, at least they tell us about the historical existence of humans who were the inspiration of thoughts that mankind has given adherence to as to be good for their anchoring in the universe of existence and life.




Cheers.

Gerry


*Krishna = A deity worshiped across many traditions of Hinduism; often depicted as a young man. -- One click WordWeb ( use this dictionary for an easy quick idea of a word, but you still have to think and relate it to your world of experience and your reason and intelligence ). What is the use of a dictionary if you don’t use your experience and reason and intelligence but just mouth definitions from dictionaries. That is what atheists do all the time because they don’t have a mind but only brain tissue.