Buddhism focuses on the human factors of belief, how belief can lead to dukkha (suffering, discontent), and how dukkha can be avoided.
Actually, that’s what CBT is all about, too. There are therapies that combine CBT and buddhist elements, like Dialectical behavior therapy.
The concept of self is a convention, not an absolute, it refers to a constantly changing composite. The meaning of self depends on context. Clinging to an inappropriate concept of self can lead to dukka.
Similar notions are taught in CBT. If there is no permanent or “true” self, it’s impossible to have a rotten, bad, evil, worthless (etc.) permanent self. It’s an idea that can help in getting rid of some emotional problems and create an attitude that helps to change oneself.
I’d propose that there are a some advantages to starting with CBT, before one learns Buddhism:
It’s easy. For example learning about Cognitive distortion might be a low hanging fruit for many.
It’s focused on small practical results, not some grand things like “enlightment”
There is no mysticism or magic.
That down-to-erath and practical attitude about belief and suffering is the same attitude I think should be used when studying buddhism.
Buddhism is not inherently rational
Right. I see buddhism as a form of therapy created in a mystical context. Any form of rationality found in buddhism is just a by-product of trying to get rid of suffering. As this is not the main goal of LW-type rationality one would expect systematic differences between LW and Buddhism.
Of course CBT is not inherently rational either. It might be interesting how a good cognitive therapy would be done on a LW-person, who knows about propability theory and compartmentalises less. There might be a danger of being “too smart” for the therapist! (“every flaw you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider”)
What aspects of Buddhism should be refactored or eliminated?
Buddhists meditate and therefore can be considered experts on introspection, experience, the psyche and so on. But we know that, if you are locked inside a room, you can learn a lot about yourself but not about the world outside the room. So I wouldn’t expect to find anything good in buddhist metaphysics.
Also, the term “enlightment” sounds overly religious to me. It might lead to a Affective death spiral and become so great, that it is unarchiveable anyway, so why would you even bother?.
Any form of rationality found in buddhism is just a by-product of
trying to get rid of suffering. As this is not the main goal of
LW-type rationality one would expect systematic differences between
LW and Buddhism.
I can make a similar claim about CBT:
Any form of rationality found in CBT is just a by-product of trying to
solve problems concerning dysfunctional emotions, behaviors and
cognitions.
As you point out:
Of course CBT is not inherently rational either.
My goal is to find a philosophy that supports Bayesian style
epistemic rationality in the context of the human mind.
I suspect that rationality is hard to achieve if a person is
experiencing dukkha, or a psychological dysfunction. So I am
interested in the ideas and practices of any system that addresses
these issues.
Also, the term “enlightment” sounds overly religious to me. It might
lead to a Affective death spiral and become so great, that it is
unarchiveable anyway, so why would you even bother?
I use the term in the “optimal enlightenment” phrase. My goal is to
create a common context between rationality and Buddhism and to
clarify that a philosophy of rationality would not assume that there
is any absolute form of enlightenment.
Actually, that’s what CBT is all about, too. There are therapies that combine CBT and buddhist elements, like Dialectical behavior therapy.
Similar notions are taught in CBT. If there is no permanent or “true” self, it’s impossible to have a rotten, bad, evil, worthless (etc.) permanent self. It’s an idea that can help in getting rid of some emotional problems and create an attitude that helps to change oneself.
I’d propose that there are a some advantages to starting with CBT, before one learns Buddhism:
It’s easy. For example learning about Cognitive distortion might be a low hanging fruit for many.
It’s focused on small practical results, not some grand things like “enlightment”
There is no mysticism or magic.
That down-to-erath and practical attitude about belief and suffering is the same attitude I think should be used when studying buddhism.
Right. I see buddhism as a form of therapy created in a mystical context. Any form of rationality found in buddhism is just a by-product of trying to get rid of suffering. As this is not the main goal of LW-type rationality one would expect systematic differences between LW and Buddhism.
Of course CBT is not inherently rational either. It might be interesting how a good cognitive therapy would be done on a LW-person, who knows about propability theory and compartmentalises less. There might be a danger of being “too smart” for the therapist! (“every flaw you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider”)
Buddhists meditate and therefore can be considered experts on introspection, experience, the psyche and so on. But we know that, if you are locked inside a room, you can learn a lot about yourself but not about the world outside the room. So I wouldn’t expect to find anything good in buddhist metaphysics.
Also, the term “enlightment” sounds overly religious to me. It might lead to a Affective death spiral and become so great, that it is unarchiveable anyway, so why would you even bother?.
You make a good argument for starting with CBT.
I can make a similar claim about CBT:
Any form of rationality found in CBT is just a by-product of trying to solve problems concerning dysfunctional emotions, behaviors and cognitions.
As you point out:
My goal is to find a philosophy that supports Bayesian style epistemic rationality in the context of the human mind.
I suspect that rationality is hard to achieve if a person is experiencing dukkha, or a psychological dysfunction. So I am interested in the ideas and practices of any system that addresses these issues.
I use the term in the “optimal enlightenment” phrase. My goal is to create a common context between rationality and Buddhism and to clarify that a philosophy of rationality would not assume that there is any absolute form of enlightenment.