Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Buddhist Abhidharma analysis resolves the living body into momentary dharmas (psychophysical events) with no persistent substratum requiring a self.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Momentary dharmas cannot account for continuity of memory, personal identity, and causal responsibility across time periods.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The analysis itself presupposes a unified observer capable of analyzing dharmas—implicitly requiring the self it denies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Physical science demonstrates that stability, not mere flux, characterizes material systems and biological organisms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Empirical introspection reveals no stable, unchanging conscious subject—only successive moments of experience arising and dissolving.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A persistent self would require independence from physical processes, yet consciousness correlates entirely with neural activity patterns.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Positing momentary dharmas eliminates the hard problem of explaining how an immaterial self causally interacts with the body.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.