Buddhism

In his book The Opacity of Mind, Peter Carruthers presents the Interpretive Sensory Awareness theory (“ISA”). According to ISA, while we have direct access to our own sensory states, our access to “self-knowledge” is almost always interpretive. In presenting his view, Carruthers also claims that his account is the first of its kind; after a cursory examination of major theories of mind, he concludes that “transparent access” accounts of self-knowledge—the alternative to ISA—have been endorsed throughout history. This paper challenges this latter claim. Contrary to Carruthers’ view, the paper argues that Buddhist theories of mind are not “transparent access” accounts. Instead, they not only have an analysis of sensory processing and conscious experience similar to that of ISA, but also share what Carruthers sees as ISA’s central tenet: individuals lack transparent, conscious access to most of their propositional attitudes. Given this fundamental alignment, the Buddhist perspective can offer us fresh responses to ISA’s critics, as well as approaches to ethics and free will that are aligned with ISA’s conclusions.

A number of scholars have attempted to situate the Buddha’s teachings within primary Western ethical theories such as consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. One challenge that each has confronted is Buddhism’s emphasis on the ultimate non-existence of the self. In his writings, Charles Goodman has put forward an account of how the realization of the ultimate non-existence of the self would lead a practitioner to consequentialism. The present paper challenges the account offered by Goodman and argues that an ethical-particularist account better squares Buddhist ethics with Buddhist metaphysics. This comment also shows how Goodman’s more recent work, while constituting a significant retreat from his earlier approach, still fails to motivate a consequentialist reading of Buddhist ethics.

In his foundational enactivist writings, Francisco Varela explained the self as ‘virtual’, ‘fictional’, and ‘groundless’. More recent enactivist scholars have taken issue with Varela’s analysis, elevating the self to the same ontological status as other biological processes. On their interpretation, our ‘self’ can be considered an autonomous system in the same manner as cells, organs, and organisms. After discussing the enactivist’s definition of an autonomous system, this paper examines the lack of clarity from more recent scholars around precisely how our self can fulfil this definition. Specifically, the challenge of meeting the enactivist’s criteria will be illustrated through a discussion of a narrative self, a socially co-generated self, and approaches to the self that eschew metaphysical commitments. Through this examination, we see some of the challenges faced in arguing that the self exists in the same way as our cells and organs, and why Varela chooses instead to focus on the virtual self. To close, the paper examines how an approach that aligns with Varela’s foundational writings can handle the questions of reductionism and social interaction.

In his 2009 book, Consequences of Compassion, Charles Goodman argues that the ultimate nonexistence of the self supports the ultimate nonexistence of free will. More recently, Riccardo Repetti has critiqued Goodman’s view and made the case that free will does, in fact, ultimately exist. This article first illustrates how Repetti’s view of the self is, actually, entirely consistent with Goodman’s. It goes on to argue that Repetti misconstrues elements of hard determinism as entailing that our wills have no influence on final outcomes. Lastly, it shows how, if Goodman and Repetti are in agreement on the ultimate nonexistence of the self, as well as the causal efficacy of the will, their disagreement about the ultimate existence of free will may be inconsequential.