Timeline for How do Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. address the 'problem of evil'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 5, 2013 at 22:41 | answer | added | Vector | timeline score: -3 | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 13:27 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/306032593894256640 | ||
| Feb 7, 2013 at 16:53 | answer | added | Swami Vishwananda | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 18:33 | comment | added | coleopterist | @RexKerr I disagree. But, in any case, I've reworked the question a wee bit to drop the historical aspect of the question. Thank you. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 18:30 | history | edited | coleopterist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Drop the historical aspect from the question.
|
| Feb 6, 2013 at 18:07 | comment | added | Rex Kerr | This is history of religion, not philosophy, and also too broad as "Buddhism, Hinduism, etc." are liable to have different answers. (Hinduism alone is likely to have several.) This question needs to be refined and focused on a philosophical question (e.g. identify a current philosophical position and ask about its history, or drop the bit about history and ask instead about the problem of evil in Eastern philosophies, after reading Wikipedia and philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/190 | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 14:21 | comment | added | coleopterist | @MichaelDorfman Even if it is, it would be on topic as per the FAQ, yes? | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 10:33 | comment | added | stoicfury | @Michael - 'How' is ('how' as in the historical process), 'why' isn't necessarily ('why' as in the reasoning behind the adoption of karma); that's the only reason I hesitated. Still might not be a very constructive question though, as I alluded to in my first comment... | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 9:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 14, 2013 at 3:00 | |||||
| Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 | comment | added | Michael Dorfman | This is a historical question, not a philosophical one. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 7:46 | comment | added | coleopterist | @stoicfury Reincarnation might have arisen to assuage the fears of death, and karma to tackle morality. Karmic carry-over, to me, appears to be a construction that exists solely to take the blame for any unexplainable/unattributable misfortunes that might occur in a life; it's like a cosmic scapegoat. Does this carry-over serve any other purpose? | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 5:31 | answer | added | sviter | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 5:05 | comment | added | stoicfury | It likely arose because people had a hard time coming to grips with the fact that they're going to die. Regardless, I doubt the answer to the question you ask is simply written on a parchment somewhere in an ancient library. Like, "We invented the concept of Karma to justify the logical contradiction between the…" No... Concepts like Karma and reincarnation come from old philosophies which were built slowly over time with ideas being added here and there. There may not be any real rhyme or reason behind it other than someone 'felt like it' or it made them feel better to think of it that way. | |
| Feb 5, 2013 at 21:07 | history | asked | coleopterist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |