A few observations - yes, we should take some time if possible to study at least the basics of Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism.
Also, that none of Smullyan's taoistic reasoning would surprise Socrates, the Stoics, or any freethinkers and skeptics in our own broader Western tradition. It's the orthodox, dogmatic theologians who would find s…
A few observations - yes, we should take some time if possible to study at least the basics of Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism.
Also, that none of Smullyan's taoistic reasoning would surprise Socrates, the Stoics, or any freethinkers and skeptics in our own broader Western tradition. It's the orthodox, dogmatic theologians who would find some reasons, or just lame pretexts cloaked as reasonable arguments and considerations, to claim Smullyan's essay is "heretical" or otherwise deficient.
"There is unanimous agreement that Nāgārjuna (ca 150–250 CE) is the most important Buddhist philosopher after the historical Buddha himself and one of the most original and influential thinkers in the history of Indian philosophy. His philosophy of the “middle way” (madhyamaka) based around the central notion of “emptiness” (śūnyatā) influenced the Indian philosophical debate for a thousand years after his death; with the spread of Buddhism to Tibet, China, Japan and other Asian countries the writings of Nāgārjuna became an indispensable point of reference for their own philosophical inquiries. A specific reading of Nāgārjuna’s thought, called Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka, became the official philosophical position of Tibetan Buddhism which regards it as the pinnacle of philosophical sophistication up to the present day."
{More, much more, after all it is an encyclopedia!}
A few observations - yes, we should take some time if possible to study at least the basics of Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism.
Also, that none of Smullyan's taoistic reasoning would surprise Socrates, the Stoics, or any freethinkers and skeptics in our own broader Western tradition. It's the orthodox, dogmatic theologians who would find some reasons, or just lame pretexts cloaked as reasonable arguments and considerations, to claim Smullyan's essay is "heretical" or otherwise deficient.
Here's another one worth a look:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
"There is unanimous agreement that Nāgārjuna (ca 150–250 CE) is the most important Buddhist philosopher after the historical Buddha himself and one of the most original and influential thinkers in the history of Indian philosophy. His philosophy of the “middle way” (madhyamaka) based around the central notion of “emptiness” (śūnyatā) influenced the Indian philosophical debate for a thousand years after his death; with the spread of Buddhism to Tibet, China, Japan and other Asian countries the writings of Nāgārjuna became an indispensable point of reference for their own philosophical inquiries. A specific reading of Nāgārjuna’s thought, called Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka, became the official philosophical position of Tibetan Buddhism which regards it as the pinnacle of philosophical sophistication up to the present day."
{More, much more, after all it is an encyclopedia!}