Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The problem domain is that of happiness/suffering, and how to obtain/lessen it. Anywhere that is a goal it can be applied. It has been applied to each of the Buddhisms (see edit note), which is why they're called Buddhism. You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family, or yourself.

The problem domain for Ruby on Rails is how to build websites. That's why websites built using Rails are referred to as a Rails site.

The problem domain of Prince2 is how to manage a project. It's why projects which apply it are called Prince2 projects, or Prince2 organisations if they apply it more widely.

What's the problem domain for Jesus' teachings? Where has it been applied?

Edit: Because of the misnomer (people calling things Buddhism that aren't) it makes my initial phrasing seem circular. The Buddhisms are each their own religion which then applied Buddhism, which is why they're now know as Buddhism. So, Bon, the Tibetan shamanic religion is now known as Tibetan Buddhism.




The problem domain for Jesus teachings is ethical action and how to encourage it.

It has been applied to each of the forms of Christianity as well as in many secular societies that eschew the religious components.

You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family or yourself.

The various Christianitys just like the Buddhisms incorporate many of the beliefs and customs that existed before Christ and the Buddha’s teachings respectively were incorporated.


Kudos for the effort. Unfortunately, category error is littered throughout.

> The problem domain for Jesus teachings is ethical action and how to encourage it.

If it did have a problem domain it would be how to get into Heaven and not into Hell. Ethical action would be the way in which that is achieved. It does not, however, have a problem domain because without Christianity there is no problem to be solved. It is not a framework and is not expounded as a framework (this is an incredibly important point).

> It has been applied to each of the forms of Christianity

The different forms of Christianity are called sects because they share a doctrine. A doctrine that is supplied as dogma, I might add. Again, an important point.

Christianity has not been "applied" to the various forms of Christianity because they did not exist prior to being applied to. For example, you could not apply Google to Yahoo because Google is not a framework.

> as well as in many secular societies

Secular societies cannot, by definition, implement Christianity.

> You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family or yourself.

You could not apply Weight Watchers to a school or business or a family or individual. You could apply its principles or methods. Weight Watchers is not a framework, neither is Christianity. Weight Watchers could produce a framework for losing weight but that would not make one thing the other, nor in the same category.

> The various Christianitys

Sect is the correct word.

> just like the Buddhisms

An implementation of Buddhism is not a sect. There are sects within religions that have applied Buddhism. Hence, your comparison is yet another category error and false equivalence.

> incorporate many of the beliefs and customs that existed before Christ and the Buddha’s teachings respectively were incorporated.

Rails incorporates many of the beliefs and customs of web developers and frameworks that existed before it was born, as does Twitter. That does not make Rails a company or a website or a micro-blogging service, and neither does it make Twitter a web framework nor a piece of software.

Distinguishing differences like these can be difficult, especially if you're not acquainted with the basic history of Asian religion, like Bon, or the many schools of Indian thought, Daoism etc (the History of Philosophy podcast[1] is an excellent resource for learning about them), or are not familiar with the many frameworks used by programmers and project managers and the like. Hacker News is a great place to get these kind of insights though so you're in the right place.

[1] https://historyofphilosophy.net/


Your answer seems confused as anything. The problem domain is ethical action.

Getting into heaven or hell are why the problem domain is salient, but not the problem domain.

I didn’t say Christianity is applied to previous christianities. I said it was applied to the belief systems that existed before - I.e. the various paganisms.

This is well researched historical fact. You are the one making an error here because you are getting confused about the naming.

I’m not talking about sects. I’m talking about Christianity being applied to the belief systems that existed before in the various places where it spread.

You then go on to simply state that Christianity is not a framework.

Affirming the consequent isn’t an argument. We already know that you think this.

The rest of your statements just rely on made up stuff.

There is no such thing as ‘an implementation of Buddhism’. There is no such concept in comparative studies of religion.

You are just using that terminology to make it sound like it can be compared to the programming concept of a framework.

It’s pretty absurd to suggest Buddhism works like Ruby on Rails. Rails doesn’t incorporate beliefs and customs. Nobody believes in rails.

It’s a completely different class of entity, so at best it is a vague analog.

As such Christianity is just as much a framework as Buddhism is.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: