I personally find Buddhism too negative in its outlook.
There are alternative views, and I do feel that Buddha, brilliant as he must have been, overlooked some very important things about consciousness, which science admits still remains largely a mystery.
I think I understand you. I also think that the 20th century world view, which was of a highly mechanized and predictable system is very flawed as well, not just in the sense of not accounting for a great deal conceptually, but also in the dehumanizing and dispiriting implications of the mechanical world view. I think Buddhism can be a very useful approach to things, which manages to clean the windows of the intellect, but is should not be taken as a dogma and certainly not as a form of religious conviction.
Yes, it was. And it had its flaws too. But the problem was, it was equated with fascism, which led to some very bizarre and exaggerated and confused responses in the contemporary West.
The "cheap subjectivity" that Westerners take for granted, and say that it is their right, is precisely cheap because it is produced by consumer society. Jean Baudrillard says: "...each consumer is locked into the profitable manipulation of goods and signs for his own interest. He can no longer really waste his time in leisure. Inexorably, he reproduces, at his own level, the whole system of political economy: the logic of appropriation, the impossibility of waste, of the gift, of loss, the inexorability of the law of value"
There are alternative views, and I do feel that Buddha, brilliant as he must have been, overlooked some very important things about consciousness, which science admits still remains largely a mystery.