• Need info / book recommendations for "The world exists in your mind"
    Books:
    Maurice Merleau-Ponty - "Phenomenology of Perception"
    Wolfgang Kohler - "Gestalt Psychology"
    Kurt Koffka - "Principles of Gestalt Psychology"

    Lecture series from thegreatcourses.com:
    Francis Colavita - "Sensation, Perception, and the Aging Process"
    Steve Joordens - "Memory And The Human Lifespan"
  • The importance of psychology.
    A scientific theory shouldn't be/can't be compatible with both the truth of a prediction and the falsehood of that prediction i.e. it should be falsifiable.TheMadFool

    So, just Popper. OK then. What's behind the event horizon of a black hole? Is it a singularity or a fuzzball? How would you empircally verify this? Not to say that both hypotheses aren't scientific though. They obviously are in line with scientific models. Anyway, point being, falsification isn't the sole criterion for a theory to be scientific. It also needs to fit the relevant paradigm in regards to method (in this case, the math). Moreover, there have been scientific theories which where rejected by the scientific community at the time, only to be rehabilitated at a later date as was the case with catastrophism in geology.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

    Why do I bring these issues up? Because there's more at play than a singular abstract criterion. There also are paradigmatic, methodological and sociological issues at play. We could just stare at our navels and be content with falsification as the prime criterion for demarcation but this wouldn't be very empirical. Scientific theorycrafting and experimentation in the real world is much more messy (though no less "scientific"). Again, I'm not saying falsification isn't a criterion. It is. I'm just saying it's not the only one, or that it's even a necessary one.

    "No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientifc development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsifcation by direct comparison with nature. That remark does not mean that scientists do not reject scientifc theories, or that experience and experiment are not essential to the process in which they do so. But it does mean—what will ultimately be a central point—that the act of judgment that leads scientists to reject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparison of that theory with the world. The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other."
    -Thomas Kuhn, "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", p. 77
  • The importance of psychology.
    You've ignored my request. I'll take that as confirmation of there being no psychological theories that are scientific.TheMadFool

    Yes, lets stop beating around the bush. What does it mean for a theory to be scientific in light of the works of Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Polanyi, Woolgar and Latour? I have no interest in discussing if a particular theory is scientific or not if the notion of "scientific theory" isn't both well informed and clearly defined. This is the reason why I didn't bring this topic up in the first place and why I only focussed on your claim that "psychology is simply mythology in modern form".

    What does it mean for a theory to be scientific if we don't ignore most of the relevant literature? Not an easy answer, to be sure.
  • The importance of psychology.
    Truth be told, the idea that one finds best describes one's own ideas is a hint as to what one's own ideas are. Freud was under the impression that the mythology of Oedipus fit his theory of human psychology like a glove - that's why he settled on it, no? This, to me, is the clearest indication that something's wrong with Freud's theory - if it looks like a duck (mythology) and quacks like a duck (mythology), it must be a duck (mythology).TheMadFool

    I already mentioned completely different lines of inquiry which started with the fathers of the field in my initial post in this thread. If you keep on insisting that the entire field of psychology can be summed up in Freuds psychoanalysis then you're just ignorant about psychology as a discipline. Remember, you stated that "psychology is simply mythology in modern form." You weren't just talking about Freuds theories. I'm noting this again since it seems to me like you're trying to move the goalposts here. Very intellectually honest of you. :rofl:

    You're beating around the bush. I'll make it easy for you: name one psychological theory that matches up to a scientific theory and we can begin to discuss it.

    Right. Talking about what distinguishes a scientific theory from a non scientific theory (you know, demarcation crfiteria) is "beating around the bush". Whatever. :lol:
  • The importance of psychology.
    Never mind, I don't feel like going off on a tangent. Pls delete this post, mods.
  • The importance of psychology.
    do feel the aspiration to make psychology a science was/is in good faith, authentic in every sense of the word. However, sometimes reality doesn't match expectations - there's many a slip between the cup and the lip as they say.

    A few issues that thwart the psychologist's attempts to make psychology into a science:

    1. The data is unreliable. People will lie and inconsistently at that, a spanner in the works. Need I say more?

    2. The mind is under the influence of multiple ideas, some, probably most, mutually contradictory. The upshot: no clear-cut thinking patterns. Our minds are chaotic - one moment we're theists, the next we're atheists, and at other times, agnostic. There's no telling which is which.

    3. If we do detect thought patterns, we'll need to come up with a hypothesis to explain them. However, unlike patterns in physics which are inviolable (laws), those in psychology are statistical i.e. all we might be able to say is most people think a certain way. What then about the exceptions, the oddball who doesn't quite fit in with the rest? In scientific circles this would be treated as a failure of a posited hypothesis but in psychology they'll be ignored or even tolerated.

    Psychology isn't a science.
    TheMadFool

    I was responding to your claim that "psychology is simply mythology in modern form". The stuff I mentioned provided enough points to show that no, it isn't, and it never was. Only a very narrow reading of the entire field would give such an impression. Anyway, I take it that you're conceding this point since you didn't bother to respond to the issues I raised.

    Note that I didn't say a word about if psychology as a whole is in line with your particular demarcation criteria though. Why? Because I don't think we see eye to eye on that topic. But an actual discussion on demarcation criteria would fall outside of the scope of this thread, since that would involve more than just psychology and it's importance. And no, I don't think the issue boils down to a simple "Kuhn vs. Popper" and/or a "Polanyi vs Feyerabend" discussion; the findings of Latour and Woolgar, as documented in their book "Laboratory Life" significantly muddy the waters when it comes to demarcation criteria (The science wars of the 90s are a good illustration of what I'm getting at).
  • The importance of psychology.
    Coming to Freud, the alleged person who put psychology on the map, one only needs to look at how his theory is centered around the so-called Oedipus complex. Oedipus being the perfect analogy for Freud's theories is a dead giveaway - psychology is simply mythology in modern form.TheMadFool

    This is like basing your entire opinion regarding philosophy on just Parmenides or something. Both his contemporaries and his succesors where involved in entirely different projects.
    Freuds work can be seen as being in line (as in: line of inquiry) with the project started by von Krafft-Ebbing, what with his focus on sexual psychopathology... Both William James and Wilhelm Wundt where active during the same period, and their lines of inquiry involved the first experimental psychological laboratories. Neither actually had anything to do with psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis might have been in vogue for a while, but this was later replaced by behaviorism as the dominant paradigm. There also is the line which eventually lead to gestalt psychology (Brentano> von Ehrenfels> Wertheimer> Koffka> Kohler...), and these boys didn't have anything to do with psychoanalysis either. But sure, mythology. Even though they mostly talk about phenomenological accounts of sensory perception.
  • The Symmetry Argument/Method
    The Chinese version of this idea is Yin And YangTheMadFool

    It's really not, though.
  • China’s ‘whole-process democracy’ explained
    I fully understand that you don't care.Apollodorus

    No, I don't think you do.
  • China’s ‘whole-process democracy’ explained
    Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we've got too many genuine Chinese to discuss the issue with ....Apollodorus

    I'm Chinese. I'd love to discuss this topic with you, but you know, my accent gets in the way. Oh wait. I don't care about this topic. OK. Never mind then.
  • You are probably an aggravating person
    Admit it.schopenhauer1

    I used to be worse.
  • Which books have had the most profound impact on you?
    -"Outlines of Pyrrhonism" by Sextus Empiricus
    -"Phenomenology of Perception" by Maurice Merleau-Ponty
    -"Discipline and Punish" by Michel Foucault
    -"Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn
    -"Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper
    -"Gestalt Psychology" by Wolfgang Kohler
    -"De Oratore" by Cicero
    -"I Ching" (Wilhelm translation)
    -"Zhuangzi"
    -"Liezi"

    Some other honorable mentions include: "Institutio Oratoria" by Quintilian, "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant, "Art of War" by Sunzi, "Hereditary Book on the Art of War" by Yagyu Munenori, "Book of Five Rings" by Miyamoto Musashi, "The Unfettered Mind" by Takuan Soho, "Daodejing", "Huahujing", "Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint" by Franz Brentano, "Psychological Types" by CG Jung, "Laboratory Life" by Latour and Woolgar, "Die Weisheit der Hunde" by Georg Luck (collection of most if not all fragments from the cynics), "The Ego and His Own" by Max Stirner, "One-Dimensional Man" by Herbert Marcuse ...
  • Clarification Of Rules
    Perhaps it would help to further define the word troll?Foghorn


    A "troll" is someone who trolls. A definition of a "troll" isn't particularly useful imho, since the act of trolling can be engaged in by anyone, really. Much more useful to define the act of "trolling" itself. I like how Matt Joyce defined the term in his Defcon talk:

    "Trolling is fuzzing someone else's mind with the express purpose of laughing so hard you squirt 30 year old single malt through your nose."

    I also like his distinction between "dicks" on the one hand and "trolls" on the other. Key distinction? Dicks just aren't funny.

    Anyway, here link to the talk:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcAHbvTlpKA
  • All that matters in society is appearance
    No , all there is to life is looking beautiful, the rest will take care of itself.Wittgenstein

    Ah ok, that settles it then.

    jean-paul-sartre-9472219-1-402.jpg
  • The Novelist or the academic?
    Because I'm better at it than those who worship it.Mystic

    :rofl: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
  • Philosphical Poems
    There once was a philosopher from Nantucket
    Whose posts were too stupid to cut it
    So he gave a quick glance as he unzipped his pants
    And said if. Baden must ban me he can suck it.

    Sir Hanover
    Hanover

    :clap: :clap: :clap:

    Amazing.

    :rofl:
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    And what makes us so defensive when discussing opposite views?Apollodorus

    I'm guessing cognitive dissonance in some (or most) cases.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
  • What is aboutness?
    What do you think phenomenologically is aboutness of an object?

    The aboutness is its intentionality?
    Shawn

    As stated by Wayfarer, the term was coined by Brentano, in his "Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint", in a chapter where he's trying to outline what the differences are between mental and physical phenomena. What are those? According to Brentano:

    "Every idea or presentation which we acquire either through sense perception or imagination is an example of a mental phenomenon By presentation I do not mean that which is presented, but rather the act of presentation. Thus, hearing a sound, seeing a colored object, feeling warmth or cold, as well as similar states of imagination are examples of what I mean by this term. I also mean by it the thinking of a general concept, provided such a thing actually does occur. Furthermore, every judgement, every recollection, every expectation, every inference, every conviction or opinion, every doubt, is a mental phenomenon. Also to be included under this term is every emotion: joy, sorrow, fear, hope, courage, despair, anger, love, hate, desire, act of will, intention, astonishment, admiration, contempt, etc.
    Examples of physical phenomena, on the other hand, are a color, a fgure, a landscape which I see, a chord which I hear, warmth, cold, odor which I sense; as well as similar images which appear in the imagination.
    These examples may suffce to illustrate the differences between the two classes of
    phenomena.
    "
    -Franz Brentano, "Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint", p.60, 61

    On intentionality, he states:

    "What positive criterion shall we now be able to provide? Or is there perhaps no positive defnition which holds true of all mental phenomena generally? Bain thinks that in fact there is none.* Nevertheless, psychologists in earlier times have already pointed out that there is a special affnity and analogy which exists among all mental phenomena, and which physical phenomena do not share.
    Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental)† inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction toward an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing),10 or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not all do so in the same way. In presentation something is presented, in judgement something is affrmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on.‡ This intentional in-existence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We can, therefore, defne mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.
    "
    -Ibid. p.68
  • Is 'Western Philosophy' just a misleading term for 'Philosophy'?
    Cool links.j0e

    :up:

    I like Democritus, Epicurus, Epictetus, Pyrrho, others.

    Same here. :smile:

    I don't know enough to argue for which influence is stronger. For me the main thing would be whether it's basically the same way of thinking, whether it's universal. I suspect it is, but I am cautious speaking about the Eastern stuff.

    I don't know either but I think its somewhat of a disservice to both Democritus and Pyrrho to only focus on the eastern link. Sure, we know the magi and gymnosophists played a part in influencing Pyrrho, but I don't think Anaxarchus should be neglected. I thought scepticism was mainly influenced by eastern thought for the longest time too, so it came as quitte the shock when I found out about the whole Democritan thing. Besides, it's fun to talk about obscure ancient philosophers. :wink:
  • Is 'Western Philosophy' just a misleading term for 'Philosophy'?
    Here's another example.

    The Ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho accompanied Alexander the Great in his eastern campaigns, spending about 18 months in India. Pyrrho subsequently returned to Greece and founded Pyrrhonism, a philosophy with substantial similarities with Buddhism. The Greek biographer Diogenes Laërtius explained that Pyrrho's equanimity and detachment from the world were acquired in India.[120] Pyrrho was directly influenced by Buddhism in developing his philosophy, which is based on Pyrrho's interpretation of the Buddhist three marks of existence.[121] According to Edward Conze, Pyrrhonism can be compared to Buddhist philosophy, especially the Indian Madhyamika school.[122] The Pyrrhonists' goal of ataraxia (the state of being untroubled) is a soteriological goal similar to nirvana. The Pyrrhonists promoted suspending judgm ient (epoché) about dogma (beliefs about non-evident matters) as the way to reach ataraxia. This is similar to the Buddha's refusal to answer certain metaphysical questions which he saw as non-conductive to the path of Buddhist practice and Nagarjuna's "relinquishing of all views (drsti)". Adrian Kuzminski argues for direct influence between these two systems of thought. In Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism[123] According to Kuzminski, both philosophies argue against assenting to any dogmatic assertions about an ultimate metaphysical reality behind our sense impressions as a tactic to reach tranquility and both also make use of logical arguments against other philosophies in order to expose their contradictions.[123] — link

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy
    j0e

    Most of the time people focus on the link between scepticism and the east but scepticism also is linked to (pre-socratic) Greek philosophy; Pyrrho is linked to democritan philosophy through Metrodorus of Chios and Anaxarchus of Abdera.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrodorus_of_Chios
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaxarchus
  • Is the Truth Useful?
    You made me think of a counterexample.

    Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested... — Francis Bacon
    j0e

    I'm pretty sure Francis Bacon wasn't talking about actual bibliophagy... :rofl:
  • Are insults legitimate debate tactics?
    Are insults legitimate debate tactics?schopenhauer1

    It's a tactic, sure, but a particularly lowbrow one at that. It also precludes the discussion from flowing in a "civilized" manner, especially when both parties start engaging in random potshots.
  • what do you know?
    Is there something that you feel or think you truly know.Thinking

    ... No, not in particular.

    Perhaps some universal truth or intuitional feeling?

    ... No.

    What about something from experience?

    ... No, I don't think so.

    So, what do I know? I don't. I don't even know if I know nothing. It's of no concern to me.

    "In the beginner's mind there is no thought, "I have attained something." All self-centered thoughts limit our vast mind. When we have no thought of achievement, no thought of self, we are true beginners. Then we can really learn some-thing."
    -Shunryu Suzuki, "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind"
  • God and antinatalism
    You think there are more?Bartricks

    Oh no anointed one, thou has blessed us with thine mere presence. :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :lol:
  • God and antinatalism
    me - so far as I can tell the only proper philosopher on hereBartricks

    :rofl: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
  • My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching
    Thanks for the information. I've spent time with the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi, but not the other documents you listed. I'll take a look at them. I have looked at the I Ching, but not in depth. It is my understanding it is older than the Tao Te Ching and I couldn't really see how they fit together. Any insight?T Clark

    There are several angles one can take when it comes to the relationship between the "I Ching" and the "Daodejing" in my opinion:
    -Li Er (historical Laozi) worked as a court librarian before leaving his post. This means that he was most likely familiar with the "I Ching".
    -The "I Ching" isn't just an oracle text. It also spells out the cosmology in which the ancient Chinese intellectuals did their thinking.
    -It also acts as a sort of conceptual dictionary for ancient Chinese texts. Words like "heaven" and "earth" are easy to translate, but harder to interpret within the right framework.

    Take ch. 1 of the "Daodejing" for example:

    "(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth;
    (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things.
    "

    So, when wanting to know what the Laozi was talking about here, it helps when you're familiar with the cosmology he was thinking in. He mentions "the Originator of heaven and earth". Heaven, in this case, refers to the concept talked about in hexagram 1, earth to the concept talked about in hexagram 2. When he's talking about "the originator", he's talking about wuji / taji, but those are merely names...

    We're on Verse 18 right now and moving through verse by verse. We'll see how long we last. Please chime in whenever you'd like.

    Will do. :up:
  • My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching
    Hi Ying, and welcome to the discussion. I’m interested in reading more of your personal perspective on the TTC here.Possibility

    Hi!

    I have been using the Yellow Bridge site throughout this discussion - I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the three translations offered, although I think they do give an interesting span of the types of translation attempts available. T Clark’s suggestion of the Terebess site gives a wide choice of translations, some of which also provide commentary and the Chinese text alongside.

    Ooh the Terebess site looks nice! Thnx for the heads up and thank you T Clark for providing the link!

    I do find the pop-up translation of each Chinese character on Yellow Bridge to be invaluable, although I think that cross-referencing with Google Translate sometimes provides a clearer understanding of what can seem to be contradictory English words - the use of jué at the beginning of verses 19 and 20 is one that particularly confused me: I’d be interested in your perspective here.

    Google Translate? I've found that DeepL usually has beter translation results.
    https://www.deepl.com/translator

    As for the specific usage of Chinese characters, well, sorry to say, but my Chinese is non-existent. Particularly bad for me, since I'm actually Chinese. :shade: I am, however, fairly well read when it comes to daoist philosophy; I believe the following passage from the "Zhiangzi" might help with interpreting the verses you mentioned. I've also added some notes from guidebooks on world history to highlight that neither Zhiangzi nor Laozi where talking about mere imaginings. I made those notes hidden since it's not particularly important to this thread imho.

    "According to my idea, those who knew well to govern mankind would not act so. The people had their regular and constant nature: they wove and made themselves clothes; they tilled the ground and got food. This was their common faculty. They were all one in this, and did not form themselves into separate classes; so were they constituted and left to their natural tendencies. Therefore in the age of perfect virtue men walked along with slow and grave step, and with their looks steadily directed forwards. At that time, on the hills there were no foot-paths, nor excavated passages; on the lakes there were no boats nor dams; all creatures lived in companies; and the places of their settlement were made close to one another. Birds and beasts multiplied to flocks and herds; the grass and trees grew luxuriant and long. In this condition the birds and beasts might be led about without feeling the constraint; the nest of the magpie might be climbed to, and peeped into. Yes, in the age of perfect virtue, men lived in common with birds and beasts, and were on terms of equality with all creatures, as forming one family - how could they know among themselves the distinctions of superior men and small men? Equally without knowledge, they did not leave (the path of) their natural virtue; equally free from desires, they were in the state of pure simplicity. In that state of pure simplicity, the nature of the people was what it ought to be. But when the sagely men appeared, limping and wheeling about in (the exercise of) benevolence, pressing along and standing on tiptoe in the doing of righteousness, then men universally began to be perplexed. (Those sages also) went to excess in their performances of music, and in their gesticulations in the practice of ceremonies, and then men began to be separated from one another. If the raw materials had not been cut and hacked, who could have made a sacrificial vase from them? If the natural jade had not been broken and injured, who could have made the handles for the libation-cups from it? If the attributes of the Dao had not been disallowed, how should they have preferred benevolence and righteousness? If the instincts of the nature had not been departed from, how should ceremonies and music have come into use? If the five colours had not been confused, how should the ornamental figures have been formed? If the five notes had not been confused, how should they have supplemented them by the musical accords? The cutting and hacking of the raw materials to form vessels was the crime of the skilful workman; the injury done to the characteristics of the Dao in order to the practice of benevolence and righteousness was the error of the sagely men.[/i}"
    -Zhuangzi, Horses Hoofs 2

    Reveal
    III. Let us now turn to the questions of when agriculture was introduced, the complexities of its introduction, and its implications for the future.
    A. The introduction of agriculture, sometimes called the Neolithic revolution, was a crucial change in the human experience. Some would argue that, other than the emergence of the species itself, the development of agriculture and the later replacement of agricultural economies with industrial economies are the two key developments of the human experience.
    B.Agriculture was invented in at least three separate places.
    1. The first invention occurred in the northern Middle East/Black Sea region with domestication of wheat and barley.
    2. The second invention occurred in South China and continental Southeast Asia around 7000 BCE with the introduction of rice.
    3. The third invention was the domestication of corn, or maize, in Central America about 5000 BCE.
    4. Agriculture may also have been invented in other places, including sub-Saharan Africa and northern China.
    C. By 5000 BCE, agriculture had gradually spread and was becoming the most common economic system for the largest number of people in the world. Despite the advantages of agriculture over hunting and gathering, its widespread adoption was slow.
    1.One reason for this slow spread was that contacts among relatively far-flung populations were minimal.
    2. Not all regions were suitable for agriculture; some were heavily forested or arid.
    3. An alternative economic system based on nomadic herding of animals prevailed for a long time over agriculture in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, and Central Asia.
    4.Agriculture involves settling down,which might not have been attractive to some hunting-and-gathering societies that treasured their capacity to move around.
    IV. When agriculture was introduced, it brought massive changes in the human experience.
    A. Agriculture involves more work, particularly for men, than hunting and gathering; thus, it redefined and increased the work expectations of human society.
    B.Agriculture also redefined gender relations. In most hunting-and-gathering societies, men did the hunting and women did the gathering, but because both groups contributed to the food supply, women usually had some influence in society. In agricultural societies, however, patriarchal systems predominated.
    1. The most obvious reason for the increase in male dominance was that agriculture both permitted and required an expansion of the birthrate.
    2. Men increasingly assumed the role of principal cultivator of the crucial food crops, resulting in the development of patriarchal societies.
    3. In hunting-and-gathering societies, children had few functions until they reached their early teens. In agricultural societies, childhood and work became more closely associated, and the idea of obedience tended to follow this shift.
    V. The advent of agriculture raises interesting questions about human progress.
    A.Despite what many of us learned in grade school, the adoption of agriculture had a number of drawbacks. In some cases, these drawbacks affected some groups willingness to adopt agriculture.
    1.The first drawback is the introduction of new kinds of inequality, particularly between men and women.
    2.The second is that agriculture allowed people to settle down into clustered communities, which exposedthe inhabitants to increased incidences of epidemic disease.
    3.The third is that agricultural societies altered the local environment in a way that hunting-and-gathering societies did not do, to the extent of damaging and even destroying a regional environment and the communities that existed there.
    B.The advantages of agriculture, however, allowed it to spread.
    1.One not entirely frivolous theory toexplain this spread is that agriculture allowed the growth of products that could be fermented to create alcohol.
    2.More systematically, agriculture significantly improved food supplies, which in turn allowed families to have more children and resulted in population expansion.
    3.These conditions prevailed for a long time, between about 9000 BCE until 300 to 400 years ago.
    C.Agricultural economies were constrained by limitations in the amount of food that a given worker could generate. Even the most advanced agricultural economies required about 80 percent of the population to be engaged primarily in agriculture, which limited the amount of taxation that could be levied and limited the size of cities to no more than 20 percent of the populationa crucial feature to remember about agricultural societies in general.
    D.Agricultural societies also generated cultural emphases, especially by encouraging new attention to the spring season and to divine forces responsible for creation.
    E.The crucial features of agriculture were its role in population increase and its capacity to generate discernible surpluses, which freed at least some people to do other things, such as manufacturing pottery. As we will see in the next lecture, manufacturing could lead to yet additional developments in the human experience, including the emergence of cities and advancements in other areas of technology.
    -Peter Stearns, "A Brief History of the World" Guidebook 1, p. 9, 10, 11
    F. It is a mistake to think our ancestors were unsophisticated.
    1. To survive using Stone Age technologies, they needed detailed scientific knowledge of their environments, accumulated through millennia of collective learning and stored in stories and myths.
    2. Southwestern Tasmania was one of the most remote environments on Earth in the Paleolithic era. Yet modern archaeological studies of Kutikina Cave, which was occupied from 35,000 years ago to perhaps 13,000 years ago, have revealed hundreds of stone tools, ancient hearths, delicate spear points of wallaby bone, and knives made from natural glass (Mithen, After the Ice, pp. 30607). The first Tasmanians exploited their environment with great efficiency.
    -David Christian, "Big History" Guidebook 1, p. 63
    B. To many, it may seem obvious that Paleolithic lifeways were harsh, brutal, and unpleasant. Yet in 1972, American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins wrote a famous article, The Original Affluent Society, in which he questioned these assumptions. Sahlins argued that in some ways Paleolithic life was not too bad.
    1. Being nomadic, people had little desire to accumulate goods. This, he describes as the Zen path to abundance: a feeling that everything you need is all around you.
    2. Diets were often healthy and varied.
    3. Modern studies of foraging societies suggest that people often survived on just 3 - 6 hours of work a day.
    4. Because there was little accumulated wealth, Paleolithic societies were more egalitarian than those of today (though this does not mean there were no conflicts between individuals, or divisions by age, lineage, and gender).
    C. On the other hand, studies of Paleolithic skeletons suggest that most people died young, usually from physical trauma of some kind.
    D. Sahlins may have overstated the case, and we can be sure that someone reared in a modern society would struggle to survive in a Paleolithic society. Nevertheless, Sahlinss article reminds us that we should not
    assume without question that history is a story of progress.
    -Ibid.
    2. Agriculture did not necessarily improve living standards, which is why many foragers who knew about farming rejected it. Archaeological evidence suggests they may have been right, for many early farmers suffered from poor health and nutrition. This idea encourages us to look for push rather than pull explanations, for factors that forced people to take up agriculture whether they wanted to or not.
    -Ibid. p. 72
    V. How well did the first farmers live? Did agriculture necessarily mean progress?
    A. We saw in Lecture Twenty-Two that, by some criteria, Paleolithic foragers lived quite well.
    B. The evidence on early farmers is mixed.
    1. The first generation or two probably lived well, enjoying improved food supplies.
    2. However, within a few generations, population growth created problems that nomadic foragers had never faced. Sedentary villages attracted vermin and rubbish, and diseases spread more easily with a larger pool of potential victims to infect, particularly after the introduction of domesticated animals, which passed many of their parasites on to humans. Studies of human bones from early Agrarian communities hint at new forms of stress, caused by the intense labor of harvest times, or by periodic crop failures, which became more common because farmers generally relied on a more limited range of foodstuffs than foragers. Periodic shortages may explain why skeletons seem to get shorter in early Agrarian villages.
    3. On the other hand, early Agrarian communities were probably fairly egalitarian. Relative equality is apparent even in large sites such as Catal Huyuk, where buildings are similar in size, though differences in burials show there were some, possibly hereditary, differences in wealth.
    VI. The early Agrarian era transformed a world of foragers into a world of peasant farmers. Within these denser communities new forms of complexity would begin to emerge. Yet by some criteria, living standards may have declined. Complexity does notnecessarily mean progress!
    -Ibid. p. 75
    By modern standards, Paleolithic and early Agrarian communities were simple and egalitarian. However, during the early Agrarian era, institutionalized hierarchies began to appear, dividing communities by gender, wealth, ethnicity, lineage, and power. About 5,000 years ago there appeared the first tribute-taking states. These were controlled by elites who extracted labor and resources, partly through the threat of organized force, just as farmers extracted ecological rents from their domesticated plants and animals. The appearance of states was a momentous transition in human history.
    -Ibid. p. 77
    V. Now we return to the early Agrarian era to trace how power structures became more significant and more institutionalized. It will help to imagine two distinct ways of mobilizing power. Though intertwined in reality, we can distinguish them analytically.
    A. Power from below is power conceded more or less willingly by individuals or groups who expect to benefit from subordination to skillful leaders. People expect something in return for subordination, so power from below is a mutualistic form of symbiosis. As societies became largerand denser, leadership became more important in order to achieve group goals, such as the building of irrigation systems or defense in war.
    1. Familiar modern examples of power from below include the election of club or team officials or captains.
    2. When we think of power as legitimate (e.g., the right to tax in a democratic society), we are generally thinking of it as power from below, even if it is backed by the threat of force.
    B. Power from above depends on the capacity to make credible threats of coercion. That depends on the existence of disciplined groups of coercers, loyal to the leader and able to enforce the leaders will by force when necessary. In such an environment, people obey because they will be punished if they do not. This aspect of power highlights the coercive (or parasitic) element in power relationships.
    1. The existence of jails, police, and armiesis evidence that such power exists.
    2. Yet no state can depend entirely on coercion becausemaintaining an apparatus of coercion is costly and depends on maintaining the willing support of the coercers. No individual can single-handedly coerce millions of others.
    C. In practice, the two forms of power are intertwined in complex ways. Protection rackets, for example, offer a service. Yet it is often the racket itself that is the likely source of danger, so does the payment of protection money count as a form of power from below or above?
    D. Building coercive groups is complex and costly, and the earliest forms of power emerged before such groups existed. That is why the first power elites depended mainly on power from below.
    -Ibid. P. 78


    I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with any of these other ancient Chinese texts (there have been a number of references in this discussion to the Zhuangzi and the I Ching), although I am intrigued by Neo-Daoism as a philosophy - so thank you for the SEP reference. I think the notion of ziran might be what T Clark has been referring to as his ‘true nature’, so I’d also be interested in fleshing out this idea in relation to Neo-Daoism as he makes reference to it in later verses (as promised). I see this as tending more towards a natural logic than an essential self, but I could be misunderstanding it.

    Well, you're in for a treat if you like daoism and haven't read the "Zhuangzi". It's a philosophical treatise which is actually funny at times. I highly recommend reading at least the "Inner Chapters"..

    Anyway, here's a link to the "Zhuangzi":
    https://ctext.org/daoism

    ... The "I Ching"
    http://www2.unipr.it/~deyoung/I_Ching_Wilhelm_Translation.html

    And the "Liezi":
    https://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/tt/

    Finally, the "Shang Shu":
    https://ctext.org/shang-shu
  • My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching
    So, uh, yeah. I guess I'll chime in. First off, here:

    https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing.php

    That website contains 3 translations of the "Daodejing", each chapter having the three translations side by side. This helps with interpreting the words, since the "Daodejing" is somewhat hard to translate, or, at least, get the meaning "right".

    My way of reading and understanding Laozi is somewhat inspired by the approach of neo-daoism, though I'm not actually all that interested in the neo-daoists themselves; rather, my understanding of the dao is contextualized by other daoist/zen texts and two of the "Five Classics", which I think Li Er (the historical Laozi) was familiar with, those being the ""I Ching" and the "Shang Shu". Li Er was employed as a "keeper of the archives" (a court librarian), according to traditional views, so it's not particularly far reached to assume he indeed was familiar with certain texts from and before his time.
    The neo-daoist curriculum consisted of the "I Ching", the "Daodejing" and the "Zhuangzi". I believe the "Liezi", "Huahujing" and the "Wunengzi" also are relevant to a better understanding of the dao, as are the works of Takuan Soho (a zen monk with an interest in daoism), and the works of his correspondents (those being Miyamoto Musashi and Yagyu Munenori).

    As for daoism actually being a religion, yeah, it is. There are temples, priests and nuns on Wudangshan. They claim that Yinxi, the guard who allegedly asked Laozi to write the "Daodejing" down when he passed through the area after giving up his post as a librarian, was the founder of Wudang daoism. This makes Yinxi effectively the first daoist. That the "Daodejing" and other daoist texts can be read as philosophical treatises doesn't detract from that. The "Upanishads" can be read as a philosophical text too, but this doesn't negate the issue that Hinduism is a religion.

    Anyway, here's one of my favorite chapters from the "Daodejing". Make of it what you will:

    "Sincere words are not fine; fine words are not sincere. Those who are skilled (in the Dao) do not dispute (about it); the disputatious are not skilled in it. Those who know (the Dao) are not extensively learned; the extensively learned do not know it.

    The sage does not accumulate (for himself). The more that he expends for others, the more does he possess of his own; the more that he gives to others, the more does he have himself.

    With all the sharpness of the Way of Heaven, it injures not; with all the doing in the way of the sage he does not strive.
    "
    -"Daodejing", Legge translation, ch. 81
    https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing81.php
  • Is it impossible to save stupid people?
    Is it impossible to save stupid people?Huh

    So. There's a hexagram in the "I Ching" which deals specifically with (youthful) fools (Hexagram 4, "youthful folly"), the way they act, the way they should and shouldn't act and how to deal with such folk. I'll relay a few relevant passages here:

    "THE JUDGMENT

    YOUTHFUL FOLLY has success.
    It is not I who seek the young fool;
    The young fool seeks me.
    At the first oracle I inform him.
    If he asks two or three times, it is importunity.
    If he importunes, I give him no information.
    Perseverance furthers.

    In the time of youth, folly is not an evil. One may succeed in spite of it, provided one finds an experienced teacher and has the right attitude toward him. This means, first of all, that the youth himself must be conscious of his lack of experience and must seek out the teacher. Without this modesty and this interest there is no guarantee that he has the necessary receptivity, which should express itself in respectful acceptance of the teacher. This is the reason why the teacher must wait to be sought out instead of offering himself. Only thus can the instruction take place at the right time and in the right way. A teacher's answer to the question of a pupil ought to be clear and definite like that expected from an oracle; thereupon it ought to be accepted as a key for resolution of doubts and a basis for decision. If mistrustful or unintelligent questioning is kept up, it serves only to annoy the teacher. He does well to ignore it in silence, just as the oracle gives one answer only and refuses to be tempted by questions implying doubt. Given addition a perseverance that never slackens until the points are mastered one by one, real success is sure to follow. Thus the hexagram counsels the teacher as well as the pupil.
    "

    "Six at the beginning means:

    To make a fool develop
    It furthers one to apply discipline.
    The fetters should be removed.
    To go on in this way bring humiliation.

    Law is the beginning of education. Youth in its inexperience is inclined at first to take everything carelessly and playfully. It must be shown the seriousness of life. A certain measure of taking oneself in hand, brought about by strict discipline, is a good thing. He who plays with life never amounts to anything. However, discipline should not degenerate into drill. Continuous drill has a humiliating effect and cripples a man's powers.
    "

    "Six in the fourth place means:

    Entangled folly bring humiliation.

    For youthful folly it is the most hopeless thing to entangle itself in empty imaginings. The more obstinately it clings to such unreal fantasies, the more certainly will humiliation overtake it. Often the teacher, when confronted with such entangled folly, has no other course but to leave the fool to himself for a time, not sparing him the humiliation that results. This is frequently the only means of rescue.
    "

    "Six in the fifth place means:

    Childlike folly brings good fortune.

    An inexperienced person who seeks instruction in a childlike and unassuming way is on the right path, for the man devoid of arrogance who subordinated himself to his teacher will certainly be helped.
    "

    "Nine at the top means:

    In punishing folly
    It does not further one
    To commit transgressions.
    The only thing that furthers
    Is to prevent transgressions.

    Sometimes an incorrigible fool must be punished. He who will not heed will be made to feel. This punishment is quite different from a preliminary shaking up. But the penalty should not be imposed in anger; it must be restricted to an objective guarding against unjustified excesses. Punishment is never an end in itself but serves merely to restore order. This applies not only in regard to education but also in regard to the measures taken by a government against a populace guilty of transgressions. Governmental interference should always be merely preventive and should have as its sole aim the establishment of public security and peace.
    "
    http://www2.unipr.it/~deyoung/I_Ching_Wilhelm_Translation.html#4

    There also are a few relevant remarks in line 1 of hexagram 37 ("the family"):

    "Nine at the beginning means:

    Firm seclusion within the family.
    Remorse disappears.

    The family must form a well-defined unit within which each member knows his place. From the beginning each child must be accustomed to firmly established rules of order, before ever its will is directed to other things. If we begin too late to enforce order, when the will of the child has already been overindulged, the whims and passions, grown stronger with the years, offer resistance and give cause for remorse. If we insist on order from the outset, occasions for remorse may arise-in general social life these are unavoidable-but the remorse always disappears again, and everything rights itself. For there is nothing easily avoided and more difficult to carry through than "breaking a child's will."
    "
    http://www2.unipr.it/~deyoung/I_Ching_Wilhelm_Translation.html#37