I defined philosophy as: thinking about knowledge. — Varde

For me, personally, philosophy is the practice of becoming more aware of how my mind works. How I think, feel, act, know. Self-awareness is the destination of every path. I acknowledge that's a non-standard definition, but, in practice, I don't think it is so different from more standard ones.

Why is it putting them down as opposed to bringing them back down to your level? — Valued contributer

That doesn't make sense to me. If it's wrong to put men down, it's wrong to do it to women too. Women are people before they're women. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

With race for example, the outrage over the use of slurs being uneven between certain races. The common explanation for this is that the use of those words don't always carry the same weight given history, political power etc. So things can sometimes seem superficially uneven but not be in reality. — Valued contributer

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - Are you saying that the situation for black people is "superficially uneven?" If so, you and I couldn't disagree more.

Otherwise however, isolating and condemning hypocrisy is typically considered an egalitarian activity. It is establishing what is generally accepted to be a core tenet of most moral systems: equality. — Valued contributer

You're argument isn't with women, it's with people who show disrespect for men. In my experience, that doesn't include most women.

I appreciate the side-by-side commentaries and translations. So much to puzzle over in this cryptic poem. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I started out just reading the Stephen Mitchell translation, which is very Americanized, colloquial. Many don't like that. I acknowledge he leaves things out and rounds corners, but sometimes his interpretations are those that reach me the best. They are what attracted me to the TTC first and I still like it a lot. If you just want one translation to read, I would suggest that one.

If you've seen my posts here on the forum, I bring up Lao Tzu a lot. After a while it felt like I was presenting myself as more knowledgeable than I am, so I decided to start digging deeper, looking at more translations, reading commentaries. That's what lead me to this thread. I wanted to put some discipline into my ideas.

So, I'm glad you like it. The extra depth has meant a lot to me.

This should be in the Lounge.

A critique

"He who tiptoes can see over the wall and do ballet
She who strains his strides can escape
He who reveals herself shows beauty
She who justifies himself shows resilience
He who boasts herself can win the game and be given a lot of credit
She who prides himself can be powerful"

The "dregs and tumors" turned into gaseous benevolence! — Hillary

That remains to be seen. His advocating of non-desire doesn't mean he's free of it. He surely had the desire to express this. — Hillary

I won't object to your comments, but until you're willing to respond seriously, I won't respond to you further.

Verse 24

Lin Yutang

He who stands on tiptoe does not stand (firm),
He who strains his strides does not walk (well)
He who reveals himself is not luminous,
He who justifies himself is not far-famed,
He who boasts of himself is not given credit.
He who prides himself is not chief among men.
These in the eyes of Tao
Are called ''the dregs and tumors of Virtue,”
Which are things of disgust.
Therefore the man of Tao spurns them.

Stephen Mitchell

He who stands on tiptoe
doesn't stand firm.
He who rushes ahead
doesn't go far.
He who tries to shine
dims his own light.
He who defines himself
can't know who he really is.
He who has power over others
can't empower himself.
He who clings to his work
will create nothing that endures.

If you want to accord with the Tao,
just do your job, then let go.

Ellen Marie Chen

One who tiptoes cannot stand.
One who straddles cannot walk.
One who sees himself is not enlightened (ming).
One who justifies himself is not outstanding.
One who shows off (fa) his deeds is not meritorious.
One who boasts (ching) of himself does not lead (chang).

These to a Taoist are called:
Excess nature (yü te) and superfluous actions (shui hsing),
Avoided (o) even by things.
Therefore the Taoist does not indulge (ch’u) in them.

I think this verse is straightforward, familiar. It something we’ve heard before. Don’t reach for acclaim or success, it will backfire. Do what needs to be done, what your true self tells you to do, without regard for what other people think. If you want to have people’s regard, you can have it. All you have to do is stop wanting it, stop struggling for it.

This from Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 10:

To give birth, to nurture,
To give birth yet not to claim possession (yu),
To act (wei) yet not to hold on to,
To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).

This is from Stephen Mitchell’s translation of Verse 13:

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.

What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?

Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 34:

The great Tao is like a flood
It can flow to the left or to the right
The myriad things depend on it for life, but it never stops
It achieves its work, but does not take credit
It clothes and feeds myriad things, but does not rule over them
Ever desiring nothing
It can be named insignificant
Myriad things return to it but it does not rule over them
It can be named great
Even in the end, it does not regard itself as great
That is how it can achieve its greatness.

Lin Yutang selection from the Chuang Tzu

'He who boasts of himself is not given credit. The man who claims distinguished service falls and the man who achieves fame will be defamed. Who can abandon distinction for service and reputation and return to the common level of men? Tao pervades everywhere, and yet does not show itself, Teh (Tao manifest) influences everything and yet does not make its name known. Live sincerely and plainly like the others and suffer yourself sometimes to be called a fool. Avoid being conspicuous and keep away from a position of power. Do not live for service and fame. Thus you will not criticize others and others will not criticize you. The perfect man has no (thought of) reputation."

Derek Lin’s commentary:

The one who stands on tiptoes, in order to raise himself or herself above others, cannot stand for long. The one who straddles in an exaggerated gait cannot walk any significant distance for long. The one who shows off himself or herself will, ironically, not be clearly perceived by others. The one who thinks he or she is always right will not be considered respectable or admirable by others. The one who incessantly praises himself or herself is not the person with true merit. The one who is always bragging about his or her achievements is not the person with lasting power. Those who are on the path of Tao speak of such things as if they were leftover food or useless growth, like a tumor. They despise such things and regard them with contempt. This is why those who possess the Tao do not engage in such activities. They do not show off, presume, or boast.

I think the reason we can make sense of the Way is more to do with the logical and qualitative structure of the text in relation to the world than anything to do with differences in time or culture. — Possibility

As we've discussed before, and as I've noted in one of my recent posts, I don't see the Tao Te Ching as logical or qualitative. For me, it is metaphorical. Poetic. Experiential.

For myself, I’m reluctant to attribute such intentionality or desire to the original author. — Possibility

I don't think Lao Tzu, as a good Taoist, wrote TTC with intentionality or desire. Or maybe that's what you're saying.

I get that your approach is to make some definitive distinction between metaphysical and physical understanding, but I don’t subscribe to this duality myself. — Possibility

That distinction is at the heart of my understanding, perception, of reality.

Having said that, I don’t feel like we have to go there in this discussion at all. — Possibility

I don't particularly want to talk about metaphysics in general, but it's open season on the metaphysics of the TTC and Taoism in general.

Again, Lao must have had an instinct feeling for the nature of reality. All these poetic lines, except the last nonsensical ones, show a truly striking similarity with quantum field theoretical considerations. Although not expressed in mathematical language, both descriptions certainly have a common. Aren't we all made from the quantum vacuum? — Hillary

I've had my say more than once about this.

If the Tao precedes God, it also precedes the quantum vacuum and any higher dimensional structure. — Hillary

Yes, as I've noted before.

Fritjof Capra was praised and criticized for his Tao of Physics... Capra was on the right track. — Hillary

Capra is another one who doesn't know his metaphysics from his physics. Reading "Tao of Physics" was the first time I remember recognizing that.

English doesn’t lend itself very well to this non-conceptual structure. Most English translations of the TTC have something of the translator’s own life experience and value structures in them, as well as their conceptualisation of Chinese history and culture - none of which can be found in the original text. It makes it difficult to get a clear sense of the text by comparing only one or two English translations. — Possibility

We've had this discussion before. I'm more confident than you are that we can hear what Lao Tzu is trying to say even 2,500 years later from a very different culture. We are all human. There is only one world. Of course different cultures have different kinds of minds, so there is plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding. At bottom, though, it is the experience of the Tao that matters, not the concepts.

For what it's worth, I don't compare one or two English translations. I look at at least five, often more if they seem inconsistent.

FWIW, I think there is some sense in the parallels to be drawn between the TTC and quantum physics. But I also think we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about ‘knowledge’ Lao Tzu may have had (verses 18-20). — Possibility

I strongly reject this. There may be metaphorical similarities, but people are always ready to mix up metaphysical and physical understanding.

Still, the soft whispering of Nature can be compared with the whirling emptiness of the quantum vacuum. Sift words, not yet fully fledged, ready to be firmly spoken when interaction is there, or measurement, or particles are pulled out of their virtual vacuum state into reality. Sometime with a primordial birth cry, which is a kind of dramatic particle physics... :fire: (whatever the fire means, but seems appropriate) — Hillary

You take something different from this than I do, which is fine.

AS is on to something! Lemme tellya! — Hillary

Nostradamus wrote
Patriots by 10, nuff said
Put your bets down now

Would you say that pointing out a form of hypocrisy in society's treatment of the two genders is standing up for one by putting the other down? — Valued contributer

Yes, I think it is. I've taken exactly the position you're taking in previous discussions. I came to realize that setting this up as a men vs. women thing hurts more than it helps. That's what infuriates me about a lot of feminist ideas.

Lao Tzu was onto something i.e. his mind did know about whatever the hell quantum vacuum is. — Agent Smith

[irony] Yes, and Nostradamus predicted the Patriots will win the Superbowl this season.[/irony]

Let's analyze rationally and offer rational critique. — Hillary

My approach to the TTC tends to be intellectual, rational, but that's me, not Lao Tzu. I don't see it as a fundamentally rational document. It's not irrational either. For me, it's about experiencing the world without words or concepts, if that's possible at all. Can't get much more non-rational than that.

Nature says a lot of words, whispers constantly, screams at times. — Hillary

As I see it, nature may scream sometimes, but briefly, then it stops. We should be like that. None of this whispering. Just be quiet. Say what needs to be said, then shut up. Do what needs to be done, then stop, leave it behind, and go on to whatever's next.

I think this chapter refers to recognising and trusting our temporary nature within Tao. The previous chapter described how the sage manifests effect without intending or desiring to BE the effective agent. — Possibility

I think that's right. I think that "temporary nature" you're talking about is hard to attain. Or at least it's easy to forget. I went back and reread Verse 22 since you brought it up. For me, it was much clearer in what it was saying than this one.

A violent wind or a sudden downpour are temporary events within an ongoing directional flow of energy, or ch’i - Feng Shui meaning ‘wind and water’. If we consider our life event in a similar way, then we have three basic options: we can focus on attracting energy, on losing it, or we can position our being according to the Way, which neither gains nor loses but rather effects an unobstructed flow of energy. — Possibility

Chi, c'hi, qi, energy; is like yin and yang - People say that it is central to understanding the Tao, but it rarely or never is mentioned in the Tao Te Ching. I have some sense of what it means based on my experience with tai chi. I think it points to the fact that Taoist practice includes meditation. That's something I don't generally take into account.

I don't think so. The definitions of reason in the google dictionary are
1) a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
2) the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Note that this has nothing to do with truth necessarily. — Paulm12

I disagree. Definition 1, as I noted in a previous post, is clearly not the sense of "reason" addressed by the original post, which did not discuss "a reason" or "reasons", but "reason". The OP said:

Obviously if we are doing philosophy, we try to use reason/rationality to make an argument and avoid contradictions. — Paulm12

This is consistent with your Definition 2. To say this has nothing to do with truth is not correct. We make arguments about the truth of a position. Thinking and understanding are the tools we use to make judgements about truth.

If we take "reality" as "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them," then science, reason, and mathematics actually don't tell us much about reality at all. They do tell us idealistic, notational ideas of reality, which are incredibly useful and perhaps "good enough" in most cases. — Paulm12

You're talking about some fancy schmancy subtle, nitpicky version of truth with all sorts of qualifications and conditions. Cartesian truth I guess. I'm talking about regular old everyday truth like who murdered the butler or how the war in Ukraine will affect the price of butter in Peoria.

Are you not curious for the why? — Hillary

People have reasons, not the universe.

How did he know about the quantum vacuum already back then? — Hillary

He didn't.

Yes! I think though that if you know the reason for that ground, which only can be given in a theist context, the ground gets an extra dimension, and all the reasons we invent, like maybe the morals, an extra depth. — Hillary

As you can see from the language in Verse 4, the Tao came before any God. Before anything was named. Before the quantum vacuum.

If you're interested in reading more, here is a link to a website that has many different translations of the TTC.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

You can read the whole document in about an hour. As I indicated, the text you liked is from Ellen Marie Chen's translation.

I take mine from it then, as it seems to advocate. I love these lines! Until the last three lines I see it like the the most beautiful way I have seen the quantum vacuum described! All propagators, momenta, and energies, hidden variables, etc. shrink into insignificance wrt to it! For me, it's a kind of revelation. :up:

How long ago written? By who? — Hillary

Written about 2,500 years ago by Lao Tzu in China.

The universe exists because it exists? — Hillary

Yes. It just does. Again - that's enough for me.

The quantum and the Tao, so often exploited... — Hillary

Everything I write about this is how I see it, not the way it is. There are hundreds of translations and interpretations of the Tao Te Ching out there. I guess you could say this thread is just one more. Metaphorically, I can see how the Tao and the quantum vacuum are the same. They are both the absolute ground of being. But then, the Tao is many other things also. There are moral, social, and psychological dimensions that you don't find in physics.

Everyone who has ever read the TTC has seen it differently.

It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings
— T Clark

Now it truly gets scary... — Hillary

The ten thousand things, or ten thousand beings, refers to the multiplicity of the world. All the individual things that exist once we cut the Tao into pieces.

a reason why existence exists in the first place. — Hillary

why the universe is there — Hillary

Because it does. That's enough for me. Clearly not for you.

That's the quantum vacuum! Whirling emptiness: whirling virtual particles. The entangled particles disentangled during inflation. The sharpness blunted: uncertainty relations. Must I continue? — Hillary

Again, that's not how I see it. The quantum vacuum, virtual particles, that's physics. The Tao is metaphysics. It's one useful way of seeing how things are, not the only way.

This is where it seems like we have to make a circular argument. We say reason is the process of finding truth, because we believe that we can arrive at truth using reason. Now, perhaps reason was developed because it described our conception of reality. However, to claim that we have arrived at truth because we used reason is a metaphysical claim about the world saying that truth follows due to our use of reason (probably pretty justified, it seems to do better than other methods, etc). — Paulm12

It's not a circular argument at all. Reason is a process for finding the truth. That's a definition. That's what reason is intended for. Now, perhaps it's a bad or ineffective process, but that's another question.

In the light of gods, reason can be given. Science merely describes creation while informing us about eternal heaven and the eternal life in it. — Hillary

I'm not a follower of any religion. I don't see things the way you do. For me, the reason for existence is a human question that only has human answers.

Sounds reasonable. But how can it be used to find out about the reason for existence? — Hillary

I have answered that question to my own satisfaction, although probably not yours. There is no reason for existence. There is never an answer to the question "Why?" Only "How?"

Sounds like a poetic description of the quantum vacuum structure preceding the big bang, and which is still around us! Damned,T Clark! A revelation! — Hillary

Agreed, it is a poetic description, but then "vacuum" and "big bang" are used metaphorically. I'm not clear on what the revelation you're so excited about is. If you mean that the Tao is the quantum vacuum, that's not how I see it.

It depends on your frame of reference what reason is used. There is no such thing as pure reason. That's an abstraction applicable for an imaginary world only. — Hillary

I'm just talking about regular old normal, impure reason. The kind you and I are involved in here.

But the aim is to find the true reason for existence. Causes give no answer, only a description. — Hillary

Ok, but you're still talking about "reason" in a different sense than the OP is. Reason, as it is normally used, is not the process of finding the reason for existence.

The reason is the why. What's reasonable for me might be unreasonable for you. Is the universe reasonable? Can we apply the why-question to it (including all life in it)? Can cosmology offer a reason for the existence of the cosmos? Several attempts have been made to paint a self sufficient picture, i.e., the cosmos being it's own cause. Obviously there is circularity at play here, because the question remains what the reason is for a self-causing universe in the first place. I can offer a cosmology in which the ending of a cosmos is the trigger for a next, but the reason is not included, i.e., my cosmology is irrational. — Hillary

I think this just highlights what @Philosophim wrote. It's important to define what we mean by "reason." Reason, as it is discussed in the opening post, is a process for finding the truth. A reason, as you are discussing it, is different. It's another word for a cause or purpose. They are completely different things.

Thanks for firing this thread up again. Hope I can clear some time to take a closer look at this fascinating book. One I always felt a kinship to. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Any thoughts will be welcome. They help me understand better and give me incentive to keep going.

Sounds like the eternal but still timeless absolute reality of the quantum vacuum, on whose higher dimensional structure time and space emerge in a big inflation. — Hillary

One of my favorite verses is Verse 4. This is from Ellen Marie Chen's translation:

Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung),
Yet (erh) in use (yung) is inexhaustible (ying).
Fathomless (yuan),
It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings.
It blunts the sharp,
Unties the entangled,
Harmonizes the bright,
Mixes the dust.
Dark (chan),
It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).
I do not know whose child it is,
It is an image (hsiang) of what precedes God (Ti).

If the Tao precedes God, it also precedes the quantum vacuum and any higher dimensional structure.

The forum guidelines say "Don't start a new discussion unless you are...Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.

Verse 23

I always enjoyed this discussion. Putting my thoughts about the Tao Te Ching into words has helped me gain an understanding about what it means to me. The thread sort of ran out of steam along the way, so it has been dormant for almost a year. I’ve been thinking about starting it up again, for at least a verse or two. I’m not sure how much I’ll carry it on.

I find Verse 23 a bit perplexing. As I see it, it has three subjects:

• Don’t talk too much. Put everything you have into what you say, then stop.
• Something confusing about our relationship to the Tao, Te, and loss.
• If you don’t trust, you get no trust in return.

I’m not sure how these three subjects are related. The translations I looked at all address the first subject in similar ways, but the second and third are handled differently in different translations.

The first translation of Verse 23 in this post is one I found fairly recently, so I haven’t used it in past posts. It seems like a useful translation. Best of all, for me, is that it includes specific verses from the Chuang Tzu that are relevant to some of the Tao Te Ching verses. Here’s a link to a downloadable PDF version:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.189060/page/n3/mode/2up

Lin Yutang

Nature says few words:
Hence it is that a squall lasts not a whole morning.
A rainstorm continues not a whole day.
Where do they come from?
From Nature.
Even Nature does not last long (in its utterances),
How much less should human beings?

Therefore it is that:
He who follows the Tao is identified with the Tao.
He who follows Character (Teh) is identified with
Character.
He who abandons (Tao) is identified with abandonment
(of Tao).
He who is identified with Tao—
Tao is also glad to welcome him.
He who is identified with Character—
Character is also glad to welcome him.
He who is identified with abandonment—
Abandonment is also glad to welcome him.

He who has not enough faith
Will not be able to command faith from others.

Addiss and Lombardo

Spare words; nature's way.
Violent winds do not blow all morning.
Sudden rain cannot pour all day.
What causes these things?
Heaven and Earth.
If Heaven and Earth do not blow and pour for long,
How much less should humans?

Therefore in following Tao:
Those on the way become the way,
Those who gain become the gain,
Those who lose become the loss.
All within the Tao:
The wayfarer, welcome upon the way,
Those who gain, welcome within gain,
Those who lose, welcome within loss.

Without trust in this, There is no trust at all.

Stephen Mitchell

Express yourself completely,
then keep quiet.
Be like the forces of nature:
when it blows, there is only wind;
when it rains, there is only rain;
when the clouds pass, the sun shines through.

If you open yourself to the Tao,
you are at one with the Tao
and you can embody it completely.
If you open yourself to insight,
you are at one with insight
and you can use it completely.
If you open yourself to loss,
you are at one with loss
and you can accept it completely.

Open yourself to the Tao,
then trust your natural responses;
and everything will fall into place.

Stanza by stanza discussion:

First stanza:

As I noted, the first stanza is generally handled the same by all of the translators. Wind and rain are nature’s speech. There is power in the way “heaven and earth” express themselves. Express yourself briefly, powerfully, then be quiet. This is a common theme in the TTC - act spontaneously, from the heart, without regard for success, failure, acclaim, or blame. “Wu wei,” act without acting. Then let it go.

Second stanza:

This one confuses me and different translators give it somewhat different interpretations. First off, it seems as if the contents of this stanza are considered direct results of what is stated in the first. I don’t see that connection. The main confusion I have is with the idea of loss. Addiss and Lombardo say:

All within the Tao:
The wayfarer, welcome upon the way,
Those who gain, welcome within gain,
Those who lose, welcome within loss.

This makes is seem as if it’s a good thing to lose. On the other hand, Lin Yutang writes:

He who follows the Tao is identified with the Tao.
He who follows Character (Te) is identified with
Character.
He who abandons (Tao) is identified with abandonment
(of Tao).

This makes it seem like it is a bad thing. Most translations hint at least that loss, or at least identification with loss, is a good, or at least neutral, thing. I like the way Stephen Mitchell puts it:

If you open yourself to loss,
you are at one with loss
and you can accept it completely.

This makes sense to me and is consistent with my experience. Similarly, Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English write:

When you are at one with loss,
The loss is experienced willingly.

Third stanza:

This seems pretty straightforward, although, as I noted, I’m not sure of it’s connection with the previous two stanzas. Lin Yutang writes:

He who has not enough faith
Will not be able to command faith from others.

Is this a reference back to the need for a ruler to trust the people? Similarly, Ellen Marie Chen writes:

When you don't trust (hsin) (the people) enough,
Then they are untrustworthy (pu hsin).

Taking a different tack, Mitchell writes:

Open yourself to the Tao,
then trust your natural responses;
and everything will fall into place.

This interpretation seems to refer back to the first stanza.

Commentaries from Lin Yutang and Ellen Marie Chen are included in the hidden section.

What do you consider reason? Its a broad word that is often interpreted differently by different people. — Philosophim

I was going to make a similar comment. People toss the word "reason" around a lot without being very specific about what it means. I don't have any particular problem with your definition, but I note that the vast majority of human cognition is not found within its borders. Reason is just a tool.

Whether instead of Humanities and Social Sciences we should have psychology, sociology, history, and so on, as separate categories, I don’t know. Seems ok as it is. — Jamal

I don't generally pay attention to what categories posts are in. It all just shows up on my front page.

Could you provide me with the theological roots of rights theory? Where in the Bible (or elsewhere?) is rights theory derived? — Moses

I don't know. I was speaking from personal conviction.

IS that the best folk can do in the face of autocracy? Quoting American mythology? — Banno

Typical smug, snotty, shallow response.