I think a problem ...is to decide what is a thing. — Cuthbert

I think you've just summarized every possible philosophy.

The reason can be read in the Frank Miller comic entitled Tales to Offend # 1 — gikehef947

An Earth-bound Shoemaker-Levy (1) ... — 180 Proof

I can't speak for @Tiberiusmoon, but I think he was hoping for serious answers.

If you had all the answers to the worlds problems, what can an individual do to be impactful of such ideology? — Tiberiusmoon

Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and Joseph Stalin all thought they knew the answer to world peace. Christians and Muslims think they have the answer. Even our corporate overlords may think their system will bring us peace through avarice. Any possible unified solution to the problems of the world will lead to tyranny, bureaucracy, standardization, or all three.

I intend that as a serious answer.

You have seen the Bruces, haven't you? — Banno

I have heard the song, if that's what you mean. I find the Bruces sketch itself deeply offensive as a reflection of rabid Australaphobia.

I linked to the philosopher's football match in a previous post, but the link has been shut down.

I hope you would allow that people of good will could see the politicized science of the past year very differently. — fishfry

I don't doubt your good will at all.

From what I've seen in your posts, you and I have a very different understanding of how science and science-based policy making are supposed to work.

Verse 22

I had trouble with this verse. The different translations each seem to take a different angle, some in conflict with each other. They also seem to be in conflict with some earlier verses. I take the general theme to be one we have seen a lot. Act from the heart, with sincerity, and not for gain or recognition. Wu wei, although it isn’t called out as that. Then the verse goes on with some related things that I find a bit muddled.

Derek Lin

Yield and remain whole
Bend and remain straight
Be low and become filled
Be worn out and become renewed
Have little and receive
Have much and be confused

Therefore the sage holds to the one as an example for the world
Without flaunting oneself - and so is seen clearly
Without presuming oneself - and so is distinguished
Without praising oneself - and so has merit
Without boasting about oneself - and so is lasting
Because he does not contend, the world cannot contend with him

What the ancients called "the one who yields and remains whole"
Were they speaking empty words?
Sincerity becoming whole, and returning to oneself

Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

Yield and overcome;
Bend and be straight;
Empty and be full;
Wear out and be new;
Have little and gain;
Have much and be confused.

Therefore the wise embrace the one
And set an example to all.
Not putting on a display,
They shine forth.
Not justifying themselves,
They are distinguished.
Not boasting,
They receive recognition.
Not bragging,
They never falter.
They do not quarrel,
So no one quarrels with them.
Therefore the ancients say, "Yield and overcome."
Is that an empty saying?
Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.

Discussion of Derek Lin’s translation

Yield and remain whole
Bend and remain straight

At first look, these two lines seem straightforward - be flexible. Don’t force actions or forcibly resist events. Non-action. Some other translations have different emphasis. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English say:

Yield and overcome;
Bend and be straight;

Addis and Lombardo say:

Crippled become whole,
Crooked becomes straight,

These two translations seem to take a different view. Lin says “be flexible and remain strong.” The other translations seem to be saying “be flexible and achieve your goals.” The latter readings seem more consistent with the remaining lines in the stanza from Lin:

Be low and become filled
Be worn out and become renewed
Have little and receive
Have much and be confused

This has a prosperity gospel feel to it. Follow the Tao and you will be given what you want and need. This theme seems to be carried forward in the next stanza. Note that the last line of this stanza does not follow the parallel structure of the previous five. They say “do this and this good thing will happen.” The last line says “do this and this bad thing will happen.”

All in all, I like Stephen Mitchell’s take on this stanza best:

If you want to become whole,
let yourself be partial.
If you want to become straight,
let yourself be crooked.
If you want to become full,
let yourself be empty.
If you want to be reborn,
let yourself die.
If you want to be given everything,
give everything up.

I didn’t use his translation as the template here, because his version seems to have taken a lot of liberties with the text, as often happens with Mitchell.

Therefore the sage holds to the one as an example for the world
Without flaunting oneself - and so is seen clearly
Without presuming oneself - and so is distinguished
Without praising oneself - and so has merit
Without boasting about oneself - and so is lasting
Because he does not contend, the world cannot contend with him[

Again, the meaning here seems muddled. It again seems to say “do this, and accomplish your goals.” Flaunting, presuming, praising or boasting about oneself are all to be avoided. At the same time, being an example to the world, being seen clearly, being distinguished, having merit, and lasting are things we are not supposed to care about, but Lao Tzu is offering them to us as a reward for following the Tao. As if you can have anything you want, you just have to stop wanting it. Maybe he is playing with this irony intentionally.

The last line of this stanza seems to refer back to the first two lines – don’t resist, bend, be flexible. Relax, release, surrender. Not to achieve anything or gain any advantage. With no intention. No action. Wait for the mud to settle.

What the ancients called "the one who yields and remains whole"
Were they speaking empty words?
Sincerity becoming whole, and returning to oneself

This stanza refers back to the previous lines and asks “Is all this true?” Then what I guess is supposed to be a summary line – “Sincerity becoming whole and returning to oneself.” The Feng and English version makes more sense to me and seems more consistent with the verse as a whole.

Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.

Be really whole – follow the Tao, be your true self. Again “all things will come to you” seems ambiguous and contradictory.

Excerpts from Ellen Marie Chen commentary

This chapter arrives at an ethic of self-preservation and self-fulfillment by the central teaching of non-contention (pu cheng). The way to fully develop one’s potential is by avoiding the harmful influences that can shorten life, not, therefore, through struggle or warfare, but through humility and yielding. The Ho-shang Kung commentary considers the entire chapter the ethics of survival.

The first line “Bent, thus preserved whole” describes how a plant weathers a storm. The unbending will be mowed down but the bent will survive the destructive forces (ch. 76). This must have been the common wisdom of the time. The I-ching, Hsi-tz’u, II, chapter 5, says: “The measuring worm draws itself together for the sake of .expanding forward [hsin, see ch. 21]. Dragons and snakes hibernate for the sake of preserving their lives” (R. Wilhelm, 1967: 338). Similarly “the hollow,” like the valley (ch. 39), will be filled, the worn-out turns and becomes new (ch. 15), those with little shall receive more, but those who have much shall have their possessions taken away from them (chs. 36, 44, 77).

This logic of reversion is even more eloquently expressed in the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye that hunger now, for you shall be filled.
Blessed are ye that weep now, for you shall laugh. . . (Luke 6: 20-26)

While both texts can be construed today as preaching passive acceptance of a miserable fate with the promise of a better future—hence Marx’s indictment against religion as the opium of the people—they differ as to the manner of fulfillment. The Gospel promises readjustment of justice in the next world, implying that affairs in this world are not amenable to change for the better. The Tao Te Ching, as the next stanza makes clear, is not meant to console but to teach the art of surviving intact and accomplishing what one sets out to do in this world without resorting to conflict or warfare. They are practical instructions on how to succeed in life.

Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine? — Banno

Thanks for that. I'd never seen it before. Linked below.



And people say this isn't a legitimate philosophy forum.

The growing sense of entitlement of the stupidly ignorant. Not to be confused with the intellectually challenged, who in many cases are neither ignorant nor stupid. But rather those an education system has failed. They do not know, but they have been taught that does not matter, that they're entitled. And caring only about their entitlement, that if they make enough unpleasant noise, they might just get their way. — tim wood

Geez - you and Synthesis - it's nothing but hell in a handbasket, when I was a boy, kids these days.

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

Everything is nothing but something. You can't really define or describe something without saying what it is and what it is not.

I think the place is still a good way to sharpen one's argumentative skills — Tobias

This is what I like most about the forum.

Good post.

I think lots of knowledgable regular posters becoming less active has had a big impact, — TheWillowOfDarkness

I think you're right.

There are no arguments between Plato and Socrates; there are no arguments between Bullwinkle and Homer Simpson. But there are arguments between Plato and Bullwinkle. — god must be atheist

I have no idea what this means, but I like it.

What I mean is that weeding out, so to speak, can lead to lifelessness. — god must be atheist

I agree.

Not bias so much as good advice. — jamalrob

The forum definitely has a lefty point of view. I don't see that as bias. It's out in the open and impossible to miss. Agendas, but no hidden agendas. I'm lefty too, so it's not an issue for me.

This is not a good place for me to talk politics. I like to have those discussions on conservative sites. Those are the places I've really learned to deal with fractious issues while showing respect. It can really change the tone of a heated argument. It doesn't often change people's minds about political issues, but it can change minds about the people we disagree with. If conservative people came here with that kind of attitude, I think they could find it a valuable site.

A 1,000 bucks donation gets you an insta ban of a user of choice, no questions asked. — Benkei

How much to ban a moderator?

If I were to recommend moderators to improve on one thing, it would be to clean up the place. There are far better places for evangelical nuts, racist apologists, and people who don't even know what philosophy is. 4Chan-like forums and Reddit threads dedicated to that kind of stuff, instead of clogging up this place. — Christoffer

:100: YYYYYYYYYYES. This entire post bears repeating (and can't be repeated enough as far as I'm concerned). — 180 Proof

There's a lot of bullshit here, but there always has been. There are also plenty of interesting threads. Why worry about those that don't have much to say or just bang the same old gongs. They give us a chance to feel all superior. I know for me they also give me an opportunity to argue against positions I think are wrong-headed while staying civil and respectful. I need work on that. I can avoid discussions of anti-natalism, free will, Israel, relativity denial, the effects of quantum entanglement on haddock catches in the Bay of Fundy, and anything else that annoys me. I can also start threads of my own.

I don't see much in the way of "evangelical nuts" here. And what you are calling "racist apologists" also include needed criticism of the social justice movement and other similar ideologies. Moderators are pretty quick to crack down on posters who go over what they consider the line to the point that reasonable argument is often shut down or never starts.

It seems the culture wars have bread a generation of internecine suspicions that lend themselves so easily to a grand conspiracy behind all historico-political events, including the origins of little philosophy websites. — Tom Storm

No offence to Jamalrob, but the forum would be the most low-rent, third-rate conspiracy I can imagine.

My fault? If it is, sorry. — Tom Storm

No, not your fault. The talk about conspiracy theories related to the forum just has me shaking my head.

You were serious? I thought you were having a quiet mock there yourself so I had a riff on it. — Tom Storm

This thread has taken an....odd turn.

So, I see my participation with the site as being a potential source of stress, but also the best means I have of communication with other people. I will juggle this in my choice about engaging on this site on a longer term. I am here for critical analysis, but get put off when it gets so petty, but try to rise beyond this. — Jack Cummins

Your discussions are some of the best on the forum. I like the way they are all connected and, taken as a whole, paint a pretty clear picture of the things that matter to you. A consistent intellectual vision which includes a strong dose of curiosity is an effective tool.

As for squabbles, you may find them frustrating, but I think your threads have fewer than most. You should take that as a sign you are doing something right.

To be quite honest, the impression I got soon after joining was that this forum does have a left-wing bias, just from the way I was attacked for pointing out inconsistencies in Marxist theory. I thought that was rather strange on a philosophy forum. And it does list marxists.org under "Other sites we like". — Apollodorus

The forum is left-leaning and all woke and stuff from the top down. It wears it's heart on it's sleeve. It doesn't try to hide it. That does lead to certain subjects being resisted, which sometimes bothers me. I don't spend much time on political subjects anyway. People love to talk politics here, but discussions of real political philosophy are rare.

There doesn't seem to be much political balance there. — Apollodorus

Discussion subjects are generally chosen by members, not administrators or moderators, so it's not policy, it's the voice of the people. I haven't been impressed with the quality of the more conservative political discussion here, but I can say the same of political discussions in general on the forum.

Very interesting. If true, then that would make it a left-wing enterprise, wouldn't it? And how come there is no info on it anywhere? — Apollodorus

On the forum here, what you see is what you get. There isn't much in the way of infrastructure. There are King Jamalrob and Queen Baden and then all the little princes and princesses we know as moderators. The whole thing is run on an old IBM 486 sitting in a puddle of water in Jamalrob's basement in....Moscow!! If you contribute $10, that will double the budget for this year.

And yes, it is a pretty left-wing, or as we like to say "good," operation.

I have noticed that for the past few years I've posted more to politics-related discussions than philosophy. — Michael

I, on the other hand, have posted much less often on political discussions. Part of my lower blood pressure, greater peace strategy.

I certainly feel like Trump's election fucked up the vibe a bit too - or maybe even more than a bit - a few years ago. — Erik

I strongly endorse blaming Donald Trump for everything bad that has happened in the past 5 years.

That this seems kind of trivial to us is a testament to the size of the technological explosion that took pace in the 20th C. — frank

I agree.

So it's no accident that something helpful like vaccines came out if it. — frank

I've often seen vaccines used as an example of the problems with capitalist science. In general, vaccine development is not as profitable for pharmaceutical companies as a new improved erectile dysfunction medication. [irony]Which, of course, is as it should be.[/irony] For that reason, it doesn't get much attention unless the government gets involved. The Covid 19 vaccine appears to be a special case.

I have already given my definition of consciousness — charles ferraro

You had not provided that definition when I wrote my initial post in this discussion.

If you're talking about me, I was attempting to clarify the discussion, which has been muddy right from the start and is now only getting muddier. — Daemon

No, I wasn't finding fault with you at all. My initial post was written before you had made any response. Your initial post did exactly what I was suggesting that @charles ferraro should do - you were specific about what you meant when you said "consciousness." It was clear from other responses that "consciousness" meant something different to other responders. That could have been avoided with clear definitions in the OP. Which was my point.

Did you miss 2020? "Science" is a political word used to silence legitimate dissent and the actual scientific method. — fishfry

The response to the pandemic is the first time I've seen government use science in public to develop policy to address an urgent problem on a short-term basis. Since it was in public, and since it had a serious impact on our way of life, it was subject to political decision making. That's the way things are supposed to work. Politics is often confusing, misleading, and subject to special interests, especially these days. That certainly was the case this time.

As ugly as it got, I have been impressed with how well science-based policy making worked in the US.

so it does seem that science might have something to do with population increase. — Banno

I was wrong about population increase being caused by civilization, but that was not the comment I was responding to. You wrote:

the advent of science has had an extraordinarily, overwhelmingly positive impact on how we live. — Banno

I responded:

Historically, advances in human well-being are primarily due to improvements in nutrition. — T Clark

As I noted, that doesn't necessarily contradict what you wrote, but it gives a different perspective.

What's your definition of consciousness? — charles ferraro

As I noted, "consciousness" has many meanings. Since you started the discussion, it's your job to establish which one you are using. What point are you trying to make? People using different meanings are already muddying the discussion and causing misunderstanding.

The info I can access has exponential growth starting not earlier than around 1200CE. Before that the curve looks pretty straight. — Banno

I found information here:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151221193940.htm#:~:text=While%20the%20world's%20human%20population,was%20just%200.04%20percent%20annually.

that supports your position. It says:

Prehistoric human populations of hunter-gatherers in a region of North America grew at the same rate as farming societies in Europe, according to a new radiocarbon analysis involving researchers from the University of Wyoming and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

The findings challenge the commonly held view that the advent of agriculture 10,000-12,000 years ago accelerated human population growth. The research is reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Our analysis shows that transitioning farming societies experienced the same rate of growth as contemporaneous foraging societies," says Robert Kelly, University of Wyoming professor of anthropology and co-author of the PNAS paper. "The same rate of growth measured for populations dwelling in a range of environments, and practicing a variety of subsistence strategies, suggests that the global climate and/or other biological factors -- not adaptability to local environment or subsistence practices -- regulated long-term growth of the human population for most of the past 12,000 years."

Thanks.

I use it fairly sporadically, but will say that it was better when Wallows and Terrapin Station were still here. Having contributed to its decline, I will say that it will just get better now, more or less necessarily. — thewonder

Maybe he will come back and tell us. — Valentinus

I was thinking about Terrapin Station the other day. I remember some good conversations. I looked him up to see if he was still around. He's banned.

I love the place except for ungrateful cunts. — Benkei

What about us grateful cunts?

That is, must consciousness always only occur, or exist, in a first person, present tense mode? — charles ferraro

"Consciousness" means many things. You should specify which one you are referring to. Failure to do that has lead and will continue to lead to many misunderstandings and fruitless discussions.

I blame Covid and the lockdowns. It's sucked the energy out of me. — Michael

I hadn't thought of that. That may be true.

there is no reason to suppose that technology will increase linearly forever, or that there is not a point at which a society would conclude that more technology does more harm than good. — Echarmion

Given my understanding of human nature, I doubt this is possible.

the amount of suffering that can plausibly be alleviated by technology in the near future, not least the suffering related to aging and death by disease and old age, easily justifies continued progress. — Echarmion

I think there are technological processes that may end human life in the "near future." If we put a value on human life, which we both do, that puts your justification in question. It is unlikely I will be here to see what happens next, but my children may.

Will mention though that gravity is not a force — Tiberiusmoon

F = ma. A force is any phenomenon that causes a massive object to accelerate. Gravity causes massive objects to accelerate. Gravity is a force.

've put the Shoutbox back on the main page, in a new category (currently closed to new discussions) called "Symposium", and pinned at the top. — jamalrob

This is great. Thank you.

Thoughts? — Tiberiusmoon

Here's a link to Wikipedia's article on the arrow of time. I think it is a good one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

Your apparent attempt to unify human perception of time, relativistic time dilation, and time measuring devices under "observer effects," makes as much sense as identifying gravity as an apple-related force because Newton was hit by an apple and we can calculate gravity's effects using an Apple computer.

Science is a good thing, — Banno

We are in a period when technology has approached the capability to cause the extermination of all humans life. Possible self-inflicted technological mechanisms of our destruction have increased and continue to increase. They include nuclear weapons, environmental decay, genetic manipulations, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, using computers to write down the 9 billion names of God, and, of course, Facebook. I think there is a significant possibility that humanity will end within the next 100 years. I have no way to quantify that likelihood.

So, if it turns out that humans are exterminated by our own technological inventiveness, I think that will definitively answer to your question "no."