Understand totally. I think the loudest voices on both sides of the debate are often the most doctrinaire, rigid and unpleasant ones.

I guess I don't see this as a choice, at least not a conscious one — T Clark

I hear you - I guess I said 'choice' because that's how we talk at home. I would have been as comfortable with your formulation.

My reading - It's the resistance to something bad that leads to its growth. If you want to stop something, stop fighting it. This stanza really resonates with me personally. — T Clark

My newbie take on this comports with yours. There seem to be a lot of these sorts of intriguing constructions. Do not do the thing you think, it is the reverse of what you think. I can't quite formulate this.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

I am ambivalent about this stanza. Maybe I mean confused. — T Clark

I wonder if this means in choosing to think a thing good or bad, you create a reversal by this very thought action. Maybe it means that the more you conceptualize life along these lines, the more you create its opposition. Do not actively label may be a better approach. In a way, this sits alongside Hamlet's 'for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'.

A plague on both their houses -- Buckingham Palace and the California shelter for still-over-privileged couples. — Bitter Crank

Royalty are generally a distraction from substantive issues and in general are extremely useful to media oligarchs in generating massive ratings, sales and clicks.

What I don't understand about British culture is the fact that they have words such as francophile. Does that mean they themselves are anglocentric? And if that's true, does that mean that the world is anglocentric since English is the lingua franca? — TaySan

You probably know that French was the language of world diplomacy and the official language of England for three hundred years. English was the language of the plebian classes.

t's not like they feel troubled by those circularities. — baker

So what? Wrong is wrong, even if people think it is right. Racists are untroubled by their beliefs too. Does this mean we follow their lead?

Learn psychology. That will keep you sane. Philosophy will always remain subordinate to it. — Atman

A claim like that requires some texture otherwise it is no more profound than a bumper sticker.

Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychology had some very dubious theories about women. He viewed them as utterly inferior to men. The power of philosophy lies in questioning psychology and its claims. — TaySan

I don't think many psychologists would take the Freudian model too seriously. His ideas would be seen as historically important - a seminal influence. Psychology is as fraught with sectarian division and as any religion.

I don't know. Like I said, I can't imagine what that is like, to live in a world where one isn't demanded to justify one's moral principles to others. I simply haven't lived in such a world. I suppose it's a nice world to live in. — baker

Many religious share your experience. I am not sure I understand where you believe you morality comes from.

If you want to live your life chasing your own tail, I won't stop you. — Dharmi

I've not met the person yet who isn't chasing their own tail.

Because those people have lost their minds. — Dharmi

Medical science would say they are mentally ill.

Why don't you ask them? Christianity is more complex and subtle than you might imagine.

but that it's unhealthy. — Nagel

Ok, I get you. I guess if you are addicted to anything as a form of self-medication (which is usually what an escape amounts to) this is problematic, sure. I know a businessman who has neglected his family and friends (and to some extent his company) to spend a fortune collecting and pursuing fine ancient Greek vases. That's no different in practice to losing yourself in slot machines. One is art, one is artless both are unhealthy.

So, what does it mean to you? — T Clark

I get from this that it is an immutable truism that the paragon teaches the scoundrel just through their presence or example. Anger and aggrieved advice or recriminations are without utility. What I also get from this is if I want to be of use and work towards a better 'way of being' remember that good and bad share the same space and need each other. Endless unhappy thoughts and interpersonal conflicts will be avoided if this is understood and acted out. And I will also avoid the path to being the very thing I think I hate.

Thank you TC. As I said to you earlier, I read TTC first in 1985 (ish) and was unable to incorporate it into my thinking. I guess it seemed then to be a kind of lengthy and unintelligible fortune cookie aphorism.

Looking over the Mitchell translation recently, I was struck by how some of the versus now instantly made sense. It's like something you recognise without it being familiar. This tradition is not known to me but it seems to be at least in part about balance and perspective and an invitation to stop and start again. Hope that's not too crude or obvious. Or wrong...

As a vulgar secularist, who is fond of words like metaphysical and spiritual but not too fond of what these words tend to mean in ordinary discourse, I am very interested in how people integrate this kind of work into a life.

I imagine people either click or don't with this.

I was struck by the following:

What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.

f there is a philosophy, there is a truth, then let's discover what it is. If there isn't, then just as Fish, Rorty, Wittgenstein and Hume say, let's do something else with our time. Philosophy is simply a waste of time if there is no truth or good or reality we're trying to discuss or discover. — Dharmi

There's another approach - the staring point being 'I doubt that there is truth, however, let's look into some of this to see what I find.' This means philosophy is both a waste of time and a solemn responsibility.

Cool

That's one of my favorite verses and Mitchell is the translation I read first. It's probably the most accessible for modern English speakers. — T Clark

Good to know. I find myself agreeing with many of the versus - I don't understand all of them. TC, I'd be interested in how you find it supports you (if this is the correct term) in life.

Regardless of their taste, of whether the art form is of a higher caliber or not, it is fine as long as it isn't used to escape to dreamworld. — Nagel

This bit I don't understand. Why is this wrong?

Art does whatever you want it to do. What does it matter? Unless you are a strict idealist...

I guess young people are different depending on who you know. The young people I know do not share this view. They work hard, seem respectful and are fairly optimistic. I think Gen X was much more like you describe. But this is all anecdotal.

Mainstream taste has never much differed from what I can see. Very few people choose high art over popular forms.

Although ... the Tao Te Ching has some interesting things to say about being and non-being. — T Clark

Tao Te Ching – Verse 2
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.

I like it.

Not sure about the translation - Stephen Mitchell, 1995)

I am concerned of how present idols (Singers, boy bands, K-pop artsist,...etc) are used as a sort of drug to intoxicate one away from the glory of the art (specifically, the it's pains and suffering) of life. — Nagel

Not sure anyone is being intoxicated away from anything. That's a curious formulation. People like what they like. Even when exposed to alternatives in food, clothing, literature, music or painting - most people seem to prefer mainstream. Do you care what taste people have and, if so, why?

A crazy woman screaming hysterically is just as beautiful as the moonlight sonata unless there's an actual standard of beauty. — Dharmi

There's also the matter of personal taste. A few people I've met would rather be exposed to the hysterical woman than the Beethoven.

You have to be a Platonist (in the broad sense) in order to justify that there is such a thing as "true art" otherwise, there's no justification. — Dharmi

:up:

I first attended a lecture on Plato's theory of forms in 1985. I struggled to comprehend the nuances. Asked a fellow student who said - 'We are to take the existence of forms on faith. They all live in heaven with Lord Jesus."

For me Heidegger, Derrida and Husserl are clear and accessible — Joshs

You can say that but how do we know you understand them? And I am not saying you don't, just that we have no way of knowing this. Heidegger is notoriously difficult to follow. Derrida is understood so differently by so many closes readers who can say what he really means?

No. But the Wikipedia entry on it is quite good, especially the section which details the dialogues that discuss the forms, and also the biblography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms — Wayfarer

Thanks already know this one. I was referring to Joshs other terminology and asking if it was in the same vein as Plato's forms.

An anarchist is a realist? Explain how that works. — Dharmi

I have met anarchists who are realists but I did not make the point C is a realist. I doubt he is.

Chomsky is a charlatan and a fraud. He got famous for an unfalsifiable pseudo-theory about language that's been challenged by multiple linguists, and it's not even clear what the actual theory is except that language is somehow innate. His political views might be interesting, but they belong to a bygone era. — Dharmi

I have no feelings about Chomsky's integrity, my point addressed the issues of complexity not validity.

Again, I think this is an economic matter — Athena

Economics - where money and resources are prioritized is almost entirely a reflection of the cultural priorities of a society.

How do you know of the charitable work being done by Buddhists and Hindus that makes you feel comfortable determining they are not as charitable as Christians? — Athena

I have worked with Buddhist and Hindu community members have made this point to me often. But clearly there are individual practitioners who do are highly charitable.

My understanding of morality is that it is intended to reduce the friction and conflict among people who are consistently fractious. Secular morality can ignore the god-man relationship which religious morality attends to. — Bitter Crank

I think that is a legitimate position. I have often thought that the problem is this word 'morality' it contains so much baggage.

It can also be seen as a code of conduct that is largely shared by a community or culture. Codes are probably given a kick start by our apparent capacity for empathy.

Chomsky is a realist when it comes to geopolitics. He has argued in a few places that materialism lacks coherent content.

I said it.

Doing what is right for fear of punishment is ethics for three-year-olds. Adults take responsibility. — Banno

People who live in fear do not take responsibility. They live in an altered state of awareness.

But i think it goes further than that for you. I think your worldview itself may be naive realist one,( our scientific theories attempt to correspond to an independently existing external world ) and if that is the case then the notion of a philosophical perspective requiring a whole new way of thinking and a transformation of your language is alien to you. — Joshs

I think you are using my comment to engage in a little patronizing ad hominem. Noam Chomsky - a highly complex theorist - made this exact same point about some French thinkers. Not a naïve realist or simple man by any means.

I personally don't hold this view (as yet) but I see why it is said and offered it as an alternative to your response which seemed to go straight to 'I have superior recondite knowledge'. I reject the position that complex ideas can be explained in less convoluted imprecise ways. But this is a useless digression. If I have further questions I may ask them.

No the point I was addressing was your reflection about divine command theory.

The harder question would be, why anyone would be moral without believing in a religion that rewards (or punishes) them for it. — Tzeentch

The jails are full of vicious criminals who believe in god. There is nothing intrinsic to the idea which makes people behave ethically.

Doing what is right for fear of punishment is ethics for three-year-olds. Adults take responsibility. — Banno

You have obviously not done any time in a Supermax prison - not many 3 year-olds there. You do what you are told or suffer the consequences. If god is a totalitarian bully and Mafia-style thug (and as written this is his character) then the divine command theory makes sense. Yes, it is God treating human beings like children or prisoners.

Of course the pious believer will say something like - I want to do what pleases god, goodness radiates from his nature and I seek to follow this.

I always get that from corporate types( not that you’re necessarily a corporate type). If an idea is worth anything it should be explicable in a simple
sentence. That works well in the world of
commerce because by definition a commercial product only has a market if it’s value is understood by a sizable number of people. But philosophy traffics in ideas
that are not already well understood by the mainstream , so buzzwords, soundbites and tweets will only be coherent to whose already well versed in a particular philosophical approach. Plus, different philosophical orientations define metaphysics in their own ways. Since I’m using Derrida’s definition , I’d need to introduce you to his vocabulary and way of thinking before his notion of metaphysics will make sense.

I could, however, respond to focused questions from you. — Joshs

Thank you for the offer. The only corporate types I know generally use weasel words, convoluted syntax and jargon to hide or massage the facts. They are terrified of clear sentences, as some philosophers seem to be. What was it Foucault said about Derrida - that he practiced obscurantist terrorism? I know Foucault told John Searle that writing deliberately incomprehensible prose to appear profound was an especially French practice. This may be true.

But outside of all that I generally take the view that if an idea is understood well it can be expressed simply and clearly. I'll keep reading your responses and see if there are further questions. Appreciated.

Thanks Joshs but that hasn't helped. Like Pato's theory of forms? Can it not be explained in a simple sentence?