I get the feeling this sounds a lot more profound than it is.

It sounds to me like someone talking about how he sees he could improve HIS life...and then trying to make it a universal way for ALL to improve their lives.

To show any kind of disdain for wisdom seems to be self-defeating. In offering that bit of "wisdom" you also are saying to disregard it.

There are easier ways for worries to be over.

The proble with the D/Tao Te Ching is that there are many different translations.

This translation from my Penguin edition (Trans. By D.C. Lau) makes more sense:

“Exterminate the sage, discard the wise
And the people will benefit a hundred fold;
Exterminate benevolence, discard rectitude,
And the people will again be filial;
Exterminate ingenuity, discard profit,
And there will be no more thieves amd bandits.
These three, being false adornments, are not enough
And the people must have something to which they can attach themselves:
Exhibit the unadorned and embrace the uncarved block,
Have little thought of self and as few desires as possible.”

"Exterminate" seems like an interesting choice of words. I'm not sure what to think of that. What is your view on the chapter? What does it mean and how would you answer some of the questions I posed in the original post?

Also, the sentence "Abandon benevolence, discard duty, And people will return to the family ties." I find intriguing. What does Lao Tzu want to say with this sentence? Is it that by being (overly) benevolent or dutiful, one may rob another from the incentive to take their own responsibility? — Tzeentch

Personally, I would see it with the reason of motivation, where people are indirectly obliged to help — it is made more of a duty, rather than a moral privilege: like how UK wanted to leave the EU mainly because of the obligations to charity, and not anymore recognized as a passionate, personally willed, action.

By first interpretations, it seems that Lao Tzu defines human nature according to fundamental principles of Confucianism; which is to settle for an ordinary life, and is similar to Diogenes' cynicism.

Lao Tzu appears to follow the attachment theory. It is as it follows;

When human beings are exposed to pleasure, which is inevitable, they develop a need for these outlets of pleasure. These outlets are called; attachments. When human beings are having a need to these attachments, their pursuit of true happiness is disrupted. Only when a person is detached from his humanly cravings, he will then acquire happiness.

Does knowledge lead to arrogance and a false sense of understanding?
Does knowledge cause us to worry about things which have no bearing on our lives?
Does knowledge seek to replace intuition as a method of understanding? — Tzeentch

For knowledge, I think what Lao Tzu implied is not what it is explicitly written. Knowledge, according to the aforementioned attachment theory, may be a form of an outlet for entertainment. The passion for philosophy, or even, a want for any job that requires a capability for knowledge, inclines to having motivations, rather than Maslow's theory of self-actualization. We adhere to philosophy for truth, it's not who we really are.

Final things to add, an example of our motivations to adhere to works that require having knowledge, includes the want of money. Although we understand and limit ourselves to knowing the paramountcy of money rather than the lust of it, the possession of it drives us to do things that are fun, wherein Lao Tzu doesn't believe in. He'd rather live a life with only, just only, our fundamental needs, which can be understood as Maslow's bottom section in his hierarchy of needs..

This is a translation of chapter 19 from the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.
What I find particularly interesting is the part about wisdom and knowledge, and how Lao Tzu suggests people would be better off without these things. Intuitively I can understand what is meant by this statement, however I've found it difficult to put this to words.

Does knowledge lead to arrogance and a false sense of understanding?
Does knowledge cause us to worry about things which have no bearing on our lives?
Does knowledge seek to replace intuition as a method of understanding? — Tzeentch

Yes, this is a most interesting and profound quote. It makes me think of another quote, “one has power until one tries to wield it”. Which would suggest letting the power and wisdom work and speak for themselves, in a way. The action of non-action; less is more. Oversharpen the blade, and it will soon be dull. Jade is praised as being precious, but its strength comes from being stone. The wise wear their jewels under rough and common clothing. (as other lines from the TTC go).

↪Tzeentch
The proble with the D/Tao Te Ching is that there are many different translations.

This translation from my Penguin edition (Trans. By D.C. Lau) makes more sense:

“Exterminate the sage, discard the wise
And the people will benefit a hundred fold;
Exterminate benevolence, discard rectitude,
And the people will again be filial;
Exterminate ingenuity, discard profit,
And there will be no more thieves amd bandits.
These three, being false adornments, are not enough
And the people must have something to which they can attach themselves:
Exhibit the unadorned and embrace the uncarved block,
Have little thought of self and as few desires as possible.” — I like sushi

Yes, with Chinese being so different from English, understanding (very) often relies, not on the reader, or even the writer, but on the translator. My favourite translation, since I first discovered it, is Ursula LeGuin's translation. Here is chapter 19:

Stop being holy, forget being prudent,
it'll be a hundred times better for everyone.
Stop being altruistic, forget being righteous,
people will remember what family feeling is.
Stop planning, forget making a profit,
there won't be any thieves and robbers.

But even these three rules
needn't be followed; what works reliably
is to know the raw silk,
hold the uncut wood.
Need little,
want less.
Forget the rules.
Be untroubled.

This chapter and the two before it may be read as a single movement of thought.
"Raw silk" and "uncut wood" are images traditionally associated with the characters su (simple, plain) and p'u (natural, honest).

Does that help? I hope so. :up:

Here are a few other translations which reflect the teachings better:

19. RETURNING TO NATURALNESS
It is better merely to live one's life, realizing one's potential, rather than wishing for sanctification.
He who lives in filial piety and love has no need of ethical teaching.
When cunning and profit are renounced, stealing and fraud will disappear.
But ethics and kindness, and even wisdom, are insufficient in themselves.
Better by far to see the simplicity of raw silk's beauty and the uncarved block; to be one with oneself, and with one's brother.
It is better by far be one with the Tao, developing selflessness, tempering desire, removing the wish, but being compassionate. (http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an142304.pdf)

19. When falsity and hypocrisy of this kind are removed, people are much happier. Falsity, aspiration to wealth, theft, and cruelty towards living beings disappear when people possess true knowledge. It is so because the reason for all people’s vices is a lack of knowledge. It is knowledge that makes people understand that it is in their personal interest to be simple and kind, to control one’s own worldly desires, and to liberate oneself from pernicious passions. (http://www.swami-center.org/en/text/Tao_Te_Ching.pdf)

I think the first part asks us to discard our subjective distinctions of sanctity and righteousness for the benefit of all, not just the few who would understand and adhere to such edicts.
The second part asks us to avoid judging others because even the least in morality among humans would seek out a brotherhood/family to belong. Thus, even instinctively, we understand unity.
The third part asks us to discard the significance in materiality (material values) for the sake of truer and more humane values in society.
It goes on to teach that, as good as the three teachings are, they have no value without having first developed compassion. In other words, without compassion (love), the teachings appeal only to the mind and lack the impetus to consolidate into actions.

What I find particularly interesting is the part about wisdom and knowledge, and how Lao Tzu suggests people would be better off without these things. Intuitively I can understand what is meant by this statement, however I've found it difficult to put this to words.

Does knowledge lead to arrogance and a false sense of understanding?
Does knowledge cause us to worry about things which have no bearing on our lives?
Does knowledge seek to replace intuition as a method of understanding?

These are some questions (to which I have no clear answers) that spring to my mind when contemplating this verse. — Tzeentch

One of Nietzsches quotes along these line is : "There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy"

Or another one : "I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go."

My interpretation is that we have a need for knowledge/ wisdom... and so we go looking for it. Seems reasonable enough, however having a need for it doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. Maybe it isn't really attainable because the universe doesn't let itself be know that easily, or because human beings themselves are not really equipped to find it. If this were the case, looking for it could be futile and the 'answers' we come up with, mistakes... and then the search for knowledge or wisdom would lead us astray.

Another way to look at this, is looking at how language, logic... and knowledge operate. Knowledge is the process of finding generality among particulars and abstract away from those particulars to universals. Information/data of the world originally contained in those particulars gets lost in this process of abstraction. This abstracting away is what enables us to know things, which is very helpful so we don't have to start over from scratch every time. However, you can keep abstracting away in progressively higher abstractions until no information of the world is left, until it becomes vapid. This is, I think, what Nietzsche and Lao Tse are criticizing.

Sages of all ages have professed to "know" things that they really have no right to. Nietzches method here was to assume that these proclaimed systems of wisdom were merely "an autobiographical account of what that particular person in his particular situation needed' and to look for the moral and psychological reasons that person came to those particular conclusions. Anyway, the point is that if so called wisdom is merely something particular to a person in a certain age, with a certain psychological make-up, from a certain societal background etc... then this is not to be transposed or universally used by other people.

Abandon wisdom, discard knowledge,
And people will benefit a hundredfold. — Tzeentch

Thought flows; wisdom and knowledge - even the most dynamic examples - are stiffenings of the flow; are corpses.

Abandon benevolence, discard duty,
And people will return to the family ties. — Tzeentch

Being good, behaving filially: these are roles, are "the way I think I ought" to be. Abandon all pretension, all acting and the only relations that will remain are those which are actual consequences of love.