The way you spoke about Tao suggests that Tao could be identified with existence, the property of all things. In my view, existence is simply logical consistency. — litewave
For more updated versions of Daoism, I like to study Bergson, Bohm (holographic universe), and Rupert Sheldrake as well as any of the arts and Tai Chi. — Rich
Unfortunately, for those who are looking for Truth, the Dao De Jing, as with all literature, is subject to the same forces of change. You are are reading biased, subjective translations just like any other ancient literature. Unfortunately it cannot replace the Bible though some try. What is left is one's own experiences. — Rich
Both the Tao and objective reality could be identified with existence. — T Clark
In addition to what you've written here, I think I remember another post where you state that existence is logical consistency. I don't really know what you mean. — T Clark
But existence is not the individual things but rather the universal property that they all have in common. As such, existence can be said to be "invisible", "formless", "everlasting", "the ground of being", or "the absolute principle underlying the universe". — litewave
I mean logical consistency to be the property of every (existing) thing - basically, that the thing is identical to itself and different from others. This entails that the thing has relations to other things, and these relations can be reduced to the relations of similarity, instantiation and composition. Instantiation means that the thing has certain properties (or is a property of other things) and composition means that the thing has certain parts (or is a part of other things). So, if a thing is consistently defined by these relations (for example, not having the property of being a circle and a square at the same time) then it exists. — litewave
The Dao De Jing, as with other ancient literature, is of unknown origin and intent and seems like a compendium of chants, stories, and advice. Everyone will experience it differently. As far as I can tell, it had its own Genesis story (which makes more sense to me than some religious or scientific stories) that describes the basic philosophy of Daoism followed by a series of other snippets that feel like a combination of interesting ancient spiritual chants, Aesops fables, and military advice. It may provide a path for some and for others some interesting ideas to ruminate. As far as the Dao itself, as I read it, it is only saying that words are inadequate, which confirms my own experiences. But what is, is and there is always something new to discover. — Rich
Well, let's say objective reality is really real, it's still something we interpret as human beings and which informs our actions / decision making (science is put into practice, we human beings use it to manipulate our environment). If you take determinism as being true on the premise of holding objective, epistemological knowledge as the highest value (!?), then what governs our behaviour should, in theory, be objectively described in a manner we can use it as a scientific principle.
As long as that is not / cannot be done, the way we ourselves describe (our) reality, a reality which inevitably governs or dictates our physical actions, is the most coherent information we can relay to our peers. Our social instincts make us share resources and information is one of them, the way we interpret the world is what gives us an evolutionary advantage over other mammals on earth. — Gooseone
Twenty or twenty-five years ago, I started reading books about a different way of seeing the world. I read Alan Watts descriptions of eastern religions and philosophies. When I read the Tao te Ching, I felt a sense of recognition, both from a philosophical and an emotional perspective. I’ve thought about it a lot over the years and read the book probably twenty times. — T Clark
When I was younger, the idea that the world can be perfectly predicted if we know where everything is and where it is going at one moment in time was really attractive. — T Clark
The discomfort that I feel is associated with the fact that the observed perfect quantum correlations seem to demand something like the "genetic" hypothesis. For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those experiments carry with them programs, which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I feel that Einstein's intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous; a vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that Einstein's idea doesn't work. The reasonable thing just doesn't work.
I wouldn't have thought that the first quote above was written by the same person as the second. The first is impressionistic, intuitive, uncomplicated, and straightforward. Down home. The second is formal, uses technical terminology, and requires following a confusing chain of logic. How do you see them fitting together? — T Clark
It's a matter of irony that nowadays, the so-called 'realist' interpretations of physics are often said to be the 'parallel universes' of Hugh Everett or the various permutations of the multiverse suggested by string theorists. If you look back at Bohr and Heisenberg's philosophical musings on QM (retrospectively named the 'Copenhagen Interpretation'), they seem lucid - and parsimonious - by comparison. — Wayfarer
These postulates don't imply God playing dice, spooky action at a distance or consciousness-created reality. — Andrew M
If you look back at Bohr and Heisenberg's philosophical musings on QM (retrospectively named the 'Copenhagen Interpretation'), they seem lucid - and parsimonious - by comparison. — Wayfarer
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." — T Clark
Or in other words, the world isn't like natural language, except for that part of the world that is natural language. The same goes for mathematical language, logic, etc. — Terrapin Station
There is no bubble to burst! The Tao accepts questioning, laughter, being ignored, and honors like they are all the same. The Tao, the highest good, is like water. It will wash stinky feet without complaint, and will flow over solid gold without boasting. But i see what you may be referring to. The TTC may seem like some New Age advice which can have all the firmness and flavor of a wet noodle. To which I would say that much of the cliche-sounding New Age wisdom is a copy of a copy of texts like the Tao Te Ching, imho. But chapter 67 anticipates this question, and answers better than i ever could:I'm sorry to burst the bubble here but I find the Tao Te Ching to be like a horoscope - ambiguous and vague enough to fool people into believing something which they really wouldn't. — TheMadFool
But Western science has pragmatic benefits that can't be found in Eastern philosophy. They're not competing perspectives if engineering and science are used for their intended purposes, which is finding things out and getting things done. It's when science and engineering start to masquerade as a philosophy that it becomes problematical. Engineers solve problems by reducing complexities to their basic units and seeing how they work together. That approach has yielded great technological power, but it's a lousy philosophy of life. — Wayfarer
I suppose you're familiar with 'LaPlace's Daemon' which states exactly this point. Simon LaPlace was 'France's Newton' and an immensely influential intellectual in the Enlightenment; he pioneered the science of statistics, among other things. But, and although this is a contentious point, I think LaPlace's daemon was slain by the uncertainty principle. I think quantum physics generally has torpedoed Enlightenment materialism. This was the theme of the well-known Tao of Physics, and although that book has its detractors, it has spawned an entire cultural subgenre. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.