No. As Henry Ford use to say 'History is bunk'. History is written by the victors, is full of myths, legends, half-truths and self-glorifying factoids. — Tom Storm

Other countries' things are very hard to learn.
I'm still feeling that much of American culture is impossible for me to learn.
Even though I have lived in the US for 10 years. I can read English.
I probably can't comment on this too much.
I can only tell you where my thoughts come from.

I was not talking about whether Chinese medicine - I was talking about whether legends were true. E.g., People living to 100 without showing signs of aging. — Tom Storm

Chinese has 5,000 years of history.
We still can easily read any documents from 5,000 years ago.
It's not legends, it's history.

We found out 'inequality' is an issue when we discussed our last question:

What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty? Considering that individuals may occasionally engage in falsehoods, how do we conceptualize the mindset of honesty? Is 'honest' a noun or a verb? Can one still be deemed an honest person if they occasionally engage in deception?


Do you think the following unenlightened's posts are helpful?
We found out we need to talk about 'inequality' from his posts.

Perhaps some light could be shed if the question is reversed.

What characterises the mindset associated with dishonesty? My first impulse is to notice that the mindset must typically include a notion that some advantage will accrue, either personally or tribally.

Consider the deceptive body of a stick insect. It (metaphorically) declares to the world and particularly to its predators "Ignore me, I am a stick." The Blind Watchmaker learns to lie, and simultaneously in the evolution of the predator, tries to learn how to detect a lie. Such is communication between species, in which morality plays no role. Nevertheless, the advantage of deception is obvious.

Imagine a tribe of smallish monkeys in a jungle environment; they have various calls of social identification, and perhaps some to do with dominance and other stuff, but in particular, they have two alarm calls, one warning of ground predators, and one warning of sky predators. One day, one rather low status monkey, who aways has to wait for the others to eat and often misses out on the best food, spots some especially tasty food on the ground, and gives the ground alarm call. The tribe all rush to climb up high, and the liar gets first dibs for once on the treat. This behaviour has been observed, but I won't trouble you myself with references.

Here, one can clearly see that dishonesty is parasitic on honesty. Overall there is a huge social advantage in a warning system, but it is crucially dependent on honesty, and is severely compromised by individual dishonesty. Hence the social mores, that become morality. Society runs on trust, and therefore needs to deter and prevent dishonesty. And this cannot be reversed because the dependence is one way, linguistically. If dishonesty were ever to prevail and be valorised, language would become non-functional. The alarm call would come to mean both 'predator on the ground', and 'tasty food on the ground'. that is, it would lose its effective warning function and its function as a lie. — unenlightened

Basically a lie can only work in a community that expects truth. Clearly there is no community of 'predator and prey', so there is no conflict between the individual interest and the community interest.

But I think there is a lesson here for humanity that in order for everyone to put the community before self interest, everyone must benefit from the community, and not only the dominant members. Someone has put it this way - that the most dangerous person is someone with nothing left to lose. Like that monkey. So with the morality of truth must also come the morality of fairness, and equality.

So a society that is stratified by race or class in a totally unequal way becomes more like a predator/prey arrangement where morality breaks down because society is fractured. — unenlightened

There are lots of legends in many different cultures about all kinds of golden eras. Are they true? Probably not. — Tom Storm

For Chinese medicine to be true or not, this probably needs using your own body to try it. No one can tell you. :sweat:

It wasn't about teaching. It was about integrity. The accusations against him were bogus - politically, not morally motivated. He might have been granted exile, since all they really wanted was his silence, but he chose instead to make a stand: he demanded to be rewarded for his service to Athens. — Vera Mont

Why did Socrates make a stand: he demanded to be rewarded for his service to Athens.?
proposed his own penalty: that he should be given free food and housing by the state, for the services he rendered to the city???
I really don't understand this part in his trial.

The selfish gene. In nature, animals that have some advantage over others of their species succeed at living longer and having more offspring than the others. This means that their [aggressive, ambitious] genes are passed on to more new members of the species. This is offset by the need to fit into a social group for the survival of those offspring, so that friendly and co-operative genes are also passed on. In humans, both traits are present and the notorious big brain serves both - not in the same proportion in each specimen. Everyone desires some advantage, some way to be better, smarter, faster, stronger, more talented, more charming or more beautiful than others of of our species. But we're not all willing to pay the same price or make the same amount of effort or take the same risks to achieve it. — Vera Mont

Many philosophers were talking about death, especially for the inequality issue.
Before I didn't understand why they talked about death?
But after I thought about your post, I finally understand:
If a person can figure out 'Life<-> Death' inequality, then the person will feel easy to deal with other inequality.

I think the best case is Socrates.

But I haven't had time to research what his death is teaching.
If anyone can tell me?

He is special to me because many Chinese philosophers teach how to run away from people who are trying to kill them just because of what they teach.
But Socrates didn't run away.
I also think he can prove philosophy is a good thinking practice for people to deal with inequality issues.

I appreciate Tom mentioned social policy and everyone's reply that made this question clearer!

Chinese medicine says about 5,000 years ago, everyone lived one hundred years without showing the usual signs of aging.
Can you imagine what social policy looked like at that good ancient time?

I read the following paragraph in 'Classic of Medicine' which describes the society of that time.
I don't quite understand it, so I started this philosophy discussion.
Chinese medicine is always studied together with philosophy.
I hope I show you where my question comes from and that can help you understand it better.

Maybe check the following 'Classic of Medicine' with the 'hunchback Su' allegory.
Chinese ancient historians said Chuang Tzŭ (b.c. 369) wrote his book according to other ancient books.
I think his 'hunchback Su' allegory is a real example of what ancient time life looks like.



---The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Medicine (Maoshing Ni) , chapter 1---

The accomplished ones of ancient times advised people to guard themselves against zei feng, disease-causing factors. On the mental level, one should remain calm and avoid excessive desires and fantasies, recognizing and maintaining the natural purity and clarity of the mind. When internal energies are able to circulate smoothly and freely, and the energy of the minds is not scattered, but is focused and concentrated, illness and disease can be avoided.

Previously, people led a calm and honest existence, detached from undue desire and ambition; they lived with an untainted conscience and without fear. They were active, but never depleted themselves. Because the lived simply, these individuals knew contentment, as reflected in their diet of basic but nourishing foods and attire that was appropriate to the season but never luxurious. Since they were happy with their position in life, they did not feel jealousy or greed. They had compassion for others and were helpful and honest, free from destructive habits. They remained unshakable and unswayed by temptations, and they were able to stay centered even when adversity arose. They treated others justly, regardless of their level of intelligence or social position.


---Chuang Tzŭ (Giles), hunchback Su---

There was a hunchback named Su. His jaws touched his navel. His shoulders were higher than his head. His hair knot looked up to the sky. His viscera were upside down. His buttocks were where his ribs should have been. By tailoring, or washing, he was easily able to earn his living. By sifting rice he could make enough to support a family of ten.

[In all of these occupations a man would necessarily stoop.]

When orders came down for a conscription, the hunchback stood unconcerned among the crowd. And similarly, in matters of public works, his deformity shielded him from being employed.

On the other hand, when it came to donations of grain, the hunchback received as much as three chung, [An ancient measure of uncertain capacity.]

and of firewood, ten faggots. And if physical deformity was thus enough to preserve his body until its allotted end, how much more would not moral and mental deformity avail!

[A moral and mental deviation would be still more likely to condemn a man to that neglect from his fellows which is so conducive to our real welfare.]

Inequality is much like the concept of change, for the fact that it is guaranteed, a constant, and that is why greed exists, jealousy, hatred, envy, capitalism and colonialism. Equality is like the concept of perfection, totally unrealistic, but an ideal mark to shoot for, one which in fact will never be reached. — boagie

:up:

The foundation of compassionate behavior is in identifying one's self with the self in others, only then does compassion arise. Where there is no identification, there is no compassion, and no what might be called proper, kind behaviors. I know honesty is not always considered kind, but it is, honesty does not contribute to a delusional world, or a delusional individual, it does not bring chaos into the world. — boagie

:up:

The selfish gene. In nature, animals that have some advantage over others of their species succeed at living longer and having more offspring than the others. This means that their [aggressive, ambitious] genes are passed on to more new members of the species. This is offset by the need to fit into a social group for the survival of those offspring, so that friendly and co-operative genes are also passed on. In humans, both traits are present and the notorious big brain serves both - not in the same proportion in each specimen. Everyone desires some advantage, some way to be better, smarter, faster, stronger, more talented, more charming or more beautiful than others of of our species. But we're not all willing to pay the same price or make the same amount of effort or take the same risks to achieve it. — Vera Mont

Good point!
In this case, I'd think the 'Life <-> Death' inequality may be the most fundamental inequality that we need to treat than any other inequality.
Maybe that's why Socrates talked about his death?
Maybe Socrates' death completed his teachings?

Fourth, what is the individual capable of doing within society? Are they disabled? Weak? Smart? Strong? We should expect such people to be able to contribute with their strengths, and not push them to work in ways that constantly expose their weaknesses. — Philosophim

Perhaps you can provide a few examples of inequality so that we know what you mean. I am talking about poverty and lack of access to vital resources and services. What are you referring to? — Tom Storm

Good ideas!

Please help check if this classic allegory is inspiring for your question?

There was a hunchback named Su. His jaws touched his navel. His shoulders were higher than his head. His hair knot looked up to the sky. His viscera were upside down. His buttocks were where his ribs should have been. By tailoring, or washing, he was easily able to earn his living. By sifting rice he could make enough to support a family of ten.

[In all of these occupations a man would necessarily stoop.]

When orders came down for a conscription, the hunchback stood unconcerned among the crowd. And similarly, in matters of public works, his deformity shielded him from being employed.

On the other hand, when it came to donations of grain, the hunchback received as much as three chung, [An ancient measure of uncertain capacity.]

and of firewood, ten faggots. And if physical deformity was thus enough to preserve his body until its allotted end, how much more would not moral and mental deformity avail!

[A moral and mental deviation would be still more likely to condemn a man to that neglect from his fellows which is so conducive to our real welfare.]

-Chuang Tzŭ (Giles)-

This world is not equal and we can’t change it externally.
— YiRu Li

What does this mean? I would have thought that robust social policy (an external approach) is central in building a more equal society. — Tom Storm

Good question!

Inequality is a thinking issue. It's about how people see the world.
Will the focus on social policy block out the time for people to practice thinking about it?

Policy is made by complicated processes and not all the people are qualified to get benefits.
But the inequality issue is serious for everyone's life, in all kinds of areas, and we often are not aware of it.

Well, perfect equality is stasis, which essentially equals death. No, I prefer inequality. That's what makes life interesting. Everyone is better and worse than others at something. — LuckyR

:up:

Zōngjiào is a translation word for foreign culture entered China.
But it means : teaching from ancestors. still different from the English meaning of 'religion'.
The Chinese somehow changed foreign culture in order to fit Chinese civilization.
General public's worship was forbidden from 5,000 years ago when Chinese civilization was created.

btw, Chinese authentic civilization has no 'religion' concept or word in language, as western culture.
Things that were taught on the silk road at least from 3,000 years ago are in education or philosophy form.
The silk road crossed many very different civilizations and cultures.
I can only say I understand the Chinese part.
Only the gospel of Matthew is more related to the silk road around China.
Other gospels belong to other civilizations on the silk road, and I'm not sure I understand the culture background behind it.

It's not surprising, for a different audience, using different languages and teaching materials that they are familiar with. right?

The spread of Christianity along the Silk Road likely occurred through the efforts of early Christian communities, missionaries, and traders who carried the teachings of Jesus with them as they traveled. There is certainly no reason to think that a Jeshua Ben Joseph ever taught outside of Judea. It has not been established that Jesus was a real person and the gospels were written anonymously many years, decades, after the events. The Morons beleive that Jesus settled in the Americas after the resurrection. Mythological figures can do anything. — Tom Storm

Good questions!
If you are a philosophy teacher who teaches dealing with 'Famous <-> Anonymous' inequality,
what will you do to teach it?

A big issue to historically prove Jesus anything is: for the philosophers who taught inequality in ancient times, they would focus on removing 'Famous <-> Anonymous' inequality.
The way they teach 'Famous <-> Anonymous'  is: They will do many amazing things and be super influential for thousands of years. 
But they don't let people know they did it.

If we study the history of those inequality teaching philosophers, we'll find out sometimes they on purpose hide the history evidence.
They want people who want to know the truth to search for it themselves.
But for the general public or the people who are not qualified to know, they'll hide it.

So a master only has a few disciples. 
For some secret knowledge, a teacher only lets those few disciples know.
Not everyone deserves true knowledge.

But if anyone says they are very sure of Jesus' things, we need to doult.
Since it is impossible to be very sure, in a situation he must already destroy history evidence himself. For teaching 'Famous <-> Anonymous'.
But we can search for the truth. Philosophy teachers like us to search.

Yes! Why not?

There is no such thing as equality, there is no equality between individuals, between the sexes between you and your employer, between you and your neighbor. We acknowledge our common humanity, and our mutual interest in its common dignity, there is equality only in this sense. — boagie

:up:

Years ago when George Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, he replied (after a bit of thought), Jesus Christ.

One can draw all sorts of conclusions from George's choice, negative or positive, but His teachings provide a way of life that could mitigate all those inequalities. — jgill

Inequality as a philosophy topic has its history background.
3,000 years ago, silk road trading was already very popular.
But when the merchants passed the silk road, a big challenge was that people who lived along the silk road would rob the merchants.
All big civilizations along the silk road used strong military and education to deal with the loot issue.
Merchants (Jews) supported and were philosophy missionaries on silk road was already very popular from 3,000 years ago.

I guess Jesus was hired by those missionary merchants at his age 13, to help merchants do mission works all along the silk road.
From Chinese history and culture influence of the silk road, we can see Jesus was a superstar on the silk road!

I guess when Jesus taught people on the silk road, he used the local existing education materials, which at least already had 1,000 years of history.
(Ancient China had a rule: for the princes of the silk road countries, they must come to China and study in a Chinese university as diplomatic hostages.)

Inequality is a very old philosophy topic in China.
Ancient Chinese philosophers said they got this idea from their old teachers.
Their old teachers said they got their idea from even older ancient teachers.
(I actually guess many Chinese philosophers were Jews.)
So it's hard to say Jesus quoted Chinese philosophers, or ancient Chinese philosophers quoted Jesus, if Jesus existed a long time ago.

An ethical system. — Hanover

Good point!

Will an ethical system create more inequality, more distinction on correct <-> wrong?

Adam and Eve ate the Apple, so they know the 'Good & Evil', which started the beginning of sin?
Then they found out they were naked, so God made clothes for them.

I guess an ethical system is the 'clothes', which is a prevention/temporary solution.
We still need to fix the root cause 'the Apple', which changed the way Adam and Eve look at things.
How to turn our mind back to the original / nature, to antidote 'the Apple'?
I guess that's why philosophy discusses dealing with inequality or the way to see things.

Amor Fati, and Yea Saying?... From Nietzsche's Joyful Wisdom Aphorism 276:

"I have wished for myself today, and what thought first crossed my mind this year, a thought which ought to be the basis, the pledge and the sweetening of all my future life! I want more and more to perceive the necessary characters in things as the beautiful: I shall thus be one of those who beautify things. Amor fati: let that henceforth be my love! I do not want to wage war with the ugly. I do not want to accuse, I do not want even to accuse the accusers. Looking aside, let that be my sole negation! And all in all, to sum up: I wish to be at any time hereafter only a yea-sayer!" — Vaskane

Interesting! What happened to Nietzsche, so he made this conclusion/Aphorism? What did he observe?

Good points!
I guess it's the inequality that triggers the human's mind most profoundly.
But we may not be aware of it.
We may think it's other things.
eg. 'have' kids <-> 'not have' kids.

Or even if we can think everything is equal, we still need to follow the existing reality of inequality rules to deal with the relationship with others.
e.g. Is getting a 0 score in the exam the same as getting 100 scores, for a young person?

But to deal with the root cause of the sad mind and chaos of the world.
Inequality is the thing to discuss.
Philosophy may be the best efficiently way, to practice our mind to get enlightenment on inequality topics.
It's good to get it a try and see.

I guess insist on one of them or focus on distinguishing them that cause issues. or Manipulate it.

From history, around B.C. 600, iron was introduced to China.
Then it caused the gap between rich and poor.
States started war with each other, to get more power and richness.
It collapses the original balanced moral system.
End up the first emperor burned 3,000 years of books, to make people not able to think.
So people could not be against him.

Adam and Eve ate the Apple, so they know the 'Good & Evil', then it started the beginning of sin?

What makes people distinguish?
Perception? Cognition?
What makes inequality dramatically trigger a human's mind, to a level it's hard to get rid of it?

Thanks everyone's reply and made this question clearer!
A new question based on our discussion:

Inequality is the root cause of dishonesty.
e.g. good <-> evil, rich <-> poor, beautiful <-> ugly, young <-> old, high <-> low, correct <-> wrong, have <-> not have, left <-> right, subjective <-> objective, absolute <-> relative
For each unequal situation, we can find a dishonest example in daily life.
e.g. plastic surgery: beautiful <-> ugly, hypocrite: correct <-> wrong.

This world is not equal and we can’t change it externally.

But there is a way to help us deal with the inequalities and be peaceful & honest.
What is the way?

So a society that is stratified by race or class in a totally unequal way becomes more like a predator/prey arrangement where morality breaks down because society is fractured. — unenlightened

It's interesting to see a Confucius case:
The Master said: “If you don't try to anticipate deception, and you don't plan for your not being believed, yet are the first to be aware of these things, aren't you a worthy?” - Xian wen 憲問[14:31]

Preceptions (prejudice?) may bar perceptions in very drastic ways which require extraordinary measures to clear up, — Bella fekete

:heart: . The fasting of the heart

It looks like the situations or mindsets behind honesty are more than what I thought. Here is Confucius' case. Unequal treaty?

In the late Spring and Autumn period, Confucius, accompanied by many students, traveled around lecturing. One day, they had to pass through Pugu, on their way to the state of Wei. At that time, the Wei state official, Duke Gong of Shu, had occupied Pugu. The people of Pugu detained Confucius and his followers. After some negotiations and discussions, the people of Pugu made a request to Confucius: "If you promise not to go to the state of Wei, we will allow you to leave." Faced with the adamant stance of the people of Pugu, Confucius had no choice but to agree and made a covenant with them not to go to the state of Wei. However, once Confucius passed through the city gate, he directly headed towards the state of Wei. Confucius's disciple Zigong asked, "Can covenants be violated?" Confucius replied, "Covenants made under coercion are not even heard by the gods! The most trustworthy person is not bound by agreements made under duress. Otherwise, that would be foolish."

My friend indeed complains Eastern philosophy sounds like self-help, or maybe homework. :sweat: You can tell me how to think about this in western way. Thanks!

Are there mindsets that can help an individual or a society easier to choose honesty?

When we choose to be honest, it may not be because of the outside world.
— YiRu Li

I find it quite hard to understand how one could have a 'conclusion' such that it results in behaviour, which is not a direct result of external.. everything... — AmadeusD

e.g. I finally can accept myself, then I suddenly realize and feel that I can be honest about my situation with others.

I'd think honesty is also a natural final product of some mindsets, from the inside? We may live in a life with all white lies but we don't even realize it. We may not always get punished by dishonesty. When we choose to be honest, it may not be because of the outside world.

I think the mindset is including all of you mentioned: personality or worldview or a habitual disposition or value system.

Maybe we can refer to the person that said "confidence". According to him, "confidence" is a mindset that leads to honesty. Is this correct? Is there one particular mindset that leads to honesty?

If honest is an adj, is it like tall and short, something we are largely born with, or is it like rich, something we can gain and lose?

Is there something else behind 'honest'? without it, 'honest' doesn't exist.

Is the meaning of 'honest' the same in adj and in verb.? Does it have a verb.? Does it mean we can't do it, it's a final product of something else?

I feel there is a mindset behind honesty.
Without that mindset, honesty doesn't exist.

Can honesty be considered a culmination of a particular mindset? Is it contingent upon possessing this mindset, implying that without it, genuine honesty is unattainable?