It's interesting that property is not listed, and yet at the time the document was written, property was secured by governments even where it meant that the other inalienable rights were alienated. — Echarmion

The US's Declaration of Independence was a statement of general principle. A few years later, the US Constitution came along and provided a more specific, legally binding list. Among those is a right to protect against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

To this day your rights to life, liberty and especially the pursuit of happiness are sharply circumscribed by the state's protection of property. — Echarmion

A good case can be made that the pursuit of happiness is not possible without protection of property.

Tramsofrm people's mindset to Logic!! With its actions to push people think logically and make them understand that this is a total selfish thing to do for their own profit at the end! To fight hyprocrisis — dimosthenis9

As the captain of the Titanic, the engineers at Fukushima, and Karl Marx all said "What could possibly go wrong?"

How wonderful to have people like you who can set others straight. — synthesis

Aw, shucks.

With rights come responsibility. — synthesis

Let's forget for a moment that "unalienable" means you get them even if you don't deserve them. Which of the rights on the list would you withhold from people who don't meet your standards?

What should be the primary purpose of a government? — Marigold23

Easy peasy:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

I've quoted the Declaration of Independence twice today and Randy Newman once. Who says I'm not erudate, eridute... smart.

This is the bible story that, even more than Job, popularises atheism. — unenlightened

You go with Bob, I'll go with Randy:

I burn down your cities - how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind

There should be one word in the English language for rights and responsibilities because they are a package deal. — synthesis

I wasn't going to respond to one more of your half-assed, claptrap, mean-spirited, "why, when I was a boy," social/political rants. I was hoping it would die out. Since it hasn't, I'll respond.

No, that's not how rights work. Let's make a list (with some overlap):

General (US Declaration of Independence)

• Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Civil rights (US Constitution)

• Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
• Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia
• Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
• Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy
• Right to a speedy and public trial
• Right of trial by jury
• Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments
• Freedom from slavery and indentured servitude

Human rights (UN Declaration of Human Rights)

• Right to life, liberty and security of person
• Freedom from slavery or servitude
• Freedom from torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
• Right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial
• Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence
• Freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state
• Right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country
• Right to marry and to found a family
• Right to own property
• Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Freedom of opinion and expression
• Peaceful assembly and association
• Right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work
• Right to education

As much as you might like it to be otherwise, these rights apply to everyone, whether you think they deserve them or not.

I think you should just go with the flow for the next year or two at least, Daniel. Let's face it, your intellectual life is currently a dog's vomit and your philosophical consciousness is a toilet. One thing that even the cat at home knows is that you won't find any magic answers in Athens or anywhere else, because enlightenment comes from within, if indeed it ever comes. — alan1000

Graceless.

Whether or not there are "magic answers," I've known quite a few people who were led through the dark with the help of Athens, enlightenment Europe, and ancient China.

He has always been our Marxist rabble rouser with the credentials and experience to stand behind it — T Clark

I lately haven't been as interested in rousing the rabble on behalf of Uncle Karl as I used to be. Old age, I suppose. I haven't felt the desire to participate in discussions as much as I used to. Old age, I suppose. Hey -- now that I have it, old age is a good excuse for doing and not doing all sorts of things. — Bitter Crank

I hope you know I wrote what I wrote with affection and respect.

"The Metaphysical Club" sounds interesting. If I keep calling myself a pragmatist, I should read more pragmatists.

Things changed for me when @TimeLine left. She added a lot of energy to the forum. I told her she was pugnacious and she took it as a complement, which was how I meant it. No one has called @Hanover a lesbian for years. She was a Patrick Stewart denier. That bald guy was Jean Luc Picard and only Jean Luc Picard.

Because her leaving was so ugly, the moderators moved the Shoutbox out of the mainline discussions and into the Lounge. That took a lot of energy out too. It was the place where everyone got together to gossip and complain and it showed up on the front page. Now, most people don't even look at it. It goes for days without a comment. I understand why the moderators moved it. They thought there was too much disruption, and they were right. Still, it took some of the life out of the forum.

Whatever the reason, some people have backed off a lot. They still comment from time to time, but less often. @StreetlightX and @fdrake don't comment nearly as much as they used to. I think @apokrisis is still around somewhere, but he hardly ever comments. They, along with TimeLine were strong voices for science from astrophysics to genetics to statistics. Now we're left with a bunch of half-assed, dipshit, pitiful pseudo-science. Yes, I'm talking about you.

There are other voices that have slipped into the background more. @ArguingWAristotleTiff is still around but sticks mostly to the Lounge. @Bitter Crank still comments but less. He has always been our Marxist rabble rouser with the credentials and experience to stand behind it. @Noble Dust is still around, but he only comes out when I say something bad about @Phillip K. Dick. And yes, I miss @S.

I'm not sure, but I think a lot of the moderators have stopped commenting as much. Comments about moderation have dropped off. In general, some of the spirit has gone out of the forum. I think some of the quality of the discussions has gone down too. I still love the forum.

For a while I felt like I'd said everything I had to say, but I've found some new things to be interested in.

@Tiberiusmoon

defeasible — 180 Proof

And it's a place to learn interesting and useful new words.

I'm hoping someone would be willing to offer some tips on comprehending and critically engaging philosophy, not the history, but the theory and development. — Mark Sparks

Try "Sophie's World." It's a novel about a young girl learning about philosophy. It's aimed at a very general audience, but it has some substance.

You can find my recording of it here. — thewonder

When I have some things I like, I sometimes start a thread in the Lounge. My old ones include Philosophy Joke of the Day, Beautiful Things, Almost Famous Things, Philosophical Poems. My current one is My Favorite Metaphors. You could start one for your own poems, yours and others forum members, or poems in general. That way it would only take up one discussion.

Some of these threads have petered out quickly, but some have been my favorite threads on the forum.

”This City is so horrible that its mere existence and perdurance, though in the midst of a secret desert, contaminates the past and the future and in some way even jeopardizes the stars. As long as it lasts, no one in the world can be strong or happy. I do not want to describe it; a chaos of heterogeneous words, the body of a tiger or a bull in which teeth, organs and heads monstrously pullulate in mutual conjunction and hatred can (perhaps) be approximate images.” — Narrator, The Immortal by Jorge Luis Borges

Yeah, that's a good one. All bright and cheery and stuff.

Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. — Francis H. Cook

It's another wonderful passage, but I wondered why you called it a metaphor. Then I looked up "Net of Indra." Boy, your metaphors are much more intense than mine. Lots of neat images on Google.

One day, I'm going to need to say this, and hopefully, if my memory won't fail me, I'll simply quote you! — TheMadFool

Or, you could say "I'm your huckleberry."

Now that being said, secondly, maybe we can agree that, since the goal may be different, we can not judge inductive reasoning by the bar you presume. Can we simply say that there is better and worse reasoning? That generalizing without examples, taking everything to be like one thing, etc., is just doing a poor job of inductive reasoning? — Antony Nickles

Your presentation is really clear and well thought out.

They show that their conclusión is probably true (for practical purposes). Of course one may doubt that through sceptical arguments like the problem of induction, but nobody can go through their normal everyday life without acting as if some beliefs were more likely to be true than others, using induction. This does not apply to most other beliefs “justified” by circular reasoning or some fallacy such as appeal to authority, or ad populum. — Amalac

Well thought through. And I agree. The so called "problem of induction" has always seemed like pompous nitpicking.

My mother laughs when I speak about paper books, and there are many people who don't wish to use anything other than paper books. — Jack Cummins

A few months ago, I was reading a paper book after not having read one for a while. I came across a word I wasn't familiar with and pushed on the page with my finger to get the definition.

I am also aware of some people who keep books more as objects on shelves than to read them, although this seems a bit odd to me. — Jack Cummins

I get a lot of the Kindle books I read from the library or Kindle Unlimited. If I come across a book I really like, I sometimes will buy a paper copy to keep. That's mostly because I want to thank the author, although I do like the look of a bookshelf with lots of books on it.

But, I do believe that Kindles are a revolution in reading, especially being able to carry around a whole library, unlike carrying heavy books. — Jack Cummins

The really important thing for me is the ease of looking up information directly on the page. Also - I don't use a Kindle. I read on my cell phone. It's always with me.

That's a good Woody Allen joke, by the way. — thewonder

I'll tell Woody you said so.

The last line of "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" by James Joyce:

Welcome, O life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race… Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead.

You were insinuating that I was a waffle, which is clearly an insult.

Found in the forum wild, in reply to Banno.

Glorious. — StreetlightX

Apropos the subject of waffles and this particular discussion, here is the Waffle House philosophy:

Waffle House's philosophy is to aim “to deliver a unique experience to our customers through delivering great food, friendly, attentive service, excellent price and a welcoming presence”.

I think that reading at an exceptional rate lets you pick out certain concepts to create an understanding of rather quickly. It teaches you how to be quick witted and inventive. The experience, however, is somewhat manic. — thewonder

Woody Allen has a joke:

I took a course in speed reading. Now I can read "War and Peace" in 20 minutes. It involves Russia.

I think that the diverse areas of psychoanalysis are fascinating. — Jack Cummins

Are you familiar with Christopher Lasch. He was a very good writer on social and political philosophy. He came at social issues from a psychoanalytic perspective.

I, now, tend to read texts fairly slow with kind of a lot of deliberation. — thewonder

I have found that reading a book on Kindle has made a big difference in the depth of my reading. Being able to get the definition of a word or name or look it up on the web, Wikipedia, or Google Earth has really helped make my reading more satisfying. I sometimes find myself going off on a tangent for 15 minutes before I finally get back to the text. I have a hard time reading paper books these days. I always miss the access to background information.

probably spent more time in the library trying to avoid getting beaten up in the playground. — Jack Cummins

I also spent vast amounts of time in the library. I grew up in southern Delaware and then we moved to southern Virginia. I spent some summers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and in Vermont. In all those, places, the library is one of the things I remember most. In the Massachusetts town I live in now, we have a decent little library with access to books from a dozen other libraries. The same is true for electronic books, so I rarely have to pay to read Kindle books anymore. I don't know if they have it where you are, but Libby is a great app that allows you to borrow Kindle and other electronic books from many libraries. You should also check out Hoopla. I do love libraries - and books.

I do think that science fiction is able to address a lot of philosophical issues in such a lively way. — Jack Cummins

With that opening, I'll recommend "NPC" by Jeremy Robinson. It is the most philosophical science book I've read. Also well written. If you happen to be a member of Amazon Unlimited, it's free.

I remember discovering the shelves on psychology and philosophy when I was about 13. — Jack Cummins

You were more advanced than I was. When I was 13, I was searching the library for adult books with sex in them. That and science fiction.

I have to admit that I do skim read sometimes, especially science, which may mean that I get some ideas out of context. I try to make sure that I get to grips with the main idea, and don't miss important parts, but I may end up leaving out some central parts. However, it is sometimes not easy to understand some aspects of technical detail unless one has the necessary science knowledge, and I come more from an arts background. — Jack Cummins

There was a joke at the engineering company I used to work for - an expert is someone who knows five things about a subject. There is truth in that. With only a limited amount of knowledge, you can often carry on a conversation on a technical subject so that you at least don't look foolish. That truth also applies here on the forum. If you have an idea and you don't want to look stupid, you should at least do a minimal amount of research. If you do that, you arguments will generally be stronger than those we often see here.

Recently it has become more important to me that I dig into the ideas I care about. I'm trying to get rid of "seems to me" and "I think I heard that" from my posts. That is the motivation behind my current thread on the Tao Te Ching. I've read it and thought about it for many years, but now I'm trying to really put in the effort to understand it and use it.

Believing God literally exists is creepy for a lot of us — Gregory

Definition of "atheism" - A philosophical system for explaining to people who don’t believe in God why you don’t either.

This is the creepiest anti-religion thread I’ve seen on the forum.

Forgot to add the commentaries on Verse 21:

Ellen Marie Chen General Comment:

For effective contrast, this chapter is best read together with chapter 14. Both chapters call Tao the illusive and evasive (hu-huang), i.e., the primal Chaos or Hun-tun described in chapter 25. In chapter 14 Tao recedes and becomes the nothing; here the same illusive and evasive Tao moves forward to become the realm of beings. There Tao is nameless; here Tao is the name that never goes away. There Tao is the formless form, the image of nothing; here Tao contains the seeds and images of all beings that are to be. The dominant character of Tao in chapter 14 is wu, nothing; in this chapter it is yu, being or having. The conclusion of chapter 14 traces Tao to the beginning of old; this chapter arrives at the realm of the many in the now.

Chen translation of Verse 14 for reference:

What is looked at but not (pu) seen,
Is named the extremely dim (yi).
What is listened to but not heard,
Is named the extremely faint (hsi).
What is grabbed but not caught,
Is named the extremely small (wei).
These three cannot be comprehended,
Thus they blend into one.

As to the one, its coming up is not light,
Its going down is not darkness.
Unceasing, unnameable,
Again it reverts to nothing.
Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).

Come toward it one does not see its head,
Follow behind it one does not see its rear.
Holding on to the Tao of old (ku chih tao),
So as to steer in the world of now (chin chih yu).
To be able to know the beginning of old,
It is to know the thread of Tao.

Stefan Stenudd Commentary Excerpts:

Tao, the Way, is primordial. Not only was it present at the very birth of the world, but it was the actual origin out of which the world emerged. Its own origin, if there is one, is the most distant of all.

So, Tao must be obscure, evasive, and vague. Anything by which to describe Tao is of later date and lesser significance, so Tao remains forever impenetrable. Its nature may be grasped intuitively, but not explained.

Lao Tzu speaks repeatedly about the center of Tao, as if it would differ from its periphery or anything in between. But Tao is the very law of nature, so it contains no differences or discrepancies. Otherwise there would be anomalies and exceptions in the way the universe works.

It would collapse, as would Tao. What Lao Tzu refers to is the difference between the outside view, when Tao is observed by those who don’t comprehend it, and what its true nature really is.

In that way, Tao has form because of all the forms being born out of it, and it has substance through all the matter that came out of it, filling the world. It also has essence, which is its creative force, its active presence. Without that essence, no world would have emerged. Tao would only have been an eternal possibility, resting in its own perfection.

The essence of Tao is similar to the expressed will of the Bible’s God, uttering: “Let there be...” Tao may have no similarly traceable intention, but the result is the same. The universe was born, because that event was in the nature of Tao.

Verse 21

I like this verse. It feels really different from the others we’ve discussed. It plays around with some of the contradictions that have been seen elsewhere. Is the Tao a thing? Does it have a form? That’s what struck me as I first read it. This verse also feels like a summary of what we read in other verses. Like Lao Tzu is standing back and showing us the big picture.
I’ve included excerpts from the commentaries from Ellen Marie Chen and Stefan Stenudd that I thought were helpful at the end of this post.

Ellen Marie Chen

The features (yung) of the vast (k'ung) Te,
Follows entirely (wei) from Tao.

Tao as a thing,
Is entirely illusive (huang) and evasive (hu).
Evasive and illusive,
In it there is image (hsiang).
Illusive and evasive,
In it there is thinghood (wu).
Dark and dim,
In it there is life seed (ching).
Its life seed being very genuine (chen),
In it there is growth power (hsin).

As it is today, so it was in the days of old (ku),
Its name goes not away (ch'ü),
So that we may survey (yüeh) the origins of the many (chung fu).
How do I know that the origins of the many are such?
Because of this.

Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.
The Tao is elusive and intangible.
Oh, it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.
Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.
Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.
This essence is very real, and therein lies faith.
From the very beginning until now its name has never been forgotten.
Thus I perceive the creation.
How do I know the ways of creation?
Because of this.

Line by line discussion

Ellen Marie Chen

The features (yung) of the vast (k'ung) Te,
Follows entirely (wei) from Tao.

This is the first time the term “te” is used in the TTC, except in the title. In the title, Tao get’s top billing, but Te is still on the marquee. According to some scholars, Verses 1 through 37 are the book of the Tao and Verses 38 through 81 are the book of Te.

“Te” means “virtue.” No, it doesn’t. Yes, it does. It is sometimes translated as “power.” This is from Chen’s Verse 38:

Therefore when Tao is lost (shih), then there is te.
When te is lost, then there is jen (humanity).
When jen is lost, then there is i (righteousness).
When i is lost, then there is li (propriety).
As to li, it is the thin edge of loyalty and faithfullness,
And the beginning of disorder;

So, on this ladder, te comes after the Tao but before the principles of conventional behavior. It is clearly a good thing. Since the Tao is inconceivable, untouchable, maybe it’s the closest we can get. Maybe it’s the shadow of the Tao, it’s projection on our souls. As the couplet says, everything that is Te comes from the Tao.

Tao as a thing,
Is entirely illusive (huang) and evasive (hu).
Evasive and illusive,
In it there is image (hsiang).
Illusive and evasive,
In it there is thinghood (wu).

I have always assumed that the Tao is not a thing. It’s sometimes called “non-being.” This from Chen’s Verse 40:

Ten thousand things under heaven are born of being (yu).
Being is born of non-being (wu).

Everything I think and feel about the Tao says it doesn’t exist, is not a thing, but the TTC (Chen Verse 25) also says:

There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch'eng),
Born before heaven and earth.

And also (Chen Verse 4):

Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung)…
…It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).

Dark and dim,
In it there is life seed (ching).
Its life seed being very genuine (chen),
In it there is growth power (hsin).

This makes me think of the Tao by itself for 10.5 billion years following the big bang. Unnamed stars, galaxies, dark matter whirling outward from the center. Then life is created and for 3.5 billion years evolves until humans are born, language is invented, and things can finally be named. Then the 10,000 things burst from the seed and spread across the universe faster than the speed of light. Instantaneously.

As it is today, so it was in the days of old (ku),
Its name goes not away (ch'ü),
So that we may survey (yüeh) the origins of the many (chung fu).
How do I know that the origins of the many are such?
Because of this.

So people thousands of years ago learned about the Tao and have passed the word down so we will know. I like the last line especially. How do I know these things? I see Lao Tzu turning with his arms wide saying “See, all this. This is how we know.”
 

I think Damon and I have resolved any misunderstanding there was.

Agreed.

This distracts from the point Daemon was making* — Amity

I wasn't commenting on the content of what @Daemon said. I used it as a positive example of why it is important for us to make sure people understand the meaning of the words we use.

It was clear to me from the context. — Amity

It was clear to you because he gave the definition, which was my point.

The thread doesn't explain it though.... . — 3017amen

As I think I've made clear, the purpose of this thread is not to explain consciousness.

I never doubted you had used the word correctly. That doesn't change the fact that this usage is not one most people are familiar with. Instead of "non-standard" I should have said "unfamiliar." That doesn't change the substance of what I was saying.

Do you feel consciousness can be explained logically? — 3017amen

Do you feel that an apple can be explained logically? Consciousness is a phenomenon, it's behavior.

And so some would argue that meaning itself, is neither objective nor subjective, deterministic nor relativistic; meaning is contingent. In that simple context, consciousness means that one simply enjoys the opportunity to experience meaningfulness. — 3017amen

I really don't know what you're trying to say. I think we've laid out good ways to talk about consciousness in this thread. What else is needed?

My definition of ostensive definition wasn't a non-standard definition of ostensive definition. — Daemon

I did not find this:

ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples. — Daemon

in any of the dictionaries I looked in. I'm reasonably well-read but I had never heard the word used in that way. I wouldn't have been able to figure out what you meant from context. I think that is true of most people on the forum and in the world in general.

I just wish to prevent the thread becoming derailed by people's personal disagreements, — Jack Cummins

Sorry for the distraction.