A solution to climate change is not what the libs want though! Not really! I tried talking to Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg about solving climate change with magma energy, and they were not in the least interested. They protest against climate change, but it's really a cornerstone of that whole politically correct, anti-capitalist, middle class, woke white guilt paradigm they're pushing. I suggest proving the capitalist thesis by solving climate change, exploiting a freely available resource - magma energy, to the utmost extent, and yes, I think that would fundamentally undermine the green neo marxist, anti western platform. — counterpunch

Still seems goofy that the best reason you can think of for dealing with climate change is to stick it to the lefties. And, as I wrote, whatever your reason, let's do it.

The tedious tide of theological threads appear to have been replaced by a population of piss-poor physics posts... Any explanations? — Banno

Explanation #1 - Poor enforcement of the pseudo-science rules.

Explanation #2 - Failure to recognize that apparent similarities between phenomena are metaphorical rather than physical, e.g. quantum uncertainty and free will.

Explanation #3 - People just get really excited about waves. They think they explain everything. Fields too. They just sound all sciencey and stuff.

Explanation #4 - Emerson wrote

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.

We gotta stop letting people read Emerson.

Explanation #5 - It's logic - The most sciencey stuff is weird, e.g. quantum mechanics and relativity. 2) I have some weird ideas. 3) Therefore my ideas must be sciencey too.

Solution #4 Stop, Part 2

Tell the police to stop killing unarmed people.

I suggest the right solve climate change, and deny the left sustainability, used as an anti-capitalist battering ram. — counterpunch

Let me see if I understand. You're going to defeat the liberals by giving them what they want. Is that right? Boy, that'll teach 'em a lesson. They'll never know what hit 'em.

Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all. — Manuel

Solution #1 - Given that he is confident he won't be hanged, he'll be surprised whichever day he actually is.

Solution #2 - The executioner comes to the cell on Wednesday at noon. The prisoner says, "Hey, that's not fair. The judge said ..." Then the executioner laughs, says "surprise," takes him to the gallows, and hangs him.

Solution #3 - It's noon on Friday and the executioner hasn't shown up. The prisoner heaves a sigh of relief. Then, at 12:10, the executioner comes in. "Sorry I'm late" he says. Then he takes the surprised prisoner to the gallows and hangs him.

Sorry about that. I tend to be blunt. — FrancisRay

Blunt is fine. Condescending is rhetorical rather than philosophical. And it starts unnecessary and unproductive scuffles.

Your interest in 'barking' has been noted. — Amity

Hey! I resemble that remark.

You are conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. As I pointed out there is no other way to do science (that we currently know of) so it is not merely a matter of usefulness, but of necessity, even in regard to methodology. — Janus

@spirit-salamander is the one who made a distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. I think it may be a valuable idea, but it isn't what I was talking about. You didn't make any reference to the distinction in the post I was responding to and I didn't make any reference to it in my definitions, which is what got all this started.

I was just thinking. If my concept of metaphysics is correct, i.e. my emphasis on usefulness rather than truth, then all metaphysics is methodological. I like that.

Firstly how can you currently decide what may or may not be verified in the future? — Janus

Good point. In general, you can't, but if there is no evidence for a phenomenon, it is not unreasonable to provisionally assume it doesn't exist until evidence is found. Cases in point - the multiverse as an explanation for quantum mechanical phenomena and string theory.

Secondly if metaphysical positions are meaningless then why are we even discussing whether they are right or wrong or useful? — Janus

Metaphysical positions are not meaningless, hypothetical physical phenomena which cannot be verified, even in theory, are meaningless.

Straightforwardly circular I would say in regard to the first two. And the second two are based on an invalid inference, as I pointed out. science thinks naturalistically because there is no other way to do it; that is if we don't think naturalistically (with regard to methodology) then we are not doing science, as doing science is currently defined. — Janus

This is irrelevant. I gave a definition of naturalism based on it's common philosophical meaning. That is the stated subject of this thread and the one I was responding to. I did not make any judgement except to state that naturalism can be useful. Is it your position that science is not useful?

The fact that we may never be able to discover the answer to that question has no bearing on the fact that it is in principle either right or wrong. — Janus

It depends. If a claim hasn't been verified but might be in the future, then it might be right or wrong. If it cannot be verified, even in principle, then is not only not right or wrong, it is meaningless.

Most people see themselves as good. This is just not the case. — Caleb Mercado

I think that one's position on the good or evil of humanity depends on temperament and personality mostly. People who like others think they're ok. People who don't, don't. I like people a lot, individually and in the aggregate. I generally try not to judge people one way or another. I think humans are social and that we tend to like each other, all other things being equal. Of course, all other things are never equal.

Most people don't go down that road because it doesn't take anyone anywhere good.

I was just pointing out the circular (and hence pretty much useless) nature of the definitions you sourced is all. — Janus

Disagree. I thought they were pretty straightforward. That's why I generally look for a few definitions. I find that looking at them together generally gives a better sense of what's up than just one. Naturalism says that reality is natural. Natural means that it is subject to laws that can be validated using the scientific method.

I am not making a claim that naturalism is right or wrong. I think it is a metaphysical position and is neither. I think it can be a useful way of looking at things depending on the situation.

simple rules — maytham naei

• Ignore the news mostly. Stick to science.
  
  
• Look at a general news site every day or two to make sure the world hasn't ended and Bob Dylan hasn't won the Nobel Prize in literature.
  
  
• Avoid stories that aggravate me.
  
  
• Generally stay away from politics. If I decide to read some, go to moderate conservative sources I trust. "American Conservative" is my favorite, although they got a little goofy during the election.
  
  
• Stay away from liberal sites. There's nothing more irritating than having to deal with people I'm supposed to agree with who are idiots.
  
  
• Use comment sections as a place to test my ability to be civil and look for common values with people I disagree with.

Solution #2 Stop

All the racists stop being all racist and stuff.

I think spirit-salamander has come up with a workable definition based on the scope of causal effect that entities are capable of and subject to, which seems to cover all the bases. — Janus

The title of the thread is "Definition of Naturalism." At the time I wrote my post, no one had provided a definition of what naturism means in common usage. I gave four definitions from four different sources. Whether or not you like them, I think they represent pretty well what the word "naturalism" means in everyday philosophical speech. There is nothing stopping people from defining a word any way they want. If you want "naturalism" to mean two dogs fighting over a hotdog, ok. At least be clear about that from the beginning.

I like @spirit-salamander's summary also.

As you know, our view differs here. I think the commentary that it doesn’t belong says more about the translator’s perspective than the text, their inability to reconcile it with the flow at this point. It warrants a closer look. — Possibility

The file I attached to my original post has Stefan Stenudd's full commentary, which discusses this in more detail.

I think it’s more about recognising our limitations with regards to knowledge or learning, embracing uncertainty to eliminate worry, fear, concern, sorrow, care, anxiety, etc. — Possibility

As you note, you and I disagree on this. The statement in the first line seems stronger to me than similar lines in other verses. More definitive. As mystical philosopher Tommy has noted, "You ain't gonna follow me any of those ways, although you think you must."

The first line says that we cannot accurately quantify the relation between positive and negative; the second that we cannot qualify the relation between good and evil. It’s like asking ‘how long is a piece of string?’ This uncertainty is what we fear. Such desolation, such scarcity of information has no centre, no end, nothing to beg for. — Possibility

The second and third lines of the first stanza seem to me to be pointing out that our value judgements are conditional and somewhat arbitrary. The important distinction isn't between good and bad, but between making judgements and not making judgements.

The rest of the verse describes the difference between the sage who faces this uncertainty, and everyone else who appear to have full and busy lives, so in control and certain of their usefulness, their dominant and joyful ‘springtime’ stance, their vision of who they are and where they’re going. — Possibility

As I noted in my comments, I think the point of the verse is that people who follow the Tao look odd, disreputable, stupid, or crazy to many other people because they don't care about the goals most people do - acclaim, wealth, status, attention.

the Taoist starts from the limitations of knowledge, recognising that we can be certain of nothing - that all knowledge is quantitatively and/or qualitatively relative (to the flow of chi). This is not to say that we cannot know anything - only that we cannot claim beyond ourselves to know anything with certainty, — Possibility

I don't see it this way at all. The TTC is not about knowledge, it's about the rejection of knowledge. Lao Tzu could not be more explicit about it. He's a plain-spoken guy. He says what he means.

In my view, Lao Tzu gets around this only by extricating chi from the TTC - recognising that when it is read, when we interact with the language, we inevitably bring our own. — Possibility

I don't see where this comes from. Lao Tzu doesn't mention "chi," or any other term I recognize as similar, at all.

Have you been following the discussion on Buddhist epistemology? Also there's a discussion about why people turned away from Buddhism in the Lounge. I'm curious about your thoughts. I plan to follow up with @FrancisRay on some of the comments he made on the logic of Taoism and Buddhism previously in this thread.

Whether something is hard or easy is relative — HardWorker

Sorry, I have the Tao Te Ching on the brain these days. This is from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 2.

When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other

I believe this to be the best cartoon of all time...

Gary Larson - The Far Side - Cows — synthesis

Half right. This is.

If Buddhism is unpopular because it is a religion,then this just goes to show how poorly it is understood. But its an odd comment seeing that Buddhism is the most popular religion on the planet at this time. — FrancisRay

As I noted, there are 0.5 billion Buddhists. There are 2.4 billion Christians.

Buddhism is so unpopular. — praxis

There are 500,000,000 Buddhists in the world.

It's not nearly as much fun as listening to Miles Davis, — FrancisRay

And then again, some of your responses come across as incredibly condescending.

No. I replied because you asked for 'anything else of interest', and so I tried to suggest your reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor. . . — FrancisRay

Some of your responses come across as really condescending.

Makes sense to me. Very clear and specific. One of the things that bothers me most on the forum is how discussions go off in 20 directions because terms are not defined at the beginning of the thread. That's why I got involved.

Thank you.

Yes. Do you know what a circular definition is? — Herg

Yes. Your criticism of my statement was accurate. Your turn.

Well, it wasn't me that introduced this red herring, was it? — Herg

Do you even know what the phrase "red herring" means?

No, I'm suggesting that since the word 'natural' pre-dates the scientific method, it must then have had a meaning which did not depend on the scientific method, and may well still have the same meaning. — Herg

The word "natural" is not the subject of this thread. The subject is "naturalism." I gave several definitions of the word as it is currently used from various web sources. If you want to argue that those definitions are wrong, go ahead. You should provide some evidence for that claim.

if you're to keen for thought experiments let's just throw relativity out the window while we're at it. — Lif3r

I have nothing against thought experiments, as I noted, my beef is with "pointless, unrealistic thought experiments." Also, Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher.

Also - Einstein's thought experiment isn't what made the theory of special relativity true. It was just an explanation of an actual aspect of the world.

you can certainly apply this principle to common life problems, and in fact we all do on a daily basis in deciding what products and services we use and what paths we take. — Lif3r

Then why not use one of those "common life problems" instead of something that has never happened and won't ever happen to anyone in the history and future of the universe. It makes philosophy look like a joke, which is ok if that's what you're trying to do. If you think it makes it look wise or insightful, it doesn't. And what is it with trains? Why do philosophers like trains so much? And what if it was Adolf Hitler tied to the tracks? Or what if it was 100 million pictures of Adolf Hitler instead of dollars?

That would imply that there was nothing natural until the scientific method came along. That doesn't seem right. — Herg

Do you think the world didn't operate in accordance with scientific principles before there was science? Was there a different set of rules that operated before there were sentient beings?

Perhaps one of the most impactful social questions one could ask, one that we've all already answered, that dictates the path of society: — Lif3r

Little known fact - The word "philosophy" comes from ancient Minoan combining "pilos," meaning "love of" and "physos," meaning "silly thought experiments."

Why do philosophers think that pointless, unrealistic thought experiments can shed any light on moral questions? See the trolley problem. Can't you come up with something that might actually happen in an actual person's actual life?

This is a good starting point. Because you can see from these definitions that they do not give a criterion for how I can distinguish the natural from the supernatural or unnatural. But that is what matters. One needs a precise criterion. — spirit-salamander

The definitions are pretty specific - the natural is what is allowable under natural laws established using the scientific method.

To clarify things, here are several definitions of "naturalism."

• The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
  
  
• The belief that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality
  
  
• The belief that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws
  
  
• A comprehensive, science-based worldview, premised on the idea that existence in all its dimensions and complexity is a single, natural realm, not split between the natural and the supernatural

The lack of clarity in there verses is most likely the result of a incorrect perspective of the translator out reader. When viewed as a set of fables or hymns of an ancient people, them one can see that it is but much different from the kinds of spiritual writings and thoughts that have always been present in all cultures. It is good marketing to try to make it more than that, but more understandable if one doesn't. — MondoR

Again - I see Lao Tzu telling us a story, laying out a path. It doesn't seem like a random hodgepodge or marketing at all.

Verse 20

Ellen Marie Chen

Eliminate (chüeh) learning so as to have no worries,
Yes and no, how far apart are they?
Good and evil, how far apart are they?

What the sages (jen) fear,
I must not not fear.
I am the wilderness (huang) before the dawn (wei yang).

The multitude (chung jen) are busy and active,
Like partaking of the sacrificial feast,
Like ascending the platform in spring;
I alone (tu) am bland (p'o),
As if I have not yet emerged (chao) into form.
Like an infant who has not yet smiled (hai),
Lost, like one who has nowhere to return (wu so kuei).

The multitudes (chung jen) all have too much (yu yü);
I alone (tu) am deficient (i).
My mind (hsin) is that of a fool (yü),
Nebulous.

Worldly people (su jen) are luminous (chao);
I alone (tu) am dark (hun).
Worldly people are clear-sighted (ch'a);
I alone (tu) am dull (men),
I am calm like the sea,
Like the high winds I never stop (chih).

The multitudes (chung jen) all have their use (i);
I alone (tu) am untamable like lowly material.
I alone (tu) am different from others.
For I treasure feeding on the Mother (mu).


Addiss and Lombardo

Banish learning, no more grief. Between Yes and No How much difference? Between good and evil How much difference??
What others fear I must fear - How pointless!
People are wreathed in smiles as if at a carnival banquet. I alone am passive, giving no sign, Like an infant who has not yet smiled. Forlorn as if I had no home.
Others have enough and more, I alone am left out. I have the mind of a fool, Confused, confused.
Others are bright and intelligent, I alone and dull, dull, Drifting on the ocean, Blown about endlessly.
Others have plans, I alone am wayward and stubborn, I alone am different from others, Like a baby in the womb.

My thoughts

The theme of Verse 20 is, if you follow the Tao, you will look odd to other people. In the attached PDF file, I’ve included two commentaries. I included Ellen Marie Chen’s because I think she summarizes the verse well, by which I mean her understanding is close to mine. I included Stefan Stenudd’s because he had some interesting things to say about language and history. For example, he says many scholars think the first line doesn’t really belong in this verse.

The attached file also includes several other translations of the verse.

Ellen Marie Chen Verse 20 – stanza by stanza

Eliminate (chüeh) learning so as to have no worries,
Yes and no, how far apart are they?
Good and evil, how far apart are they?

Again, Stenudd says the first line doesn’t belong. Too bad. I like it. As you should know, I’m a fan of the knowledge = bad interpretation. I think this line states it more strongly than some of the others. “Eliminate learning.” “Banish learning.”

The next two lines remind me of several others. This is Chen from Verse 2:

When all under heaven know beauty (mei) as beauty,
There is then ugliness (o);
When all know the good (shan) good,
There is then the not good (pu shan).

This is Mitchell from Verse 13.

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

I think of American football – I root for the Patriots. I don’t like the Giants. But they’re the same. They both play the same game. If I don’t care about football, there’s no difference. Same with American Republicans and Democrats. If I’m from Bangladesh, I don’t see any difference. Lao Tzu wants us to recognize that all the value judgements we make are games which we can choose not to play.

What the sages (jen) fear,
I must not not fear.
I am the wilderness (huang) before the dawn (wei yang).

This is confusing. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English translate this as “Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!” That reading is consistent with other translations.

The multitude (chung jen) are busy and active,
Like partaking of the sacrificial feast,
Like ascending the platform in spring;
I alone (tu) am bland (p'o),
As if I have not yet emerged (chao) into form.
Like an infant who has not yet smiled (hai),
Lost, like one who has nowhere to return (wu so kuei).

I can’t remember where I saw it, whether it was here in the forum or somewhere else, but recently I read a discussion of why modern people are so afraid of monotony. The discussion said lions lie around most of the day doing nothing and that some hunter gatherer tribes work only four or five hours a day and spend the rest sitting around. Whether or not that’s true, I can picture a pride of Taoist lions sitting in the shade.



In her commentary, Chen has a discussion of the Chinese tradition of not naming a child until they are three months old. The idea is that it is not until she has smiled that she truly becomes a person. Smiling is a sign of the beginning of self-awareness.

The multitudes (chung jen) all have too much (yu yü);
I alone (tu) am deficient (i).
My mind (hsin) is that of a fool (yü),
Nebulous.

“Being There” with Peter Sellars comes to mind. In that comedy, Chance, played by Sellars, is a simple-minded gardener. Everyone hears his bland, pointless words and assumes they are wise. What Lao Tzu is describing is the opposite of that.

Worldly people (su jen) are luminous (chao);
I alone (tu) am dark (hun).
Worldly people are clear-sighted (ch'a);
I alone (tu) am dull (men),
I am calm like the sea,
Like the high winds I never stop (chih).

Why would sophisticated, successful men and women assume that a quiet, calm person is dull?

The multitudes (chung jen) all have their use (i);
I alone (tu) am untamable like lowly material.
I alone (tu) am different from others.
For I treasure feeding on the Mother (mu).

People think I am stubborn and odd.

It is possible trust there was not one author of the Dao De Jing (I hold this view), but rather it is a conglomeration of sayings, thoughts, and stories, that were gathered over time. One can bring that the Bible is the revealed Word, or a collection from many authors over a period of time. Ditto for Shakespeare. For me, the Dao De Jing seems to be a collection chants, stories, and fables, all provoking different insights, and possibly deeper wisdom. — MondoR

I have read that some think the TTC has more than one author or that some verses were added later. I don't know enough to argue, but it doesn't seem like "a collection chants, stories, and fables." For me, there is a strong feeling of continuity and unity among all the verses. I see the TTC as all one story told in pieces like a collage. That's one way of getting around the fact that the Tao is unspeakable.

Why is “the Left” called “loony”? Why is “left” considered as somehow “not right”? — Apollodorus

I'll speak for the US. Different political parties have always insulted each other. It's bad rhetoric, although I guess it works sometimes. There has always been political conflict, but the parties and branches of government generally kept things moving. Passed legislation, kept the government open, avoided impeachment if possible. In the last 30 years I've watched things change dramatically. You've heard about it - polarization. Fox News, MSNBC. Everything is a fight to the death now. Why, I'll talk about that more below.

In that kind of a situation, things move toward the extremes - conflicts and parties. Every argument, dollar spent, and bill is a matter of life or death, not because the contents are particularly important, but because the goal has become winning, hurting the other party, as opposed to governing. When I was young, there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Both parties had the so called "big tent," although the Democrat's tent was always bigger. As Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat." In the early 70s, the Republican vice president, Nelson Rockefeller, was a liberal Republican.

I think you might find pretty wide agreement with what I've laid out before. I wanted to get that out of the way before I got to the controversial part. Why did it happen - it's the Republican's fault. I won't go into my reasons for saying that. I'll let this article from 2012 speak for me. It was taken from a well-known book by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

I am not giving my opinions. I can demionstrate everything I state. — FrancisRay

We'll have to leave it there for now.

Agree.

some perfect ideal state where everybody is altruistic — TheMadFool

This has nothing to do with "altruism." It has to do with fellow-feeling, community, common values. We're human. We more or less, most of the time like each other. We wish each other well. We share a sense of common purpose with other people.

Also, looking for a specific evolutionary purpose for every detail of every aspect of human behavior is silly and pointless. That's sociobiology and it's wrong-headed.

hospitals in general are for-profit organizations. — TheMadFool

According to the web, In the US, about 20% of hospitals are for-profit.

I suppose the process would include the agents changing also themselves by consensus / dissensus. Something like the "Titanomachy" in Hesiod's Theogony ... or Tolkien's Quenta Silmarillion ... or a very very glitchy Matrix populated only by "Agents" & programs like the "Merovingian", the "Oracle", the "Key-maker", etc. — 180 Proof

Maybe a bit off-subject, but this brought to mind "The Lathe of Heaven" by LeGuin. In that book, one person has the power to change past and present reality for everyone. Good book. Ok movie.

Well, the 'scientific attitude' is not to accept what you don't understand until you understand it iff what you have come to understand is (probably, provisionally) correct. — 180 Proof

Worth discussing, but this is the wrong thread.