Will

Just wanted to say that this quote has been running through my head repeatedly over the last week. Brilliant! I'm not sure if this was your intent, but it helps me cope with the growing (shocking) realization that determinism likely rules the universe -- in other words, that I have a destiny that could theoretically be determined if you had all the variables measured, even if in practice it feels like I have free will and the future can't be predicted. Viewing myself as an actor playing a part is a good way to describe determinism.

This may well have already been discussed here at length, but it's something I've been pondering intensely over the last couple days. Essentially, my question boils down to this: At least right now, as essentially an agnostic/atheist (despite going to Catholic mass every week ) happiness seems like the ultimate good to me. I have a feeling that along my current track of life I may never be happy, because in this materialist culture I will never be satisfied (although maybe I would be happy, I don't know). That's what leads me the Daoist belief that perhaps simplicity and calm (i.e. the elimination of desire, or at least the recognition that desires aren't important) is the ultimate way to find happiness at the moment of death, to avoid regret. Obviously, this is very difficult. But here's where the relativity of happiness comes in: Why couldn't it be possible to do that? Let me give an example. This really interesting article seems to confirm something I'd suspected for a while (although I guess it's hard to know for sure): That despite modern advances in technology, people in, say, the stone age were probably about as happy as people now. (Or, to put it less controversially and more probably, at least some were -- and that's really what matters for my purposes here.) Why is this? It's probably, of course, because expectations influence happiness. Happiness is relative. People who listen to classical music all the time will be happy when they hear classical music, but people who listen to jazz all the time will be happy when they hear jazz. This has some important implications for equality, as libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick noted in his brilliant Anarchy, State, and Utopia. He was explaining how equality might not necessarily improve happiness, since a higher standard of living is then taken for granted and more is desired. Technological advances are often taken as automatically good, but are they, really? As the Guardian article above notes, there has been too little research into whether happiness has actually increased. Anyway, I'm rambling a bit. But the bottom line is that if people in the past could be equally happy with no computers, phones, or even newspapers, why couldn't I? Admittedly, this line of thought is rather depressing, as it suggests that all of our desires are completely relative to our environment, and have no value beyond that, that they are completely the result of external forces beyond our control. It's a very Daoist line of thought, I think, but it's a rather challenging one (although very powerful). Have you guys thought about any of this?

I can't say I disagree with most of your points. Your thoughts here are actually quite interesting because I'd been thinking about some of these same things a couple weeks ago. Essentially, it boils down to this: Postmodernist thought, at its core, is not really about helping the oppressed, etc. For example, Nietzsche was arguably the first major Western postmodernist thinker. Yet he wasn't particularly interested in helping oppressed groups. This issue is that, in more recent times, postmodernist ideas have been selectively picked up by many liberals. They love to use the parts about power relations being constructed by society, etc., but evidently choose to ignore the parts about how you can't ever really be sure what the "right" thing to do is (otherwise they probably wouldn't fight so strongly for their causes). Don't let any political opinions about those that use postmodernist ideas to their advantage keep you from appreciating the wonderful mounds of underlying thought! Much of it really is quite Taoist.

I don't have much to add to this thread, having read barely any of Nietzsche's work, but I just wanted to say I'm very happy to see that others here have noticed Taoism's deep connection to postmodernism. It's incredibly fascinating to notice all the parallels between the ancient words of Zhuangzi and the modern ones of Nietzsche, Rorty, Derrida, etc. In many senses I think a lot of this stuff can be read as an extension of the Taoist canon, as a further exploration of those ideas.

I'm still a few years away from having to register for the draft (although the draft is not currently in effect, so if things stay peaceful in the world I won't actually have to enter the military). However, I've seen it recommended that if you want to conscientiously object to service, you should start preparing evidence early, so I've been thinking a little about this decision over the past couple days. My understanding of Taoism is currently basically limited to the Zhuangzi. In that regard, it seems to me that wu wei would obligate non-participation in all wars, although it's possible that I'm misunderstanding the concept. (As a side note, FYI current U.S. law only allows an exemption for those who are opposed to all wars, not just certain ones) What do you guys think? Do you interpret Taoist texts (the Zhuangzi and others) as providing an obligation to object to killing fellow human beings under any circumstances?

This is not related to this thread topic at all LOL, but I like the quote in your signature, @TheWhiteRabbit. Where's it from?

I suppose you could take the view that killing someone in a war isn't necessarily bad for the simple reason that some other soldier probably would have killed them if you hadn't participated yourself. (Of course, that does seem like the kind of "ends justify the means" logic that Daoism, or at least its libertarian side, doesn't seem to support...) By that type of logic, you could also argue that, if you get killed in the war, it will have essentially been for nothing because someone else could have fought in your place and would most likely have been just as successful, and possible more-so. Of course, if you don't get killed it's a different story. But you can't be sure what will happen beforehand.

My great grandfather was actually a Quaker so he conscientiously objected during World War II.

Wow, didn't realize so many of you guys had served. Thank you. I will admit I'm a bit surprised by most of you not being pacifists. However, that may be based on a misunderstanding of Taoism. I have a few specific points I want to raise in regards to some of your posts: Just because I don't have them now doesn't mean I might not in a few years! I'm still in the formative stage of my life (second year of high school). Yes, that is true. Everyone has to register. But I've seen it suggested that if you plan on objecting if a draft takes effect, you should write as such on your registration form in order to establish an early paper trail of your belief. From some quick research it seems to me that there are two types of conscientious objectors: Those who are okay with serving in the military but don't want to be in combat, and those who aren't okay with being in the military at all (they are given civilian service jobs in the US). Good point. The issue is that the U.S. only allows conscientious objection based on broad belief systems, not merely personal convictions. The key difficulty that I think Taoism presents in this discussion is that, as I understand it, Zhuangzi (and others?) throw some shade on the right-wrong duality. Thus, saying that "I am a Taoist and I think violence is wrong" seems to arguably be a contradiction. Maybe there's a different way it could be phrased that would be more consistent with the faith's teachings? Yes, I am from the U.S. Indeed, perhaps it's not really worth bothering with preparing an objection if the chance of actually getting drafted is really low. We would probably have to be in a truly massive war for that to happen (i.e. World War III ).

So, @dawei, you're saying that it isn't really worth contemplating happiness, since that means falling into dualistic thinking between happiness and sadness, rather than just seeing all of them as "emotions"?

Wait, so what is the problem with Mair's interpretation of this section? (I haven't read any other translation, so I honestly don't know)

I guess the thing I am coming to realize is that my happiness is currently tied to various things that are essentially arbitrary. After that realization, I suppose there are two paths one can take: The negative path, which results in the disintegration of your passions and sense of value; or the positive one, which results in constant happiness. Thinking about it now, I don't really see any reason why one couldn't reach that second path. To be sure, it would require great concentration and much practice. I wonder if studies have been done on this topic. There is another thing I want to ask you guys: In my OP above, I said that I currently believed happiness was the ultimate, and in some sense only, good. Even when you consider religions such as Christianity, there is usually a heaven of some sort that brings everlasting happiness. People may think that they are doing things for reasons other than happiness. But are they really? For example, if someone believes that killing is wrong, they won't kill. Why did they make this decision? Is it because killing is wrong? Or, looking at it more closely, is it because they will only feel happy/content if they remain consistent with their moral code? Perhaps, as noted with the earlier heaven example, their moral code is tied up with visions of future happiness anyway. What do you guys think of this? I do think this ties into the general question (loved by Zhuangzi) of why we should really care about anyone else. Once you start thinking about it, it does get really hard. The postmodernist view I take that suggests there is no right or wrong means that the only reason to care about someone else would be because you, well, care about them, not because of some moral code. I realize that, intuitively, I don't really care about most people in the world. It's something I would have to force myself to do. Why should I force myself? If we're going to go this extreme, I might ask the most provocative question, namely, why should I even care about my family? (Perhaps the answer would be something about love, i.e. something that doesn't apply to the world at large but applies to my family.) EDIT: I remembered that there was an old Chinese school of thought that held similar views to those in the preceding paragraph. Just looked it up and it was Yangism.

I'm a high school sophomore in the U.S. who recently became quite interested in Taoism/Daoism. I am currently reading my first piece of Daoist literature, the Mair Zhuangzi (and loving it!) At least as of right now, I am more of a philosophical Daoist than a religious one. In other words, I don't engage in the energy cultivation practices or anything like that. My interest in this philosophy really stemmed from an interest in philosophy in general. (The book that introduced me to Daoism was Hans Georg-Moeller's The Moral Fool.) The current state of my philosophy is essentially postmodernist in nature -- and that has naturally led me to Daoism, the place where paradoxes are accepted and life is lived with little stress over the unresolved ones. Aside from philosophy, my biggest interests are in film music (particularly that of John Williams) and films (Star Wars, for example, as well as Spielberg's and Terrance Malick's works). I've read through a few threads here in the past couple months and I now hope I'm ready to make some contributions. I already have a few questions for you guys that hopefully I will be able to post within the next couple of days.