wandelaar

Is it a problem to have inhered ideas from others? I think we would be hardly human if as children we had no education, learned no language, etc. But as we grow up we can gradually make our own choices, and if need be throw away what we dont't like or need.

I'll be happy to do that, but how could one possibly tell what is truth and what falsehood without somehow using once's own understanding of the difference.

I completely agree with this guy! Why use somebody else's criteria when there is no reason to do so?

Our own naturally!

@OldDog Well - how could it even be otherwise? In the case described we will hear the arguments from the other camp, but we will not recognize them as arguments. As for myself I am willing to expand my concept of what constitutes a legitimate argument, but only when it is demonstrated that the kind of argument in question indeed (in all probability) leads to new knowledge.

Could be done this way: The Dao Bums > Arts and Practices > Martial Arts

@ Ilumairen OK - so be it.

I only read part of the article. Of course I'm not completely free from social influences and we each start our journey with what we learned in our education. But that is not the point. The crucial thing here is whether one remains open to contrary evidence even when this conflics with what one considered as probably true until then.

A study of the foundations of knowledge (if they even exist) could easily take years of study without necessarily leading to a solution. One could start reading books on epistemology, scepticism and the philosophy of science. To make a long story short: I don't think absolutely sure foundations of knowledge can be found. The best thing we can do is keeping an open mind for the possibility that we might be wrong. But how do I even know that the latter is actually the best thing we could do. Well - I don't. But correcting my views when confronted with opposing facts is what feels natural to me. And as I don't know of any other approach that's more satisfying, that is what I do. I have a huge aversion to everything related to herd mentality, so I don't think the social aspects of knowledge acquisition are very relevant to me personally.

Well - when there is agreement we can now move on. Thank you.

Could the MoPai discussion please be held in a topic of it's own?

The Dao Bums > Arts and Practices > Healing Arts Simple

@ Michael Sternbach Yes - Arts and Practices would have to be a high level section, preferable with subsections as you proposed. This would then take care of the more practically oriented discussions. The mainly theoretical discussions would then take place in Sean's proposed section:

I was thinking of Traditional Chinese Medicine, calligraphy, tea ceremony, Taoist magic, feng shui, etc. If we add martial arts to this list they could together form the section: Arts and Practices.

Why not make a section for Taoist and other spiritual arts generally (not just the martial arts). Like: Arts and Practices

I think it a good idea to have some places for serious discussion and information on this forum and some other places for fun, jokes and shallow talk. But I don't like the idea of some supreme authority deciding who and what belongs where. The sub-forums could be chosen and named in such a way that they attract the different kinds of people to the places where they belong. For instance: the more serious places could have a more serious name, and the less serious places could have a less serious, somewhat funny name. In this way the Bums will find out for themselves where they are most happy to be. But we need to have different (serious and non-serious) sub-forums for this to be possible.

I will stop participating in this topic for some time as it is taking up too much of my time and energy. We will see how things develop.

Yes - when used as a kind of mechanical procedure to arrive at the truth, blindly following the middle way is flawed. But then that's not what I proposed. What I protest against is when parties don't even want to consider the sheer possibility that their political opponents could be right about a few points. This leads to the absurdity that one party automatically starts denying that something could possibly be the case just because the other party says that it is. This sort of thing happens more often than one would believe before looking in to it.

No doubt politics is an emotive subject, but that doesn't imply that one should demonize one's opponents or that one should categorically refuse to consider the sheer possibility that one's opponents could be right on some point or other. Getting one's facts right is too important to leave out possible sources of information, even if those sources lie beyond one's own political circle. Not talking about lunatic conspiracy theories or neonazi sites here, but about serious and decent right-wing people, sites and other media (yes they exist). If that is "bothsideism", so be it.

If Left and Right were all the same than we wouldn't have all the shouting, name calling and ranting. I don't think anybody is claiming that they are. I have seen the term "bothsideism" used several times now, so please explain what exactly it is supposed to mean, and who the accused are...

It's not so that people who appreciate respectful dialogue are simply because of that pro Trump. Neither are they necessarily asleep. I already warned of the danger of Trump (on another forum) way before he was elected, while I'm not even living in the US. My country was occupied by the Germans during the Second World War, so I'm well aware of the badness of Nazism. I wouldn't compare Trump to Hitler though, but more to authoritarian leaders like Erdogan or Putin. And actually I think more to Erdogan because of his over the top rhetoric, than than to Putin. This is bad enough. But lowering oneself to this style of rhetoric (or even worse) in battling Trump will do no good.

@ Spotless Had to read it several times to make any sense of it. Are you saying that I am asleep and my quoted post is ridiculous? And was your retort meant to be funny in any way? Or was it meant to be angry? And do you really think that anybody will be moved in a positive way by reading it?

Well - I sure hope this kind of over the top ranting will not become the new standard here...

Something for a new topic perhaps?

The conclusion that one can't be solely driven by reason is also the result of some hard-nosed logical thinking. It goes back at least to David Hume's is-ought problem. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem