wandelaar

I think the fascination for top criminals and dictators derives from the secret wish many (or most of us?) have to be able to do absolutely anything we want without having to consider the consequences. The downside of such power is that it will never be enough, and we will grow increasingly sensitive to even minor obstructions or criticism. So in the end the evil person will be just as upset (or even more so) than the common man by the realization that in the grand scheme of things he still amounts to (almost) nothing. The logical choice of Lao tzu and those following his way is to find contentment in the simple things that are easy to get. But to achieve that one has to conquer ones childish wish of always wanting to have it ones own way.

I don't think nature has a purpose, but one could ask where evil actions come from given nature as we know it. Now social animals (including humans) have a double interest, namely in preserving their own life and well being and in preserving the social group they are part of and depend on. But because individuals differ some of them will be more concerned about their social group and others will be more concerned about their personal life. Evolution will over time correct the extremes. But as chance events (or mutations) both very "good" and very "bad" animals (and humans) will continue to be born sometimes. So I don't think evil (in the sense of extreme selfishness) serves a purpose, but rather that it necessary exists as a side-effect of the mechanism of evolution.

Evil is not a thing, but rather a vaguely defined class of actions. Evil actions have a tendency to wreck peaceful societies. So there is a reason for societies to condemn evil actions. The same social phenomenon is seen in certain other primates. Thus both evil and the condemnation of evil are part of nature.

That looks more like a Confucian approach. Confucianists are trying to be good people. I think Lao tzu and Chuang tzu would trust on human nature to work out fine (on average) so that living naturally would be good enough.

It's hard to define evil in any objective manner. Perhaps willfully ignoring the golden rule (do not do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself) comes close. What's spiritual about following the golden rule is the recognition that within the grand scheme of things each individual is no more valuable than another. Of course one could also see the world as one big battle field, and from that perspective ones importance depends on ones success in defeating others. Somebody who is successful along that road will consider his success as proof of the correctness of his evil approach, and he will look down upon those others who were apparently not ruthless enough to get to the top. But not all evil people make it, and many will end up worse. But that's all in the game. When someone chooses an evil way of life knowing full well that there is a big chance that he will fail, than there is no way to convince that person that he should live his life differently.

How about Robber Chih? It all depends on what you want from life. Evil as commonly understood would probably be a bad thing to do when you want a "spiritual life". But what if you don't care about spirituality? What if you want to play all or nothing? What if you crave for spectacular events? Or if you want to become rich and famous? Or respected and feared? Further I don't believe we live in a just world. Often the "bad guys" win.

I know one thing, and that is that pondering to much questions gives me a severe headache! So to answer all of your questions at once: when you don't overdo your thinking and your brain is not hurt otherwise, then you will not feel where the thinking is happening. And happily so, because feeling the thinking and feeling where it is happening would only hinder your thinking. Normally the body only signals that something is happening and where, when there is a reason to do so.

Note 10 refers to this article: https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aop/1176995532

https://books.google.nl/books?id=NC0xbI4DDfwC This book seems to have some interesting information on the mathematics of the I Ching. I don't have the book myself, but maybe I will buy it sometime. Does somebody know it?

@ Starjumper That's why I wrote that you either have to think the thing through to the end, or don't even start on that philosophical road and keep it simple. Doing it halfway only leads to confusion. As you don't like philosophy you can just take it easy and simply refuse to consider the questions of this topic. No harm done. And that's exactly what you already did:

Can you?

Well - that would be egocentric in the extreme! I would prefer the modest philosophical Taoist proposition that fundamentally there is no "I" and that we are all in mind and body temporary manifestations of Tao until we die and are recycled into other creatures that then live for some time until they die, and so on and so forth. No "I" is needed to understand ourselves or the world, although the word "I" is extremely useful for referring to oneself without continually having to mention ones name.

You either have to go all the way and eventually conclude that there is no one there who does the thinking, and that that's OK because our thinking is the Tao playing its games within us (that's the way of the intellectual who has to figure out everything for himself before he can accept anything), or you better don't worry about it at all (and that's the way of the "common man" who knows from experience which questions are practically useful and which are not). I took the long and hard way of rationally thinking it through to find out that the "common man" who never cared about it at all was right all along.

The most important page for our purposes seems to be this one: The page can be read on Google Books.

@ rene I don't see a problem in somebody disagreeing with my perspective, but only in the use of false forms of argumentation (also called: fallacies). A discussion with someone who agrees with me would be rather pointless, we would have nothing to discuss. Therefore I actually prefer a discussion with somebody who disagrees with me. And the best thing that could happen is for that someone to prove me wrong, because than I would actually have learned something. For fallacies see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

That's a simplification. I enjoy lively discussions as long as it's fair play, that is: when fallacies are avoided and the participants are willing to change their opinion when good arguments are provided to do so. But I don't like discussions where good arguments are ignored, and fallacies are fabricated to defend positions that are ill founded. I consider that as foul play and as fooling oneself and possibly others. And that is where I feel an urge to intervene, to put things right as it were and to warn the reader that they are being fooled. You could call that a weakness, and I could call it concern about decent argumentation? Maybe it's both. My simplest solution is putting those Bums on my ignore list that - in my experience - most frequently use fallacies and other unfair manners of discussion. As long as I don't see it, it doesn't bother me. Not very heroic I admit, but it works.

I did both. First I used arguments and evidence, and when that didn't help I eventually quit debating with Stosh. I even put him on my ignore list so as to block the possibility of getting involuntarily sucked into further useless debates. That might be useful when an unwanted discussion cannot be avoided...

The fishes under the bridge...

I don't understand how harmony might solve the problem.

Yes - but I also think this is important: Where Lao tzu paints a more superhuman ideal of the sage, Chuang tzu has an eye for human limitations and personal peculiarities.

Perhaps he wanted to end his life with just one more final adventure...?

Well - harmony isn't my top priority. I see you are trying to frame this issue as a question of personal belief, which it isn't. It is a question of considering the evidence. Absolute truth may well be beyond reach, but I still feel that considering the evidence is the best thing we can do. So after acknowledging that I don't know anything for sure my life still goes on pretty much as it did before. As to my meditation, it helps me in keeping a clear mind and taking it easy. When I stop doing my daily meditation its healthy effects disappear within a few weeks.

Who said "without any doubts whatsoever" ? Not me! I said that "there can be no reasonable doubt", and that's enough for me. I have indeed grown past the stage of worrying about whether we know something or not. Ultimately we don't know anything. And because that applies to everything, it applies to nothing in particular. Thus actually, it doesn't matter. Scepticism of the ancient variety is a healthy thing. By the way, I have just done my daily meditation.

@ rene The point is that we already had this discussion here several times now. And the passages in the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang tzu that deal with meditation have been mentioned. On the basis of that there can be no reasonable doubt that Lao tzu and Chuang tzu promoted meditation. But had it turned out otherwise, than I would have been just as willing to accept that as the probable truth. After all, meditation doesn't need the approval of Lao tzu or Chuang tzu. We can make our own choices when we see reason to do so.

Yes - it's the big Stosh-show again. Why bother what Lao tzu and Chuang tzu had to say about meditation, and what we could possibly learn from it. Questioning and disputing the whole thing is much more fun...