wandelaar

The idea that from the perspective of the Tao everything is good also conflicts with the Tao being spontaneously what it is (thus without motive).

I don't know enough about the method yet, so I am not qualified to examine you. Maybe Zhongyongdaoist can do it?

Nothing wrong with the classical Socratic method (as described in the link), but you have to find "willing victims". And they are very rare on the internet. The best we can realistically hope for is keeping the discussion decent and (mostly) to the point.

@ Zhongyongdaoist Thank you. I have read your link, and I think the classical Socratic method as described there, will not work on this forum. Something more in the spirit of a "Philosophical café" possibly might. But I shall first read the book I ordered before commenting any further. My approach to Philosophical Taoism can be characterized as looking for a rational reconstruction that can be applied in the modern world. There are a few people who did something similar (for instance Raymond Smullyan), so the idea is not completely insane. But I have to admit that is deviates from Lao tse and Chuang tse in regarding rational thought in a much more positive light than they did.

@ Zhongyongdaoist Thank you for the information. I opened this topic precisely to learn about the Socratic method and its possible relation to Taoism. Not to comment about it. And just today I received a book I ordered about Socratic forms of discussions. So I don't see what your cynical derogatory tone has to do with the way I am investigating this matter.

Glad to know Stosh doesn't have to drink his tea alone.

I see. That's not my cup of tea. Thank you.

I don't understand what you are saying.

I initially also took things literally but I found out that the Tao Te Ching resists a literal interpretation, at least that is my impression.

Yes. I understand it as a poetical way of saying: The same in some measure holds for the Tao Te Ching.

Or this one: "My words are easy to understand and easy to perform, Yet no one under heaven knows them or practices them."

If I could tell you in a few posts I wouldn't have bought the book...

That is exactly the danger of debates, the stirring up of animosity. The Socratic method will possibly be an antidote to that.

@ Stosh The book contains ancient stories, and in this way by reading the book one learns of examples of wise behavior. The writer then adds how the stories might apply to modern life.

After some doubts I eventually bought the book. Why the doubts? As far as I could see the kind of wisdom presented in the book hardly rises above plain common sense, so why read the book, let alone buy it? But something kept telling me to at least give it a try. So I bought it and yesterday the book arrived. I am now at page 60. I still think the book contains mostly plain common sense, but of the kind that we automatically tend to forget or ignore when egocentric concerns with the ups and downs of daily live becloud our view of the larger picture of our life and the world as they actually are. So after all I think it is a good book. But it will have to be complemented with meditation to calm our mind and make it less dependent of the ups and down of daily life. Otherwise we will probably lack the composure to apply the Taoist advise when it is needed.

I haven't researched the subject myself, but one important point if you want to "appeal to a Western scientific mind" is that anecdotal evidence isn't enough. Basically one has to follow a large group of people who do Tai Chi and as a comparison a large group of people that do not do Tai Chi. And further the two groups are to be similar in other respects. There are lots of other things that have to be taken into account, but the basic thing is making the comparison of the effects of doing or not doing Tai Chi by following how the two groups of people are doing. There are also more complicated versions where one tries to filter out the placebo effect that is to be expected of whatever exercises that looks good. It is very hard to design a good experiment without a solid scientific and statistical background, because the there are multiple possibilities of misinterpreting results. So, I think you would do best to look for research that is already done. And preferably multiple studies because the results of one or two studies scientifically speaking don't mean much, it's the reproducible results that are considered as answers one can count on.

Maybe I will eventually...

See: http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu41.html The first part of this chapter has already been discussed elsewhere. I like to hear what the Bums have to say on the second part (the part beginning with: "Hence it is said"). My personal impression is that all those paradoxes are variants of "don't overdo things". But is that right? And if it is, is that all there is to it?

道 I see - that's the way to do it!

As the world exhibits regularities I also expect Tao to exhibit (or to stay on the safe side: to bring forth) regularities. And in fact the Tao Te Ching frequently points at such regularities. I further think that the possibilities of logical thought are greatly underestimated. That's one of the points where I don't agree with Lao tse and Chuang tse.

The problem is not that I have no idea what "tao" (how did you post that character?) might mean, but that I am unsure which ones of its many meanings I am to apply to get at the probable meaning or meanings of the original text. As I am not a sinologist and don't even read Chinese I have to depend on translators and commentators for helping me read the Tao Te Ching. And when the translators and commentators disagree among themselves I have a problem....

Not very much to add to the interpretation of Jeff.

That is also how I see it. Discussions in the sense of forcing your own opinion onto someone else, or trying to show how smart you (think you) are, go against the spirit of Taoism. Such an egocentric approach also frequently proves useless: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect But not getting into the wrong kind of discussions is more easily said than done...

A quick scan gives: Chapter 2: Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no talking. Chapter 3: If people lack knowledge and desire, then intellectuals will not try to interfere. Chapter 22: Not putting on a display, They shine forth. Not justifying themselves, They are distinguished. Not boasting, They receive recognition. Not bragging, They never falter. They do not quarrel, So no one quarrels with them. Chapter 23:To talk little is natural. Chapter 56 : Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know. Keep your mouth closed. Guard your senses. Temper your sharpness. Simplify your problems. Mask your brightness. Be at one with the dust of the earth. This is primal union. Chapter 65: In the beginning those who knew the Tao did not try to enlighten others, But kept them in the dark. Chapter 77: Therefore the sage works without recognition. He achieves what has to be done without dwelling on it. He does not try to show his knowledge. Chapter 81: Truthful words are not beautiful. Beautiful words are not truthful. Good men do not argue. Those who argue are not good. Those who know are not learned. The learned do not know.

@ Starjumper I appreciate your description of a nei gong interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. I don't plan to follow that road myself, except for some very simple forms of chi gong for health and as moving meditation. Probably worse than terrible from your point of view. But nevertheless a lot of your interpretation applies to the process of investigating one's own mind and thought processes and clearing away the useless rubbish while keeping what proves of value.