wandelaar

No - I am only starting to understand what it's all about. It will not work for me to start unlearning before I understand (at least) the Tao Te Ching. Lot's of things are falling into place lately, so I hope after this topic I can start unlearning. As I am only interested in philosophical Taoism I don't plan to study the many forms and practices of religious Taoism. Of course with practicing the Way will come new deeper forms of understanding, so there will probably - even for a philosophical Taoist - be no end of the road.

You have to draw the line somewhere and can't save every animal or even plant if you want some time and energy left to live a life of your own. Same with me, for however you look at it, it's killing a form of life. But as Rickie said there is the circle of life thing. The world as it is is not of our own making. If we don't want to live (and probably die) as a saint we can't completely avoid killing or harming other creatures. Even if we dislike it.

I also thought I had more to say. But that would go wildly off topic. So I wiped it out. I think the ancient sceptics were right (not the postmodern variety). What more is there to say?

Then maybe you would like the approach of the Hellenistic sceptics? Just like Chuang tze they were quite sceptical about the possibility of knowing anything for certain, but nevertheless they were quite capable to continue living as a normal human being. For if our natural impulse is to react to the way things appear to be and there is no clearly superior alternative then it's unreasonable to force yourself to behave differently.

It's a trick of words. If everything one could possibly do was "following Tao" then 'Taoism' would become a hollow and meaningless term. Lao tse and Chuang tse could then just as well have kept their mouth shut. The trick works because there are (at least) two meaning to "following Tao". There is the metaphysical meaning where absolutely everything is a manifestation of Tao. And in this sense everything that happens (including our own choices) is "following Tao". But "following Tao" also has the meaning of following the way of life (the Tao) as promoted by Lao tse, Chuang tse etc. And in this last meaning it is surely possible to not "follow Tao", because there actually are lots of people who don't follow the Tao (way) promoted by Lao tse, Chuang tse etc. So the whole reasoning on the supposed impossibility of not following the way of a Taoist falls apart, because it is built on illegally mixing up the two meanings of "following Tao".

Indeed we sometimes have to kill animals to protect ourselves. Sometimes there are alternatives such as capturing the insect under a glass and releasing it outside. Or just let it be, if it can do no harm. That's what I prefer. But if I see no alternative I kill the insect as quick as possible.

It's not that I promote living without Te but that I think it impossible to prove that one ought to live as a Taoist. That is something different.

@ Lost in Translation But than what is the problem? Couldn't you just accept that the correctness of morality (of whatever type) cannot be proved.

I personally don't see how the is-ought-barrier here could possibly be bridged. Taoism (even of the philosophical type) is just a religion among others. If you want to maximize our chances on a long, peaceful and happy life, then it might be your thing. But if you don't care or want a spectacular life full of excitement, it might very well not be your thing. How could we possibly prove Taoism to be the morally right way to follow? I don't think that's possible.

Good question! I think we are now at the point where we can see "following Tao" as acting in a way that respects the dynamics of the situation, and thus puts egocentric considerations second place. Letting egocentric considerations becloud your understanding of the situation leads to unwise and thus counterproductive action. So in a subtle way following Tao is just using common sense or practical wisdom. Of course you don't need to, but why should one knowingly sabotage one's own actions? Still I am not quite sure about "following Tao" as regards the goals we set ourselves. You could set yourself the goal of becoming the biggest criminal in the world and be willing to pay the price when you don't succeed. That would be clearly against the unassuming way of Lao tse and Chuang tsu, but then why should you follow the way of Lao tse and Chuang tsu when you are willing to live with the consequences. There is still an element of choice involved, and I don't see how to somehow prove that the way followed by Lao tse and Chuang tse is the one and only WAY OF TAO. If there is such a thing... Perhaps we should instead ask ourselves the following question: "What should be our way life if we want to maximize our chances on a long, peaceful and happy life?" Then the question whether Lao tse and Chuang tse were right could in principle be answered. And the conundrum of the aspiring top criminal is also solved because he just doesn't care that much about ' maximizing his chances on a long, peaceful and happy life '.

I'm not sure about the position of Taoism on social responsibility. There are hermits and others that want to have nothing to do with society at large or politics. But in the Tao Te Ching we find recommendations directed to the emperor. Shouldn't a Taoist care about society at large?

Didn't even Lao tse and Chuang tse advise some simple forms of meditation and possibly breathing exercises?

The results of your Google search are not in any way contradictory...

After many many hours of searching the internet I found no relevant books but this series of articles seems to contain the most useful information: http://societyofepicurus.com/contemplations-on-the-tao-series/

That is right, ancient Chinese philosophy is different from Greek or Roman philosophy. But I don't think we can (or should) bend or stretch the meaning of ancient philosophical Taoism in any direction we like. There were schools of thought in ancient China and there were subjects on which the philosophers of the different schools disagreed. So at least the philosophers themselves of the different schools were convinced they were pointing in different (school specific) directions.

That nicely captures the result of this discussion. The above quote - to me - looks unconvincing. It doesn't prove the point. What I see as a rose and what I see as a dog also manifest from the same source, but does that mean that the difference between those two creatures must lie in me? Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, and al other world views also manifest from the same one source, but does that mean that the difference between them must lie in me? Or worse still that it would be OK to just blindly pick any one of them (for they all follow from the same source)? No - that is taking scepticism to a roundly absurd extreme. It also would make human life impossible because there would no longer remain a reason for us to choose this over that. What is true is that facts of themselves are neither good or bad but just are. But that doesn't say anything about how we should or shouldn't evaluate the things that happen in our lives.

Free will? Free from what? Tao is supposed to form the foundation of everything that happens, so that includes the way your own mind works. So whatever you chose will be an expression of Tao. A choice made independent of the way your mind works (for instance by throwing some dice) wouldn't even be your choice! Whether your choices are "in accordance with Tao" in the sense of being in line with the ways followed by Lao tse and Chuang tse is quite another matter.

@ Marblehead As Tao lies at the foundation of all that is happening, everything that happens is "in accordance with Tao". For the foundation of all that is happening is the foundation of all that is happening. That's so by definition! But it's quite a different matter what we ought to do when we want to act in the spirit of Taoism. You can not fall back on the above meaning of "in accordance with Tao" because than anything that we actually chose to do will (in the above sense) be in accordance with Tao. That would make Taoism a useless concept because then anybody would be a (conscious or unconscious) Taoist. Now it happens that there is another meaning of "in accordance with Tao" that does make sense when applied to the way we chose to live. And that is the way recommended by Lao tse and Chuang tse, among others. In accordance with Tao in this case means in a way that takes note of the inner dynamics of the situation and of ourselves and tries to reach it's goal with a minimum of interference and effort. So far so good, but we have only talked about the method for reaching the goal not about the goal itself. And here we can only say that a life "in accordance with Tao" as recommended by Lao tse and Chuang tse is only possible for people who's inner nature is kind of similar to that of Lao tse and Chuang tse. Also it seems more appropriate for older persons who have already seen something of the world and the doings of man. Taoism isn't the "one true religion" but a way you can chose to go or not. Further you wrote: But that is a subjective valuation itself! In my opinion the whole idea of somehow circumventing subjective valuations, feelings, emotions, etc. is misconceived. As conscious living people we just have to make (subjective) choices, there is no escape.

Thanks! On looking up chapter 60 I unintentionally read chapter 57. I see some relevant points there also.

Besides not wanting to teach someone a technique you don't trust them with, keeping it secret also "protects" it from criticism. And if the working of a technique depends on your own belief in its effectiveness, criticism can destroy something that actually worked for you until then. Something like it might also be relevant for pieces of art, literature, music, etc. Brutal criticism might spoil (some of) your own appreciation.

It's like the concept of "well intentioned", I can't exactly define its meaning and there are lots of grey area's where you can not possibly say whether something is well intentioned or not. But that doesn't mean the concept is total gibberish. Going against the grain means acting in a way that grossly neglects (or better goes against) the inner dynamics of the situation. When you are very strong you might still succeed in this way, but it will take lots of extra effort and will cause unnecessary reactions. Sometimes (in case of an emergency) there might be no other option than going against the grain, but a Taoist should preferably act in a way that hardly interferes with the processes active in the situation, and act on a moment where there is hardly any action necessary to achieve a desired purpose. The same applies to acting or non-acting as it relates to ourselves. We too have an inner dynamics, and we will generally get the better results when we get to know ourselves better and take that knowledge into consideration. Basically it's just a question of common sense or practical wisdom that is also found in Aristotle. But an inappropriate sense of our own importance often tends to cloud our perception of the situation, of our own possibilities, and of the most effective way to proceed.

It may well be that "well intentioned" is not a Taoist concept, but I am not prepared to give it up. I think even very yong children at times show hateful attitudes so we have to educate them and ourselves to become socially acceptable individuals. That's why I wrote that I'm probably more of a Confucianist on this point than a Taoist.

I don't know where the tendency comes from. Perhaps a comparison of people from different societies could give an indication. I don't know enough about chi gong to comment on the rest of your post.

That is right! You can't always afford to think about it. But even when you can it's still a messy process. In time it will become easier to follow what you consider your best intentions, and the right responses will (hopefully) become sort of automatic. I'm probably more of a Confucianist on this point than a Taoist.

I don't see why instinctive actions will automatically be well intentioned.