Are Taoists Epistemological Realists?

[Flynn]

Rene Descartes (I know, boo Cartesian dualism) and David Hume both wrote about the philosophical problem of whether or not we can ever know, logically, if there is a physical reality beyond our sensations and perceptions. Hume used an interesting scenario to test the commonsensical assumption that our sensations are linked to actual, physical objects. Say you are looking at a red ball (or any other object) on a table. You see the ball because your retinal nerve cells are firing in a certain manner, and the electrical signal is carried through your optic nerve to your brain, which produces the mental image that you see. Now, say that God decides to maintain the exact neuron firing that makes you think there is a ball on the table, and then he destroys the ball. To you, there has been absolutely no change in the ball. One could include other senses, like touching the ball or smelling it, but the argument maintains that no matter how you try to detect it, God keeps your sensory neurons firing as if the ball was there. Hume's point is that, to you, there is absolutely no difference between the situation in which the ball exists and the one in which God destroyed it. Our knowledge of the physical world is relegated entirely to our sensory input and perception.

My question is, does Taoism assume absolute reality? That is, is the Tao the basis of a real, physical world that we perceive? Some passages in the Tao Te Ching lead me to think that it might be, at least to a certain extent.

[Marblehead]

Hi Flynn,

 

Good question, I think.

 

As there are many here who define 'reality' in different ways I would first ask for a clarification of your use of the word. Are you talking only to physical reality as in I know I have a truck parked outside and I can feel certain that it does actually exist in the Manifest so that when I need to go shopping I can go outside and drive the truck to the store? You are talking about the physics of physical nature, right?

 

Peace & Love!

[Flynn]

Hi Flynn,

 

Good question, I think.

 

As there are many here who define 'reality' in different ways I would first ask for a clarification of your use of the word. Are you talking only to physical reality as in I know I have a truck parked outside and I can feel certain that it does actually exist in the Manifest so that when I need to go shopping I can go outside and drive the truck to the store? You are talking about the physics of physical nature, right?

 

Peace & Love!

 

Yes, exactly. I'm sorry, I should have clarified. My question was regarding the existence of a physical reality that exists independent of our awareness of it. Does the ball only exist in the form of our perceptions? Or, I suppose more to the original intent of the philosophers, is there any way for us to ever know whether or not it exists in a physical form?

[Sunya]

a better question for Descartes would be, as Nietzsche rightly pointed out, pertaining to the statement "I think therefore I am", where is this I?

 

Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil passage 16 specifically to Descartes stating 3 important claims that cannot be established when analyzing the statement "I think", first that I am the one who is thinking, that there is a thinker in the first place, and there is an assumption that the process 'thinking' is properly understood. I think he makes good points.. and this can be very easily seen when you try to stop thinking. If you are the thinker then you can stop thinking and control thoughts, but you can't. Hume also dissected the self.

 

So the I is really the one asking these questions, making this intellectual leap of seeing that the inner representational world does not truly reflect the vast beyond that exists, but the dualistic mind falsely tries to understand the nonunderstandable; like seeking darkness with a flash light.

 

I think that this is important to understand when asking questions of phenomena [mind stuff] and noumena [whatever exists independent of observance]. Kant analyzed this and said that nouemana can't even be spoken of because to bring about a concept is to create phenomena and thus no longer be about noumena. This quote seems to lead Kant to the Buddhist conclusion though he calls it absurd "...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears." This is the Buddhist conclusion that there are appearances but they are empty, illusory, yet very real; like a mirage. Also Buddhism analyzes the apparent subject/object dichotomy and instead of jumping to the extreme of both don't exist or the other extreme of both are one, Buddhist philosophy says they are interdependent and lack 'self-nature'. There is no duality. There is no 'thing in itself'.

 

I don't know about Western philosophy but according to Buddhism it takes wisdom, not knowledge, to truly understand the nature of things and to get wisdom one must receive insight, and that takes proper methodology. Philosophy can be used as a tool to cut through conceptual clinging when combined with meditation, but philosophy in and of itself cannot lead to wisdom because philosophy is in the realm of thought. The fact that wisdom exists is due to your true nature being emptiness; you are simply opening up to your true nature that exists and has always existed. A quality of your true nature is wisdom much like a quality of an apple is sweetness. If you were an apple and you relaxed into that appleness, you would become sweetness. The same goes for wisdom.

Edited October 12, 2009 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

From the Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1 ( Lin Yutang translation):

 

Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion

In order to see the Secret of Life;

Oftentimes, one regards life with passion,

In order to see its manifest forms.

These two (the Secret and its manifestations)

Are (in their nature) the same;

They are given different names

When they become manifest.

 

"manifest forms" is our physical reality. The "Secret of Life" is Singulity, Oneness, Tao, whatever one wishes to call it.

 

If we live only with passion we see only the "manifest forms". If we live only without passion we see only the "Secret of Live". Therefore, if we live with a harmonious balance of passion and non-passion we realize both the Secret and its manifestations.

 

Yes, the manifestations are very real but in their nature they are the same (of the same Singularity).

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

Most of the Taoists I've run across seem to take independent reality as a granted.

 

Now the Buddhists and Advaitists are a different animal. Some may even argue, as in this article that the brain, which is a perception itself, cannot be the cause of our perceptions. It would put it in a sort of unmoved mover paradox.

 

Personally, I find myself tending to agree with the Hume-Berkeley line: there's no way to prove anything exists apart from our perceptions.

 

But does it really matter? If the fundamental nature of reality consists of quantum particles (as in physics), information bits (as in the Matrix), Mind (as in Berkeley), or little tiny noodley appendages (as a Pastafarian might propose), would it matter?

 

I think it may if the Buddhist/Advaitist model is right. The underlying question then becomes, does mind create matter, or does matter create mind?

[Marblehead]

The underlying question then becomes, does mind create matter, or does matter create mind?

 

 

Hehehe. I'm going to jump on this just so everyone who reads this knows where I stand:

 

Matter creates the mind.

 

Yes, I accept evolution as a fact as well. (I watched the documentary on Ardi last night.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Easy]

 

But does it really matter?

 

These are the most intelligent five words I've read on this site so far!

[Encephalon]

These are the most intelligent five words I've read on this site so far!

 

 

I believe it doesn't at this time. Taoism and empiricism share so much common ground that the divergences probably only exist in those states of consciousness created by the fusion of body and mind, and hence, below the radar of conventional observability. It is the best of both worlds; a dependable foundation in support of limitless internal experience that doesn't necessarily represent a rejection of physical laws but the transcendence of them. I love the way Fritjof Capra put it:

 

 

"Logical reasoning was considered by the Taoists as part of the artificial world of man, together with social etiquette and moral standards. They were not interested in this world at all, but concentrated their attention fully on the observation of nature in order to discern the characteristics of the Tao. Thus they developed an attitude which was essentially scientific and only their deep mistrust in the analytic method prevented them from constructing proper scientific theories. Nevertheless, the careful observation of nature, combined with a strong mystical intuition, led the Taoist sages to profound insights which are confirmed by modern scientific theories."

 

Cool, eh?

[Sunya]

Yes, the manifestations are very real but in their nature they are the same (of the same Singularity).

 

Singularity is an extreme. you are boxing and limiting the non-conceptual Secret; Singularity is a concept, an idea, and it carries baggage with it. All concepts are limiting in the process of attaining wisdom, I think it's better to not try to describe the Ultimate at all and simply stick to negating ideas that we have; ideas that we hold very dear to be true.. foremost I think the idea of 'Oneness' should be utterly negated as it carries so much with it. A sense of grasping is inevitable 'I AM That' or, if you're of a different style, a need to dissolve yourself and disappear. 'become That'. both I see as false ways stemming from this concept of Oneness, Sameness, Singularity. When you are stuck in a view, you will not truly realize the viewless view. That is why I propose the need to not get stuck in any view and simply negate all views as proper by a method such as Madhyamaka reasoning or Via Negativa, or 'neti neti' (but forget about Brahman, negate that too)

 

-.-

[nac]

As subjective phenomena, mind and matter arise interdependently upon each other.

[Apech]

The ontological gap, that is the gap between our perception of the world and an objectively real world is a problem that Western Philosophy has grappled with repeatedly. It is based on an apparent duality between subjective truth and objective truth. It is true to say that epistemologically that coming to know what I know is a subjective truth. The phenomenologists say that anything that could be said about an real object could equally be said about the perception of the object - in a way rather like Theravada it is saying that there are only mental events.

 

The problem is that we are searching for what is real. Our common sense tells us that there is an objective universe - but this is because we perceive things as real, having substance, location, form and so on. Spinoza attempted to overcome this problem by saying that reality is one substance with two attributes - intellect and extension. In other words our minds and the outer reality are actually attributes of this one substance = God. I think Taoism does something similar but without falling into the hidden monism that Spinoza has.

 

The only real real (if you like) is the Tao. Everything else is partial. The red ball on the table and you looking at it are partial or perhaps aspects of the Tao. While the Tao is ultimately real, neither you nor the ball are. Is the ball there because you are looking or are you looking because the ball is there? All situations and the qualities of all situations are seen as relative. Red only exists because of not-red, ball because of not-ball, you because of not-you. Existentialism had some of this thinking. But in Taoism there is the 'way' itself. When you ask how did this arise - you answer that there is a 'way' - like a never ending process, like the flowing of water of which this situation of seeing the red ball is part.

 

I think that's more or less it.

[Marblehead]

But does it really matter?

 

These are the most intelligent five words I've read on this site so far!

 

Okay. Come on guys. Of course it doesn't matter. But we still need to talk about it so that we can determine that it really doesn't matter.

 

Nature is going to have her way with us regardless of what we think.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

 

 

Singularity is an extreme. you are boxing and limiting the non-conceptual Secret; Singularity is a concept, an idea, and it carries baggage with it. All concepts are limiting in the process of attaining wisdom, I think it's better to not try to describe the Ultimate at all and simply stick to negating ideas that we have; ideas that we hold very dear to be true.. foremost I think the idea of 'Oneness' should be utterly negated as it carries so much with it. A sense of grasping is inevitable 'I AM That' or, if you're of a different style, a need to dissolve yourself and disappear. 'become That'. both I see as false ways stemming from this concept of Oneness, Sameness, Singularity. When you are stuck in a view, you will not truly realize the viewless view. That is why I propose the need to not get stuck in any view and simply negate all views as proper by a method such as Madhyamaka reasoning or Via Negativa, or 'neti neti' (but forget about Brahman, negate that too)

 

-.-

 

I knew that at least one of our Buddhist friends would jump on me for this. Hehehe.

 

Yeah, I forget about a lot of thing while I am just living my life.

 

Remember though, I have never spoke about my NA spirituality here and probably never will so even though my Taoist beliefs are pretty up-front here noone here is seeing the entirity of my belief system.

 

I do understand what you are saying Mikael, and you are right from your perspective.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

As subjective phenomena, mind and matter arise interdependently upon each other.

 

 

Hi Nac,

 

You know you caused me a smile, don't you?

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Nice post Apepch7.

 

The problem is that we are searching for what is real.

 

And while we are doing all this searching we are missing out on the reality of life.

 

Peace & Love!

[nac]

You know you caused me a smile, don't you?

Depending on your definition, the mind shouldn't be confused with the entirety of subjective phenomena arising co-dependently with objective phenomena. Objective "reality" bears little resemblance to the way our senses report it.

 

And while we are doing all this searching we are missing out on the reality of life.