Is philosophical Daoism (daojia) agnostic?

[Marblehead]

Yep.  Different methods for different conditions and environments.

 

In most cases native species will return to an area if the invasive species have been removed.  (This happens with people too.)

[Spotless]

The caricature of the theist often answers questions with the the non-answer "only God knows", this is often an affront to any rational discussion and allows for a certain smugness on the part of the theist who in fact has not actually participated in the answering of the questions for which he/she is donning their smugness and self assurance.

 

The caricature of the Atheist often answers questions with the non-answer "everything is knowable", this is often an affront to any rational discussion and allows for a certain smugness on the part of the Atheist who in fact has not actually participated in the answering of the questions for which he/she is donning their smugness and self assurance.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Spotless

[Stosh]

So who is not smug? pray tell. 

[dust]

caricature  n.  a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things

 

 

I don't believe that it's possible to disagree with Spotless here. His use of the term caricature is protective

 

If one steps back from their attachment to a label (theist, atheist, agnostic, apathetic, who cares), one can see that these caricatures are a logical exaggeration of each stance; an extreme theist, someone who without any reason blindly believes in magical woo-woo, is necessarily self-assured that their woo-woo can explain everything (without needing a logical explanation); an extreme atheist, someone who believes that everything must be explicable and that there is nothing they cannot know (if they dig deep enough), is necessarily self-assured that they know enough about the nature of things to be able to say "I know that there is nothing I won't eventually be able to explain"; an extreme agnostic, someone who refrains from believing in anything, ever, is necessarily self-assured that their position is the safest and that they are more reasonable than everyone else.

 

Few people are this extreme, though. And many are simply apathetic...

[Stosh]

Well I really pretty much do disagree with Spotless here, not trying to be contrarian to your point , Its the overall point of making the statement itself which negates the 'caricature defense'  

Why spend time describing what one felt to be gross exaggeration? 

 

ex, Some people,  when misrepresented , appear to be smug. Other people , also misrepresented , also seem smug but for a slightly different reason.

But  Im not going to draw a caricature of the people who , when grossly misrepresented , do not appear smug. 

Because , in doing so , I would have to be characterizing their superior nature as a mis-characterization as well. 

[dust]

Oh, yeah.. I'm not saying we must agree with the use of caricatures..just that the caricatures themselves are pretty much spot on.

 

I do think that there's a place for gross exaggeration and generalization. Going to extremes helps sometimes. Maybe.

[Spotless]

caricature n. a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things

 

 

I don't believe that it's possible to disagree with Spotless here. His use of the term caricature is protective

 

If one steps back from their attachment to a label (theist, atheist, agnostic, apathetic, who cares), one can see that these caricatures are a logical exaggeration of each stance; an extreme theist, someone who without any reason blindly believes in magical woo-woo, is necessarily self-assured that their woo-woo can explain everything (without needing a logical explanation); an extreme atheist, someone who believes that everything must be explicable and that there is nothing they cannot know (if they dig deep enough), is necessarily self-assured that they know enough about the nature of things to be able to say "I know that there is nothing I won't eventually be able to explain"; an extreme agnostic, someone who refrains from believing in anything, ever, is necessarily self-assured that their position is the safest and that they are more reasonable than everyone else.

 

Few people are this extreme, though. And many are simply apathetic...

Your caricature of the Agnostic is grossly incorrect - you use the word safest - as though this is the motivation - as though they have consciously decided to con themselves in order not to find fault in their decisions by refraining from decision - quite an assumption!

 

But the caricature of each should be taken from the highest motivation according to the form of the caricature and it is not in any way shape or form that the Agnostic is seeking safety.

 

Socrates, when surprised to hear that the Oracle of Delphi called him the most wise man in all of Athens - replied that the "only thing I know is that I know nothing".

 

What is interesting to note is that this very same sentiment is reflected in many Enlightened sages throughout history.

 

The constant transcendence of certainty and the need or habituation to grasp at certainty rather than being certainty in the present without inertia is a great differentiation between the caricature of the theist and the atheist compared to the caricature of the Agnostic.

 

Two of the caricatures are Dead in the Water in their transfixation to their position while the one is not and yet no less engaged or it could be argued successfully - far more engaged. Moorings are safe and the view tends to stay the same - floating freely is un-nerving and insecure unless one has found ones anchor within - and so within all things.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Spotless

[Stosh]

Oh, yeah.. I'm not saying we must agree with the use of caricatures..just that the caricatures themselves are pretty much spot on.

 

I do think that there's a place for gross exaggeration and generalization. Going to extremes helps sometimes. Maybe.

Yeah some generalizations are fine, but saying other folks are smug is unkind.

Its lumping all the humble theists , with folks like me. and one of us may be offended. 

[Stosh]

Heist motivation ?  , heißt motivation? second person singular tense in German of motivation?

Vas ist das ?

[Geof Nanto]

Your caricature of the Agnostic is grossly incorrect - you use the word safest - as though this is the motivation - as though they have consciously decided to con themselves in order not to find fault in their decisions by refraining from decision - quite an assumption!

 

 

In defense of Dustybeijing he was describing caricatures. From his comment I understood he was saying that the caricature of an agnostic is of someone who uses the label as an escape from engagement with the issue - in other word mentally lazy, apathetic.What you're describing is very much an engaged agnostic.

[Geof Nanto]

Further to my last comment......

 

I have much respect for the best engaged theists of all traditions. A couple of deep thinkers who immediately come to mind are Carl Jung and William James. Though written over a century ago James' The Varieties of Religious Experience is still a classic for its overview of the theist's position. And Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections recounts his personal encounters with the God-image.

 

As to engaged atheists, Richard Dawkins is obviously a deep thinker, as are many others. However, from my own perspective, I relate more to the position of the wiser amongst the theists, but also learn from the best atheists. 

Edited April 2, 2015 by Darkstar

[Stosh]

I just want to know who is not smug, That should be easy.

[Geof Nanto]

I just want to know who is not smug, That should be easy.

 

Yeah, who is not guilty on some level. Here are some thoughts on how to moderate it......

 

“The problem with people is that they feel the views of others alone may be doubted, not their own.”

 

From Learning to Be a Sage: Selections from the "Conversations of Master Chu,"

 

(Zhu Xi or Chu Hsi (Chinese: 朱熹, October 18, 1130 – April 23, 1200) was a Song dynasty Confucian scholar who was the leading figure of the School of Principle and the most influential rationalist Neo-Confucian in China.)

 

And some deliberately ambiguous words from Carl Jung on the frail smugness of unquestioning belief......

 

"People who believe and don't think always forget that they continually expose themselves to their own worst enemy: doubt. Wherever belief reigns, doubt lurks in the background. But thinking people welcome doubt: it serves them as a valuable stepping-stone to better knowledge. People who can believe should be a little more tolerant with those of their fellows who are only capable of thinking. Belief has already conquered the summit which thinking tries to win by toilsome climbing. The believer ought not to project his habitual enemy, doubt, upon the thinker, thereby suspecting him of destructive designs...let the believer rejoice that others, too, seek to climb the mountain on whose peak he sits."

 

And from Leonard Cohen.......

 

"Roshi said something nice to me one time," he stated. "He said that the older you get, the lonelier you become, and the deeper the love you need. Which means that this hero that you're trying to maintain as the central figure in the drama of your life—this hero is not enjoying the life of a hero. You're exerting a tremendous maintenance to keep this heroic stance available to you, and the hero is suffering defeat after defeat. And they're not heroic defeats; they're ignoble defeats. Finally, one day you say, 'Let him die—I can't invest any more in this heroic position.”

Edited April 2, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

The caricature of the Atheist often answers questions with the non-answer "everything is knowable", this is often an affront to any rational discussion and allows for a certain smugness on the part of the Atheist who in fact has not actually participated in the answering of the questions for which he/she is donning their smugness and self assurance.

You apparently have not had many conversations with Atheists.  Perhaps you are just repeating something you have read.

 

If you present yourself against both these groups you spoke negatively about you will never have a useful discussion with members of either group.

 

And you have stereotyped people according to your standards which, I suggest are totally invalid.

 

Why do you find it necessary to speak negatively about those who believe differently than you do?

 

It is you who is presenting a smugness against people you don't even know.

 

And as I have asked you before, how can you be making all these judgements when you already said you don't know?

[Marblehead]

caricature  n.  a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things

 

 

I don't believe that it's possible to disagree with Spotless here. His use of the term caricature is protective

 

If one steps back from their attachment to a label (theist, atheist, agnostic, apathetic, who cares), one can see that these caricatures are a logical exaggeration of each stance; an extreme theist, someone who without any reason blindly believes in magical woo-woo, is necessarily self-assured that their woo-woo can explain everything (without needing a logical explanation); an extreme atheist, someone who believes that everything must be explicable and that there is nothing they cannot know (if they dig deep enough), is necessarily self-assured that they know enough about the nature of things to be able to say "I know that there is nothing I won't eventually be able to explain"; an extreme agnostic, someone who refrains from believing in anything, ever, is necessarily self-assured that their position is the safest and that they are more reasonable than everyone else.

 

Few people are this extreme, though. And many are simply apathetic...

But by creating these caricatures one is stereotyping individuals, putting everyone the creator considers whatever all into the same basket.  And then by presenting the caricature in an extreme condition it portrays all of that group to be equally extreme.

 

What ever happened to judging the individual according to the individual?  I suppose it is easier to hate large groups of people rather than determine whether or not any individual should be hated.

 

I just don't understand.

[Marblehead]

Well I really pretty much do disagree with Spotless here,

Well, I disagree with both Spotless and Dusty here.  Yeah, pretty much totally.

[Marblehead]

Oh, yeah.. I'm not saying we must agree with the use of caricatures..just that the caricatures themselves are pretty much spot on.

And I suggest that you are pretty much spot off here.

 

Stereotyping is always, "ALWAYS", harmful.

[gatito]

 

I just want to know who is not smug, That should be easy.

 

It is easy.

 

The little one one on the right isn't: -

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

Two of the caricatures are Dead in the Water in their transfixation to their position while the one is not and yet no less engaged or it could be argued successfully - far more engaged. Moorings are safe and the view tends to stay the same - floating freely is un-nerving and insecure unless one has found ones anchor within - and so within all things.

You sure make a lot of wild-assed claims for someone who prefesses to know nothing.

[Stosh]

It is easy.

 

The little one one on the right isn't: -

 

 

 

So anyone , who fears their own mortality or has a sense of awe , must not be  sm(a)ug on some level . Brilliant solution. 

Edited April 2, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Well, it seems no one wants to talk about whether or not Philosophical Daoism is Agnostic.

 

Doesn't really matter, I suppose.  What is, is, at any given moment in time.  That's Dao.

 

A Philosophical Daoist holds no unsupportable beliefs.  This doesn't mean (s)he doesn't have any beliefs.  It means they can support what they believe.

 

A Philosophical Daoist is very attuned to the processes of nature.  Nature does not teach beliefs, it presents lessons to be learned.

 

What does it matter if a Christian or an Atheist incorporate Philosophical Daoism into their belief system?  If a Christian holds to Philosophical Daoism then it could be said that Philosophical Daoism, for that individual, is practical Christianity.

 

Flowing Hands is a Philosophical Daoist.  He is also a Daoist Shaman.

[gatito]

That's an interesting interpretation of what was intended solely as a pun Stosh.

 

I only spotted a couple of other possible interpretations after I'd posted it (and the one you've plumped for wasn't one of those).

[Stosh]

That's an interesting interpretation of what was intended solely as a pun Stosh.

 

I only spotted a couple of other possible interpretations after I'd posted it (and the one you've plumped for wasn't one of those).

Great! then the brilliance is all mine

[gatito]

You're certainly free to interpret it that way.

[dust]

Your caricature of the Agnostic is grossly incorrect - you use the word safest - as though this is the motivation - as though they have consciously decided to con themselves in order not to find fault in their decisions by refraining from decision - quite an assumption!

 

But the caricature of each should be taken from the highest motivation according to the form of the caricature and it is not in any way shape or form that the Agnostic is seeking safety.

 

No.

 

A caricature is a gross exaggeration. The intent is to highlight and exaggerate things -- usually the things one might perceive as flaws. You did that well with the atheist and theist, but your caricature of the agnostic is entirely unfair, as it is far too tame. You must make the agnostic look as ludicrous as the others, or it is not a caricature and your entire (already fairly pointless) argument falls apart.

 

One should not speculate on anyone else's "highest motivation"; one can only look at another's stance and create a caricature based on appearance. The appearance of an extreme theist is one of blind faith; an extreme atheist, a blind refusal of any faith; and an extreme agnostic, a refusal to make any decision one way or the other. "We cannot possibly know the answer."

 

And, whether or not it was his motivation, the agnostic will feel safe and smug believing that he's gotten the better of the other 2, even though he might well be missing out on something grand.

 

 

caricature of an agnostic

 

 

 

 

Oh, yeah.. I'm not saying we must agree with the use of caricatures..just that the caricatures themselves are pretty much spot on.

 

And I suggest that you are pretty much spot off here.

 

Stereotyping is always, "ALWAYS", harmful.

 

Like I've already said, I'm NOT saying we should agree to their use. I was just trying to point out that there's very little point taking offense.

 

But I don't care nearly enough to argue the point further. This topic has gone way off, and I put that down to petty bickering, which I have only been trying to diffuse.

 

I give up.