Is philosophical Daoism (daojia) agnostic?

[Marblehead]

 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.

Yes, you did try.  And I acknowledge that.

 

A Daoist does not discriminate between this and that but that is all this thread has been doing.

[Geof Nanto]

A Daoist does not discriminate between this and that 

 

Wow Marblehead, in your attempt at closure you opened another can of worms as to what this means.

 

Definitions of 'discriminate' from the Oxford dictionary.....

 

1 Recognize a distinction; differentiate:

babies can discriminate between different facial expressions

 

1.1 Perceive or constitute the difference in or between:

features that discriminate this species from other gastropods

 

2 Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age:

existing employment policies discriminate against women

 

 

​I'd suggest it's in this second sense of prejudice that Daoists don't discriminate. However I could also argue that Daoist's aim to move completely beyond words and ideas (and hence any form of differentiation as ordinarily perceived) - but that's a discussion we've had elsewhere.  (It also negates this entire website.) Otherwise I think wise discrimination (as in differentiation) is a goal to be aimed for.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

 

Wow Marblehead, in your attempt at closure you opened another can of worms as to what this means.

 

2 Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age:

existing employment policies discriminate against women

 

​I'd suggest it's in this second sense of prejudice that Daoists don't discriminate. However I could also argue that Daoist's aim to move completely beyond words and ideas - but that's a discussion we've had elsewhere.  (It also negates this entire website.) Otherwise I think wise discrimination is a goal to be aimed for.

Yes, definition 2. is what I was referring to exactly.  1. and 1.1. are really necessary in "real" life.  There really is a difference between the rose flower and the rose thorn.

 

We judge a person, ot thing, or whatever, based upon its own merits without comparing it to any thing else.  It is even suggested that we do not judge at all but I would suggest that this is impossible.  Therefore we judge as little as possible.

 

Hehehe.  Yes, going beyond words and ideas.  We've talked about this elsewhere.

 

Thing is, regarding this thread question, it really is an unanswerable question because if we say it is "this" then we are at the same time saying that it is not "that" and this can never be because Dao embraces all.

 

As a friend of mine likes to say, it (Dao) is neither this nor that but it is both (plus all else).

Edited April 2, 2015 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

Back then, im pretty sure discriminations made based on sex age race and status were considered fine and natural. According to the texts ,what is unjust?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Back then, im pretty sure discriminations made based on sex age race and status were considered fine and natural. According to the texts ,what is unjust?

Back then we were wrong in doing so.  And as it is still happening today it is still wrong.

 

Every living thing and every non-living thing has its place within Dao.  When man places his discriminatory criteria on things that is a departure from Dao.

 

But, when living things forget their place the possibility for destruction is increased.

 

Chuang Tzu had this realization one day while walking in the park.  (Good story-lesson.)

[Stosh]

Im not familiar with this story, will it be in your other thread ?

[Marblehead]

Im not familiar with this story, will it be in your other thread ?

Yes it will be but here is a sneak preview:

 

 

The Sage Was In A Park

 

The Sage was one day wandering within the confines of the park when he saw a strange bird coming from the south.  Its wing-spread was seven feet across, and its eyes were an inch in circumference.  The bird’s wing touched his forehead as it flew past to rest in a chestnut grove.  “What kind of a bird is this?” said the Sage to himself.  “With its big wings it does not fly away, and with its big eyes it acts as if it does not see me.”  So he ran along onto the grounds where walking was not allowed and watched it.  He saw a cicada enjoying itself in the shade, forgetting itself.  Behind it was a praying mantis taking advantage of the shadow to pounce upon it.  The praying mantis also forgot itself in the love of gain, for the strange bird was behind him.  The Sage said to himself, “Alas!  This is the manner in which things involve one another and loss follows upon gain.

 

The Sage started to return to the path when the park keeper saw him and drove him away with angry words. The Sage returned to his house and remained unhappy for three days.

 

“Why are you so unhappy?” asked one of his disciples.

 

“Until now I had always watched out for my body while forgetting my real safety; I had gazed on muddy water taking it for a clear spring.  I got so occupied with the corporeal things that I forgot myself.  Looking upon the muddy stream, I forgot the deep clear pool.  I have heard from the Master, ‘When you enter a country, follow its customs; when mingling with the vulgar, behave like the vulgar.’  I was wandering in the park and forgot myself; I forgot my real safety.  The keeper of the chestnut grove took me for a thief.  That is why I am feeling unhappy.”

 

[Stosh]

Hmmm, I have seen this before. Ill be waing to see what the heck this has to do with injustice though.

It looks more like he lost track of his best spiritual interests ,and felt guilty. Social mores dont seem to be significant here.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Stosh

[Spotless]

I would suggest to everyone to read up on Huxley and understand what Agnostic means - it is not sitting one the fence between the theist and the atheist.

 

The trite assumptions as to my meaning or that in fairness I must make the agnostic caricature ludicrous would be to misunderstand the caricature - and Huxley who coined the word.

 

The agnostic does not frame himself like the other two - the other two are extremes and self limiting.

 

And by the way - I have never mentioned the word Christian nor have I been making fun of anyone.

 

All atheists are future X atheists - it is a cardboard path - and it is not a path - it may take a few lifetimes.

All theist are either X theists or in a sense will be poly-theists and much more.

 

These are childish positions - and positions are a waste of time.

 

Also - I have never said I was an Agnostic - perhaps this would be a fitting label though.

 

Huxley - coined the word - check it out - it was in response to the two extremes and with a much higher appreciation for science and inquiry than the other two.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Spotless

[Marblehead]

Hmmm, I have seen this before. Ill be waing to see what the heck this has to do with injustice though.

It looks more like he lost track of his best spiritual interests ,and felt guilty. Social mores dont seem to be significant here.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it will have more meaning when viewed in the "Father and Son" thread.

 

But no, it's not about injustice.  We'll see how it inspires you later.

[Marblehead]

I would suggest to everyone to read up on Huxley and understand what Agnostic means - it is not sitting one the fence between the theist and the atheist.

How would reading Huxley help anyone understand Daoism?

 

The trite assumptions as to my meaning or that in fairness I must make the agnostic caricature ludicrous would be to misunderstand the caricature - and Huxley who coined the word.

So why take an extreme example of a group and suggest that this is the norm?  That is a violation of reason and logic unless one is actually trying to present others in the worst possible position.

 

The agnostic does not frame himself like the other two - the other two are extremes and self limiting.

But you presented it as such.  Bad Theists, bad Atheists, good Agnostics.

 

And by the way - I have never mentioned the word Christian nor have I been making fun of anyone.

I mentioned it (Christian) because that is a Theistic belief that most here can relate with.

 

All atheists are future X atheists - it is a cardboard path - and it is not a path - it may take a few lifetimes.

All theist are either X theists or in a sense will be poly-theists and much more.

This is more trash talk.  Trying to trash Atheists and Theists.  Totally counter to Daoist teachings.

 

These are childish positions - and positions are a waste of time.

This, of course, is only your personal opinion, an opinion that I believe is totally untrue.

 

And to refer to Theists and Atheists as childish really is an insult.  One of those Deci Belle kind of insults.  Not many truely understand what it truely is:  An insult toward anyone who does not believe like you do.

 

Also - I have never said I was an Agnostic - perhaps this would be a fitting label though.

You didn't need to.  Bad Atheists, Bad Theists, Good Agnostics.  It would be a rare person who would put themself into one of the bad baskets.

 

Huxley - coined the word - check it out - it was in response to the two extremes and with a much higher appreciation for science and inquiry than the other two.

I still don't know what Huxley has to do with Daoism.  He was not a Daoist and likely knew nothing about Daoism.

 

You want to talk about Agnosticism in Daoism you should reference Lao Tzu.  You might make a little progress.  But don't use Chuang Tzu because he was an Atheist.

[gatito]

You might want to consider that there's another position, gnostic, in addition to the other three.

[Stosh]

You might want to consider that there's another position, gnostic, in addition to the other three.

Still has supreme deity, Monad  ergo theism , No?

[Marblehead]

You might want to consider that there's another position, gnostic, in addition to the other three.

No, I don't want to.  Life is already too complicated.  Thanks anyhow.

[gatito]

Still has supreme deity, Monad  ergo theism , No?

 

Only if you wish to conceptualise the Tao as supreme deity/monad.

 

Your choice Stosh.

 

No, I don't want to.  Life is already too complicated.  Thanks anyhow.

 

To clarify; the "You" was generic - directed at any reader of the thread in general, as opposed to @MH specifically.

 

However, despite your rejection of my suggestion, in fact, you cite Lao Tzu as authority (i.e. you claim that he's a gnostic) in post # 111.

[Marblehead]

To clarify; the "You" was generic - directed at any reader of the thread in general, as opposed to @MH specifically.

 

However, despite your rejection of my suggestion, in fact, you cite Lao Tzu as authority (i.e. you claim that he's a gnostic) in post # 111.

Oh, please don't point out my contradictions.  I find enough on my own.

 

But yeah, perhaps Lao Tzu could be considered a gnostic. 

[Spotless]

By the way - Dawkins has pretty well proclaimed himself an agnostic - quite well outlined in his God book.

[Stosh]

Only if you wish to conceptualise the Tao as supreme deity/monad.

 

Your choice Stosh.

 

 

To clarify; the "You" was generic - directed at any reader of the thread in general, as opposed to @MH specifically.

 

However, despite your rejection of my suggestion, in fact, you cite Lao Tzu as authority (i.e. you claim that he's a gnostic) in post # 111.

Im reading that the original Gnostic tradition or ontosophy, declares the universe was a situation of unity, which became split into a plurality, they include several divine beings, which are distinguished from regular men.

 

since

the·ism

ˈTHēˌizəm/

noun

 

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

gnosticism is therefore theistic- as a matter of intellectual fact, and its not just my personal whim or perception leading me to say so.

You were just... wrong. 

[Marblehead]

By the way - Dawkins has pretty well proclaimed himself an agnostic - quite well outlined in his God book.

I have not read a single word he has ever written and I don't recall any words he ever spoke if I have heard any.

 

My Atheism is based on my own understandings as well as in small part words Nietzsche wrote.

 

I do and have called myself a Nietzschean.

[flowing hands]

Going back to the original post, no offence mean't but its rather a silly thread. Lao Tzu (li Erh Xian Shi) would have no concept of a single God anyway. The whole culture from whence he came, did not have this belief in existence. There was belief in Immortals and spirits and in the energy of living things. So to say that philosophical Daoism (if there is such a thing) is agnostic is actually correct. But to say that philosophical Daoism doesn't believe in spirits and Immortals is incorrect.  The One is not a God, but makes Gods what they are.

[Stosh]

Oh, please don't point out my contradictions.  I find enough on my own.

 

But yeah, perhaps Lao Tzu could be considered a gnostic. 

Wikipedia says Lao was agnostic.  Chloris Leachman too !

[gatito]

Im reading that the original Gnostic tradition or ontosophy, declares the universe was a situation of unity, which became split into a plurality, they include several divine beings, which are distinguished from regular men.

 

since

the·ism

ˈTHēˌizəm/

noun

 

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

gnosticism is therefore theistic- as a matter of intellectual fact, and its not just my personal whim or perception leading me to say so.

You were just... wrong. 

 

You need to read more carefully Stosh - I wrote gnostic not Gnostic.

 

[Stosh]

You need to read more carefully Stosh - I wrote gnostic not Gnostic.

 

Fine, thats true , but  Im paying attention now, whats your different meaning. 

[gatito]

Here you go Stosh:-

 

gnostic (adj.)

1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

Gnostic (n.)

4. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic

[Marblehead]

Wikipedia says Lao was agnostic.  Chloris Leachman too !

Well, it must be true as afterall, only the truth can be entered on the internet.