what is virtue and how do we become virtuous?

[Wu Ming Jen]

Do birds wake up and say I am not going to fly today? It is a birds virtue to fly and necessary for survival. Spontaneous, uncontrived, true virtue does not try to be virtuous.

 

When seeing one in harm without thinking of danger we will rescue. Do we know this person and why if not are we compelled to save another with no reward.

 

Maybe a bad example, some think all acts are selfish. but those who overcome this mental defect have virtue and it is powered by the way.

 

True virtue is expressed and manifested in countless ways.

 

Virtue for the sake of self gets into the mud of morals preconditioned thoughts of being good or doing the right thing that can actually cause harm to those intended to be benefited by such actions. One will not act if it does not benefit self. The error is benifit, good, right, wrong, self, basic mental clutter. 

[shanlung]

Virtue for the sake of self gets into the mud of morals preconditioned thoughts of being good or doing the right thing that can actually cause harm to those intended to be benefited by such actions. One will not act if it does not benefit self. The error is benifit, good, right, wrong, self, basic mental clutter. 

 

 

Or expect any return or reward for that such as better karma or brownie points or assured place in heaven or paradise.

If so, then that is an act motivated by self interest and nothing but self interest.

 

When things are done, and acts are done, because you know or feel that is the right thing and right act which must be done, that to me will be selfless actions. 

 

Even if those things or acts end up in retrospect very wrong, those are still good acts.

 

There is a limit to analysing. 

 

eg should people be mercifully rescued from Mediterranean sea? Are those rescues good? When rescue of a hundred encourages a hundred thousands to go be rescued ? What about a million then? Might as well charted cruise liners to ferry all of them to Europe. And of them, it seemed most of them will end up marginalised as they will demand their rights to wear burkas and hijabs. And let say a tiny fraction cannot and will not fit in and decide to wage jihads?

 

I do wish the world is a more simple world and selfless actions can be selfless actions without any other consequences.

 

When selfless actions of a few impact on lifes of others will that be ok?

As of now, knowing that they be rescued prompted 500,000 to 800,000 for just this year alone, will get onto the dole line and handouts in Europe.

 

And with them there, and stories of their success, will next year see 5,000,000 going for refugee status? They will do that instead of staying and fighting ISIS as why should they do so? Getting a better life, at other peoples expense is a far far better option.

 

Do such selfless actions get applauded? 

My selfish thoughts of maybe retiring in Europe got torpedoed. I do have enough money but my chances of retiring there diminished each day with extra thousands of those people rescued.

And Europe with burkas and hijabs not the Europe that I want.

 

My earlier thoughts of checking out Croatia for a few months  early next year totally derailed.

 

A lot more easy to repel invaders if they come with AK47s and bombs.

A lot more difficult when they come with begging bowls and kids in arms.

The impact will be the same as those begging bowls and kids in arms will take over the countries they invaded.

 

Do those do gooders in rescuing would be drownees in Mediterranean expect pats on their backs and people to go help them rescue more begging bowls carriers hidden behind their hijabs and burkas?

 

Interestingly those hijabs and burkas did not go into UAE or Saudi Arabia with same kind of culture even though those countries much nearer and rich as well. They know they be kicked out. And no handouts to them.

 

So might as well invade Europe. And many getting flown into USA as well from Europe. Paid for by other people so they do not need to stay in their own countries to fight ISIS and other bastards letting the rest of the world to do their fightings and paying for them to have the good life that they desired at expense of other people.

 

And even if they do not wear kaboom vests or using AKs, this was what I read of them doing in between the 5 times daily prayers

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/13/imported-rape-culture-somalian-refugee-charged-with-rape-of-10-year-old-girl/

 

Minnesota authorities charged Somali man Ahmed Hersi Abdi with two degrees of first-degree sexual misconduct for allegedly raping a 10-year-old girl in her apartment.

 

Somali community leader Mohamud Noor blamed Americans for not giving enough money to Abdi.

 

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.1524/somali-immigrant-brutally-raped-12-year-old-girl-sentenced-to-180-hours-community-service.html

 

A 18-year-old Somali immigrant who brutally raped a 12-year-old girl in Sundsvall, Sweden, has been found guilty of rape of a child - but he was sentenced to 180 hours of community service.

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/italy-muslim-schoolboy-violently-punches-12-year-old-female-classmate-for-wearing-crucifix

 

May 15 – A schoolboy of African origin attacked a 12-year-old-girl at a school in central Italy because she was wearing a crucifix on a neck chain, police said Friday.

 

The boy punched the girl violently in the back at the entrance to a middle school in the town of Terni on Thursday and the girl’s mother caught the boy, who subsequently told Carabinieri paramilitary police he attacked the girl because she was wearing a crucifix, police sources said.

 

The boy, who first attended the school some three weeks ago, had bullied the girl over the past four days, insulting her and picking on her in other ways all because she was wearing the crucifix, the sources said.

 

Nevertheless police stopped short of charging the boy with any offense since he is a minor, the sources said.

 

 

How about stopping them in the middle of the Med sea?

Or drop them back in the middle of Med Sea.

 

Idiotic Taoist all for Yang Zu

[Karl]

Broadly:

 

We Ming Jen is the intrincisist position that virtue is by God or some other divine revelation which requires the mind to be quiet.

 

Shanlung is in the subjectivist position, which is the pragmatist stance, that virtue is subject to a collectivist societal influence where there is no black and whites (good and bad) only shades of grey. 'Whatever works for whoever it works for' is the pragmatic approach.

 

The subjectivist movement is more dominant in Western society through the works of Dewey, Kant and Hegel. The intrincisists are more eastern influenced-the western equivalent being Plato or Augustine.

 

Fascinating to watch this played out and see the common ground as being the underlying view of the primacy of consciousness. In other words you both agree, but not exactly from the same direction.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Karl

[Wu Ming Jen]

Or the god or divine relationship is not an outside force separate from our being. 

[Astral Monk]

In western culture virtue is usually thought of as a manifestation or expression of morality. A virtuous person is one who eschews evil and avoids temptation. But this ties the idea to value, which is necessarily relative. We say virtue aims at 'good' but we mean some person or groups' idea of moral good.

 

If we look at virtue as more of a 'fitness' or 'fitingness' of a thing or act relative to its nature ( or the aim of the act) we might see a more objective measure. Theres still a relative aspect, but where virtue is considered as a sign of the fitness of a thing, our ability to evaluate it will be more closely linked to general facts about the thing, rather than a series of prior valuations as with morality.

 

The virtue of a hammer, for instance, is a sign of how perfectly it fulfills its purpose to pound stuff. This will necessarily include its properties relative to users--design, weight, usability. The relationship is in how a things nature is expressed. A hammer isnt evil because it hits someone on the head--heads or nails the hitting is what hammers do, in fact is the only reason they exist.

 

With people the issue is more complex, since we dont have a generic purpose to fulfill. But we might take a view that a person has virtue to the degree they express the dao. If dao is an underlying state, de is the form of the total actions that support it. We might say that the more immersed in the way a being is the greater its virtue.

 

In this sense virtue isnt tied to anyone's idea of 'good' but is more an observation of the fitness and functionality of things or acts being the things or acts that they are.

 

8)

[Karl]

Or the god or divine relationship is not an outside force separate from our being. 

 

There is no implied separation, only that virtue is intrinsically revealed. The intrincisists view is that of 'eye of the mind', ESP or "I just know' there is no requirement for a remote deity.

[Karl]

In western culture virtue is usually thought of as a manifestation or expression of morality. A virtuous person is one who eschews evil and avoids temptation. But this ties the idea to value, which is necessarily relative. We say virtue aims at 'good' but we mean some person or groups' idea of moral good.

If we look at virtue as more of a 'fitness' or 'fitingness' of a thing or act relative to its nature ( or the aim of the act) we might see a more objective measure. Theres still a relative aspect, but where virtue is considered as a sign of the fitness of a thing, our ability to evaluate it will be more closely linked to general facts about the thing, rather than a series of prior valuations as with morality.

The virtue of a hammer, for instance, is a sign of how perfectly it fulfills its purpose to pound stuff. This will necessarily include its properties relative to users--design, weight, usability. The relationship is in how a things nature is expressed. A hammer isnt evil because it hits someone on the head--heads or nails the hitting is what hammers do, in fact is the only reason they exist.

With people the issue is more complex, since we dont have a generic purpose to fulfill. But we might take a view that a person has virtue to the degree they express the dao. If dao is an underlying state, de is the form of the total actions that support it. We might say that the more immersed in the way a being is the greater its virtue.

In this sense virtue isnt tied to anyone's idea of 'good' but is more an observation of the fitness and functionality of things or acts being the things or acts that they are.

8)

 

That is a circular argument. If you have already determined that some action is virtuous then it follows that doing more of it will be more virtuous. This again is the intrinsicist view, in which the intrinsicist is more virtuous the more closely the philosophy is followed. In other words faith.

 

 

[Astral Monk]

That is a circular argument. If you have already determined that some action is virtuous then it follows that doing more of it will be more virtuous. This again is the intrinsicist view, in which the intrinsicist is more virtuous the more closely the philosophy is followed. In other words faith.

The idea was to identify virtue with functionality and thus to be connected to a more objective perspective related to the nature of things and actions. It isnt about defining 'some action' as virtuous, but rather saying that the concept of virtue describes a state (or increasing degrees) of harmony with the essential nature of a thing.

 

The more out of alignment with that nature, the less virtue.

 

A being at one with the dao will be virtuous in all respects. And this will not necessarily be connected to various moral valuations, though it may sometimes fulfill them.

 

8)

[Karl]

The idea was to identify virtue with functionality and thus to be connected to a more objective perspective related to the nature of things and actions. It isnt about defining 'some action' as virtuous, but rather saying that the concept of virtue describes a state (or increasing degrees) of harmony with the essential nature of a thing.

The more out of alignment with that nature, the less virtue.

A being at one with the dao will be virtuous in all respects. And this will not necessarily be connected to various moral valuations, though it may sometimes fulfill them.

8)

 

If you believe that there is an intrinsic nature which is best exemplified by adherence to a certain philosophy, then being more closely aligned to that philosophy will garner the greatest virtue. That's circular reasoning. It's self reinforcing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Astral Monk]

The objectivist view is that virtue is a product of human agency. While what has been called 'intrinsicist' sees virtue as a factual state of affairs.

 

In the former virtue is the jihad of conative agents trying to manifest their various ends. Virtue is just another word to symbolize this struggle. Taken by itself, understanding virtue as 'the action of attainment', this definition covers all purposeful action or all means that produce the specific end. Generally, virtue is a disposition of conative agents to strive to satisfy their goals. Virtue here is like courage--a general or global attitude people adopt. Virtue is a relationship a person has with their goals. Note that this covers a broad spectrum and doesnt and cant differentiate based on values.

 

An assassin has as much virtue as a philanthropist. The form is the same--a disposition of the conative agent towards the attainment of some (series of) ends.

 

What we consider 'moral virtue' is a small subset arbitrarily constrained based on a series of valuations. IOW, we say that only some types of ends shall be considered valid for conative agents to strive to attain (the 'good'). So we say that a killer fufilling their goal of assassinating is not virtuous, even though logically the form is identical to that of the philanthropist feeding people at the soup kitchen.

 

If we take this view then only conative agents can have virtue because only they can have dispositions relating to the goals. The view I was describing above suggests that virtue is more of a description of fitness that can be objectively assessed. It goes beyond goal and purpose (though it includes these) and speaks to the fufillment of a thing's nature.

 

The former view sees virtue as an aspect or character; the latter, as an aspect of essence. I think the latter is more what de refers to--not a struggle to attain something but an effortless manifestation of the way. Which is why virtue in that sense might not accord with what we generically think of as 'good' and might even seem detached or morally ambivalent.

 

8)

[Karl]

The objectivist view is virtue is the process of a volitional conscious grasping. By a specific method of applying reason and logic. It's this active process which is considered virtuous.

 

An intrincisist disregards active grasping. It would be called mind noise and so this conscious grasping would be the opposite of virtue. The intrincisist might say "be quiet and just hear God". Being quiet and quelling the conscious mind is the route to intrincisist virtue. Just turn the mind to reality with humility, honestness and openness. Avoid distraction. It is this ascetic method which is virtuous.

 

The subjectivist is the skeptic. Nothing can be known because there are no absolutes. There is neither a requirement for quelling the mind, nor for active thinking, they are equal. Everything is, and is not, equally virtuous.

 

It follows that choosing one of these philosophies and adhering to it as tightly as possible is more virtuous-the subjectivist is the odd one out because of the inverse view. All doing is not doing and so virtue is a relatively inconsequential concept.

 

The two latter philosophies are developed around the primacy of consciousness, the former around the primacy of existence.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Karl

[Astral Monk]

Basically, in trying to figure out what virtue means, we have the ovjectivist identifying it with a process as opposed to the idea that it is a state of affairs or the culmination of several processes. We end up debating the usage of the word. Which better fits concentional usage and understanding?

 

Its important to note that in both cases virtue is not the same as value. Virtue might BE valued but is not itself a value. Which means that virtue is just a way of describing some state of affairs. That means that it is not a tool for moral guidance, and in fact has nothing to do with morals. Being actively engaged in a proceess or passively immersed in one says nothing about the nature of that process or the outcomes it produces. That requires another level of judgment.

 

Interesting consequence and maybe counterintuitive if we are used to associating virtue with goodness. Its goodness is only relative depending on what standard we assume.

 

However, unlike value, if we see virtue as a process it might be easier to identify because there will be a fact of whether the process is there or not, whereas with value it is always a choice that shifts depending on ones frame of reference.

 

8)

[Karl]

I have deliberately not added the the rest of objectivist philosophy in order that it does not confuse the discussion. It can perhaps be summed up succincly by the phrase "never seek to gain a value by falsifying reality'. The premier values would be rationality, integrity and honesty. From these are derived moral action, by striving virtuously to gain and hold those values.

 

Virtue then is, as you say, not a value, but the striving to maintain those values. This doesn't mean that one is infallible, only that at all times one remains true to, and therefore virtuous in that pursuit.

 

This is equally true of the intrincisist who keeps faith with his religion. However, it precludes rationality because it surrenders the mind. It says that one must stop all thought and turn to X (X being whatever the path is) that this is the virtuous path. I don't see that anyone truly surrenders their mind completely, but that command is implicit in whatever philosophy is followed.

 

So an objectivist would say a lack of virtue will to lead to a lack of morality. There is good and bad and it can be clearly defined. This would also apply to those following the intrincisist path-good and bad are often explicitly defined in a set of God given codes.

 

No such thing applies to the pragmatist. There is no good or bad. Everything is in flux and whim takes the place of virtue. As such we can probably dispense with the word 'virtue' for the subjectivist completely. No words have absolute meaning as there is no absolute reality according to their view point.

 

In conclusion there is an enormous gulf between objectivism-where the values that are virtuously adhered to are rationality, integrity and honesty-and intrincism, which replaces rationality (the logical, reasoning mind) with a dedicated acceptance to a path and trusting that this path is rational and is therefore virtuous. The subjectivist is the next step on the ladder, in that there is neither a path, rationality or virtue.

 

Its difficult not to form a judgement from an objectivist view point, that if a person has surrendered their minds, then the level of virtue is also surrendered to something external. This is absolutely true for religions with a deity and of course Gurus of Eastern philosophy. For some it is the peer group, or their social circle that they will look towards for that judgement.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Karl

[thelerner]

SOoo wordy.

 

Moving a stone away from the middle of a path

because someone later might stumble against it. 

That is virtue.

 

How do we become virtuous?

Help others when you have the opportunity.

Edited December 2, 2015 by thelerner

[zerostao]

virtue is freedom, naturally

[Mudfoot]

That would be the reason to meditate and do internal work.

 

To get to the point when virtue is natural, and not only an external rule to follow.

[Astral Monk]

virtue is freedom, naturally

 

If nothing is really 'free' then there is no virtue?

 

If there are degrees of freedom then there are degress of virtue?

 

What part of the natural world is 'free'?  Everything is constrained.  By physical laws, by the interconnection to all other things in existence, by time and space.

 

Is virtue pure emptyness?

 

Unless emptyness is constrained by fullness, in which case it too is conditioned and not really 'free'.

 

Hmmm...

 

8)

[shanlung]

No end to trying to get to the heart of De when we do not know what in the world (or Universe) is the Tao

 

 

Idiotic Taoist now wondering if for a change to eat when thirsty and drink when hungry

[Jadespear]

I think Yoda put it very well to Luke Skywalker in the movie " The Empire Strikes Back." as Luke is training with him in the swamp to be a jedi knight.   Here is the dialogue:

 

"Do or do not.  There is no try"

 

Trying to do something, is not the same as doing it.  

 

Furthermore, the tao te ching does not talk of speak of " Great Virtue ".... it speaks of mysterious virtue.  I feel that the difference between the two is important to recognize as one is of a quantity and the other is of a quality...

 

Here is the Tao Te Ching passage:  Chapter 10

 

Can one hold the soul in the body, 
hold the mind in the spirit, 
and keep them as one? 

Can one concentrate the energy of life
and keep it supple like a newborn child?

Can one study everything and really know everything
without making a mistake?

Can one govern the nation with all the right actions
and really love the people?

Can one always make a decision with the right mind?

Can one empty the mind and fill it with the brightness of wisdom
and learn to step back from this knowledge?

Can one give life and grow life and yet claim no possession?

Can one supervise and benefit others,
yet exercise no authority and rely on no pride?

This is what is called the mysterious virtue.

[Bum Grasshopper]

A parable comes to mind when a passerby observes a monk trying to retrieve a drowning scorpion from a fast moving stream. Repeatedly the scorpion would sting the monk and he would drop it, only to chase it down the stream to get stung again.

 

"You foolish monk, why do you continue to save a hapless scorpion that only wants to sting you"

The monk replied

" It is the scorpions virtue to sting. It is my virtue to help all in need."   

[opendao]

TTC speaks of having great virtue but what is virtue? at least in the taoist sense? and how do we become virtuous?

 

people have innate De, people can become more virtuous by cultivating Dao, and sages can "give" De to other people as well. Some increase can be made by "good deeds" and "virtuous actions", but it works mostly for people with high enough innate De, and such way has its own limits.

 

Sages are rare nowadays, as well as people with high innate De, so the only way is the alchemy practice. Then De becomes a real magic power, and the words of Lao Zi open its meaning.

 

The common definition of virtue (at least in western society is concern) is to have "good" character and if we learn anything from TTC is that: 

 

De is more deep then just "good character" or moral. It's a foundation of the character on the energy level. "Charisma" is more close to the ancient understanding. And "grace" in Christianity is a good parallel.

 

In TTC De is a must have quality for the king. Also, it's a basis of real WuWei ("non doing").

 

"When it knows good as good, evil arises" TTC 2, Derek Lin

 

So...our society dictates what good and evil are so our society dictates what virtue is. agree or disagree?

 

No. Dao dictates what good and evil. It's like a physical Law. Society can follow it, but it prefers to invent its own definitions and laws, destroying itself and its people. TTC has a lot about it.

[Aithrobates]

De is more deep then just "good character" or moral. It's a foundation of the character on the energy level. "Charisma" is more close to the ancient understanding. And "grace" in Christianity is a good parallel.

 

And so "virtue" does not seem a good equivalent.

 

But, fun fact, virtue comes from the same root, vir (a man), as virus (initially it means a poison), virulent, and of course virile. It refers to something really active and potent, very Yang.

 

The related sanskrit term "viras", means a virile hero, specifically someone who became a  Siddha, who has attained immortality by practicing internal alchemy.

 

In greek it's related to "ios", like in the iosis (rubedo) the fourth and final stage of the alchemical process.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Aithrobates

[silent thunder]

I relate to the Virtue described by the concept De, in the manner that it is a virtue of grass to be green.

Not that green grass is somehow virtuous.  There is no morality in it to me.  Property is a synonym for Virtue in the context of De, for me.

 

It is a natural expression of essence.

 

It is the virtue of a taoist to follow nature..

Not that this is somehow morally above, or beneath any other way of being.

Merely a description of the properties exhibited.

[Brian]

 

How many are free and naturally virtuous?

All of us are until we are learn to be otherwise. Those who teach us thusly think they are helping because they have also been taught such and they seek to improve upon what they learned. The cycle spirals outward.

[Orion]

In classical Chinese medicine there is talk of how a practitioner with higher virtue can give more effective treatments, regardless of specific technique. There is also talk of how the greater the disparity of virtue between doctor and patient, the greater the transformative effect on the patient. So, a doctor and patient of similar virtue cannot facilitate as effective a healing. Likewise, a doctor with little virtue can transform very little.

 

I relate to this concept, but it's hard to delineate in words.

 

The more inner work you do, the more crap you clear away, the more refinement, the more clear you become -- then the more in flow with Dao you are. And you are already, but the duality between you and the Dao is greatly lessened. It is from this that Virtue arises, and it can't be described in words anymore than the Dao itself can be semantically discussed.

 

Nothing is wrong.

Nothing needs to change.

Everything is as it should be.

 

It's akin to the debate on whether there's objective morality or subjective morality. Subjectivists believe morality is flexible because they relate to the concept on a material or mind basis only. The Dao has its own set of rules which are not really a set because they are not static or definable, but they are always appropriate to everything that arises and dissolves. So what is called for in every situation arises of its own accord without a semantic ego deeming it so. It's just what's happening, and that's it.

 

All I can really conclude with is that virtue arises from flowing with the Dao. I feel that the essence of what I'm trying to describe has already been lost in the words.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Orion