How should philosophy relate to all (current) scientific research? — spirit-salamander

One role I can think that is fundamentally philosophical rather than scientific is addressing issues related to the scientific method rather than results or theories. Examples:

• Appropriate levels of significance
• Replication of results
• Reporting of results, e.g. reporting of negative findings
• Review of methods and results
• Requirements for data validation and analysis, e.g. statistical methods

Also - ethical issues. Examples:

• Consent
• Possible harm to study participants
• Fraud
• Conflicts of interest

Is an 'eternal' Trinity a philosophical fallacy? — ernest meyer

I'm not a Christian, or even a theist, of any sort, so I don't have an opinion on anything you've written. Even so, I wanted to complement you on an interesting and well expressed opening post.

OK. That could be the start of another debate but I'll leave it there. — Amity

No need to go into it any deeper now, but this is at the heart of how I use the TTC. As I've said many times, for me, the primary value of the TTC is as a guide to the experience of my true nature and the Tao.

As we go forward, I will look for places in the text that are relevant to this issue. We can use those discussions to go deeper into this.

My concern was that this translation appears negative about hope. I think that when we send out that kind of message, it is possible that we are not thinking enough about the implications for hopeful readers who don't look beyond...and take that at face value. — Amity

I want them to take what I say at face value. I believe, and I think Lao Tzu would agree, that hope distracts us from the path he is trying to show us.

It concerns me when some talk of the body, fear and hope as being illusions. It is important to recognise the reality. The whole interaction of body, mind and spirit. — Amity

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the way I see things, but, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond to this. Are you asking me to stop giving my understanding because you don't like it? The TTC is a radical rejection of convention. Maybe "dismissal" is a better word than "rejection." Don't be surprised if you find it in conflict with some of your beliefs. You don't have to agree with me and you don't have to agree with Lao Tzu.

I guess that the phrase 'another brick in the wall' is seen here as a positive - another way to build up towards the aim of increased self-awareness or self-realisation. — Amity

Yes. Also, @Valentinus is a mason.

Not sure about 'acting from our true natures' - what is your true nature ? — Amity

I recognize my true nature. I can feel it. Sometimes. Wu wei is acting from our true nature. Sometimes I can do that. I know what wu wei feels like.

I too see the TTC as a guidebook - but how we are guided depends on the translation. We can be led astray... — Amity

No, I don't think we can be lead astray, not if we focus on the experience rather than the words.

The greatest misfortune is the self. How is it our biggest problem is the ego ? Think about all the troubles we get into when the ego is out of control. The issue here is to dial down the sense of self-importance.
13-16: The greatest rulers are the ones who can transcend the ego. They feel concern for the greater good. The greatest individuals are ones who love something greater than themselves; the family, team and community. They are the ones who can truly take charge of their own destiny. — Amity

This explication makes sense to me.

I think this is where I disagreed with you most due to my concern that I couldn't see how any responsible person would believe that hope is not a good thing. Discussed 20 days ago, p11.
I think that you were influenced by the Stephen Mitchell translation of Ch13.
The second line 'Hope is as hollow as fear'.
Expanded to 'Hope and fear are both phantoms' — Amity

Yes, I was definitely influenced by Mitchell's translation. It was the first translation I read and those lines are some of the ones that jumped out at me the strongest. How does it make someone irresponsible not to value hope? I could see "wrong" or even "deluded," but why "irresponsible."

the Derek Lin translation and explanation — Amity

I reread Lin's translation and comments. He doesn't put it in the same terms as Mitchell, but I don't see anything inconsistent.

Our biggest problem is the ego that reacts to words of praise or criticism; there is a tendency to desire positive opinions and avoid criticism perceived as negative. — Amity

I'm fine with this.

I see nothing there about hope not being a good thing.
It is this kind of translation that Possibility warns against. — Amity

It's ok if you and @Possibility disagree with the way I understand what Lao Tzu is saying. I don't understand why it seems to bother you both so much.

I guess I just wanted you to acknowledge that you have no evidence for saying that Lao Tzu thinks the same way you do here. It’s all based on your own personal judgement, affect, desire... — Possibility

I said I don't have any "strong, rational evidence." The TTC is not about rational anything. You keep coming back to my use of my "own personal judgement." I don't get it. Of course it's my personal judgement. Every thing I know, feel, or believe is based on my personal judgement. If you are implying that your understanding is based on more than that... well, that claim seems pretty arrogant to me.

I happen to think it does detract from your understanding, but what do I know? You’re not after an accurate understanding of the TTC, only one that you can live with. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that - just try not to get too defensive at how a different perspective might makes yours appear. — Possibility

I don't understand why you are so worried about my understanding. I'm not after "an accurate understanding of the TTC," I want to hear and feel what Lao Tzu is saying. Those are two different things. Although you claim otherwise, you are saying there's something wrong with that.

This is not engineering — Possibility

Of course it is. Everything is engineering. I'm a hammer and the world is full of nails.

What matters is that you take responsibility for whatever inaccuracies you might be putting out there - that you claim them as your own, not attribute them to the TTC or to Lao Tzu. — Possibility

I've written three or four responses to this, but I keep erasing them. I guess I have no useful response.

But why the big gap? That doesn't fit it being a joke paper right? That's the equivalent of explaining a joke, which always ends in nobody laughing. — Razorback kitten

Your posts have been pretty obnoxious. It's no wonder no one wants to come out an play.

I appreciate your explanations and would be grateful for an example of how it changed the way you relate to the world... also T Clark. — Amity

For me, the TTC was like a pair of gloves I found. I put them on and they fit, so I've worn them ever since. My intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and social path for more than 50 years has been toward more self-awareness. For me, the TTC is another brick in that wall, but it's also a guidebook. It's about acting from our true natures. For me, Lao Tzu is saying - look, over there. See that? Pay attention to that. See this here? Pay attention.

Your interpretation is that wu-wei is better than benevolence and etiquette. That makes sense from your experience and understanding of the world, and from my personal experience I would agree with you. But it’s not a judgement made by the TTC, and so I think it’s irresponsible to claim that the TTC or Lao Tzu makes this judgement, because it doesn’t: we do. — Possibility

I've tried to be clear about when I think something is true and when I think Lao Tzu thinks its true. Generally, I think I've been pretty successful in keeping the two separate both in my writing and in my own mind. In this case, I think wu wei is better than benevolence and etiquette and I think Lao Tzu does to. I might be wrong, but how could I possibly be "irresponsible?"

You’re responsible for the choices you make to block or enable the flow of chi in the world. This is not about what others do with the information you provide, but about your capacity to inform/deny, connect/isolate, and collaborate/exclude. Wu-wei is about recognising your influence of chi at the level of potentiality: the changes you effect without action; the influence you have on the world that cannot be directly attributed to you in a linear causal relation. — Possibility

There is an important concept in engineering - consequences of failure. If I'm going to make an important decision that will cost lots of money and may put people at risk, I have to be very careful about my justification for the action I'm going to take. On the other hand, if nothing bad will happen if I'm wrong, then who gives a shit. I don't have to be careful. I can take more risks. My interpretations of the TTC definitely come under the who gives a shit standard.

With great power comes great responsibility. — Possibility

And, I guess, with no power comes no responsibility.

Just because no-one can blame me for misinformation, does not absolve me of responsibility - not according to wu-wei. If that means the TTC appears to lack confidence or seems ambiguous, I’m okay with that - it’s consistent with the example of the old masters. I don’t think it IS ambiguous, I think he’s being more accurate, not less. — Possibility

It sounds like you're saying I should withhold my opinion because you think I'm wrong. Not just wrong, but, somehow, irresponsibly wrong. Don't make me bring out my Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes again.

I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei.
— T Clark

I don’t agree with this. I think intellect that assumes a linear causal relation between potentiality and action is bound to conflict with wu-wei. But this is neither unavoidable nor fundamental. I think intellect that understands the dimensional or many-to-one relational structure between potentiality (or more specifically intentionality) and action has no conflict with wu-wei. — Possibility

I'm thinking back through this and trying to figure out whether I've overstated my case. Do I believe "...there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei," or do I believe something less absolute? My impulse is to stick with the stronger statement, but I'm not sure.

I’d like to explore your evidence for this. I would argue that what looks like ‘changing his mind’ stems from the choice of concepts in the English translations, not from Lao Tzu being deliberately vague. I think if that were the case, he would not be so repetitive with characters. — Possibility

I don't think I have any strong, rational evidence for this, but I don't feel as if I need any. Call it a conceit on my part if you want. I don't think it detracts from my understanding. I like it. It makes me feel like Lao Tzu is joking around with us. That Lao Tzu, what a character.

The structure of the TTC is the original structure, consisting of Chinese characters (each signifying the quality of an idea) arranged in a particular logical sequence. Interpretation is how we rearrange this structure, ie. in English. — Possibility

We've had this discussion. For better or worse, I have decided that it makes sense for me to accept the translations we have of the TTC as a group as the basis of my understanding of what Lao Tzu is telling us. It's a good statistical method. Look at a lot of samples of the population and assume that will allow you to average out errors in the individual samples. That won't address systematic errors that affect all of the samples, but I've decided I can live with that.

This judgment is your interpretation. The structure includes a number of options, including thinking and waiting in hope. — Possibility

Yes, of course it's my interpretation, one that I think I have good justification for. Waiting in hope? As I've said several times, in my understanding, Lao Tzu does not think hope is a good thing.

I think it’s important to point out that I’m not referring to the Tao here, but to the TTC, which (as I mentioned) claims to be the disembodied (eternal) Te, which is not the Tao. To argue that the TTC has no structure is ridiculous. It’s not ineffable, it’s a text. — Possibility

So, does the TTC have a structure? Am I mixing the TTC up with the Tao? First off, of course the TTC has a structure - 81 verses. First 37 are about Tao. 38 through 81 are about te. Another question. I think it's a different one - does the TTC provide an intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao? I don't think it does. I don't think it can. There is no intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao. Do I really believe that? Vehemently, fiercely, indisputably! Most of the time.

My use of the term ‘affect’ here is not in reference to a ‘thing’, but to our influence in the flow or distribution of energy (chi). — Possibility

I've always had a problem with your use of "affect." You mean something different when you say it than I do. It seems like maybe you use it to mean something similar to attention. Attention could be said to be the result me putting my personal energy into an aspect of the world. Highlighting it. Making it separate from the rest of the world. I guess that could be similar to naming in a sense. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

...but his reply to your accusation has me in stitches. Oh, the irony! — Banno

Actually, I hate to admit it, but "blub, blub, blub" is a pretty good summary of my philosophy.

Ad hominem. Blub, blub, blub. Try and argue something. Notice the arguments I have made. Then try and address them. — Bartricks

You've misused the term "ad hominem" again.

Stop it.

You should stop this. @Georgios Bakalis is new here and you're stealing his thread.

It is extremely inconsiderate to shanghai someone's thread for a completely unrelated subject. You should stop.

I don't think it's a problem, it's a cost of doing business. — fdrake

Agreed. But then the problem is that people don't recognize that. They think that the right place to stand is self-evident.

Doctrinally, "What is there?" is answered by "How we imagine what there is". — fdrake

This is an ontological judgement and, as such, it's already working within a defined ontological framework. Not to be all meta and all. That's the problem with, one of the problems with, ontology. Where do you stand?

So, on to the easy question: what is there? — Manuel

I think of ontologies as metaphysical tools. I envision my trusty tool box. I have a problem, I open it up and pull out the one that's most useful in that particular situation. Example - I'm an engineer, so in my work life; knowing things, knowing what I know, and knowing how well I know them is important. A scientific world view often works well for that. On the other hand, a scientific world view has significant weaknesses. It focuses our attention tightly and things tend to be left out. See the ongoing discussion of mysticism.

Maybe my notion of 'mysticism' is too mundane or prosaic for this new(er) age? — 180 Proof

Me too. As I've said, my take on mysticism is very meat and potatoes. I'm always thinking - what's all the excitement about. I do like Brussels sprouts though.

I think that the question is really how genuine the ones on hallucinogenics are? — Jack Cummins

I try not to be judgmental about this sort of thing. Use of drugs to change awareness can be part of a disciplined mystical practice. Who am I, as a very undisciplined mystical practitioner, to say.

It turns out I was actually a psychologist, and I agree my first answer was not appropriate, but my second was. — ernest meyer

We're on a philosophy forum. I said your comment was unresponsive, not inappropriate. That's a quibble, but, hey, as I said, it's a philosophy forum. We had a discussion to decide on a new name for the forum a few years ago. My favorite was "Quibbles R Us."

@Bartricks is a bully. He likes to push people around to try to intimidate and humiliate them. That's what passes for rational argument with him.

Ad hominem. Do you have a criticism of the argument or can you not face arguments for conclusions that you dislike? — Bartricks

Not an ad hominem argument. Not an argument at all. I think the worst that can be said against @ernest meyer is that he did not appropriately respond to the question.

I’m not sure what you’re ‘trying out’ here. — Possibility

I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei.

I’m not implying that you interpret it this way. I only mention it because I have noticed this interpretation in a number of translations. ‘Do this, don’t do that’ is not the structure of the TTC, despite how many translation are structured. I think Lao Tzu says ‘etiquette is not a something to strive for in itself, good or bad’. — Possibility

I keep coming back to this - Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements about good and bad or even good and ok. Except that he does. I don't think he's changing his mind, I think he's being ambiguous. That's how things are set up in the TTC. I have a feeling that it's found in the original documents and is not just an artifact of translation. I will be disappointed if I find out I'm wrong about that.

But to assume he’s passing judgement, declaring something as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is a mistake. — Possibility

Is wu wei better than benevolence and etiquette? Of course not!!! We don't make that kind of judgement. (whispering - Of course it is!)

in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others. — Possibility

Not sure that I understand. Are you saying I'm responsible for the impacts my interpretations of the TTC have on others? That doesn't make sense.

But it’s more than this: Lao Tzu is commenting on the prevailing culture - what was commonly accepted as ‘truth’. My point was that it was not simply an alternative of possible points of view. — Possibility

I don't understand.

This interesting commentary from Charles Wu’s 2013 translation of verse 18 (thanks again for the Terebess website): — Possibility

He's saying exactly what I was trying to say? Especially in the first paragraph. I need to work on being clearer.

A little peyote goes a long way.... — Valentinus

I'm a coffee in the morning, wine in the evening kind of guy.

You could theoretically reproduce all the findings of cognitive science in symbolic form, such that an alien intelligence could interpret and understand them. But you could not reproduce the experience of being human in such an objective medium. It is not amenable to third-person reduction. — Wayfarer

I want to say "I just don't get it," when I talk about the so-called hard problem, but I do get it. I get why people see it as a problem. It's because they somehow think their self-awareness is special and wonderful. But it's not. It's just one more mental process/behavior. We deal with that kind of thing all the time in our lives.

We look at animal behavior and the behavior of other humans. We see behavior and infer mental processes. That dog is angry. I can tell by the way he growls and snarls. That rabbit is afraid. I can tell by the way he startles and runs. That woman loves her children. I can tell by the gentle way she treats them. Also, if we speak the same language, she can tell me that she loves them. We have stories we can narrate for all of them. It's only when we start dealing with ourselves that things fall apart. We no longer want to recognize that we are telling stories. It must mean more. I can feel that it means more. We are untrustworthy narrators of our own story.

I'm a pragmatist. I paint everything white.

Good quotes. I'll keep them around for my next consciousness discussion.

I think consciousness is considered a difficult problem in philosophy because for hundreds of years it has proven impossible to explain how chemistry which is essentially nonexperiential produces the experience of "what it is like" to be someone. — Enrique

I'm going to rewrite this:

I think consciousness life is considered a difficult problem in philosophy because for hundreds of years it has proven impossible to explain how chemistry which is essentially nonexperiential non-living produces the experience of "what it is like" to be someone living organisms.

Do you agree with that sentence? It wasn't so long ago that philosophers and scientists couldn't imagine life arising without some sort of outside influence - they called it "vital essence." That's pretty much gone by the wayside now. Although there is no final answer yet, scientists have hypothesized and are studying mechanisms by which non-living materials can create life. It's called abiogenesis.

I think the analogy to consciousness is a good one. I think people are blinded because consciousness is so personal. It must be special. But it's not.

What book is that? So I may explore it for myself. — SteveMinjares

The book is the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. If you go back to the first page in this thread and read the first couple of posts, it gives a rundown. There is also a link to a bunch of translations. The specific text you quoted is from Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 80.

Yes. I see that the guidance given in the TTC attempts to reverse conventional views held at that time.
It seems to resist a second-order moral way in preference to a first-order 'natural' way.
Can we be sure that this is best for our selves and others? — Amity

If the Tao Te Ching grabs you and shakes you and tells you and if you say, "Yes, this is exactly right. I've always known this," then, yes, you can be sure.

What is 'natural' ? Is a question I raised earlier.
Is the TTC with its apparent reliance on natural intuition right for a progressive world ? — Amity

Natural is wu wei. No action and action without action. Spontaneous. Growing from within, from our truest self. The TTC is useful, if it is, no matter where or when you are. What is a "progressive world?" If you mean a complex modern world like the one we live in, then yes, it can be useful. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, there are lots of other ways to know the world.

Conventions of some description are necessary. — Amity

Conventions can be useful, but Lao Tzu says they are not necessary. I think he's right, which doesn't mean I know how to do it.

So the Zhuangzi differs in this important attitude from the Laozi—we need not try to escape from social life and conventions. Conventions underlie the possibility of communication and are, thus, useful. This gives Zhuangzi’s Daoism less of the primitive thrust of the Daode Jing (the term wu-wei virtually disappears in the inner chapters).

I don't think the TTC says we have to try to escape from social life and conventions. Lao Tzu said "Do or do not. There is no 'try.'" Wait, no... that was Yoda.

I haven't read much of the Zhuangzi. It's mostly stories. A lot of the power of the TTC for me is in its poetry. Maybe we can take up the Zhuangzi if we finish the TTC.

I disagree that it is not an argument.
— schopenhauer1

You are wrong to disagree. — unenlightened

This is a Monty Python routine. Really, it is.

Yes, in Chinese culture it is of 'supreme importance' as Derek Lin discusses at length.
Out of all the virtues, this is the first and foremost.
He asks the students to consider why this might be so. Interesting responses and good feedback. — Amity

As I noted in a response to @Possibility, it is my understanding this is a Confucian view which Lao Tzu was specifically reacting against.

This is really thoughtful. I've bookmarked your link and I'll take a look. This is what I love most about the internet - people generously sharing information.

Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship. — Possibility

It is my understanding that's what Confucius thinks, not Lao Tzu. I think rejecting that view is what this verse is about.

To be honest, I think we may have a different understanding of ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’, which probably contributes to the confusion... — Possibility

Natural - wu wei. Conventional - artificial, unspontaneous. Natural - good. Conventional - bad.

I think I'm all caught up. Please let me know if I've failed to respond to any of your posts.