Erasing the negative stigma about going to a psychologist or psychiatrist. I think we would make attend to these professionals as normal issues.
Also, it is important here to point out that the States should spend more form the taxes revenues into mental health.

English is a strange language. — Possibility

It isn’t strange, it is unique! As other languages around the world. But English is important because is the basic language where we can communicate each other.

Peace and equilibrium seem to me fairly accurate descriptions of objectives, or ways towards the Tao. I think most of us agree more or less with the importance of these concepts, but perhaps not so much with the methods for achieving them. I think many people would advocate ignorance, isolation or exclusion as useful methods towards achieving a practical peace, for instance. But I don’t think this is the kind of peace that the TTC strives for - one that prefers division over interaction. So I would suggest unity as a third main objective - in the sense of acting as if one, not dissolving into a literal, singular totality. I also like that equilibrium has a more dynamic quality than balance. — Possibility

Interesting facts. I think we only can put TTC in practice if we are truly convinced about Taoism. We have to keep in mind this is literally another path of see the life and live in. Lao-Tzu gives us a lot of wisdom but it depends on us if we want this principles work. I remember that some poems even was about ruling a territory or community. I think poems like this one only cause effect if you are interested in politics and so on with the rest...
I like word you used: “balance”. Yes, it is definitely better than equilibrium. Because TTC wants somehow to put equality principles to work on. You would not see in TTC something as totalitarian as The Prince, by Machiavello.
Terms of unity is something interesting to point out too. Because you used this term in the path of trying to get all Principles by one. Yes, because this is somehow we could archive all objectives of TTC.

Yes, it should be. I guess having particular psychologists as inner fact in a true social welfare state.

Who? Citizens or public affairs ?

aspect is the mental health difficulties which have arisen during the pandemic. It is not hidden entirely because mental health services and telephone helplines have been overwhelmed completely. — Jack Cummins

Agreed and this is something that public services should take care of

We can be agree here that probably has increased domestic abuse because the offender stays more time with their wife/husband or kids. Despite this is disgusting, I would not classify it as crimes because these are different violent issues. The worst thing inside domestic violence is someone ending dead. This is exactly when we can confirm it as crime. I guess we can only consider crimes when someone steals the life of another.
As you said, there are hidden issues we do not probably know about. But I guess it has to be logical decreasing the gap of murders because we are living in a period of time with lack of relations (supposedly).
Nevertheless, it could be the ratio went up for issues we don’t truly yet.

Which country is where the crime rates are decreasing?

I think not. I guess this happens due to Covid. Everybody is in home or go out the less possible. So... with less contact between citizens, less crime ratio then (Probably)

I don't think you meant 'pretend' as in to 'to give a false appearance', did you ?
I see the Spanish 'pretender' can have different meanings: to aim, to claim, to profess'.
A case of a 'false friend' ? — Amity

Yes, pretend in Spanish is a “false friend” word. I didn’t mean “to give a false appearance” but the verb “to claim”
Sometimes we have to be careful about different words meanings :sweat:

I’m thinking perhaps we see Taoism as either monist or idealist. I tend towards the monist perspective, myself. That may be why my interpretation often seems so out of step here. — Possibility

Interesting analysis. We are agree in one important point: translation of TTC depends a lot about the way of understanding it because those authors tried their best to give us a book similar or at least closer to what Lao-Tzu thought back in the day. This is the main reason why sometimes I enter into this thread to ask and share my doubts with you because my version probably is insufficient. My TTC version doesn’t even have commented section. There are just the poems except an interesting beginning about a friendship between Tu-Fu and Lao-Tzu. Nevertheless, I think is beautiful and amazing how we, persons from different countries, are sharing thoughts about a poem thousands of years old.

Going back again with your perspective: I

it - so perhaps the TTC itself is an idealist structure, but that’s not the same thing. — Possibility

This is why I pretended to say previously that TTC is pure idealistic symbolism. The structure of TTC is (just my humble interpretation) the Principle that can be also named as “world” or the the thing that emanates everything, etc... because Lao-Tzu puts some metaphor to at least trying to get these objectives: peace (this is why in some verses talks about a the difference between a good or bad savant can lead to be in wars or not) equilibrium (when talks about the Principle itself and how we interpret it in the most balanced position possible). Again, these are my interpretations probably I am wrong.
You perfectly explained that obviously TTC is idealistic. This is why I guess crashes a lot in my empirical point of view of life. Probably, I should take TTC as a Sui generis principle like unique trying to not mix it in other philosophical views.

A good and inspirational teacher makes all the difference in the world — Amity

Yes it is so important having good teachers and a quality education system. This is the base for a good society. I remember back in that day (2014/2015) the minister of education wanted to remove philosophy from “selective exam” (it is a special exam where we have to pass if we want go to university). We were debating about it during hours and ended up about the conclusion that without philosophy a society can be in decay.
After 6 or 7 years I see it now. We are in decay...

It is admirable what you are doing to share your translation and your interpretation.
It is a difficult text in any language. But worthwhile to engage with, I think. — Amity

Thank you so much. If I do so is because a sad context: the community of philosophy here in Spain is mediocre... (Probably because is still a traditional/catholic country, hmm).
I had a good teacher in school. He taught us philosophy through texts from different authors until I enter university. Since then, I never met someone who loves philosophy like him (or me hehe). So, I thought I had to try something so I started to find English speakers/thinkers that ended up bringing me here, in this forum. Hopefully, I finally found a good website like this after years of searching.

Would you consider yourself a Taoist ? — Amity

I think not at all because Taoism tend to be ideal. I respect and like the poems but somehow I only believe if I live it. I guess this is why I always like empiricism.

Thank you Amity for your response.

.

Re: 'advances when he turns back'.
Mitchell:
The Master stays behind;
that is why she is ahead.
She is detached from all things;
that is why she is one with them.
Because she has let go of herself,
she is perfectly fulfilled. — Amity

Yes! Helps a lot. I like the verse your shared. I guess it is better than mine. I wanted to translate it with my own vocabulary or brief use of dictionary because Google translate doesn’t translate it properly I think...

I don't know but think your suggestion of the principle of omnipresence seems right. — Amity

Thank you really. I thought this because some notes I read in a Spanish page of interpretation and he was speaking all the time of “be” and “not be” at the same time or “not act” but at the same time “receive everything” as it says: She is detached from all things;
that is why she is one with them.
So, I thought, this sound like omnipresence.

Verse VII

If the sky and the ground last forever is due to they do not live for themselves.
Following this example, the savant advances when he turns back. When he neglects, he take care of him. As he doesn’t seek his benefit, everything tends to be in his benefit

I don’t know if I have translated accurate. But I like this verse because I guess (just my interpretation) that Tao is developing here the principle of omnipresence. When the poem says “advances when he turns back” I think it is referring to either Principle itself or our knowledge.

Help?

How much extra would you pay to have an actual bartender mix your drink rather than a very reliable drink-mixing machine? Is beer better if you can chat with a live bartender? I'd say, definitely -- live person, please. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Of course I prefer human jobs or at least being with natural workers. You put the perfect job example here: bartender.
Sadly, these kind of jobs will suffer lack of stability in the future due to AI. I would prefer being around humans not only for a lively experience but an ethical criteria.
We cannot create a big unemployment ratio for those which have "low academical level" just because is cheaper having AI

Will automation render workers superfluous or irrelevant? — Bitter Crank

Yes. Sadly this what will happen in the future. Probably a lot of jobs we are consider as ordinary today will be extinguished in some years. I guess those automation machines would attack practical jobs as waiters, manufacturers, farmers, etc... just because their bosses or businessmen will want have something or someone to make exactly the same but cheaper. It is interesting this fact because they already do so... if we go to Bangladesh or India most of the businessmen go there due to cheap manufacture and child labor. But with automation machines they would produce everything in their own country and FREE.
So yes... it will make disappear a lot of jobs or at least make them irrelevant.

An example of the labor theory of value would be if a t-shirt takes half the time to make as a hat, the hat would be priced at two times the t-shirt.

It is true this is an interesting theory about Marx but I think he forgot something important according to value: material and handmade. Probably this t-shirt took half time to made it but imagine is made of good cotton and with hands of professional. This is forced to be more expensive than the hat.

I'm a bit rough on game theory, now in my early 30's; but, am saddened that homo economicus has been reduced to this automatic strategos looking out for who's #1. While in college, a 120 IQ guy told me that Europe works to live and American's live to work. — Shawn

It depends a lot the breach between north and south European countries but yes, this is an interesting point of view

.

If any of the above is true, then how the fuck do we get out of this dogmatization of human behavior through "game theory" — Shawn

I would sound like a dreamer but I guess the only way possible is trying to develop a new economical system. You clearly explained previously that one of the nature human interests is to develop, at least some profit. There are some countries which are happy with this system because it helps them a lot. But others, obviously not.
If we want another system and then changing the human behaviour, we have to try to change our educational system. Since Spinoza method, we are humans made to be practical not intellectual.
When you are practical, you want to be the number one in everything. What if we try and change this values? Probably we would get a different human behaviour.

The right or opportunity of opt in different alternatives.

According to Britannica: Free will, in humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints.

I guess you were asking for the concept.

True. We are limited by everything because we are by nature limited humans. Nevertheless, I think this also should be motivated us to improve our knowledge.

Example?

What about the lovely/worthy ones?

You can't save everyone — Huh

Yes. Sadly. At least try it

How do I use qoutes? — Huh

Select the text and then should appear a little box with “quote” function.

if you had to choose between saving yourself or save another you wouldn't show mercy and the law is even on your side right? — Huh

You are speaking now about life choices. It depends a lot. I guess I will leave my life for my parents one but not for a random one. This is a complex situation because law is supposedly to defend a life at all costs not sacrificing one to get other. This is a dramatic scenario and the worst possible dilemma.

Because we need always an authority to reinforce those principles. We, the humans in a structured jungle, need organisms to embraced what we are debating about. If we remove these, we automatically enter into chaos because human is by nature so selfish and tend to hurt others

Just because your empathetic doesn't mean you'll show mercy. — Huh

This is why we need courts and law to at least reinforce it or preserve it

Not necessarily. Check out private law or agreement regulation. These are laws of interests not empathy
Also look at dictatorships and their laws... Have they empathy?

Laws have to deal with order. Moral is so abstract and depends a lot of the countries and their laws. We have to put principles to create a society the most social welfare possible.

Probably but somehow we need laws or rules in this nature because the opposite is live in chaos
You cannot have the hope of leaving your bike (for example) in the park and not being stolen. It is impossible by nature

Nope. Look around us and even worse, the rulers of the world. Impossible having hope in this context.

I wish I could have your hope in humanity as well.

I think, rather, it's the understanding – adaptive (by process of eliminating 'maladaptive') uses – of knowledges (e.g. sciences, history, arts, care of self, etc) that's gradually 'improved' by philosophizing. — 180 Proof

Yes! Couldn't have said it better. I like how you expressed it as "eliminating maladaptive" because sometimes our self thought cannot help if we are not making the right questions.
For example: the basic color patterns (yellow, green, blue and red) can give us a lot of interesting stuff if we philosophy about it. As John Locke did about primary and secondary attributes, etc...

Expanding Universe

Concerning the expanding universe and the idea of spacetime, what is considered to be the expanding universe is, by virtue of alternate systems, only a portion of what is, or only a portion of existence. The idea of space as with spacetime, the idea of expanding space as with the expanding universe theory are components or conceptions of those respective systems; they are not necessarily congruent with the idea of immaterial space or immaterial expanse.

These ideas of space do not necessarily coincide with, nor discount, the idea of space as presented here. Although these conceptions of space may vary such variation does not evoke nonexistence. They are all still things, they are all still parts of existence, existence is still ubiquitous. — daniel j lavender

Interesting fact. I think our interpretation about universe depends about order. When you see the vast universe is even scary but beautiful at the same time. We can debate here if the existence is something inner us or universe. I mean, are the humans just "temporary" walking through the universe? Or are we as clever humans manipulate by our own?
When we speak about "time" "existence" or "limitations" are just concepts created by humans but you know? These are even or limits. Humans lives are limited and so it how time passes by. Also we have to admit that we are "flawed" persons with limits we are not perfect this is why it makes us different.
Nevertheless, put exactly these characteristics inside universe. I guess it is amazing. Universe was and will be always there. We cannot put time into universe because it does not exist there. We cannot put existence in universe beacuse it does not exist there.

For example: it takes around 30 years to go to Pluto from the Earth. The limitation here is the time. We know Pluto is there but why is difficult for us travel there?
because universe has a lot of amazing powerful characteristics against us.

Eternal Life

As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn't need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn't be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time. — daniel j lavender

Another interesting quote. I respect and understand what you try to explain to us. But I think we have to bring here Cogito ergo sum.
If we have awareness, we exist.

I guess it is one of the best proofs of human existence.

I do wonder if the finding of happiness and even the other one have moved into becoming more the task and scope of psychology more than philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. You are right in this quote. I think is a task of psychology too because this science has the object of literally the study of mind and our behavior. So it could be interesting what are thoughts from a psychologist about "searching happiness"
Also, I think it is interesting to point out that there are even an index of "happy countries"
Which should be the facts to consider about typing one country happier than other?

It could be a thread in its own right, but as it is so interconnected to mine I will edit my title to include this. — Jack Cummins

Despite Aristotle defend back in Ancient Greece that the essence of philosophy is trying to find happiness I would say that the true essence is not being part of the "wall" as another "brick".
Philosophy is a way to get out of mediocrity and live a life where we can question everything to improve our knowledge.

may look like or do we take a hardline approach that may involve anything from policies styled along China's one-child rule to mass sterilization? I guess it would depend on how immediate our perception of the dangers of overpopulation is. — TheMadFool

I would sound like an antinatalist but I am agree with this policy. I think most of the Western governments do not put this issue in debate because it is a taboo topic. You know it comes from China, a communist country, "our enemy", etc... So our governments prefer still spreading the idea of "we are free in this part of the world. We are not restrictive as China".
Nevertheless, it is a big issue. Not because a social/economic problem but ethical one. I respect all projects the people might have in their minds but I think if you are irresponsible and cannot take care of your own life, please do not have children, it is simple. I think this is not dictator or totalitarian because we are (at least) guaranteeing two important scenarios:
1. Those kids that would born in broken families would end up being criminals or distorted (real life is not a fairy book most of these kids with bad parents tend to be a "non inclusive" citizens. This is the hard reality)
2. We literally reduce the problem of overpopulation. Because it is a damn issue. We all already accepted that everybody who borns shall have all rights possible. It is true. But I think the problem here is in the "roots". I mean, trying to prevent it previously someone is pregnant not when the kid is already conceived.

I bet a good solution could be a better sex educational system or changing the minds of those countries which necessarily need kids because their economy is so primary...

Last but not the least, technology, the crown jewel of humanity, might be able to offer a way out of this quagmire e.g. terraforming Mars can ease the burden that, as of now, is planet earth's. — TheMadFool

This could be an excellent solution but sadly we are not ready yet due to the lack of investment :sad:

Yes! I did understand your point but I was only suggesting that justice could be just another tool of reinforce the good ethics in free will.
My intention was not go against your topic and you are right that probably bringing here law and justice is a stupid tangent that is not connected with the main thread.
Sorry because I tried to participate here but I guess I need more knowledge in this topic. It will not happen again.

the importance of it is not metaphysical at all, but rather wholly ethical: what's important about freedom of will is its relationship to moral responsibility, and as I will elaborate, I hold free will to be essentially synonymous with the capacity for moral judgement, the capacity for weighing what is better or worse. — Pfhorrest

Despite the fact that is free interpretation of what we should consider as better or worse I think there have to be a way to reinforce it. Thus, justice or judicial power. I truly believe this is the most important tool to use in ethics. You quoted previously Thomas Hobbes and as this philosopher said: Homo homini lupus. There always been there someone who wants hurt other because they do not understand basic ethics.
So, in this way we have to improve the most representative authority about responsibility and ethichs: courts..
I have to admit that somehow law is sometimes flawed. But this is not a cause of not believing in justice because if we do not do so, everything would be a chaos and ethics could disappear.

Too much randomness, or insufficient determinism, does indeed undermine the possibility of psychological will, which depends on an adequate degree of determinism to reliably maintain the functionality that constitutes it, but that is a separate question from whether anything has metaphysical will. — Pfhorrest

Interesting explanation. This is another thought I learned today :100:

Everything has control (and thus freedom) of some sort, in that its very existence changes the flow of events – otherwise they would not appear to exist at all, and so not be real at all on my empirical realist account of ontology – but only some things have self-control, and that is what the rest of these posts will discuss. — Pfhorrest

Could be this a good argument to reinforce the judicial power/law then?

With these books that you leave behind, how do you think the people who look at them will change their behavior? As in, how do you see people with the "meaning of life" living differently? — FlaccidDoor

I guess these books will change their behaviour because there is a lot of wisdom inside them. It is true that I don’t have a solid proof of how supposedly would change their lives but I have a hope that they can at least do it.
Secondly, I think they would live differently because those books have a way of thinking that probably would change their lives. At least, they way of thinking. These books are like tools of human life because it embraces a lot of philosophical solutions to the problems.

If nothing in your inner is stiff
The things would be opened by themselves.
In movement, like water.
When is quite, like a mirror.
Answers like an echo.

This beautiful poem comes from Tao Te King.

I would leave behind these books of human thinking with the purpose of passing the meaning of life:

Tratado de la prudencia by Baltasar Gracián

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke.

Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle.

Tao Te King by Lao-Tzu.