... contrary to the “ways of life” of other animals. — schopenhauer1
I had a hard time understanding this the first time round.
And if I ever had an inkling, it is no longer shining through the dust of memory. — Amity
(Chapter 2)Everyone in the world knows that when the beautiful strives to be
beautiful, it is repulsive.
Everyone knows that when the good strives to be good, it is no good.5
And so,
To have and to lack generate each other.6
Difficult and easy give form to each other.
Long and short off-set each other.
High and low incline into each other.
Note and rhythm harmonize with each other.
Before and after follow each other.
I have always thought of naming as described in the Tao Te Ching as something humans do. — T Clark
Now that there are names, know enough to stop!
I think the Tao Te Ching means what it says. — T Clark
Named, it is the mother of the myriad creatures.
(Chapter 4)The Way is like an empty vessel ...
It seems to be the ancestor of the myriad creatures.
(Chapter 34)The myriad creatures rely upon it [the Way] for life, and it turns none of them
away. ...
It clothes and nourishes the myriad creatures, but does not lord it over them.
(Chapter 42)The Way produces the One.
The One produces two.
Two produces three.
Three produces the myriad creatures.
This doesn't seem to account for any exceptions. — Amity
Attain extreme tenuousness
If in mysterious mode, we let go of the desire to know facts? We simply let thoughts be. — Amity
Danger from what or who? — Amity
This is when it becomes clear that we are not meant to know...so why do we go on so? — Amity
(981a).. it is through experience that men acquire science and art ...
How do you connect with the Way? What does it mean for you in everyday life? — Amity
(Dao chapter 2)... sages abide in the business of nonaction, and practice the teaching that is without words.
(Dao Chapter 1)Always eliminate desires in order to observe its mysteries;
Always have desires in order to observe its manifestations.
Is to be aware of how you are and what you do? — Amity
(Dao Chapter 16)To embody the Way is to be long lived,
And one will avoid danger to the end of one’s days.
I wonder if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that process of carving the ox is analogous to the process of the Tao bringing the 10,000 things into existence. — T Clark
(Dao Chapter 1)A name that can be named is not a constant name.
Nameless, it is the beginning of Heaven and earth;
Named, it is the mother of the myriad creatures.
At the beginning, when I first began carving up oxen, all I could see was the whole carcass.
After three years I could no longer see the carcass whole ...
I follow the natural form slicing the major joints I guide the knife through the big hollows ...
What your servant loves, my lord, is the Dao, and that is a step beyond skill.
Attain extreme tenuousness
Ivanhoe translationWhen unhewn wood is carved up, then there are names.
Now that there are names, know enough to stop!
If we’re already one, can I say it? But since I’ve just said we’re one, can I not say it? The unity and my saying it make two. The two and their unity make three.
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK
1. Composed beings are made up of parts. — Bob Ross
2. A composed being exists contingently upon its parts in their specific arrangement. — Bob Ross
Therefore, a series of composed beings must have, ultimately, uncomposed parts as its first cause. — Bob Ross
An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts. — Bob Ross
27. To be good is to lack any privation of what the thing is. — Bob Ross
the bedrock, the groundless ground — Joshs
152. I do not explicitly learn the propositions that stand fast for me. I can discover them
subsequently like the axis around which a body rotates. This axis is not fixed in the sense that
anything holds it fast, but the movement around it determines its immobility.
177. What I know, I believe.
179. It would be correct to say: "I believe..." has subjective truth; but "I know..." not.
180. Or again "I believe..." is an 'expression', but not "I know...".
424. ...One says too, "I don't believe it, I know it".
478. Does a child believe that milk exists? Or does it know that milk exists? Does a cat know that a mouse exists?
483. The correct use of the expression "I know". Someone with bad sight asks me: "do you believe that the thing we can see there is a tree?" I reply "I know it is; I can see it clearly and am familiar with it." - A: "Isn't N.N. at home?" - I: "I believe he is." - A: "Was he at home yesterday?" - I; "Yesterday he was - I know he was; I spoke to him." - A: "Do you know or only believe that this part of the house is built on later than the rest?" - I: "I know it is; I got it from so and so."
The idea that it's absurd to say one "knows" that one has a toothache suggests that "knowing" is about justification. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The idea that one can doubt anything one "knows" also makes it pretty clear that "knowledge" here is something like belief. — Count Timothy von Icarus
While I can see your point, natural theology will suggest that the regularities and rationally-intelligible principles that constitute what we describe as natural laws suggest a prior cause. — Wayfarer
One could argue among the aims of philosophy is to discern the boundary of what can be explained in terms of natural laws, and to intuit what may lie beyond it, even if it can't be stated in scientific terms. — Wayfarer
We got now the first event of how the Trump administration will work as Musk showed his power in the incoming Trumpster-fire administration. — ssu
It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation. — Relativist
Does "natural" only mean things in the world that we already know of, and "super-natural" means things that we don't know of yet? — A Christian Philosophy
We could entertain that the laws of nature are caused by prior laws, but this only pushes the problem one step back. To avoid the risk of infinite regress, a fundamental laws must be explained by something that requires an explanation but not a cause. — A Christian Philosophy
I am unclear on what you mean by "natural" vs "super-natural". How do you define those two terms? — A Christian Philosophy
What is questionable about the PSR? — A Christian Philosophy
I did not use the word "super-natural". — A Christian Philosophy
We should simply try to follow the rules of the PSR to its logical conclusion. — A Christian Philosophy
And my conclusion is that a thing whose existence is essential is necessary to explain the existence of all other contingent things — A Christian Philosophy
There is no one definitive version of the PSR. — RussellA
I don't believe that the PSR can logically be formulated to apply to unknown events. — RussellA
The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a principle, and principles only exist in the mind. — RussellA
When the original event happened, the event wasn't following the principle that it could only happen if there was a reason. — RussellA
The original event wasn't determined by a Principle. — RussellA
But then you say we can say something about an event we know nothing about, ie, that it must have a reason. — RussellA
We cannot say anything about an event we know nothing about, but we do know that billions of events occurred without our knowledge of them occurring until billions of years later. — Fooloso4
. Until recently we did not know it existed. We now know it does. According to the PSR it must have a reason for existing. That reason was not created by our discovery of it.the earliest known galaxy, JADES-GS-z14-0 — Fooloso4
There is no one version of the PSR. There are different formulations. The PSR is a family of principles (SEP - PSR). — RussellA
I am making the case that in the absence of a God, it wouldn't be sensible to apply a PSR to unknown events. — RussellA
Is there any argument that could explain how we can know something about an unknown event, such as the unknown event having a reason? — RussellA
There are different formulations of the PSR. You cite one version of it. See SEP - Principle of Sufficient Reason. — RussellA
Whose version of the PSR are you relying on? — Fooloso4
For Leibniz, God knows all events whether known or unknown by humans. — RussellA
A principle that cannot be justified shouldn't be used. — RussellA
Are you arguing against the PSR? — Fooloso4
No, I am arguing that the PSR cannot be applied to unknown events — RussellA
The existence of a being whose existence is an essential property is deduced directly from the PSR. — A Christian Philosophy
This thing whose existence you posit designs the laws of nature that cannot be explained naturally.
— Fooloso4
What else could it possibly be? — A Christian Philosophy
To avoid the risk of infinite regress, the fundamental laws must be explained by something that requires an explanation but not a cause. — A Christian Philosophy
You propose a formulation of the PSR — RussellA
You must feel that there is a justification for this particular formulation. — RussellA
For Leibniz, God knows all events whether known or unknown by humans. — RussellA
Is your argument based on the existence of a God? — RussellA
No, I am arguing that the PSR cannot be applied to unknown events — RussellA
I am arguing that it is not possible to know about something that we don't know about, including any reason for the something that we don't know anything about. — RussellA
In this particular case, that the something we don't know about has a reason. — RussellA
The expression "all events whether known or unknown" is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible to know that there are unknown events as they are unknown. — RussellA
The question is: how far will they bend toward Trump's will — Relativist
Therefore the PSR cannot be applied to the unknown. — RussellA
In conclusion, the PSR is valid, but only applies to observable facts, events and truths. — RussellA
The traditional answer is: we can posit the existence of a First Cause which has existence necessarily or as an essential property. The existence of this First Cause is grounded by logical necessity ... — A Christian Philosophy
Rejecting the idea that there is a reason would go against our reasoning process ... — A Christian Philosophy
(3) By elimination, they are designed. — A Christian Philosophy
... there still must be a prescriptive explanation for why matter and energy behave as described by those laws. — A Christian Philosophy
Then, if we observe a rock falling there would be no reason why we hadn't observed the rock not falling. — RussellA
Sooner or later explanations reach a dead end — RussellA