''Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, “The minnows swim about so freely, following the openings wherever they take them. Such is the happiness of fish.”
Huizi said, “You are not a fish, so whence do you know the happiness of fish?”
Zhuangzi said, “You are not I, so whence do you know I don’t know the happiness of fish?”
Huizi said, “I am not you, to be sure, so I don’t know what it is to be you. But by the same token, since you are certainly not a fish, my point about your inability to know the happiness of fish stands intact.”
Zhuangzi said, “Let’s go back to the starting point. You said, ‘Whence do you know the happiness of fish?’ Since your question was premised on your knowing that I know it, I must have known it from here, up above the Hao River.”
>thinking that the daoism presented in that essay is the same as zhuangzian daoism >heraclitus btfo'd another metaphysical system because said systems manifold manifestations can be exploited for argumentations sake
Logan Gonzalez
source?
Daniel Thompson
I'm sorry to say it, user, because I deeply respect Taoism, but they simply could not contend with the Ephesian doctrine. Prometheus and Atlas
Owen Flores
Chuang Tzu with his bamboo pole was fishing in the Pu river. The prince of Chu sent two vice-chancellors with a formal document: We hereby appoint you prime minister.
Chuang Tzu held his bamboo pole still.Watching the Pu river, he said:“I am told there is a sacred tortoise offered and canonized three thousand years ago,venerated by the prince, wrapped in silk,in a precious shrine on an altar in the temple.
What do you think? Is it better to give up one’s life and leave a sacred shell as an object of cult in a cloud of incense for three thousand years,or to live as a plain turtle dragging its tail in the mud?”
“For the turtle”, said the vice-chancellor,“better to live and drag its tail in the mud!”
“Go home!”, said Chuang Tzu.“Leave me here to drag my tail in the mud.”
Christian Rivera
There is nothing in Zhuangzi (one form of daoism) that explicates any form of ''egalitarian'' or ''democratic'' social order. Nothing ''pacifistic'' about it either. To equate it to any such thing is to fundamentally misunderstand it. The argument against the Daoist view of nature is thus void, as it does not explicitly stand in opposition to Heraclitus at all. Never mind the fact that scribent of that text does not recognize the paradox in his/her interpretation of Heraclitus' vision of the cultivation of the character, which in itself is a distinct understanding of human nature.
YMMV with the Daodejing, though.
Jonathan Wilson
The comment about egalitarianism and democracy was not aimed at Taoism. There does seem to be something very pacifistic about Taoism though
Xavier Martinez
''All this could not be further from the anarchistic, egalitarian pacifism of the Taoist sociopolitical ethic'' not democracy, anarchism. sorry. my mistake
>pacifism ''Pacifism. Pacifism is the theory that peaceful rather than violent or belligerent relations should govern human intercourse'' Taoism does not explicitly favour either militaristic nor pacifistic conduct. Rather - the way of nature, the is-ness, is to be followed. This does not conform to either encapsulating concept. Zhuangzi understands that the 'way' is also unprovable, mere mist, like concepts of war and peace - and that this 'stop' in the train of thought is also insufficient and so on. infinite regress
>How do I know that enjoying life is not a delusion? How do I know that in hating death we are not like people who got lost in early childhood and do not know the way home? Lady Li was the child of a border guard in Ai. When first captured by the state of Jin, she wept so much her clothes were soaked. But after she entered the palace, shared the king's bed, and dined on the finest meats, she regretted her tears. How do I know that the dead do not regret their previous longing for life? One who dreams of drinking wine may in the morning weep; one who dreams weeping may in the morning go out to hunt. During our dreams we do not know we are dreaming. We may even dream of interpreting a dream. Only on waking do we know it was a dream. Only after the great awakening will we realize that this is the great dream. And yet fools think they are awake, presuming to know that they are rulers or herdsmen. How dense! You and Confucius are both dreaming, and I who say you are a dream am also a dream. Such is my tale. It will probably be called preposterous, but after ten thousand generations there may be a great sage who will be able to explain it, a trivial interval equivalent to the passage from morning to night.
Asher Reyes
Hua Tzu, hearing this, was filled with disgust and said, "He who is so quick to say `Attack Ch'i!' is a troublemaker, and he who is so quick to say `Don't attack Ch'i!' is a troublemaker! And he who says that those who are for and against the attack are both troublemakers is a troublemaker, too!"
"Then what should I do?" said the ruler.
"Just try to find the Way, that's all."
Hui Tzu, hearing this, introduced Tai Chin-jen to the ruler. Tai Chin-jen said, "There is a creature called the snail - does Your Majesty know it?"
"Yes."
"On top of its left horn is a kingdom called Buffet, and on top of its right horn is a kingdom called Maul.13 At times they quarrel over territory and go to war, strewing the field with corpses by the ten thousand, the victor pursuing the vanquished for half a month before returning home."
"Pooh!" said the ruler. "What kind of empty talk is this?"
"But Your Majesty will perhaps allow me to show you the truth in it. Do you believe that there is a limit to the four directions, to up and down?"
"They have no limits," said the ruler.
"And do you know that when the mind has wandered in these limitless reaches and returns to the lands we know and travel, they seem so small it is not certain whether they even exist or not?"
"Yes," said the ruler.
"And among these lands we know and travel is the state of Wei, and within the state of Wei is the city of Liang, and within the city of Liang is Your Majesty. Is there any difference between you and the ruler of Maul?"
"No difference," said the king.
After the visitor left, the king sat stupefied, as though lost to the world. The interview over, Hui Tzu appeared before him. "That visitor of ours is a Great Man," said the king.
Nolan Davis
Chink phil is such stupid bullshit.
Henry Russell
Nigga wat
Justin Gutierrez
>the piss and the shit lol
Nolan Martin
brainlet take, love the edge tho champ, u got any more of that?
Oliver Collins
Loool
Easton Long
Chinese philosophy in a nutshell: >Hey Mon Kay Sama, you just posed a very difficult question that seems to shake the very basis of metaphysics and ontology! >I know Bai Po Pu Pen, my dearest and wisest disciple. And this is the answer - a linguistical pun haaaaaa got' em
John Taylor
isn't it great?
Christopher Gutierrez
the original NEET in literature
Ryan Cooper
I've tried to work through the last sentiment for a day now and I'm at a loss
Luke Carter
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: that’s a shallow, crude, stupid reading of Heraclitus. Not only that, but the (over-the-top literalist) interpretation of Heraclitus’s view on war as an occasionally necessary evil isn’t much different from what’s said of war in the Dao De Jing. This author makes Heraclitus sound like an aggressive proto-Nietzsche. Which is frankly bullshit.
Justin Lee
language, structure does not necessarily contain the world
Tyler Reed
this but unironically. Once you realize that ,most in the daoist texts are meant as jokes and solely for the sake of a pun you will see chinese philosophy for what it really is.
Brody Thompson
Agreed
Connor Baker
Pretty based honestly. Has anyone done any better yet?
Jack Ross
based?
Adam Gray
Was Chuang Tzu the Diogenes of China?
Joshua Cooper
This is better and more outlandish than anything accelerationist and postmodernist ever wrote.
James Hernandez
in other words, based
Lincoln Hughes
>There is no thing that is not "that", and there is no thing that is not "this". If I look at something from "that", I do not see it; only if I look at it from knowing do I know it. Hence it is said, 'That view comes from this; and this view is a consequence of that:' - which is the theory that that view and this (the opposite views) produce each the other. Although it be so, there is affirmed now life and now death; now death and now life; now the admissibility of a thing and now its inadmissibility; now its inadmissibility and now its admissibility. (The disputants) now affirm and now deny; now deny and now affirm. Therefore the sagely man does not pursue this method, but views things in the light of (his) Heaven (-ly nature), and hence forms his judgment of what is right. This view is the same as that, and that view is the same as this. But that view involves both a right and a wrong; and this view involves also a right and a wrong - are there indeed the two views, that and this? Or are there not the two views, that and this? They have not found their point of correspondency which is called the pivot of the Dao. As soon as one finds this pivot, he stands in the centre of the ring (of thought), where he can respond without end to the changing views; without end to those affirming, and without end to those denying. Therefore I said, 'There is nothing like the proper light (of the mind).'
>Nan-Guo Zi-Qi was seated, leaning forward on his stool. He was looking up to heaven and breathed gently, seeming to be in a trance, and to have lost all consciousness of any companion. (His disciple), Yan Cheng Zi-You, who was in attendance and standing before him, said, 'What is this? Can the body be made to become thus like a withered tree, and the mind to become like slaked lime? His appearance as he leans forward on the stool to-day is such as I never saw him have before in the same position.' Zi-Qi said, 'Yan, you do well to ask such a question, I had just now lost myself; but how should you understand it? You may have heard the notes of Man, but have not heard those of Earth; you may have heard the notes of Earth, but have not heard those of Heaven.' Zi-You said, 'I venture to ask from you a description of all these.' The reply was, 'When the breath of the Great Mass (of nature) comes strongly, it is called Wind. Sometimes it does not come so; but when it does, then from a myriad apertures there issues its excited noise; have you not heard it in a prolonged gale? Take the projecting bluff of a mountain forest - in the great trees, a hundred spans round, the apertures and cavities are like the nostrils, or the mouth, or the ears; now square, now round like a cup or a mortar; here like a wet footprint, and there like a large puddle. (The sounds issuing from them are like) those of fretted water, of the arrowy whizz, of the stern command, of the inhaling of the breath, of the shout, of the gruff note, of the deep wail, of the sad and piping note. The first notes are slight, and those that follow deeper, but in harmony with them. Gentle winds produce a small response; violent winds a great one. When the fierce gusts have passed away, all the apertures are empty (and still) - have you not seen this in the bending and quivering of the branches and leaves?' Zi-You said, 'The notes of Earth then are simply those which come from its myriad apertures; and the notes of Man may just be compared to those which (are brought from the tubes of) bamboo- allow me to ask about the notes of Heaven.' Zi-Qi replied, 'Blowing the myriad differences, making them stop [proceed] of themselves, sealing their self-selecting - who is it that stirs it all up?'
This is like those nu-atheists who say "life meaningless because universe big!"
Alexander Foster
>If there were not (the views of) another, I should not have mine; if there were not I (with my views), his would be uncalled for:-- this is nearly a true statement of the case, but we do not know what it is that makes it be so. It might seem as if there would be a true Governor concerned in it, but we do not find any trace (of his presence and acting). That such an One could act so I believe; but we do not see His form. He has affections, but He has no form. Given the body, with its hundred parts, its nine openings, and its six viscera, all complete in their places, which do I love the most? Do you love them all equally? or do you love some more than others? Is it not the case that they all perform the part of your servants and waiting women? All of them being such, are they not incompetent to rule one another? or do they take it in turns to be now ruler and now servants? There must be a true Ruler (among them) whether by searching you can find out His character or not, there is neither advantage nor hurt, so far as the truth of His operation is concerned. When once we have received the bodily form complete, its parts do not fail to perform their functions till the end comes. In conflict with things or in harmony with them, they pursue their course to the end, with the speed of a galloping horse which cannot be stopped - is it not sad? To be constantly toiling all one's lifetime, without seeing the fruit of one's labour, and to be weary and worn out with his labour, without knowing where he is going to - is it not a deplorable case? Men may say, 'But it is not death;' yet of what advantage is this? When the body is decomposed, the mind will be the same along with it - must not the case be pronounced very deplorable? Is the life of man indeed enveloped in such darkness? Is it I alone to whom it appears so? And does it not appear to be so to other men?
I'd guess it's less "life is meaningless" than "know your place". So perhaps more Book of Job than nu-atheist.
Aiden Richardson
A joke?
Adrian Hall
Yes
Ayden Rivera
good point.
>he puts forward falsifiable physical theories Heraclitus: The sun is the size of a foot
as if this "empiricism" was a step in the direction towards natural science (which existed in the hellenistic and chinese worlds alike in their own particular manifestations)
