Stoicism and Taoism

Provience

Kill!
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Member Number
15
Messages
11,231
Loc
Gatesville, TX
Ancient (ish) European vs Ancient (ish) Chinese Philosophy.

both arise about the same time period 300-500BC

whatchu got? anybody recommend some quality reading, looking for some variety on the subject.
 
https://thewisemind.net/misconceptions-about-stoicism/

Furthermore, meditating on death is a very pragmatic exercise. Ask yourself: what is the only certainty I have in life right now? The answer is: someday I will die. There is nothing you can do to avoid death, and not talking or thinking about it will not postpone it or allow you to escape it. Acknowledging that death is inevitable is a really good way to focus on the parts of your life that requires attention and improvement.

This reminder makes you question your beliefs, your fears, the way you are living your life, and how you are dealing with problems. It makes you rethink the way you spend or waste your time. It makes you reestablish your list of priorities and values. Stoics do not worship death. In fact, they do quite the opposite – they worship life. Death simply serves as a reminder for us to value our life.

this concept, that i first came across in this rather direct form years ago, was Buddhist as presented and resonated well with me. In addition to the fact that i'm an uncaring asshole of a person with strange passions, stoicism really seems like something i need to be taking a deeper look into.

Is there a greater individualist or moral belief system? I'm not sure. Stoics seem to place the greatest emphasis on the phrase "focus on the things you can control".
 
https://www.ancient.eu/Taoism/

To Lao-Tzu (the name is used here as an expression of Taoist thought), the more regulations one demanded, the harder one made one's life and the lives of others. If one relaxed the artificial rules and regulations which were supposed to improve life, only then would one find that life naturally regulates itself and one would fall into pace with the Tao which runs through and regulates and binds and releases all things naturally.

which is not to say that taoism supports only outright anarchy, but that the individual control and the awareness of the greater impact of that control is the greater pursuit, rather than seeking the dominion over others.
 
Further into Meowism . .. .


41HWE6GXKRL._SX350_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\nTao Te Ching by Lao Tzu\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\nStoicism: A Detailed Breakdown of Stoicism Philosophy and Wisdom from the Greats: A Complete Guide To Stoicism by George Tanner\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\nLetters from a Stoic (Penguin Classics) by Lucius Annaeus Seneca\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ncurrent list of 6. anything i need to add or remove?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n
 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/daoism/


edit: the SEP article on stoicism is long, but interesting and well resourced. There is some bias and assumptions in the article that make it read awkward at times, for example it is entirely neutral in pronouns outside of direct references, expect for 1 paragraph where it refers constantly to "stoic sage" as "her/she". this is strange because there are and were no recorded "stoic wise women or sages". sure, it is "modern equality and ****" but it feels very clunky and awkward. of course women can engage in philosophy, but it feels very revisionist to put the label there, when it otherwise does not exist across the neutral article. Also, despite laying out plainly stoic values and notions, the author at several times assumes the reader is unable to consider those viewpoints. saying things like "against common sense" or "money is clearly a primary motive" or "health is a primary motive" and trying to angle arguments around those notions, which are reasonably rejected as false. Several "modern straw man" type critiques that are tossed in there for no reason other than to disrupt the feel of the article and comes across as insulting, rather than enlightening. Overall, highly recommend.
 
Last edited:
while it seems ze german twit is still taking his time at offering what freedom and liberty mean to him, this is a pretty difficult to find disagreeable

The Stoics also discuss a notion of freedom that is rather more moral than metaphysical. This sense of freedom involves ‘the power to live as you will’ (Cicero, Stoic Paradoxes 5, 34). It turns out, for reasons that will be discussed below in the section on ethics, that only the Stoic wise man is truly free. All others are slaves.
 
With Mogwai comes much responsibility . . .

Wut is "Zeitgeist" (sp ? ) ?????? :eek:
 
With Mogwai comes much responsibility . . .

Wut is "Zeitgeist" (sp ? ) ?????? :eek:

zeit·geist

/ˈtsītˌɡīst,ˈzītˌɡīst/
noun
noun: zeitgeist
  • the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time.
    "the story captured the zeitgeist of the late 1960s"

according to the internet :rasta:

philosophy is interesting stuff. it took the domination of the late romans to crush out much indigenous european thought much the same as the ottomans or mongols or chinese communist party.

history from the view of philosophy, history from the view of war, history from the view of religion, history from the view of economics...trying to figure out how to teach the things of the times to the kid, and really 2500 years ago isn't all that long. especially when you consider that Utah only came out of the stone age about 200 years ago
 
For Taoism look up Daniele Bolelli lecture.

It’s worth the money, it’s worth the time, and it’s solidified so much stuff for me.

https://www.danielebolelli.com/downl...oist-lectures/

I Also got my yoga teacher training certificate through a school that was very Taoist in nature.

If you have specific questions, regarding the principles, and not the magic, post them up.

for books start easy ... The Tao of Pooh
 
Last edited:
For Taoism look up Daniele Bolelli lecture.

It’s worth the money, it’s worth the time, and it’s solidified so much stuff for me.

https://www.danielebolelli.com/downl...oist-lectures/

I Also got my yoga teacher training certificate through a school that was very Taoist in nature.

If you have specific questions, regarding the principles, and not the magic, post them up.

must have been you that mentioned it the other day then, thanks for bringing it up. that thought redirected me for a bit, just couldn't remember who it was :beer:
 
Deep Thoughts with Provience.:flipoff2:

here is an interesting deep thought :flipoff2:

In any event, there is an absolute distinction between the wise and the ignorant. Only the Stoic sage’s assent to cognitive impressions clearly counts as knowledge for only a sage has the proper discipline always to avoid withdrawing assent, or assenting to things that one shouldn’t. The Stoics call this epistemic virtue ‘non-precipitancy’ (aproptôsia) and it underlies their claim that the Stoic sage never makes mistakes (41D).

which is why we are all slaves and even a wise man may not be a sage. to achieve the greatest stoic knowledge, to hold as true only the truly infallible is as near impossible as any worthwhile thing. claim to be a sage, make a mistake and lose your sage status :rasta:
 
There's a great movie for those that want Coles notes. Although you won't understand **** unless you were drawn to any of these ideas to begin with on your own.

https://www.imdb.com/***le/tt0374546/
 
So far the emphasis has been on just one component of the Stoic formulation of the goal or end of life: it is the “rational selection of the things according to nature.” The other thing that needs to be stressed is that it is rational selection – not the attainment of – these things which constitutes happiness. (The Stoics mark the distinction between the way we ought to opt for health as opposed to virtue by saying that I select (eklegomai) the preferred indifferent but I choose (hairoûmai) the virtuous action.) Even though the things according to nature have a kind of value (axia) which grounds the rationality of preferring them (other things being equal), this kind of value is still not goodness. From the point of view of happiness, the things according to nature are still indifferent. What matters for our happiness is whether we select them rationally and, as it turns out, this means selecting them in accordance with the virtuous way of regarding them (and virtuous action itself).

...

The Stoics...claim that so long as I order (and express) my preferences in accordance with my nature and universal nature, I will be virtuous and happy, even if I do not actually get the things I prefer. Though these things are typically appropriate to me, rational choice is even more appropriate or akin to me, and so long as I have that, then I have perfected my nature. The perfection of one’s rational nature is the condition of being virtuous and it is exercising this, and this alone, which is good

.
 
Dao-centered philosophical reflection engendered a distinctive ambivalence in advocacy—manifested in their indirect, non-argumentative style, their use of poetry and parable. In ancient China, the political implication of this Dao-ism was mainly an opposition to authority, government, coercion, and even to normal socialization in values. Daoist “spontaneity” was contrasted with subtle or overt indoctrination in any specific or social dao.

...

The result is that ‘Religious Daoism’ has become a deeply malleable concept. Creel’s famous question “What is Taoism?” (1970) remains as difficult as ever for Daoist religion. We defer to scholars of religion to sort out the conceptual limits of Daoist religion and baldly focus on what philosophical content can be extracted from the classical exemplars: Laozi and Zhuangzi

baseline notions for the SEP article. solid, because the philosophy is what is more interesting to me than the religion
 
baseline notions for the SEP article. solid, because the philosophy is what is more interesting to me than the religion

Only a ****ing American would think Tao is a religion.

:mad3:

And by American, I mean the West. Europe too.

Ok, maybe not South America.
 
Last edited:
Only a ****ing American would think Tao is a religion.

:mad3:

And by American, I mean the West. Europe too.

Ok, maybe not South America.

The norms themselves are subject to discursive, norm guided reflection and revision—which gives philosophy the familiar open, “meta” character that underwrites its image as “thinking about thinking.” Relatively religious approaches (even within philosophy) rely on appeals to “higher” transcendent or hyper-human perspectives to guide thinking. This disciplinary difference in the approach to areas of overlap, e.g., metaphysics and ethics, emerges from philosophy’s relatively greater focus on logic and epistemology.

...

From this mildly skeptical or relativist base, philosophical Daoism tends toward pluralism, perspectivalism, skepticism, political equality and freedom. Religious “mysticism” usually is accompanied by a credulous assertion of supernatural epistemic abilities—control of some abstruse or magical way of overcoming skepticism. This is often explained by a supposed Daoist correlate of Confucian cultivation and the sage. It is typically the associated with some intuitive or “superlative” direct access to a single correct dao[SUB]way:guide[/SUB]. As its special insight cannot be justified to those with “ordinary” perspectives and/or cannot be put into language and argument, it tends to generate the esoteric, hierarchical and authoritarian attitudes familiar in religions as well as the institutions that initiate and cultivate the common human into the idealized adept.

The Confucian-like emphasis on “cultivating” this special epistemic ability, obediently following teachers and traditions contrasts with the philosophical strain’s emphasis on natural spontaneity, freedom and egalitarianism which seems to Confucians like a plea for anarchy. This is because in the context of Ancient China, the assumed role of government is cultivating moral character, that is, instilling the same moral dao[SUB]way:guide[/SUB] in everyone whether by education, attraction or force. (The gap between the religious and philosophical versions of the political attitudes can be partially closed if it treats the content of the transcendent dao as egalitarian, empty or anarchist—hence available equally to all with no need of hierarchy or training).

this later but still early section dives a bit more into the philosophy vs religion difference. can tao be viewed as religious? sure, because religion is very open and every walk is a way.

Similar to how Stoicism is not outright religious but is compatible with religion and can be viewed as religious if we ascribe breathe and god to higher perspective, Tao can also be viewed as open to religion and viewed as religious if Great Tao is the higher perspective and the mysticism results.


at least, that is my early takeaway from reading the articles.

I also have long been cautious of accepting the notion that "Myths" are altogether different from "Religions" i.e. pre-christian native american follow myths, zorostrianism is built around myths, greek and roman mythology, etc. the concept that religions are only codified about 1K A.D. and then essentially fixed there is odd
 
Only a ****ing American would think Tao is a religion.

:mad3:

And by American, I mean the West. Europe too.

Ok, maybe not South America.

I think the Tao has no dogma. It just is.

but I met a nice Chinese lady who grew up in Taoism going to temple and rituals in China and it was my understanding they took it as a religiousness and she had shockingly little knowledge of the true Tao philosophy .

you could also read Taoism by Eva Wong and she goes into the religious and magic / mystic orders of Taoism
 
I think the Tao has no dogma. It just is.

but I met a nice Chinese lady who grew up in Taoism going to temple and rituals in China and it was my understanding they took it as a religiousness and she had shockingly little knowledge of the true Tao philosophy .

you could also read Taoism by Eva Wong and she goes into the religious and magic / mystic orders of Taoism

here is an interesting point that is generally relevant.

Hence, “follow the natural dao” is empty (tautological) as a normative guide—a dao that does not dao. Whatever dao we choose will be a natural one, in virtue of being one we in fact can choose and “walk”.

edit: here is another good segment

In the definitional texts, the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, the epistemic grounds are arguably more skeptical and perspectival than dogmatic. There is little unambiguous appeal to direct mystical experience or insight. In these texts, hypothetical exemplars of such authoritative, superlative knowledge of dao are typically described as being both incomprehensible and irrelevant to us and our practical questions. In any case, the ambiguous style of both texts comports poorly with the implicit authoritarianism of the religious movement and it is very hard to show how philosophically the use of breathing techniques, meditation, proto-yogic practices or hallucinogens could vouchsafe such supernatural epistemic achievements. They do nothing to explain or justify the sophisticated philosophical understanding of dao we can find in these texts.
 
Last edited:
Here is the Zhuangzi “Tianxia” account of Shen Dao’s group:

For the general public, not cliques; changing and without selfishness; decisive but without any control; responsive to things without dividing in two. Not absorbed with reflection. Not calculating in knowing how. Not choosing among natural kinds and flowing along with them.
They took bonding all the natural kinds together as the key. They said, “tian[SUB]nature:sky[/SUB] constancies can cover but cannot sustain; Earthly cycles can sustain but cannot cover it. Great dao[SUB]guide[/SUB] can embrace it but cannot distinguish it.” We know the myriad natural kinds all have both that which is acceptable and that which is unacceptable. So they said, “If you select then you cannot be comprehensive, if you teach you cannot convey all of it. Dao[SUB]guide[/SUB] does not leave anything out.”
Hence Shen Dao “abandoned knowledge and discarded ‘self’.” He flowed with the inevitable and was indifferent to natural kinds … . He lived together with shi and fei, mixed acceptable and avoidable. He didn’t treat knowing and deliberation as guides, didn’t know front from back. He was indifferent to everything.
If he was pushed he went, if pulled he followed—like a leaf whirling in the stream, like a feather in a wind, like dust on a millstone. He was complete and distinguished (fei) nothing … . So he said, “reach for being like things without knowledge of what to do. Don’t use worthies and sages. Even a clod of earth cannot miss Dao.”
The worthy officials all laughed at him and said, “Shen Dao’s dao does not lead to the conduct of a living man but the tendency of a dead man. It is really very strange… .” (Zhuangzi Ch. 33)


Shen Dao’s conception of great dao reminds us of the actual world among possible worlds—it is the actual history of the universe. Shen Dao avers that there is just one such total history—one actual past and one actual future. The actual is, obviously, natural so the great dao (the natural pattern of behaviors, events and processes) requires no learning, no knowledge, no language or shi-fei[SUB]this-not this[/SUB] distinctions. “Even a clod of earth cannot miss the great dao.” Shen Dao’s insight undermines all these guiding schemes that claim tian[SUB]nature’s[/SUB] approval as justification. The crucial implication of his approach is that great dao has no normative force. To say “follow great dao[SUB]guide[/SUB]” is as trivial as “do what you actually will do.” When we think of dao as the actual course of all nature, it is obvious we will follow it.

interesting approach
 
Last edited:
If you have specific questions, regarding the principles, and not the magic, post them up.

specific personal question premise:

The most famous line of Daoist meta-theory of dao opens the Daode Jing.Dao that can be dao-ed is not constant dao.”

...

So what is Laozi denying when he is made to say “names that can be named are not constant names?” The skepticism here can be read in two ways. One is there is no correct way to use a name so contrary to Mohism, no standard is “nature’s” constant standard of choice of a dao. The other reading is interpretive—no pattern of correct past use (no social practice) uniquely determines what concrete behavior counts as correct here-now (or in the future). So, as Mozi had argued, tradition cannot determine what is the correct dao, but, the Laozi seems to add, that is so even presupposing a tradition. There is no constant (correct) way to interpret that practice/dao into action.

The negative result may be read in several ways.
  1. It may be pure nihilism—there is no such thing as correct dao.
  2. It may be skepticism—correct dao can never be known;
  3. Or as anti-language—correct dao cannot be put in words or conveyed as guidance to another.

i'm curious if you would read the first line in one of the three following ways or some other way, if so and why or how is your basis?
 
question for you if you have it:

Is it a version that is sort of Pure Diary Format or is it a lead in/lead out kind of thing with commentary associated with his writings?



Passed it on a couple years ago.

It had a bunch of commentary with it, didn't like it all that much, the commentator(s) we're trying to tell you what it meant. I'd much rather read it and find out what it means to me first.
 
Passed it on a couple years ago.

It had a bunch of commentary with it, didn't like it all that much, the commentator(s) we're trying to tell you what it meant. I'd much rather read it and find out what it means to me first.

thanks.

i don't always mind the commentary, but really do need to consider it as "associated opinion". as long as the meat is presented, i can chew on some fat. gives me people to argue with in my head :laughing:

kind of like the reading i'm doing now with the stanford encyclopdia on Daoism, they make several references to "stoic daoism" that is a couple hundred years prior to the creation of stoicism.
 
I hear you, definitely like hearing others opinions to compare to and think about, just like the first read to be unadulterated.

Luckily I'm pretty good at ignoring the commentaries. :lmao:
 
Top Back Refresh