Your thoughts on "Tao Te Ching"?

Questions about Objectivism
1

I just got done reading the Tao Te Ching (a modern rendition) and I’ve found the book to hold so much truth and understanding in the most contradictory way possible.

But out of the contradictions alone, since they are in ‘poem’ form then should we (as human beings, not just objectivists) view such works as an Aesthetic and subjective rather than objective. The majority of the book was written in a very ‘mystic’ sense but for some reason it made more sense to me than most straight forward, logical concepts I’ve read.

Who else has read Tao Te Ching? And has anybody found that subscribing to the Tao provides you with more happiness (as it suggests).

I’ve always been in to meditation for awareness and relaxation and all the things that they spoke about (Uncarved block, be your true self) I never understood untill I saw it within me after reading the Tao Te Ching. I know that these concepts aren’t the most “objective” ever but would that cripple a new objectivist?

Anyone?

~Michael

2

I just got done reading the Tao Te Ching (a modern rendition) and I’ve found the book to hold so much truth and understanding in the most contradictory way possible.

The majority of the book was written in a very ‘mystic’ sense but for some reason it made more sense to me than most straight forward, logical concepts I’ve read.

Who else has read Tao Te Ching?  And has anybody found that subscribing to the Tao provides you with more happiness (as it suggests).

I’ve always been in to meditation for awareness and relaxation and all the things that they spoke about (Uncarved block, be your true self) I never understood untill I saw it within me after reading the Tao Te Ching.  I know that these concepts aren’t the most “objective” ever but would that cripple a new objectivist?

Anyone?

~Michael

Since truth is the product of the recognition of the facts of reality, and since the facts of reality do not permit contradictions, then there cannot be much truth in words formulated “in the most contradictory way possible.”

I think you may be using the word “objective” as if it stood for all things that are valued by Objectivism. As used in Objectivism, in this context, “objective” refers to a relationship between your mind and what exists. As a process in thinking it means, epistemologically, that you use reason and follow the laws of logic, and that you recognize, metaphysically, that facts exist independent of however you feel.

Art, if it is art, is not subjective but rather it is an objective expression of the values of the artist. We may not agree with and/or like the values being expressed, but we do not automatically label art we do not personally like as being subjective. Previously you said that you had Binswanger’s Lexicon so take a look at “art,” “esthetics,” and “objectivity” while you are awaiting Peikoff’s systematic presentation of Objectivism.

Although I do not think reading that book will necesartily “cripple a new objectivist,” I do think that you will benefit much more by reading the Objectivist material that you have, rather than the Tao Te Ching.

3

Thanks…me reading the Tao Te Ching was on a whim seeing how I had to return the book to my friend later that day. I picked it up and realized how short it was, so it was no issue to complete it.

I’m back reading my “The virtue of selfishness” so hopefully i’ll encounter some more insight into objectivism in the next couple days.

~Michael

4

I would caution you against looking too far into Eastern Philosophy as of yet-especially something such as the Tao. Eastern Philosophy is, from it’s metaphysics down, based upon a mystical, illogical world. While some of their ‘tools’ may seem appealing to you (ie. meditation, focus, awareness), the philosophy itself is not of much use. The small bits of truth you will find can also be found in Western Philosophy, and in a much greater degree.

5

I would caution you against looking too far into Eastern Philosophy as of yet-especially something such as the Tao. Eastern Philosophy is, from it’s metaphysics down, based upon a mystical, illogical world.  While some of their ‘tools’ may seem appealing to you (ie. meditation, focus, awareness), the philosophy itself is not of much use.  The small bits of truth you will find can also be found in Western Philosophy, and in a much greater degree.

I’m quite aware of what the far east has to offer with philosophy. I’ve been studying Buddhism for several years and I practiced mediation for a long time, still to this day (for relaxation). I didn’t find my answers there and found their logic to be backwards, but still satisfying at times. Objectivism has already given me most of the answers I was looking for in studying eastern philosophy but I feel that these wise men can’t be disqualified because they weren’t “objective” about reality. Most of the wisest men that follow eastern philosophy are happy, productive, wonderful people. I don’t like to pigeon hole myself into one specific form of thinking (regardless of how logical it may be), just for the simple fact that not everything can be answered with one form of thinking.

And in no way was I trying to debunk objectivism with the Tao Te Ching…just trying to see opinions on it’s contradictory insight.

~Michael

6

Also Jroberts.

That quote you have in your sig:

“The Master in the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.”

is by James A. Michner.

Great quote too!

7

stephen_speicher: Since truth is the product of the recognition of the facts of reality, and since the facts of reality do not permit contradictions, then there cannot be much truth in words formulated “in the most contradictory way possible.”

Some Languages are more capable than others are in expressing accurate descriptive statements, ie. they are more logical.

Would you say that words, like art, can be used to insight understanding of truth regardless of their logical consistency?

By intentionally writing contradictions in poetry do some poets not provoke and guide you to certain thoughts as a result of your efforts to resolve the contradiction?

Words can have power without being logical, and can be used for any number of things (the media), could they not be used to reveal truths that can only be experienced directly: for instance the feeling of self-respect, or of determination?

I believe it would be preferable for man to have more control over himself, though acknowledge the external environment can be manipulated to have an effect on lesser developed men’s emotions. Effects that could lead him in a positive direction.

Ill be interested to hear your thoughts on this Stephen.

8

I don’t like to pigeon hole myself into one specific form of thinking (regardless of how logical it may be), just for the simple fact that not everything can be answered with one form of thinking.

Everything can be answered through rational thinking. In fact, using reason and logic is the only way you will find proper answers to your questions.

I suggest that you stop pigeonholing yourself into believing that not everything can be answered with one form of thinking. Such a baseless, unsupported belief is hampering your intellectual development.

Maybe you like to sit down cross-legged, clear your mind and focus on your breathing, but that is not going to give you answers to the questions of the world. Focusing on reality and using your mind in a rational process of thought, however, will.

9

Some Languages are more capable than others are in expressing accurate descriptive statements, ie. they are more logical.

I am not sure that “more logical” is the correct notion, but certainly some languages are richer, capable of making finer discriminations than others. I’ll leave it to our resident linguist, Dave Odden, to expound on this issue, should he care to.

Would you say that words, like art, can be used to insight understanding of truth regardless of their logical consistency? 

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, and truth is the identification of the facts of reality, so you cannot really get to truth with logical inconsistency.

By intentionally writing contradictions in poetry do some poets not provoke and guide you to certain thoughts as a result of your efforts to resolve the contradiction?

If you mean: “Can a writer present two sides of an issue and lead you to a resolution,” then, yes, sure. But doing so would depend on logical consistency, not inconsistency.

Words can have power without being logical, and can be used for any number of things (the media),

If you mean: “Can a writer craft some words, devoid of logical arguments, yet filled with enough emotionalism that an uncrirical, unthinking person could be swayed by such words,” then, yes, sure. But that only works for those people who use their emotions in lieu of understanding by reason, the opposite of the Objectivist approach.

could they not be used to reveal truths that can only be experienced directly: for instance the feeling of self-respect, or of determination?

I honestly have no idea what you mean or what you have in mind.

I believe it would be preferable for man to have more control over himself, though acknowledge the external environment can be manipulated to have an effect on lesser developed men’s emotions. Effects that could lead him in a positive direction.

If you mean: “Should thinking men manipulate those who are not firmly committed to reason by tweaking their emotions,” then, no, they should not. Holding oneself up as an example of rationality and moral perfection, or creating characters in fiction with those qualities, can sometimes reach people who will not otherwise think about such issues, but that sort of appeal would only be of any potential value to those who have a good-enough sense of life to respond.

However, just to briefly address the broader issue: when Objectivism becomes the major philosophical influence in our society, I think actual Objectivists will still represent a small segment of the population. However, the influence of Objectivism will permeate down and the society in general will benefit from that rational influence, even those who get their philosophy from the comic strips.

10

Everything can be answered through rational thinking. In fact, using reason and logic is the only way you will find proper answers to your questions.

I suggest that you stop pigeonholing yourself into believing that not everything can be answered with one form of thinking. Such a baseless, unsupported belief is hampering your intellectual development.

Maybe you like to sit down cross-legged, clear your mind and focus on your breathing, but that is not going to give you answers to the questions of the world. Focusing on reality and using your mind in a rational process of thought, however, will.

Wow…thanks for putting it like that.

But I would like to clear something up…I never said sitting there with my legs crossed will bring me answers or enlightenment, all I said is that it is a tool. I’m sure there are other ways of concentration and relaxation, but thats the one I learned. With what I’ve learned I focus on reality and try to analyze my rational though processes.

But I like how you flipped the ‘pigeonhole’ comment on me…I never really thought of it like that. I’ve always seen the mind as the most powerful tool in the world but I never knew how to unlock it from all its restricting beliefs, more recently I’m seeing things make sense and seeing my mind as a powerful tool. Perhaps everything can be answered through rational thinking.

~Michael

11

Stephen_Speicher: “If you mean: “Can a writer craft some words, devoid of logical arguments, yet filled with enough emotionalism that an uncritical, unthinking person could be swayed by such words,” then, yes, sure. But that only works for those people who use their emotions in lieu of understanding by reason, the opposite of the Objectivist approach.”

Yes. People who have evaded rational judgement for emotive responses would certainly be affected. My question really concerns those who are consciously trying to implement reason. Would you not agree that to completely devoid your self of cultural prejudices, or emotional susceptibility is difficult/impossible?

Obviously you cannot escape emotions entirely; Indeed emotions have their rightful place. But as long as we have them - do not surroundings have an effect on them?

I think this clarifies what Im getting at.

If you accept this; does it follow that there are modes of, say, music - that are conducive to a rational mind? Premise here being that certain types of music are passive emotional engagements.

12

My question really concerns those who are consciously trying to implement reason. Would you not agree that to completely devoid your self of cultural prejudices, or emotional susceptibility is difficult/impossible?

Being rational does not mean that you expunge all emotion, but rather that such emotion is not granted cognitive significance.

Obviously you cannot escape emotions entirely; Indeed emotions have their rightful place. But as long as we have them - do not surroundings have an effect on them?

Your emotions are a response, an automatic assessment of things in relation to yourself.

I think this clarifies what Im getting at.

If you accept this; does it follow that there are modes of, say, music - that are conducive to a rational mind? Premise here being that certain types of music are passive emotional engagements.

Sorry, but none of this has clarified for me whatever it is that you are getting at.

13

Who else has read Tao Te Ching?  And has anybody found that subscribing to the Tao provides you with more happiness (as it suggests).

I’ve always been in to meditation for awareness and relaxation and all the things that they spoke about (Uncarved block, be your true self) I never understood untill I saw it within me after reading the Tao Te Ching.  I know that these concepts aren’t the most “objective” ever but would that cripple a new objectivist?

Laotzu’s Tao Te Ching is well known and influencial to the Far East as Homer’s Illiad was to the early Greeks.

(I read it on my own in arch.school because of F.L.Wright’s reference to it in the making of architectural space, even as I was reading Aristotle in order to understand the essence of Wright’s geometrical floor plans, as part of an independent study.)

Philosophically, if it was possible to combine Plato’s “Form” with Kant’s “things-in themselves” you’d have Laotzu’s “Tao”. So, the Tao is the Chinese answer to the same question about the workings of the Universe that the West would ask much later but had a completely different answer.

For an illutration of Laotzu’s Reality before there was Kant, the following is presented by his follower Chuangtzu:

"Limited by space, a frog in a well cannot

understand what is an ocean;

Limited by time, an insect in summer cannot understand what is ice."

It is polar opposite from Objectivism, all the way down.

Philosophically, the Tao does not propose Happiness since that would imply Unhappiness at another time. Existence is but a series of Dualities that no one can escape: one cannot have one without the other. So remain neutral. Remain unplugged. Such is the goal of Meditation.

Again, it is polar opposite from Objectivism, all the way down.

So, if you are interested in Happiness, the Tao is not it.

Kien

14

Laotzu’s Tao Te Ching is well known and influencial to the Far East as Homer’s Illiad was to the early Greeks.

(I read it on my own in arch.school because of F.L.Wright’s reference to it in the making of architectural space, even as I was reading Aristotle in order to understand the essence of Wright’s geometrical floor plans, as part of an independent study.)

Philosophically, the Tao does not propose Happiness since that would imply Unhappiness at another time. Existence is but a series of Dualities that no one can escape: one cannot have one without the other. So remain neutral. Remain unplugged.  Such is the goal of Meditation.

Again, it is polar opposite from Objectivism, all the way down.

Are you referring to Wright’s discussion of this in The Natural House, or in some other writing? I found it really interesting how Wright responded when he discovered how his idea of interior space being the reality of the building, was not original to him, but was an ancient Oriental thought. After reading about his idea in an old book, Wright says:

“Closing the little book, I went out to break stone on the road, trying to get my interior self together. I was like a sail coming down: I had thought of myself as an original, but was not.”

However, Wright notes that several days later his perspective changed.

“But I began to swell up again when I thought: ‘After all, who built it? Who put that thought into a building? Laotse nor anyone had consciously built it.’ When I thought of that, naturally enough I thought, ‘Well then, everything is all right, we can still go along with head up.’ I have been going along – head up – ever since.”

A decidedly non-Oriental perspective! Despite Wright’s romance with the mystical orient, his spirit remained intact.

For an illutration of Laotzu’s Reality  before there was Kant, the following is presented by his follower Chuangtzu:

"Limited by space, a frog in a well cannot

understand what is an ocean;

Limited by time, an insect in summer cannot understand what is ice."

It is polar opposite from Objectivism, all the way down.

Can you articulate exactly in what way this is the “polar opposite of Objectivism?”

15

Are you referring to Wright’s discussion of this in The Natural House, or in some other writing? I found it really interesting how Wright responded …

Yes, it was in the final pages of “The Natural House” that he referenced Laotzu but quoted from a book that had a Japanese passage about architectural space.

His reaction was typically Wright.

16

Can you articulate exactly in what way this is the “polar opposite of Objectivism?”

I can try.

Let me first put Chuangtzu in philosophical context.

In the oriental view of the universe as expressed by Laotzu, the Tao is the intangible, the undefinable resevoir from which the potentials of life is drawn from.

Life as an organic whole is the manifestation of the Tao. Life is plastic and changing, whereas the Tao is permanent.

The Tao is unknowable; it cannot even be named.

"The Tao that can be told is not the permanent Tao;

the names that can be given are not the permanent names" (Ch.1)

Such is the premise and conclusion of Taoism.

A whole school of thought came about and dominated the Far East ever since(500B.C.).

Chuangzu was the most brilliant spokesman for Taoism.

Once again from Chuangzu’s essay “Autumn Flood”

"Limited by space, a frog in a well cannot

understand what is an ocean;

Limited by time, an insect in summer cannot

understand what is ice"

This is his most famous passage and can be appreciated universally for expressing

brilliantly a philosophy and view of life.

Taoism, as poetic as it can be expressed, is polar opposite of Objectivism.

T: The Taoist frog in a well cannot understand what is an ocean, because it is (a frog) limited by the space of a well.

O: But a frog in a well cannot understand what is an ocean because it is a frog (limited by the space of a well). A frog cannot understand an ocean even if it is swimming in it.

T:The Taoist insect in summer cannot understand ice, because it is limited in time.

O: But an insect cannot understand ice, even if in winter.

So as not to beat Chuangztu over the head with the A is A stick too much, his passage should be read as a presentation of Laotzu’s view of reality as relative.

Taoism holds the view of reality as what we are able to perceive around us because we are limited by space and time ( thus the importance of face saving); instead of reality as objectively known by means of logic and experience. It suggests a picture of life, the manifestation of Tao, where nothing can be absolutely known.

Aesthetically, Chuangtzu’s passage is an indication of a world so overwhelmed with ignorance such that full understanding is not ever possible. For some men, only thru pure intuition (thru a life’s time of practice) can enlightment be possible.

It is a poetic and tragic view of life; in the subdued moonlight a frog in a well destined never to know the ocean. The passage of time is not counted by the movement of the sun but the phases of the moon: the 28 day month of the lunar calendar and the cycles of the seasons.

With poetic licence, I’d like to try my hands at a “polar opposite” passage of Chaungtzu:

" Limited by space, a frog sits like a King in the coolness of its well.

Limited by time, a butterfly sails freely with the summer breeze"

Kien

17

Kien, thanks for the analysis. Unfortunately I am not sure I followed it all.

When I first read the frog and insect lines, I took them as being symbolic rather than literal. I took the frog line as saying that if we want to know the world, if we want knowledge, we must expand to a broad perspective. And, I took the insect line as saying that we can learn things from history, things we may not otherwise be able to directly experience.

This was all out of any context as I did not know the Tao philosophy as you do, and perhaps I just gave the words my most generous understanding.

18

When I first read the frog and insect lines, I took them as being symbolic rather than literal. I took the frog line as saying that if we want to know the world, if we want knowledge, we must expand to a broad perspective. And, I took the insect line as saying that we can learn things from history, things we may not otherwise be able to directly experience.

This was all out of any context as I did not know the Tao philosophy as you do, and perhaps I just gave the words my most generous understanding.

Ah, I think I can understand your position.

The prose is meant to be more than literal, but my understanding of the words are metaphysical whereas yours might be epistemological. Perhaps the prose involves both.

The 2 verses are to be taken as an organic whole to mean that we, limited by space and time, can not understand the manifestations of life and the source of changes: the Tao.

As such, in the Taoist epistemology, there is no (objective) knowledge to be had; just direct and expansive experience and the empty mind to be filled passively with intuitive understanding .

They had no Aristotle or Galileo or any known supernatural beings, so their epistemology is slim (quite opposite of Objectivism).

Of course, I am no Taoist sage nor its spokesman and only speaking here from my own interest in the consequences of ideas.

Kien

19

Everything can be answered through rational thinking. In fact, using reason and logic is the only way you will find proper answers to your questions.

I suggest that you stop pigeonholing yourself into believing that not everything can be answered with one form of thinking. Such a baseless, unsupported belief is hampering your intellectual development.

Maybe you like to sit down cross-legged, clear your mind and focus on your breathing, but that is not going to give you answers to the questions of the world. Focusing on reality and using your mind in a rational process of thought, however, will.

Actually meditation has several positive effects. Very advanced buddhists monks have been shown to have more developed left frontal lobes then the normal man.

Buddhism will also drop doctrines that have been proven wrong by science. So I would not include Buddhism in the list of irrational eastern philosophy. Granted they rely heavily on mysticism (aka objectivist kryptonite), I actually enjoy reading into mysticism, especially sufism.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod…1030-000001.asp

20

Meditation does have good effects from what I have experienced and read about it. I don’t think you have to take all the other crap that comes with it. It belongs in the same catagory as physical exercise than anything to do with philosophy.