/lit/ - Literature

>>17463428
The Tao The Ching.

It's fucking obvious, wtf.

the first line of the Dao Teh Q'ing is all you need my nigga

>>17463428
no it's not but it's pretty kino

>>17463428
>>17463438
Zhuang Zhi is a better entry point. Then Lie Zi. Then TTJ.
Yes it is. I tried every ideology from every angle but in the end always only daoism made sense.

>>17463444
sorry, but the tao that's pretty kino is not in fact the eternal tao

>>17463457
>Yes it is.
What gave you that feeling?
>>17463444
What do you think comes after?

>>17463460
kino transcends the duality of yin and yang

>>17463465
As I said it's the only thing that made sense.
From epistemology, to life quality, to spirituality, to pragmatism the best answers I always found were daoist.

>>17463428


THE TAO IS ETERNAL; YOU CANNOT «START WITH IT», NOR DOES IT HAVE AN «ENDGAME»; PHILOSOPHY IS NOT FOR YOU.

>>17463465
our civilization hasn't reached its own endgame yet but any philosophy which doesn't acknowledge the fact that humans are inherently flawed and can't heal themselves on their own is by definition incomplete.
Taoism is good for the prelapsarian man who would follow it instinctively, the fact that it still has to be spelled out for us (although in such a way that makes clear the inadequacy of words to explain it) means we cannot "get" it.
Attempting anyway is still a noble pursue.

>>17463479
Fuck off retard

>>17463486
>our civilization hasn't reached its own endgame yet but any philosophy which doesn't acknowledge the fact that humans are inherently flawed and can't heal themselves on their own is by definition incomplete.
It's funny because in large sections daoism refures precisely that mindset.

>>17463428
Actually you can just skip Taoism and start from assuming that the fundamental theorem of calculus is a metaphysical principle, and instead read Whitehead, Bergson, and others in similar philosophical currents. That way you can completely avoid all the unnecessary baggage that Taoism carries.

Details: >>17428560

>>17463486
>the fact that humans are inherently flawed and can't heal themselves on their own
Sounds like crypto-abrahamism.

>>17463479
Fuck off retard

>>17463499
that doesn't sound very wu wei at all

>>17463501
>>17463497
yes, I am criticizing Taoism and saying that it's incomplete because it refuses the truth of human condition.

>>17463479
lmao

>>17463527
No it's not you're just asserting an end goal to which things could or should point. The universe doesn't care about you and all the things you value are impermanent. YOU seek an ideology that can change this truth.

>>17463499
>Whitehead, Bergson, and others in similar philosophical currents
they conflate object and subject, an easy error to make if one is only an amateur philosopher. Which they were because in both cases they dabbled in philosophy from other carreers.

>>17463538
didn't do anything of the sort.
The only thing which I said which is similar to that is that we haven't reached our endgame "yet"
in retrospect, that implies that we will potentially reach it in the future which is obviously wrong.

>>17463544
How about you spell out your criticism of daoism in a cohesive manner like an adult for us to respond to instead of ranting and trying to look uppity.

>>17463521
Nothing is more "wu wei" than the incredible ability of epistemological self-transformation that modern science has demonstrated.

Based Lao Tzooo
>just relax
>tao is beyond words
Resident Daoism Expert
>gets mad
>recommends books

>>17463550
I did.
Taoism ultimately doesn't recognize that humans are flawed beings forever doomed by caprice of evolution or original sin to wish for what they will never have and forever be unsatisfied.
It is a good philosophy for prelapsarian men who would follow it by instinct, but the fact that it has to be explained to us means we cannot attain the Tao.

>>17463563
Lao Zi was an advisor to local princes. He was not at all opposed to taking advice from daoist sages.

>>17463563
It's like that for every eastern philosophy on /lit/
>buddha said be equanimous and don't attach to ideas and doctrines
>/lit/ buddhists endlessly seethe and argue about every little thing
And don't get me started on hinduism

>>17463567
>doomed by caprice of evolution or original sin to wish for what they will never have and forever be unsatisfied.
>It is a good philosophy for prelapsarian men
Oh I see you're one of those. Well original sin didn't happen so that's not a concern. I will agree however that daoism does not suit christlarpers.

>>17463567
>original sin

>>17463578
Buddha argued extensively with bramans and other people. Maybe you're just looning for a stock answer to dismis philosophies you don't understand.

>>17463567
trying to attain it anyway is indeed virtuous all the same, but the whole point is that it's not something you "obtain" or "reach" in any way.

>>17463585
>Buddha argued extensively with bramans and other people.
Yeah I'm sure that justifies you """buddhists""" acting like sectarian retards and autistically debating metaphysics and abstract ideas because you're too attached to your conceptions. You're not missing the point at all.
>you don't understand
Sure bud, keep intellectualizing everything.

>>17463579
>>17463583
will you two deny that people fear death, toil hard to obtain things they don't need or even really want and suffer constantly for attachment to frivolous things?
Will you deny that women give birth in pain and the progeny passes the whole length of his life unsatisfied and suffering until death inevitably causes him irreversible and eternal harm?
How is this the behaviour of a species that fits it's conditions? How is this the behaviour of a species that simply came to be through natural evolution? Isn't that process supposed to make us Fit In with the conditions of our world?

>>17463598
I'm not a buddhist and yes it does.

>>17463607
>I'm not a buddhist
Well, you are a retard that's for sure

you know the very instant Gautama died, his blockhead followers immediately started bickering over how many trillion kalpas it takes to reach level four giga-enlightenment. every wise man had to suffer the same fate.

>>17463606
Just become a buddhist if suffering affects you that much, everything you say is addressed by its philosophy

>>17463606
>will you two deny that people fear death, toil hard to obtain things they don't need or even really want and suffer constantly for attachment to frivolous things?
>Will you deny that women give birth in pain and the progeny passes the whole length of his life unsatisfied and suffering until death inevitably causes him irreversible and eternal harm?
God christlarpers are so annoying. Craving things you don't need is one of the main things daoism criticises. Stop smelling your own farts.
>How is this the behaviour of a species that fits it's conditions? How is this the behaviour of a species that simply came to be through natural evolution? Isn't that process supposed to make us Fit In with the conditions of our world?
Evolution is descriptive not prescriptive. It doesn't want anything. If big skulled kids reproduce women end up feeling pain giving birth.

>>17463615
Should doctrines be disregarded? Should we strive to find truth by ourselves?

>>17463619
quietism doesn't address anything.
>>17463623
on evolution: I'm just done describing it as descriptive.
Criticizing something doesn't mean you have the means to stop it.
In this case we cannot stop on our own.

>>17463539
All that you're saying is that they represent a turn away from the foundation of traditional Western metaphysics, with its logocentric emphasis on permanence, completeness, and decidability.

In the past few hundred years the modern sciences has illustrated a story of the universe characterized by radical change over the history of its existence, novel physical systems and objects emerging from the interaction between physical events. A similar story of dynamic change over time is described by biology, geology, sociology, art. Any philosophy that doesn't respond to the implications of this view of reality disclosed by the modern sciences has detached itself from a vital source of philosophical imagination.

>>17463634
to be clearer what I'm saying is that if you two were correct we wouldn't give a fuck allready about our conditions on this planet yet we do.

>>17463630
>Should doctrines be disregarded
yes
>Should we strive
no

>>17463634
Countless people stopped this on their own and have a bigger success rate than christians. This whole larp doesn't work outside of echo chambers.

>>17463639
it is a fancy way to say "they made fallacious arguments" but ok.

>>17463634
>quietism doesn't address anything.
It does, you're just too stupid and deluded to understand why.

>>17463641
>>Should we strive
>no
What should we do then
Are you advocating for hedonism?

>>17463645
>LARP
here we go the last resort of the liberal modernist larper, accusing other people to LARP without addressing their point.
We are done here, I wish you to be actually able to reach the quiet you wish, I'm sure you'll have no problem with that.

>>17463649
I'm serious. Pretending to be dead when alive just makes you dead sooner.

>>17463658
>Pretending to be dead when alive
Yep, absolutely retarded.

>>17463646
If you don't want to discuss a topic, that's fine.

>>17463653
why do you need to do anything? what does hedonism bring but more headaches? why do you require external validation and guidance?

>>17463567
you showed your hand
the only original sin is believing that original sin exists. if you assume you're an impure being from the very beginning you'll always have that mote in your eye. I urge you to undertake a serious reexamination of your assumption.

>>17463671
He won't because he doesn't want to have to face any personal responsibility

>>17463670
>why do you need to do anything?
Maybe my actions in this life influence what happens after I die.
> what does hedonism bring but more headaches?
There is beauty in the world that is worth experiencing.
>why do you require external validation and guidance?
Because I feel lost

>>17463615
it's true but you can still see the path he laid out if your mind is clear. anyone can be (and is) Buddha

>>17463698
What path was that?

>>17463641
>no
But I want to strive, to exhaust every ounce of my life in the exploration of potentiality, leaving behind only the heat-waste of expired activity that fades into a speck of nothingness in the fullness of time, dissolving in the bliss of forgetfulness.

>>17463686
>Maybe my actions in this life influence what happens after I die.
maybe idk
>There is beauty in the world that is worth experiencing.
sure, i've never regretted observing wildlife or watching the sunset. are those hedonistic?
>Because I feel lost
because you think you ought be someplace, maybe there's nothing to find, idk

>>17463754
>are those hedonistic?
They're pleasurable, so I guess pursuing those things would count as hedonism but what do I know. Whether it's a sunset or getting coked out and railing a hooker, both fundamentally boil down to pleasure
>you think you ought be someplace, maybe there's nothing to find
But that answer doesn't satisfy me. I'd like it to, but so far I haven't been confronted to anything that really drove the point home. So I'm still chasing something even though I maybe shouldn't. Any books on this?

>>17463686
>Because I feel lost
Okay, now stop labeling that as something bad and accept it as it is.
You can go after beauty, but you can also stop differentiating between "beauty" and "ugliness" and accept the oneness of it all.
We don't know what comes after death, that should be accepted too, but not as a knowing of non-knowing, but simply as it is, a non-knowing.

>>17463671
hmmm no
i passed most of my life assuming I wasn't impure and I was miserable.
>>17463674
projecting much

>>17463774
Literal NPC

>>17463768
>accept it as it is.
How?
>you can also stop differentiating between "beauty" and "ugliness" and accept the oneness of it all.
If beauty and ugliness are undifferentiated, nothing is beautiful anymore. Why would I want this?
>that should be accepted too
I'm still bothered by the thought "what if my current actions are wrong and will lead to an unfavorable outcome".

>>17463768
the cat doesn't accept the oneness of cat and mouse, it catches the mouse and tortures it because it's a cat

>>17463790
>How?
Stopping labeling things isn't that hard, it's a non-effort, it's the labeling that is an effort.
>If beauty and ugliness are undifferentiated, nothing is beautiful anymore. Why would I want this?
You don't have to want it but that's how it is, you can either go along with it or fight against it.
>I'm still bothered by the thought "what if my current actions are wrong and will lead to an unfavorable outcome".
You wouldn't be if you would stop differentiating between "right" and "wrong". Obviously I'm not inciting you to do anything illegal, I'm just trying to go full Dao here, which is not very Dao, but hey

>>17463763
>>17463790
>They're pleasurable, so I guess pursuing those things would count as hedonism
i can tell the difference between the two, that's good enough for me
>that answer doesn't satisfy me
maybe the question is your problem
>If beauty and ugliness are undifferentiated, nothing is beautiful anymore. Why would I want this?
beauty and ugliness do exist, you know this already. pretending otherwise is just another chore
>i'm still bothered by the thought "what if my current actions are wrong and will lead to an unfavorable outcome".
maybe they are and will, no one knows. day to day cause and effect is more of an urgent concern to me. i stopped smoking when i developed gum problems.

>>17463850
>it's a non-effort, it's the labeling that is an effort.
Somewhat, but the process is so deeply ingrained that it's as much of an "effort" as any other instinctual reflex.
>that's how it is
In absolute terms I get it. But as humans don't we have an inherent bias that makes us sensitive to a duality between beauty and ugliness that isn't decided as much as it's spontaneously felt?
>You wouldn't be if you would stop differentiating between "right" and "wrong".
If you take the abrahamist example, some actions lead to heaven, others lead to hell. One is favorable, one is not.
If you take the dharmic example, some actions lead to liberation, others lead to rebirh or reincarnation. One is favorable, one is not.
I'm not making a value judgment nor am I making any assumptions about the nature of the afterlife. I'm aware that value judgments are devoid of any intrinsic substance.

>>17463851
>i can tell the difference between the two
Obviously. For some other things the line is blurred or becomes more subtle.
>maybe the question is your problem
If there is nothing to be pursued, if seeking is pointless, why are we here?

>>17464009
Based

>>17463705
This.
Kinda wanna fuse taoism with Nietzsche and become a masochistic creativity machine that kills itself in the process of conquest/creation, while not giving a shit

>>17464002
Look, I mostly paraphrased Daoistic ideas here, if you want answers you would better off read the texts themselves, they are very ambiguous as they are, but that's part of their point. If you want to get to the core of your problems, you can stop differentiating between "self" and "other", the "endgame" of Daoism it seems to me is a sort of non-conscious, infant-like state of mind. As for these things going against human nature, the Zhuangzi actually addresses this, there were the men of ancient times for whom there were no things, then later men started percieveing things but without boundaries between them, then the boundaries came, and then the labeling starting with "right" and "wrong". Now, I guess one could argue that that's the natural flow of human evolution, and if you want to revert to earlier stages you are actually going against the flow of all things, but it isn't necessarily a reversion, they don't deny that we are past those times, but this state of being they seem to advocate very well could be the next stage of human consciousness if we let it. Then again, you can't really argue with a daoist, one argument is as good as the other, you won't go into "daoist hell" if you don't accept these ideas, also this accpetance I talked about really is a non-acceptance, if you force yourself to accept them that really isn't the Dao.

>>17463428
>Is it really the endgame?
Yes, It's also the beginning.

>>17464239
>become a masochistic creativity machine that kills itself in the process of conquest/creation, while not giving a shit
>t. I have become 4chan transcendent

>>17463428
Read A Thousand Plateaus to unlearn your conditioning. After that read the trees, bees and anthills in your local park. You'll become like Lao Tzu in no time.

>>17463479
Somebody refute this

>>17464394
He's a tripfag

>>17463646
Subject-Object duality is inherently fallacious. It seems like you've been retroactively filtered by the Greeks that you never started with.