Thanks for posting this! It was a valuable thing to read right now

Maybe both are always true? Feels like what my wife and daughter would say about themselves.

Interesting read but with that said:

‘What’s unique about Chuang-Tzu among the Taoist philosophers is that he was skeptical that we can ever truly judge whether a choice we made was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.’’

Where would that put Hitler or Stalin? Certainly there must be a point of no return? On a more modern stance, consumerism has driven unethical business practices. Perhaps that has helped the modern world advance in many ways… but does that mean a slave runner is off the hook in the long run? So they shouldn’t care about another living creature “for the greater good” since they feel right about who they are?

And regarding Steinbeck’s interpretation:

“It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world.”

Again where’s the line? We’ve seen plenty of grifters and nasty dictators (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Leopold II) pass away peacefully and with honors. Why would they care about the world if they didn’t before? If I commit atrocities and die thinking the world will love me for it.. then what else matters?

It’s a perfect world philosophy that I wish we could live in but realistically that’s just not the case.

The appreciation for the limitation of human perception is an important context for managing ego.

This also leads to the question - when a caterpillar discovers an empty cocoon, do they mourn a lost caterpillar, or celebrate a new butterfly?

I think the point is that there isn’t a true ‘objectively’ good or evil since no individual can make that judgment call without an omniscient perspective. It goes on to say that when making a choice between two options, to consider your death and ensure your dying doesn’t bring the world pleasure. That says to me the best benchmark (even if it’s not perfect) that we have access to is a shared collective, if still subjective, experience. That the best course of action is the one that doesn’t give people reason to rejoice at your death, which matches with the Taos philosophy as a ‘middle path’. I would say people like Hitler and Stalin did plenty to make people happy about their deaths.

“Why would they care about the world if they didn’t before?” The Tao, not in this article however, also talks about the interdependence of all dualities; including that of good and evil. It’d be impossible to get every single person on the same side of this conflict so the argument doesn’t attempt to. Again this speaks to a subjective interpretation of reality. It’s compelling you to do what you think is right, and where you can’t tell what that is it suggests to consider how others might view your actions.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I whole heartedly agree with the concepts. My problem is (not to sound cliche here) that in a world of echo chambers and seclusion that this mentality is harmful. If everyone close to you is a yes person, then the opinions of those outside of that bubble are easy to write off.

I just take issue with the idea of “don’t worry about right or wrong, it’s about how others feel”. When your entire world is yes men, then you feel like a god among men and everyone else is a scrub.. no better than an ant.

Essentially the problem with the argument for me is that it can be twisted to further justify crappy behavior.

Yes, plenty of people are happy that Hitler/Stalin/Leopold etc.. are gone of course. I doubt any of them actually cared though, that is the real problem. Giving them philosophical reasons to support their behavior isn’t helpful.

We should be thoughtful of the world.. but if your perceived world is made up almost entirely from your own ego, how would you interpret this train of thinking? That’s all I’m trying to point out.

Right and wrong are just concepts we choose to employ. It’s especially telling that we don’t even agree on them.

We cannot understand Hitler or Stalin any more than they can understand us. Judging them is something that is foolish because we presume that we know enough to judge. I suspect that I’ll even have a foolish person respond to me saying something along the lines of how we know for a fact that they were objectively wrong or evil for whatever reason. That person will have my sympathies, but not my understanding.

You missed the point in my uneducated opinion: whether the bad guys get away with it or not doesn't dictate the divine you'll receive doing the right thing.

You missed the point in my uneducated opinion: whether the bad guys get away with it or not doesn't dictate the divine you'll receive doing the right thing.

Eh I don’t know.

Did Hitler really think Jews were taking over the world and was doing humanity a favor? He probably did.

Did he send innocent kids into a gas chamber? Yes he did.

I understand how nuanced things can get. Personally I’ve chosen the line to cross and it involves murdering innocent living beings. Especially kids.

You can say I’m not understanding.. but I’m comfortable with drawing that line personally.

> Where would that put Hitler or Stalin? Certainly there must be a point of no return?

No. To Zhuangzi, right and wrong are problematic concepts that we can never be certain of. We create wrong by saying that something is right. The wrong thing never existed before we said that something was right. We created a philosophical problem where there was none originally.

> On a more modern stance, consumerism has driven unethical business practices. Perhaps that has helped the modern world advance in many ways… but does that mean a slave runner is off the hook in the long run? So they shouldn’t care about another living creature “for the greater good” since they feel right about who they are?

This is all in line with ethical thinking. Zhuangzi rejects ethical thinking. You’re assuming that some business practices are ethical and unethical and that slavery is wrong. Zhuangzi would say that’s not necessarily the case.

> Again where’s the line? We’ve seen plenty of grifters and nasty dictators (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Leopold II) pass away peacefully and with honors. Why would they care about the world if they didn’t before? If I commit atrocities and die thinking the world will love me for it.. then what else matters?

The point is not to care about the world. Daoism is a personal cultivation tool. It’s not world oriented, it’s self oriented. In its historical context, the Zhuangzi was radically anti-political.

> It’s a perfect world philosophy that I wish we could live in but realistically that’s just not the case.

You’re expecting the wrong thing. Zhuangist Daoism is specifically for a world that’s not ideal or perfect. It’s a way to deal with the horrors of a war-torn world in a healthy way. When Zhuangzi was writing, the world was in a far worse state than ours. He was trying to find a way out.

Your call.

I don’t recall replying to you.. what are you going on about?

Interesting thoughts.

Not being argumentative but I just can’t get on board with these concepts. I do think there is a very solid baseline for right and wrong, mainly around intentful and direct treatment of another living being.

Indeed. And I’m thankful to be able to say that without getting gassed by someone who’s paranoid and surrounded by nothing but their own contemporaries. Honestly it’s a bit wild to me you are willing to give a pass on that.

He lived in the warring states era, in which a very strong hitler analogue was active. For context, general Bai Qi and the great Qin he served were about equal to Nazi brutality. The Confucian school of thought was decimated, the books burnt and scholars slaughtered, every other nation eventually fell to their expansion. “Ren Tu” (Human Butcher) was the name given to Bai Qi after he killed more than a million people during the warring states period, most of whom were non-combatants and surrendered enemies if my memory serves.

In other words - Chaung-Tzu absolutely had an example of the worst we can imagine, and still held these beliefs

Excellent argument. I can only hypothesize on what they’d say if they could see how the Information Age is taking shape though.

[deleted]

Why? Reddit isn’t a bastion of intellect. It’s closer to a YouTube comment section than an academic setting. I do my persuading in papers and conferences, not with randoms on the internet. You’re free to think whatever you want.

You dropped some very wild assumptions in that comment, I’m much less inclined to take you seriously now.

[deleted]

You kind of prove my original argument though no?

“You’re some random on Reddit, your opinion means nothing if you don’t care about my opinions outside an academic setting”

Sounds like we both commented for the same reason then.

I don’t know what your original argument was. If you think it’s proven, then it’s proven. Good work.

[deleted]

Lol. Your ego is on display.

[deleted]

Spoken like a true debater.

Debating on Reddit is pointless. There’s no stakes here. You’re going to think you’re right no matter what argument I give. When’s the last time you were convinced to change your mind on a topic by a debate on Reddit? How many times has that happened in all your debates? I learned to stop wasting my time a long time ago.

Yes, which makes this even more ridiculous.

[deleted]

I don’t agree. I’ve been proven wrong before and accepted it. Other times have had a nice look back of “I wasn’t wrong, but I was kind of an ass”.

And why specify reddit? Do you really think someone in the real world is going to change my opinions more effectively?

If you don’t want to waste your time debating here, you might as well stop wasting your time debating anyone at all in any environment.

Edit: I will admit online debates can be more toxic, but that’s no reason to dismiss a generally friendly online argument either.

Good argument. I’m dismissing this generally friendly online argument. Have a good night.

No they do not. <Wow this was a super unpopular take on caterpillar perception>

[deleted]

That line of thought is still useless. Because it basically means that you should pander your actions to the masses. And we all know how stupid a mass of people can be. So living to please them is a very flawed and biased view.

[deleted]

Thank you for this article.

No, you should do what you think is right, whatever that is. But when you can’t go by your own judgment then you need to rely on another’s. In my opinion still useless since if you’re not making decisions on your own judgment you have to necessarily be using another’s. Only pointing out your criticisms miss the actual ideas of Tao.

Was this your best attempt at a generally friendly online argument?

Look at it like this- he illustrated the idea of relativity by mentioning a cicada never knowing spring or fall, but other creatures in which thousands of years are just a season to them.

So, it isn’t so much about what is morally right or wrong in that moment, but rather, it is impossible to tell all the events that unfold from the choice, thus defining it impossible to truly say anything is one or the other when you factor in all that comes from it.

On a mundane level, many years ago I wimped out going over to a guy’s place I really liked for a long time. It was my one chance, but as soon as I got to the door, I bailed and never said anything out of crippling anxiety. At the time, that was a negative experience I beat myself up for. Fast forward years later, and that turned out to be a giant blessing in disguise. My inability to even knock on his door is the reason why I dodged the not so great person he became. Social anxiety is “not good”, but holy moly am I glad it was too overwhelming for me in that moment. Just a month later he began dating someone he now has a child with. If I had done the “right” thing in that moment, be brave and face my fears, none of those “good” things would have happened.

So it’s in that way I understand him questioning what is considered virtuous, because there are times in which abiding by what is traditionally accepted as the right thing to do may have us end up in situations that aren’t good at all.

So in my understanding, Tao is actually antithetical to the kind of intellectualising that you’re mentioning that it’s weak to. That’s not to say you’re not right in that it can be twisted to justify any point you want, because it can. But Tao at it’s core is about embracing life as an unquantifiable and undefinable personal experience. Living in the moment, doing what you feel is right in your heart, and all those other intuitive but intellectually empty cliches.

Eastern philosophy is thus extremely different to western philosophy. In this regard it can be pointless to point a western scientific/logical scrutiny at it. It’s literally designed to be paradoxical, empty, and impossible to analyse. Once you reach that peak of mental fatigue and frustration, you are forced to sacrifice a logical, objective or scientific approach for an intuitive one that ‘feels’ right. So anyone who analyses Tao and finds a flaw either doesn’t understand it or hasn’t embraced it the way it’s meant to be embraced. It therefore tries to guard itself against the intellect and ego using it as justification for evil by making its true and honest practice impossible to dissect. You can see this in their extensive use of analogy, metaphor and paradox (in the article, in zen koans, etc) instead of a western logic like A therefore B. Again this is why it’s described as the ‘middle path’, or the third option. Do I struggle to find an objective reality to do good? No that’s impossible. Do I become an amoral ass who does what he wants because everything’s subjective? No because that’s evil. Instead you choose the Tao, the middle path, the one that’s impossible to define but that followers insist is intuitive to all ‘life’.

A lot of zen koans have this moral, such as the goose in the bottle analogy, where the correct choice is some impossible but intuitive third option. “If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?” Is another classic. Yes and no are both incorrect answers. How should you live your life, for yourself or others? Both are similarly wrong answers. The Tao says to stop thinking about it and just do.

Yeah, respectable would have been a better word than friendly

I think a philosophy sub would offer the best dialogue when not debating, but sharing views instead. And the dude you spoke to really didn't want to have a debate I think.

Uh, in summary I was saying that Good and evil being subjective is fine. But resorting to basing your decisions off of what other people want is useless.

So we basically agreed.

Yea we agree on that, but I disagree with how you characterise Tao that’s all. Yes overly subjective is bad, but no the Tao is not overly subjective.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Dude could’ve just said that outright and I’d have backed off.

[deleted]

I’m struggling to understand fully how “shaping one’s reality based on the decisions one makes”, “struggling to understand reality due to its ever changing nature” and “reality is shaped by perception, not by its true nature” are statements that are interconnected, and yet I can see they are all but one and the same thing. At the end of the day, the philosophy tries to put forward a way of life by which we are able to accept the outcomes of our decisions as part of the inner workings of an ever changing system of which we can only see but a few moving pieces. Not sure the writer wove the argument in a coherent way, as he starts discussing perception and the nature of reality through the butterfly parable and then jumps into decision making-shaping reality according to the Tao.

They might in a different way we do not understand; same as the concept of mourning is exclusive to certain animal species, there may be certain behaviours that are unique to caterpillars you cannot fully understand or even be aware of.

I’m being subjective here, but in my opinion “live and let live” is only going to work if everyone’s on board. Taoism is great at a personal level but on a whole I find apathy to be detrimental.

Dan Carlin talks about how Ghengis Khan was also very Nazi like and makes direct comparisons to Hitler. His point was that though they were evil at the time they still had massive impact and historians study their impact.

Is that maybe like Chaung-Tzu talking about the mushroom not knowing the seasons? That we cannot judge the right and wrongness as maybe these events and people led to a greater good? Or greater evil?

Reminds me of a Taoist story:

There is a story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

“Maybe,” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

“Maybe,” replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy for what they called his “misfortune.”

“Maybe,” answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

“Maybe,” said the farmer.

https://www.theschooloflife.com/article/wu-wei-doing-nothing/

In Tao, being at peace with and accepting reality is not the same as being apathetic to it.

Really good write up, historical context is so important to understanding these ideas.

The article is about Tao so going into the conversation with a mindset to be ‘right’, ‘wrong’ or ‘convinced’ just totally misses the mark. It’s about gaining new insight and understanding not flexing the strength of your mind or ideas (original or borrowed) against those of another.

Tao often describes itself as ‘A Void’, so against what are you disagreeing? If it’s the person in the comment section though then that’s kinda off topic.

I mean to be fair he did

Calling someone foolish prior to understanding their point of view seems unnecessarily narrow-minded.

I do agree that they certainly weren't objectively evil but their actions should be condemned. We do need to learn from our historical mistakes and learn from them. The US bombing of Japan in WWII is often justified by the potential for saving lives. In reality all we did was vaporize two civilian targets with our brand new toys. It's possible it did save lives. It's also possible that it did not.

If it was obvious it wasn’t obvious to me otherwise I wouldn’t have said it. You’re trailing my comments a bit too much.

Nah just following the whole thread because it’s interesting and you’ve commented a lot.

No, they do not.

We ain't talking about if your parents love you, were talking about caterpillars

[removed]

Very interesting. Thanks.

Everyone watch out, these guys can talk to caterpillars

The caterpillar thinks, "hmm, I can't eat this. Meh"

Interesting discussion! I see that the story was mostly read through ethical lenses here, which is not all there is (and maybe not at all what this classic is about). I'll leave a video for you by Dr. Hans Georg Moeller on the butterfly dream, where he vividly describes three different interpretations. It also shows how the translation into English (or any other Indo-European language) shaped our understanding of Daoism. The posted article is an interesting read, but it simplifies the story and conflated it with other stories, which are interesting as well, but unfortunately lead to a mis-reading of the butterfly dream. What's most important in that story is the fact that the butterfly and Zhuangzi do not know of each other, in fact they are separated. And its that separation which allows for them to have a genuine experience or an experience of genuineness. To my mind, the article misunderstands that as choosing the Tao in an individual personal situation, as if we could choose between being a butterfly or Zhuangzi. I do not agree that this is the case. Check it out and let me know what you think Butterfly Dream

Well, that's pretty Freudian of you.

It can't be, my parents died before I was born

Why don’t I like this Reddit downvote algorithm in a philosophy group? Because downvoted comes to mean “you shouldn’t have posted that” rather than “you’re technically correct but that’s not the whole point “.

No, we can not.

Thanks for that article.

Seems to be on your mind?

The World is always going to be involved only with itself. The World (the ten-thousand things) can't see anything outside of itself, and probably never will. The Razor's Edge (1984) is an excellent film about exactly this. Worldly people see the movie as a string of tragedies, but what they're really seeing are the results of Worldly attachments. The one unattached person is the only person who becomes enlightened and makes it out. Imho, attempting to teach the attached about wu wei and the pathless path is pointless. The World is only ever going to see the world. In this case, wu wei is probably the way.

>We should be thoughtful of the world.. but if your perceived world is made up almost entirely from your own ego, how would you interpret this train of thinking? That’s all I’m trying to point out.

The Tao te Ching doesn't exactly mince words in Chapter 1.

>That’s not to say you’re not right in that it can be twisted to justify any point you want, because it can.

Can you give an example, preferably with a broadly considered negative point?

Absolutism is usually a solid indicator of unthinking habits.

People seldom reward someone for saying something contradictory without any explanation and no consideration of other possibilities... particularly in Philosophy, where the goal is to think about things in a new way.

Lol r/philosophy does NOT like jokes

>Debating on Reddit is pointless. There’s no stakes here.

Don't you think beliefs spread on Reddit, and don't you think beliefs have at least some effect on people's behavior?

Sure, I was mostly just dicking around with your phrasing with the non-exclusive-or answer to "X or Y". Just didn't expect it to be noticed much.
I'm not much for flowery language, so question about a caterpillar mourning? Nope, caterpillars do not know about cocoons or their meaning.
As a question about perspective, sure. But I'll double down and throw it back to you - the perspective of the unknowing caterpillar is just as good a metaphor as the knowing caterpillar. The dream of the butterfly as an allegory of unknown transitions into or out of unimaginable, inaccessible states is just as easily described by the caterpillar who doesn't know what a cocoon is. We don't know what the events, objects, environmental queues are that will be transformative in our lives, or what the signs are that someone has transitioned in a similar way. It's only with hindsight that we see the key elements, such as getting in our cocoon, that lead to our butterfly transformation. At the time, we had no idea what a cocoon was, even as we were building it.

If you eat food then you're murdering innocent beings all the time, maybe not personally but someone is killing plants and/or animals to give you food.

TLDR: remain open to new knowledge that changes one’s perceptions, views, choices and actions. We are always operating with a tiny subset of total knowledge that could be used to make a choice and choose a tao (way).

Hmm. Interesting

Zhuangzi doesn’t teach detachment. His recommended way of living looks like detachment, but it’s actually a radical reorientation of your relationship to your personal values and the world around you. That mode of living still allows for attachment. Zhuangzi still mourned the death of Huizi, after all. The detachment you seem to be talking about is Buddhist influence on later religious Daoism (道教 as opposed to 道家).

That being said, I am sympathetic to your point and I think you’re right. I’m only pointing out some blurring that you have between religious Daoism and philosophical Daoism, which are distinct branches of thought. It’s easy to fall into this trap if you follow online Daoist groups instead of studying Daoism academically.

Having learned nothing, the invitation was made, and also ignored.

No.

Do you know (JTB) that zero humans have ever adopted a single belief based on what they've read on Reddit (and if so: can you demonstrate that it is necessarily true, and applies to me personally)?

Elephants have funerals.

I don't really know what you're saying here?

You're absolutely right. I have consciously blended Daoism and Zen. I have never been a member of a Daoist group. And all I have ever done is read Laozi and Zhuangzi. However, I had quite the mystical experience one day that lasted for more than two years. That came directly from reading Laozi. But, the only explanation I could find for what happened to me came straight out of Zen. Very perceptive on your part. Not too long ago I shifted back toward Daoism, but only the Laozi/Zhuangzi version. I couldn't care less about Internal Alchemy and all that. I studied with a Daoist priest and after two days I left because it was nothing like what I was after. It was then that I started looking at Zen.

I'm just imagining a whole lot of redditors who are actually caterpillars going "you bastard!"

Just say you have nothing decent to respond with and leave it at that

You say what you want to say, child, we'll say what we want to.

Simply because you don't understand what's communicated?

Doesn't mean it ain't there.

It was a joke on the other commentary and on the fact tthat it was downvoted so much... Of course animals are mourning...

No.

Well that's weird.

If you say so. By the way, I’d avoid using the JTB model as your baseline model for knowledge. It’s a bit outdated at this point.

>“It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world.”

&#x200B; Alright, no organ donation after death then.

On one hand: agree. On the other hand: most people seem unable to even seriously grapple with the notion of Truth, so from a pragmatic perspective I think it's very useful.

Do you have a superior proposal? I'm always looking for ways to improve.

I’m amazed that someone would think personal beliefs, tied in with the internet wouldn’t have an impact on how people act.

That person flat out said no to you and that is such a blind and ignorant viewpoint.

This sub is looking like Ben Shapiro wannabes.

I can’t believe this bullshit got upvoted. Defend Hitler all you want I guess.

> I’m amazed that someone would think personal beliefs, tied in with the internet wouldn’t have an impact on how people act.

Me too, and yet here we are. > > > > That person flat out said no to you and that is such a blind and ignorant viewpoint.

Can you quote that text, I don't recall seeing it?

> > > > This sub is looking like Ben Shapiro wannabes.

The sickest of burns, how did you come up with something so novel?

I was talking about the person who just flat out said “no” to your original comment.

And yeah Shapiro is the master of ego. I wasn’t so much going for the burn, more so just pointing out people who just blindly believe nonsense and act smug on top of it, especially for personal gain. That’s what he is and he should be called out for it.

I was trying to back up your comment but I guess that was a mistake? Shapiro deserves criticism and shouldn’t be worshipped, I can’t believe I’m having to say this… but here we are yeah?

I still suppose my question is, where’s the line?

If I feel terrible about homeless people for example. Should I be ok with “well that’s life”? Maybe I’m not apathetic… but am I really far from it?

I respect the viewpoint and again not trying to be an ass, but I personally have a lot of issues with these concepts given the actual world we are living in.

Always respected Tao of the organized religions but like anything a human touches, it comes with a superiority complex at the end of the day. The comments here with maybe the exception of yours kind of helped confirm that for me.

Hahaha.....I'm a bit of an odd duck, I wouldn't take me too seriously!

FWIW, I'm gonna RES tag you so to avoid being a jerk if we should ever cross paths again.

That’s fine but If I say something ridiculous then by all means be a jerk to me lol.. how else can we grow?

[deleted]

That 'line' doesn't exist in Tao. They're the same thing, or two sides of the same coin, or something totally made up by people to make sense of the world. All opposites are just the same thing in Tao, and the synthesis of those opposites is what makes life.

Tao says you shouldn't be either extreme of apathy or burning yourself out, but it also doesn't give you a definition of what balance is on a case by case basis. That's something you need to learn yourself by going out and experiencing life, to discover it first hand (some might call this the difference between wisdom and knowledge, with morals and ethics being solidly in the domain of the former according to Tao). It's not something you can define, read in a book, and then implement with 100% perfect efficacy. If it was, surely someone would have created the perfect cohesive argument that nobody can disagree with in the thousands of years humans have been thinking about these issues.

In terms of your comment 'because of the world we live in', Tao actually came about during a very awful period of Chinese history. Ironically, it was actually made with the idea of being a very practical philosophy that doesn't concern itself with rules and regulations of what to do, what is good or bad, and what is or isn't acceptable. Another comment goes into the historical context better than I can so I suggest reading those so I won't repeat.

Regarding the superiority complex that comes with religion, Tao very clearly disapproves of this. That's why depictions of practicioners in old art are usually of old, fat men with terrible teeth laugh, joking, acting clumsy, dancing, etc. It's because Tao is about living life, not taking itself seriously, and flexing on people about how much more ‘moral' you are is actually a form of egotism. Tao is very much against the individual ego. See this very famous koan with a message to this effect https://www.zinzin.com/observations/2014/zen-in-action-no-tree-no-mirror-no-dust/

I guess I'll just leave you with this Alan Watt's quote, which I think is kinda central to your intellectual conflict of trying to figure out in your mind what is the 'good' or 'right' thing to do.

"Nothing is really more inhuman than human relations based on morals. When a man gives bread in order to be charitable, eats with a Negro in order to be unprejudiced, and refuses to kill in order to be peaceful, he is as cold as a clam. He does not actually see the other person. Only a little less chilly is the benevolence springing from pity, which acts to remove suffering because it finds the sight of it disgusting."

I think everything you defended was amazingly put until that Watts quote:

“When a man gives bread in order to be charitable, eats with a Negro in order to be unprejudiced, and refuses to kill in order to be peaceful, he is as cold as a clam. He does not actually see the other person.”

That is just a very daft and dumb take in my opinion.. and screw that guy if you asked me.

Your personal defense of Tao before busting that quote out was respectable though.

Being good to help your fellow man as if he were you is a noble thing, because it’s focused on the person across from you. Being good for the sake of doing good or to feel nice or for the sake of appearing noble isn’t noble, because it’s focused on yourself. It’s the difference between a mother volunteering at a soup kitchen and saying hi to a regular visitor, and Jeff Bezos donating $100,000 on national TV. If you still disagree, fair enough.

It should tell you something. But the exact same reason why you feel the way you do is the exact same reason why you wouldn’t learn anything from this. I hope you can introspect, but I have every reason to suspect that you won’t.

Wholeheartedly agree actually. Doing good “to get into heaven” is another ridiculous example.

The quote to me.. personally just comes off as “if you’re helping someone it’s for personal gain only” which is what I take issue with, since that’s a pretty wild assumption on how people operate.

Again it’s more of a dig on that specific quote, it’s not really worth defending. Everything you personally said in these comments was much more respectable than that nonsense quote.

Yeah I don’t know how much introspection I need to agree that putting kids in gas chambers is a bad thing. Sure I can see how things got there, but I actively choose to believe there’s a line in humanity. Your opinion remains just absolutely bonkers to me and will remain that way.

Lmao good point.

Exactly my point. You revealed nothing new to me that I didn’t already know.

I suppose that makes two of us then.

I doubt it. Cheers.

This reminds ds me of when my 2nd grade teacher told me that pers don't have emotions. She said we simply ascribe human characteristics to things we don't understand.

Just because a thing hasn't been emperically proven to exist doesn't mean we should assume that it does not exist.

Medicine makes this mistake with prevalence. Often, as with celiac disease, Graves' disease, Sjogren's and other autoimmune diseases, lack of awareness leads to a dearth of diagnoses which is too-often confused with prevalence.

It's unsettling to see that some scientists proceed as though they know everything knowable.