"New York Philosophy" Message Board › A Critique of Pure Reason - Submissions and Discussions

A Critique of Pure Reason - Submissions and Discussions

Albert
user 9627762
Nutley, NJ
Post #: 1
Albert,...The power of suggestion, huh? Were you a marketing executive? Your points make sense, but you know I like a bit more definition and clarity, because when there is too much vagueness, there is also too much room for misinterpretation,...and getting things wrongtongue

Mark, how much greed, or how much virtue, is in "'pure' reason"? Which begs the question, "how *pure* is our definition of 'pure'"? Is virtue the absence of wrong? Well...

Can you coax your mind from its wandering
and keep to the original oneness?
Can you let your body become
supple as a newborn child's?
Can you cleanse your inner vision
until you see nothing but the light?
Can you love people and lead them
without imposing your will?
Can you deal with the most vital matters
by letting events take their course?
Can you step back from you own mind
and thus understand all things?

Giving birth and nourishing,
having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue.

- Tao Te Ching, Chapter 10.
A former member
Post #: 1
When a friend of mine was dying, his last words for me was that the longer time you keep from visiting internet, the more posts you don't have to read. This web proves that dying people could also be irrational.
A former member
Post #: 2

Can you coax your mind from its wandering
and keep to the original oneness?
Can you let your body become
supple as a newborn child's?
Can you cleanse your inner vision
until you see nothing but the light?
Can you love people and lead them
without imposing your will?
Can you deal with the most vital matters
by letting events take their course?
Can you step back from you own mind
and thus understand all things?

Giving birth and nourishing,
having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue.

- Tao Te Ching, Chapter 10.

Fair enough, I cannot do any of those on the list. But how on earth is "giving birth and nourishing " going to help even remotely ? If it is, which one, out of the 6 listed problems, does it solve? As a matter of fact, most of human problems are created because of giving birth and nourishing in most of countries. Strangely enough, one wonders why Chinese government never thought of censoring this book, unless they think Goolge wrote this books **eying the ceiling, rubbing chin & imagining hard that I am thinking**.
Albert
user 9627762
Nutley, NJ
Post #: 2


Fair enough, I cannot do any of those on the list. But how on earth is "giving birth and nourishing " going to help even remotely ? If it is, which one, out of the 6 listed problems, does it solve? As a matter of fact, most of human problems are created because of giving birth and nourishing in most of countries. Strangely enough, one wonders why Chinese government never thought of censoring this book, unless they think Goolge wrote this books **eying the ceiling, rubbing chin & imagining hard that I am thinking**.

Are you not, confusing the definition of "spoiling" with "nourishing"? As in "food for thought", obesity can be applied to the thought/reasoning process.
A former member
Post #: 3

Are you not, confusing the definition of "spoiling" with "nourishing"? As in "food for thought", obesity can be applied to the thought/reasoning process.

No. I was actually inviting your opinion on the idea of society in general. Sadly, it failed to sparkle your brilliance.
Mark
user 6203323
New York, NY
Post #: 5
Albert, I had to think about your post a while,....and I had to dig out my old copy of the Tao. My recollections tell me the Tao was a type of prescription for morality. It was a series of reflections to make one's soul a better thing, to make one's kings better beings, and to put one in relation to others. It wasn't really a prescription towards "rationality", although one could make the case that if we lived "in harmony" with ourselves and others, that that would be rational. And lets also be clear, no author on these boards have yet to clearly state what it is to be rational, although some suggestions were made. So, back to you other question, "how much greed or virtue is in pure reason?" I do not have an answer. But i will say that greed and virtue are not necessarily functions of the more rational parts of the mind, they seem more to be functions of feeling.....greed being the desire to fill wants and needs, virtue (depending on how its defined) seems to be the need to "fit in" with others and be accepted. And we can debate that one later.

And the Tao, seems to be in line with that definition of virtue....

"Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value goodswhich are hard to come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is desireable will keep them from being unsettled of mind" Book 1, sec. III

To me, this type of rationality is vastly different from an Aristotle, or Sir Francis bacon, who had a much more "scientific" approach to life, relying heavily on measurable phenomena that can be verified over and over......your turn.
Mark
user 6203323
New York, NY
Post #: 6
shock Also, after reading back some of the posts,....it seems that we should seperate out an issue, ie;

one can be rational and not virtuous, ( a person can be quite logical in their approach to life and yet do many bad things) and one can be irrational and quite virtuous.....(implications obvious)

being virtuous or not may be independent of being rational, and vice versa for the irrational.....

so, whether we deal with these issues independently or not will depend on the issues put forth by John and his team. tongue
A former member
Post #: 4
Who is John? What team

One problem that I have with Tao De Ching is that, the Tao and De appear not consistent to each other, unless one claims arbitrarily this inconsistency is part of Tao.Tao, is actually quite appealing to me. It is a metaphysics approaching the truth by discussing what truth is not like. Tao, for me, is a transcendental attitude of reflection, and it reveals the fundamental reality of human life. People who are sick of Descartes should read it more often.

Virtue, however, is De, which is definitely by principle inferior to Tao. And also, for Taoists, virtues should not be a goal to pursue with. But rather, virtues can be only truly possessed by not pursuing it. So far, so good. However,my point is that a man has to act, to choose and to posit an essence. This impossibilities of not to choose is not at odds with Tao De Ching, because Tao De Ching eventually settles down into human action in a worldly life. So a taoist must act, or choose to act like a taoist. Indeed, a philosopher should live his philosophy.

So my conclusion is this, which might be abrupt and only a temporary one, Tao is existentialism-like. It is so real and true that it is actually deconstructive toward reason. It is nothing but naked nihilism in a poetic form, they are equally effective of destroying any reasonable question rising from any concrete situation. In other words, whenever there's Tao, it basically means an end to discussion. But thank God, one still has De, then life goes on like normal.

The problem of some Taoists is that, they look at other people living with a mundane attitude as wretched and miserable, but when they look at themselves, they think they are detached, a code word for better. That is just not sincere.

Philosophers have to choose, to be sincere, or to be wise.


A former member
Post #: 5
As to Taoism, however, a huge difference between Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. The latter one is , awesome !
Albert
user 9627762
Nutley, NJ
Post #: 3


Philosophers have to choose, to be sincere, or to be wise ...
As to Taoism, however, a huge difference between Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. The latter one is , awesome !


Is Yifeng Peng dreaming he's a butterfly, or is he a butterfly dreaming he's Yifeng Peng?

When a raindrop hits the ocean, when does it "realize", it is the ocean?

Virtue, greed, logic are like anomalies in the "Matrix": a single mainframe machine, a-flow with 1's and zeroes. How do those 1's in program X, distinguish themselves from the 1's in, program Y?

If one has compassion for the tiniest piece of existence, shouldn't one have compassion for all of existence?

Compassion is not a method for avoiding action or being better.

If one "couples" -to- "all that is", through "sincere" compassion, wouldn't they have a sagacious life as well?
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy