Why is taoism not a more recognised political philosophy?

Because this is 'murrica. And if you don't like it, you can giiiiiiiit out.

this.

that was an ugly one op.

i don't know if ip man was a taoist but these aren't the worst ideas i've ever heard. if everybody thought like this then you wouldn't really need super-detailed political philosophy. a shaolin monastery is designed to more or less run itself. i know ip man wasn't shaolin but you can kind of get the idea

i got into this because i was thinking about martial arts and philosophy. kind of a good look i think.

i think the reason why taoism isn't understood as being a political philosophy in the west is because the chinese don't really do abstract metaphysics so much. the whole idea of the great learning is to basically prevent metaphysics from getting out of hand

laozi himself writes, "govern a large state like cooking a small fish." kind of says it all really. just keep everything simple and everything turns out ok

Because it is degenerate, tautological trash.

>say that [certain thing X such as a certain virtue like strength or intellect] is bad, because
>wait for it...
>wait for it...
>SUDDEN PLOT TWIST
>...it could be bad when it happens in excess!

Fucking mindbending.

Taoism is puerile trash which revels in opportunity to shit on things like thinking or taking action with 'hurr those are bad when they are overdone'. Nobody over the age of 10 should take it seriously.

>to basically prevent metaphysics from getting out of hand

Hard to think of a case of hypocrisy worse than that considering that 99.95 % of Eastern 'thought' is useless 'tao that can be named is not the true tao' metaphysics in the first place.

>useless 'tao that can be named is not the true tao' metaphysics

(Note: the fact that it is useless doesn't mean it's not harmful -- imagine what being constantly force fed connotations that 'language is not everything' and 'reality transcends language' wreaks on a society.)

what philosophers do you like, user? i'm okay with arguing and stuff but i'd rather learn something in the process.

i won't shit on them. everybody thinks different things. but who do you like? speak your mind

>what philosophers do you like, user?

False assumption. Philosophy is a catch-all term to which defaults all human thought that fails all other checks for relevance. At the point that a statement fails to have relevance to computer science, math, statistics, physics, any other subject, it is either discarded (rightly) or given (wrongly) a mercy classification of 'it's philosophy'. Philosophy is the rubbish bin of thought. It's for thoughts that fail to have use for anything else.

In other words, 'philosophy' is a misnomer. It's for people too attached to their halfcooked notions to discard them when faced with productive subjects. It's for people who more than truth are in love with themselves.

In other words, 'philosophy' to thinking is what 'free will' is for action. When we don't know why we did something, we attribute our action to 'our free will'. When we have no clue what the fuck we are talking about, we classify it as 'philosophy'. Both terms are just empty artifacts of the human instinct to term.

cool. thanks for sharing

how about a book, then? i'm honestly not trying to bait you. but could you recommend something for us to read?

i am 100% not baiting you. because i suspect that we see things differently, and because i actually have the time these days to look at the world differently, i would be very happy if you could recommend me a book that describes or informs your worldview. not like a physics textbook or anything

if not that's okay too. everybody thinks differently

>could you recommend something for us to read?

Why not.

amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036

A work about a factor that's extremely predictive in terms of behaviour -- a refreshing antithesis to Taoist 'things should be as simple as they need to be', 'inaction is good when it is called for' tautologies.

>a book that describes or informs your worldview. not like a physics textbook or anything

This is your fundamental error, by the way. You think in terms of 'worldviews'. All there is is just increasing proficiencies at discussing particular subjects. It is idiocy to pursue a 'worldview' of any kind. The only thing to do is to pursue capacity at discussing etymology, or code debugging, or factor analysis on example of human intelligence, or graphs in terms of railway transit, or atomic bonding in terms of material stress, or whatever whatever whatever. It is only it that's pursuable -- individual capacities. But good luck realizing that if your reading of choice is Eastern trash.

>everybody thinks differently

This brand of 'I might always be wrong' defeatism will lead you nowhere.

In other words, I have realized not that recently that the only reading I ever need is that which is direct, immediate -- textbooks indeed. All second-layer trash about 'perspectives', 'learning strategies', 'openness to knowledge', 'limitations', 'relativity', are insubstantial garbage.

(Note, I have started with 'philosophy', as has everyone -- I also have started with that which is easy.)

thanks for the book recommendation user. i'll look into this. take care and good luck

>thanks for the book recommendation

Any book will do really as long as it's not 'reality exists in your mind' thought-terminators.

I don't think you understand Taoism.

cool!

Argumentum ad ur wrong.

Take this piece of nonsense:

>>Close your mouth, block off your senses, blunt your sharpness, untie your knots, soften your glare, settle your dust. This is the primal identity. Be like the Tao. It can’t be approached or withdrawn from, benefited or harmed, honored or brought into disgrace. It gives itself up continually. That is why it endures.

It literally lists a dozen of self-obviously harmful things ('block senses', 'dull yourself', 'be soft'), and then pretends to be clever with 'ah-ha not so, this is not just a pedestrian connotative attempt to make you a weak-willed idiot, there is actually truth in that, namely what I truly meant is that you should be adaptable and know when not to speak out and know when to keep your peace and know that everything you know can be false blah blah'. It's classic Eastern connotation + tautology bait and switch: connote that drive-degenerative inaction is good, then deflect potential criticism by tautologically backpedalling that what you meant is only being inactive when it is called for and justified. Parable of the poisoned arrow and all that crap. And no, Taoism really does not amount to anything more than this.

>tautologically backpedalling that what you meant is only being inactive when it is called for and justified

(Without ever once flirting with falsifiability as by giving particular consequences of particular steps at any particular time, of course -- for that would be at least minimally intellectually demanding.)

Again allow me to remind you that it is the equivalent of appeal to ignorance: except that rather than 'you might be wrong but I'm not specifying how', Taoism/Buddhism asserts 'this virtue you've embraced might backfire, but I'm not specifying how'. It's crab mentality, except it's as lazy as it is ugly.

Because Tao is the way, recognized political philosophy is not the way

>tao
>don't make waves, be absorbed into the mass
Marxism has supplanted it as the premier peasant philosophy.

>>>/rationalwiki/

One day you'll be a Taoist too, these posts herald great things for you.

My perception of your stance, is that you rather have life figured out (heh, you have your world view... jking, dont get snappy at me plz) but perhaps you can remember that many people start life as children, and do not have a solid grasp perception of themselves and the world and others, how they should view such, so it is possible, some of these eastern phrases and thoughts could offer someone who has not so clearly figured it all out (though I understand you would argue there is no value any of the phrases can offer anyone, let alone someone ignorant unsure of themselves, and how to view the world, that there is a clear and obvious path of sensical activities and purpose, that they should be directed too instead) so I suppose you are right.

I suppose we can just chalk it up to a different time a different place, a mixture of law, community, culture and held a people coherently together, now we have escaped those pre industrial dark ages, and are living in the real world, everything is obvious and clear. There are possible things you can do in your life, you have the choice to do them or not. There is money, there is work, there is information, there is free time. That is all one needs to know really.

Then there is also the perspective, that it is trying to be 'one with nature', which you cant entirely blame them, because in the ways it worked for them it worked for them, and they could not immediately see ways of transcending nature, which is the perspective you are judging this from, as riding the cutting edge wave of western mans march of separating from natural nature, having more and more control, not being satisfied with living a simple peaceful humble life in a village with farmers and karate.

So it seems appropriate you would think such a though of time and place has no time and place in the current time and place, of, we finally severely escaped our close enslavement to nature, rubs me the wrong way to think of trying to go back and cozying up to her primitive and simpleton ways.

But, I personally, think that it is possible value of some kind can be obtained from those writings, certainly. But maybe you would admit to suggest, if you would give one that, that they can possibly contain any value, you might liken it to a kitschy trinket in a 99 cent store, or you think it is worse, because it has the power to do real damage

>self obviously harmful things ('block senses', 'dull yourself', 'be soft')
You are appealing to a western view of Taoism that does not view the philosophy as a means of self development, but self defeating is association with ascetic aspects of Buddhism. Chinese political leaders and military generals have taken the advice found in Taoist wisdom text as inspiration to help them aspire to greater heights, conquer or subvert their enemies, become wiser/more intelligent/stronger, etc. Taoist works often elaborate on people who have mastered "non action" to indeed perform great and miraculous deads, sometimes exaggerated to mythological extremes, and other times very practical. Let's keep in mind of course that the portion of Taoism that consists of people who explicitly shun society and intellectualism does not constitute the majority, nor does it have authority over developments within Taoism throughout history. The Taoist canon contains over a thousand works ranging from elaborations on religious pantheons and theology, explicit formulas, physical practices, rituals, etc. for achieving spiritual goals, political rhetoric and argument, all kinds of things that are easily falsifiable, quoted, and argued against if that's your thing. Though I assume you have no idea what any of this actually is so you throw the whole range of Taoist works under the bus of the two very early Taoist works I quoted who's nature tends to be rather "wishy washy" as a result of their indeed anti-rationalist nature. However I only quoted them as a way to elaborate on how a Taoist politician might act on the advice to help themselves within the context of their time well after the works were ever written, not as an elaboration of Taoism "as a whole". Keep in mind the context of the reply chain and the original post I replied to, and what I was actually attempting to get at with it.

>they're not two different things and this is what makes chinese thought interesting
This is part of what leads to a lot of confusion on how Taoism has worked in China as a "philosophy". Taoist works do not always build off of each other, what constitutes a work as "Taoist" is up for debate, whether the various different schools that have identified as "Taoist" deserve the title is up for debate, whether the religious aspects, personal aspects, philosophical aspects, and political aspects of Taoism coincide or go against each other (keeping in mind how the relationship between all these within Taoism itself AND with Taoisms interactions with other religions and philosophies) is a real clusterfuck.

Bump as I reply having found this thread still alive on page 10.

Taoism is essential anti-political. A government is the embodiment of action (disruption) and an essential tenet of Taoism is inaction.

True. It's no accident that Eastern religions have been embraced by the left.

'haha what matters is that we let go joke around hahaha'

Fuck off. Your 'philosopy' has tangible harmful consequences.

Generic 'we have free will, it's just a piece of advice, you have choice to embrace it or reject it' evasion of responsibility for spewing drive-degenerative 'let go' trash. Nohow deserving a longer reply. Your mention of people being young and impressionable only proves how important it is to avoid feeding them with 'thinking is not everything, language is not everything, still your mind, be still, avoid action... except do that in moderation haha' toxin.

Plus a whimper to ignorance at the very end, 'yes but those still might contain some unspecified merit'.

Anecdotal 'this philosophy has engendered some positive consequences' evidence. Not even to mention that it's classic correlation/causation: it is perfectly possible for someone brought up in a certain ideological climate to attribute their success to that ideology, even though their actual success was a result of their innate traits such as intelligence.

As for your embarrassing mention of 'practical examples', literally any religion will appeal to parsimony and 'keep life simple and practical' from time to time so to pacify consciences. Even the most 'psychedelic', metaphysics-drenched ones like Taoism or Buddhism. PARTICULARLY the most 'psychedelic', metaphysics-drenched ones. This means nothing.

Your claim that majority of Taoists are not anti-intellectual is just ludicrous. Considering their sheer published volume, 2 % of their output being reproaches to 'be intellectual' and 'be rational' and 'be critical' is still a fucking lot, but this doesn't change the fact that the remaining 98 % remains parables about 'thoughts clouding the pure mind' and 'importance of stilling the mind' and 'importance of unlearning everything'. (And that's not even to mention that even those reproaches to 'be critical' are just instances of telling-not-showing.)

As for 'political rhetorics', I once saw a selected, but satisfying comparison of a Taoist text with a passage from Machiavelli. The latter compared three manners of pacifying a state: with force, with money, with something else still. The former just said something to the effect of 'if all rulers followed the eternal Tao, there would be no need for government at all'. Tautology is indispensable for Taoism.

Then you talk about 'not all Taoism being like that', as if its focus weren't quantifiable.

In fact, you actually say 'you can't define Taoism'. This (your final paragraph) is just typical distraction and obfuscation I hardly have interest in engaging. You are basically saying 'this is a complex isssue, not all are like that, muh definitional concerns' so to try to silence my objections. Fuck off, retard.

Can somebody riddle me this?

Taoism is inherently anti-intellectual yet the left complain about rampant anti-intellectualism.

>Taoism is inherently anti-intellectual yet the left complain about rampant anti-intellectualism

Protip: the more intelligent you are, the less you bother to call people illogical and irrational and such, because you are occupied with putting forth practical policies: foreign, educational with respect to particular curriculum points, domestic with respect to particular infrastructural investments, and such. 'No ur stupid' is for people who are not up for the job of considering particular suggestions.

In other words:

A neuroscientist never needs to use the word 'brain'. A computer scientist never needs to use the word 'computer'. A rational person never needs to use the word 'rational'. I don't want to brag, but I haven't called another person irrational or illogical for years.

That's nice, but that isn't what the Tao Te Ching said nor referring to, have you actually read the thing? It straight up says we should end the concept of learning, schools and teachers.

this is basically later Wittgenstein, which is, ironically, a philosophical masterpiece

I didn't address your description of Taoism, but of the left. To the former I do not object.

>that isn't what the Tao Te Ching said nor referring to, have you actually read the thing?

Actually I haven't. Usually just a handful of quotes from any Eastern text is enough to make me either laugh or bury my face in my hands.

>It straight up says we should end the concept of learning, schools and teachers.

I didn't know, but I'm not surprised. The apologists will jump to 'it was just a metaphor, it wasn't meant literally, it was only to suggest that schooling should be more elastic and focus more on creativity and problem-solving' of course. Observe the inevitable Taoist tautology here as well: 'it only said that we should remove EXCESSIVE rigidity from education'.

>Wittgenstein

I admit that I am attracted to the name. Maybe because I remember that he's had engineering background, which means that he must have had some raw intelligence and not just be a bullshitter. Or maybe because I remember that a piece of his contained symbols, which is a plus. Or maybe because I once dreamed of buying a piece of his, no joke.

check out the Philosophical Investigations
it's not for no reason that some commentators thought he wanted to destroy philosophy
if you don't like it, that's okay, but I thought you might -- because "the call is coming from inside the house," so to speak

I will.

God knows that there is a lot of arbitrary false notions to which people are attracted: cf. anthropocentrism of existence of souls or intrinsic value of 'we're all equal', both of which turn out insubstantial. Perhaps it is comparably with what he's defining as 'philosophy' as well.

Damn son you have completely meme'd yourself into mental oblivion, it seems to me you simply cannot function outside of western rationalism and strict universal value judgements.

>it seems to me you simply cannot function outside of western rationalism [...]

Translation: 'it seems to me you simply cannot function outside of being right'.

Also, tip: explaining why something is bullshit does not constitute a 'value judgement'.