What the hell? This is pseudointellectual garbage. Prove me wrong Veeky Forums

What the hell? This is pseudointellectual garbage. Prove me wrong Veeky Forums.

Which translation did you read?

Off topic, but I barely glanced at the image before reading the post and I thought OP was talking about The Giving Tree

>prove me wrong

Fuck off to autismo

Piao Yu-suen

>reading tao da chink
lel wad

Also reading this(D.C. Lau translation) - reads like bad poetry that didn't translate well.

There was no such thing a sudointelectualism back in those days

>brings up a book that is inherently spiritual and philosophical

>PROVE me wrong, Veeky Forums

alright, bud

Ch. 41
"When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao."

I guess we all know which one you are user.

Nice argument.

OP on life support

Pwnd

I hate this board

...

fucking DESTROYED by a chinaman 10000 years ago get rekt op unga bunga

i like the tao
it was a nice read and had some nice points
most are prob placebo, but hey,

oh shit, OP on child support cuz he got aborted lollllllzors

...

>If you agree with me, you are enlightened.
>if you kinda agree with me, you're a pleb.
>If you call me out for a charlatan, you are a fool.

Is there any religious or spiritual text that doesn't pull this shit? It's got to be the most ridiculous argument for belief that can be postulated.

inb4 fedoralord. I actually dig on eastern mysticism, but if you see this kind of rhetoric for anything but a desperate defense of a weak stance, you probably need to read something on reason for once.

It's actually right though, "good" wouldn't be "good" if stupid and evil people didn't laugh at it and think it's stupid.

>I hate this line of thought
>but if you see this kind of rhetoric for anything but a desperate defense of a weak stance, you probably need to read something on reason for once

thanks for proving the chinaman right, you dunce

I absolutely love this board

But what if it's the "good" people laughing at it? How can you identify who is "good"? Is it because they agree with le chinaman? It's a an appeal to ego.

As I said, I dig on Eastern Mysticism, and I actually took a lot away from Tao Te Ching. But using Ch41 to defend it is no better than any other defense of faith. It's a circular argument. "It's good because it says it's good"

If you know that it's correct, which it is, you will not disagree with it. You should meditate daily and start going outside and being in nature, and then you will eventually see the truth in it.

I don't know, you just know. See Chapter 1:

>The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
>The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

That's some fine Kool-aid. Now, can we offer our guests something with a little more substance?