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”

[deleted]

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

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.

[deleted]

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

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

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.

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.

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

You can't expect everyone to be as solitary as you wish to you, nor can't you expect everyone to know themselves. We are a species that evolved through cooperation and continues to need to cooperate with each other.

Our whole culture is based on hegemonic power structures. We are way too far from establishing something else in our ways of thinking and in our culture (if that is even possible). What we currently can do is to question the hegemonic opinion more often than before.

Advertisements do work on most people, since they are constructed to work on most people (our knowledge on psychology is scary!). Lucky you, that you are beyond consumerism. But think of the children and how many are taught to "not be consumers"

It is a shame that some people think that the "need to fit in" is the root of evil here. The contrarian position of the "need to be solitary" can be just as evil. Both needs are not evil themselves. It depends on how they are used and in what harmony they are used together. I am certain that we need this need to fit, so that humankind has an inclination of cooperation instead of an inclination of isolation. A general tendency towards trust to others is what made humankind humankind. Never forget that.

Your call.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Nihilism is underrated and much hated from religious (and some non-religious) people and I find it sad. It is my entire mindset and I don’t understand why people throw it away. I think it’s much needed in our time, taken that you care for the earth but not for humans.

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.

[removed]

You mean phenomenological experience?

Of course I rebutted it. Anyone who rebuts the problem of evil has rebutted the inductive problem of evil.

And don’t contradict yourself. Gratuitous suffering is a synonym for unjustified suffering.

What do you mean by universes? What is a universe? Once you define that, then you should have your answer. If not, give me your process and I can elaborate.

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.

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?