You can say the rice paddies represents each persons interests/wealth. One rice paddy has all the water, other rice paddies don’t flourish and is detrimental to the whole. This is not radical thinking just requires basic empathy.

What, exactly, do you suspect it to represent? We till plants in the West, too, so… that seems to preclude some general point from being made…

I thought the rice paddy thing was a metaphor...

No… but reducing Chinese philosophy’s differences from the West to a consequence of tilling rice paddies is pretty bad…no?

In our hyper-sensitive environment, such accusations have lost their gravity, but damn if this doesn’t smack of it, nonetheless.

I don’t even think he’s intending racism; he’s probably just so enamored with the sense of the exotic that he is absent-mindedly and inaccurately placing cause and effect relationships therein.

He literally said he visited the region and gained some local knowledge...

Being contextual isn't being racist. 😂😂😂

😂

wtf are you even talking about? You think there’s some distinct form of social collaboration that China has had forever, the likes of which Western civilization (except..for…its military veterans!?) knows nothing?

Jebus..

Breathe in. Breathe out.

dude if you think having to put your livelihood in the hands of a multitute of people doesnt change to way you think i dont know what to tell you. just try to insult a war vet's brothers in arms, see wht that gets you.

I like the concept, but to filter every possible action through the lens of society is ultimately self destructive. Just as individuals should make room in their considerstion for the society, society too should make room in its considerations for the individual. Just as each of us should work to make life better for everybody, the collective should also serve to benefit each individual. Otherwise, what is the point?

This is not only wrong, but basically racist. It’s ridiculous. You think “eastern philosophy” is distinct from western philosophy because they have rice paddies over there? wtf.

Nothing substantial, and certainly nothing important, about Chinese religious and philosophical thought is conveyed by reference to their rice paddies and some lame assertion that their cultivation instills some kind of novel attributes in mankind. The idea that that magical plant has led to a society in which neighbors help one another and no strife is to be found is just outrageous. We grow plants in the west, too, ya know. Why is it that those plants didn’t lead to the same alleged (also: false) outcome?

I feel compelled to leave this comment, but holy.. one barely knows what to write. Do you not see how silly it is to pretend that what you wrote is accurate? Was rice just not workin’ like it’s supposed to during the Warring States period? Or.. any of the other myriad violent conflicts in China’s history? You think the Chinese have never so much as “hoarded water” in opposition to one another?

Just: wow.

This isn’t true AT ALL.

China has a massive set of philosophical beliefs in which, for example, hermitude is important. Innumerable Daoist and Buddhist sages and wise men retreated from society to be free of its collective grasp.

Of course, the way the alleged commonality is described in the opening paragraphs, it’s loose and vague enough to apply to a wide range of very different philosophical positions. It reads initially like a(n obviously false) social claim, but seems upon its author’s initial description to be a vague metaphysical claim. At best, it gives a dramatically false sense of unity in a very broad and diverse set of beliefs. At worst, it poorly describes any one of them, and fails completely as a thesis.

The author’s first two paragraphs simply put a metaphysical spin on life and the third paragraph states that such a spin would be “near common sense” to a “Chinese philosopher” of a six hundred year period spanning numerous dynasties (during which Buddhism is introduced, no less).

The article is laughable on its face to someone who has actually studied the philosophical and religious content of the time period. It is nothing more than clickbait.

In fact, it’s downright insulting to reduce the complex philosophical environment of the cited time period to some lamely-put, pseudo-profound summary which does no justice to any actual thought from the period.

Edit: My God. Against my better judgment, I decided to read past the first few paragraphs, in the spirit of the sub. My advice: don’t bother. The citations of the DaoDeJing and Zhuangzi in defense of some weird, poorly-defined idea of the “agency” of a house or a tree are outrageously stupid. Like, unbelievably so. Beyond being merely a comedically incorrect academic, it seems apparent to me that this person has absolutely no idea what he or she is talking about.

[removed]

You seem incredibly comfortable in your ignorance so I'll just leave you to it.

[removed]

> What is not to like? The authors made the prudent choice not to get bogged down in discussion about the definition of capitalism and socialism. The downside of this approach is that students may struggle to articulate a working definition of capitalism and socialism to guide their thinking.

What an enormous red flag. Maybe what the authors needed was a proper definition of Capitalism and Socialism to guide their writings? How can one insist on writing about Capitalism while avoiding to recognize it?

We might be able to detect the small movements, but not process these small movements, which makes it difficult for us to actually perceive said movements.

On the flip side, we might be able to detect and process these small movements, but not in the way the movements are actually motioning.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Nice piece! I discuss these theories and my own theory that incorporates them here

[removed]

The word "credible" is a loaded, toxic term when it comes to evidence, kind of liked proof by intimidation. If you mean there's no high quality evidence showing harm yet I agree. That doesn't imply safety, as much as industry likes to insinuate. I thought it was all conspiracy too, until I saw enough decent scientists questioning possible mechanisms and asking for more research. The problem is that like pharmaceuticals, it's very hard to get funding for high quality research that would drastically affect an industry. So we're still at a "maybe", but definitely not at the levels conspiracy theorists say. Important not to succumb to black and white thinking.

One benefits from visiting that region in order to grasp the collective nature of eastern philosophy. If my rice paddy fails, all the rice paddies downstream of mine also fail. So even though my neighbor might compete with me in the rice selling market, neither of us stands a chance if one of us fails at growing the rice in the first place.

Thus you do not find them hoarding water. The water must flow from my paddy to yours, to the next, all the way down the line. And if I have an issue with water flow or with disease on my paddy, the neighbors pitch in to help correct it.

If you wonder why the East is generally more supportive of collective society and collective governance, this holds part of the answer.