I edited my last post. I realised that there are 84,000 topics. 
A
And we’ll get to all of them.
Stick around.
What do the pro-Daoists on this thread think of Shen-Dao’s philosophy and its implications?
This doesn’t make me pro-Dao, it makes me pro-Economics. Still, I respect Dao for its transcendental intuitive power sipritual class A plus. Dao is now at best, serves as a general guide, as general as you can imagine. The rest you have to work out for yourself, from the sciences. It is pointless promoting Dao to every household nowadays, because society has already absorbed it and its ancient alike, so that now we have managed to advance from its stage 1 ground. It’s true also for Christianity, except that Christ’s followers have been keeping the godspel up to date, so it still survives today. You’d be suprised at the modernity of the modern monk. If you pay a visit to the Daoist monks in China, you would be lost in their ancient translation. Daoists have the historical tendency of isolating themselves from the mundane herd at large. They are pround men with an obstinate sense of moral superiority. Christians on the other hand, was made and shaped for the average Joe in the first place. Preaching has always been the first concern of the church. Dao is therefore an introverted scholar relative to the extroverted activist that is Christianity. This essential difference was necessarily arised from the different genisis of the religions. This difference in genisis is where the eastern nobility lies, I hereby count ancient Greece and Egypt as belonging to the east. The west had nothing, their most exalted and conscequential moral codes was borrowed from a rebellious Jew raised and bred in the east. The entire youthful western culture exists as the newest development of eastern antiquity. The white man use to be dark, spoke with an accent akin to Sanskirt. That is the historical ground base of everything west. There is rumor that the Romans were the bastards by a bunch of refugees from Troy. If that’s taken as factual, then the German Nazis had a certain backup to support their barbaric ancesters as the genetic foundation of the west. Indeed I believe that the modern European man, including the American man, has been deprived of their original potential and living on borrowed and learnt cultures. The only thing he has lies deep in his genes, revealed by his temperment and bascist personality. Had not the Greeks or Romans managed to take over Europe, the “Aryan” people might or might not exist, if they do exist, their population would be tiny and their culture would be little due to historical oppression and excommunication. I’m not claiming such as to degrade their genetic ability, for their genetic ability has been proved today of its credibility, in the way that they have been fast learners and creative pupils. Dao remains something they cannot recognise, just as a newborn grandson doesn’t connet with his dying grandpa. What matters of that? The grandpa will be reborn as the grandson soon enough. The cycle continues. Nobody is better than the other in the way that everybody use to be apes in Africa.
Uniqor,
I never said that supporting a laisse-faire economy makes one pro-Daoism, but rather that the idea of laisse-faire comes from the Daoist idea of wu-wei. It is a clear example of Daoist thought in action.
Also, in your post you are readily mixing religious-Daoism with philosophical-Daoism. Which is the one you are trying to make a point on? When was the last major advance in christian philosophy? Luther?
You are also confusing the point of Daoism as a folk-religion which is relatively independent of a priest-class and institutional Daoism which actually holds a great deal more in line with the religio-philosophy of the Neo-Confucians. As to that, of course a Neo-confucian orthodoxy is going to be conservative and venerate the past, that is one of the central tenets of Confucian thought!
Furthermore, you are confusing orthodoxic religions with orthopraxic religions. Like most folk-religions, Daoism deals more in orthopraxis than orthodoxy. Christianity goes around converting people because it is something you believe in. Daoism (like Judiaism) is something that you are simply born being. The priest-class doesn’t need to interact with their parishoners on a regular basis because it isn’t that kind of religion.
Well, I’m a putz, so I’ll bite.
Shen Tao obviously had a great impact upon the overall philosophy of Taoism. Not that all was to the betterment. His introduction of fa into the structures of Tao at the time, were seen by his contemporaries as both engaging and provocative, as well as spurious, and at times hypocritical.
He is often accused of living outside the standards as well as within, a difficult historical conundrum to reconcile. For me, Shen Tao’s insertion of Legalism into Taoism is, to say the least, a conflict. Especially when coupled with his theories on the absence of a moral reality.
His introduction of certain austere rules and practices I find ludicrous. He favored very harsh punishments for acolytes, which I find hedonistic and contradictory.
His great contribution was that of philosophically rendering dualism negated, proponent of living “in the flow” without preconceived notions as to what to do. Again, this conflicts with the constructs of Legalism and the creation of “standards”. Again, strangely, he spoke constantly of abandonment of knowledge, yet another philosophical twist.
His impact is certain, but I prefer the teachings of Chuang Tzu, and the poetry of Li Po.
That’s my less than adequate perceptions anyways.
Xunzian, funky name.
I wish people would concentrate on the macro side of my posts so that they wouldn’t raise some micro issues which are none of my concern and frankly, which I know little about. You missed my biggest points there by committing the conviction which I have just exposed, and by taking too literally what I wrote. What I write ususally proceed from whatever you write, but in a way that my progression is no longer strictly continued from your original, but already transcended into my domain, usually by means of light metaphorisma nd symbolism. I write like Laozi, even better, Nietzsche.
However, to punder on your point in order to shed some light on my point - Wu Wei, as great a concept as it might be, doesn’t offer much to Economics. This is typical of Dao. It is encompassing. But eveything econpassing at such level is practically useless on its own in reality. Economic theories have advanced by a long way from Daoist philosophy, namely more than two millena. Dao did not inspire Economics’ bacist principles, which are inspired by the scientific achievements accomplished during the past 2000 years. And it’s essentially western. Now this is where my point comes in: what’s essentially western is essentially eastern. A final point that I made: this doesn’t give the superriority to anybody, for history will repeat itself, hence the once winners will recure as current losers, and currently losers will recure as future winners. Don’t stand on Dao too much than its old stem can carry. Now it’s time for futuristic creativity, that is ever the task for future winners.
I would tout superiority for any system, each is different enough to be so labeled and understood.
He/She who owns the future, is he/she who knows and honors the past.
Uniqor,
Sorry, I apologize for nit-picking. Upon re-reading your post, I see it is much more balanced than I originally percieved it to be. I was merely reacting to what I took as an elevation of the christian ethos at the expense of the Daoist. It’s funny, since I don’t really like Daoism, but since I’ve studied it, I may as well defend it.
That said, time to nit-pick . . . Errr, wait, no.
Funky name? Look who’s talking man. Mine is from Xunzi, a Confucian philosopher(s).
I am curious though, you mention new creativity, are you for a re-interpretation of traditional thought, or forging ahead with something totally new?
Did I promote to ignore advantages? Did deny the significance of the past?No. My point is not as contradictory to yours as you might think.
What I have been saying all along is that science has already, absorbed, ancient philosophy, and as this conscequence which itself belongs to the necessary procedure of historical development of all things, science is what we rely on right now. And the future belongs to ceaseless creativity. But creativity has to be done on something that’s already in existence. I spared myself the bother to state anything obvious. This is what I get: misunderstanding. Maybe from now on I need to go tempo andantino.
Yes yes, Xunzi, Mengzi, Zhuangzi, Hanfeizi… This Baijiazhengming thing that happened during Chuenqiuzhanguo always somewhat reminds me of the contemporory Greek chaotism. Man, I have no idea how you managed to pick one clean out and add the “an” postfix. Like dealing with the Greeks, I say we all drop them and read Nietzsche, who already dealt the ancient for us. Too bad there isn’t a Chinese Nietzsche hitherto. Now whatever he is, he must rather western with an emphasis on science. This is how China should proceed, not to dig Laozi out and keep swinging with Confusian morality, neither to westernise madly like Japan and Korea, China need to westernise with a whole new system of ideaology that encompasses capitalist economy, democratic politics and their adjustion, adaptation, possibly associated invention, based refilling western philosophy by eastern philosophy, archieving a suitable and invincible amalgation.
Nononono, you misunderstand me. I did not mean my question to be an attack, I was merely curious as to your thinking. There was a thread a while ago about the value of books (I forgot your response on the thread) and I was merely curious as to your thinking.
I agree that we agree. I am not on this forum to put anybody down, and I hope you don’t think that I am trying to engage in a game of one-upsmanship. I have merely noticed that I tend to end up in discussions more with some people than others. So that I might better understand those people, I seek to understand their philosophical inclinations. Makes for a more interesting discussion and it helps eliminate misunderstandings.
I did no such thing. The post you quoted was not for you, it was for our Italian sounding friend. The post after that, was for you.
I don’t see you as agressive, but rather polite and reasonable. Well done, you can call yourself a confusian.
I didn’t realize I was offensive. My apologies.
I simply have a personal understanding that one cannot look forward, if one is not sure what one has left behind.
I personally have no care for Nietzsche, I find him abject, it’s my own defect I guess. Sorry for creating the problem, I thought it was a bit more of an open discourse. I’m not Italian, I am Sicilian, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
You people have got to stop appologising and concentrate on Dao and stuff. You make me look bad. liquidangel’s gona think I am up for no good and poking on posters again. I don’t want her disappointed or the thread hijaked by mutual appologies for Wuwei.
Alright, I’m not gona appologise becasue what I’ve just said. But you being a Sicilian is noted. I’m glad Dao has managed to crep up onto an island in the Mediterinian. And I hope you have no hostile feelings towards Italians, becasue as far as my experience goes, they are lovely people. I guess Sicilians are rather similar due to the geographical closeness hence climate identicailty and historical merger. I know all the scary blackhands mafias come from Sicily, but that alone doesn’t undermine my confidence in Mediterinian temperment/personality. Besides, I always like Bach’s Sicilianos. What’s more: Nietzsche was a fan of the southern Europe in general, its climate, people and culture. I thought you might want to know that.
Here is a link to an essay that I thought would be of general interest to readers of this thread:
ganesha-publishing.com/confucius_intro.htm
It has a nice east meets west theme to it.
Edit: Here is another one, this one on Sino-Nietzschians and the Daoist/Nietzsche combo.
muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of … eller.html
Mastriani,
Thanks, BTW for the Shen-Dao comment. I was curious to see what someone who liked Daoist philosophy thought of him. Since he is sorta at the interface of legalism/Daoism. Cool stuff.
Uniqor,
Well, thank you for the compliment! As to how I picked one out, eh, you dig the N-bomb, I’ll take Xunzi . . . they’re all philosophers at the end of the day.
LOL. Well done, we are just agreeably different. I didn’t say I wasn’t aware of Nietzsche, just don’t care for him. LOL, what can I say, I am defective.
Tao didn’t really “creep”. It was more like a windstorm of cognitive housecleaning that summarily blew the lid off me tiny thinker. Plus, although Sicilian, I don’t live in Sicily, although it might be nice to go home.(Mastriani means “Master of tailors”, as in suitmaker).
I have to assume, being that you are obviously predisposed to the Nietzsche, that your interest in Tao is academic or refutory? What is your point, to stay on topic, that you are wanting to elucidate?
Master of Tailors,
Sir if you happen to own one of those seemingly damp little shops that actually supply tailors for Prince Charles, in Oxford Street London, I imagine that your interest in Dao arises from affluenza.
You have to carry on with Xunzian, he’s the guy here who can go Daoing with you. I’m just trying to check out the essay he posted there, which has to do with Economics, which is my true academic interest.
Ah, well then, I am not your person for that discourse. Economics is not an acumen of mine, and I find it antithetical to the philosophy of Tao.
As far as Sir Xunzian, he is far too adroit for me, I can’t keep step with him, and he should do well for you in your discourse.
If I did own a shop, I would no longer be forced to suffer the leeching of my vital essence by corporate America. Alas, it isn’t so.
I wouldn’t worry about appearances dear.
You have no idea what I think, but please carry on, the entertainment is delightful. 
A