Heraclitus' philosophy and comparisons to Buddhist, Whiteheadian, and Daoist philosophy. Nymano - Back to Reality On UA-cam: • Video Nymano: nymano.bandcamp.com/
Excellent content again! I couldn't help but think throughout how Derrida would fit so well into this video, especially after your mention of the dichotomy and of the expression of logos, in particular the idea of flux-monism. 10/10 :)
@@alecmisra4964 Hahaha, I'm actually in a course doing a couple of Post-Structuralists (Deleuze and Derrida) right now and I'm empathetic to your criticism. There's undoubtedly the factor of the limitations/biases of our current use of language, but I can't say I didn't wish it was a bit more accessible.
Hey, I love your work. Random question: do you see a similarity between the dao and Nietzsche’s will to power? If so, to what extent? I recognize both as metaphysical processes that drive microcosmic and macrocosmic events, but I’m curious about your perspective.
That's a really good question! I agree that both can be interpreted as you described and such an interpretation makes them an interesting comparison between two distinct philosophies. Of course, both have interpretations that are less metaphysical, often social and psychological in the case of the Will to Power and ritualistic or spiritual in the case of the Dao. But both ideas appear to stand as the ultimate principle of their respective philosophies. As metaphysical principles, both can be seen as the driving force behind all things. In the case of the Will to Power, Nietzsche wrote, "The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterize as the 'Will to Power.'" (The Will to Power, §619) A metaphysical reading also places Dao at the source of creation as in the first chapter of the Dao de Jing where it is written, "nameless, it is the origin of heaven and earth. Named, it is the mother of the ten thousand things." In both cases, it also appears that there is nothing outside of them. "This world is the Will to Power-and nothing else! And even ye yourselves are this will to power-and nothing besides!" (The Will to Power, §1067) "All-pervading is the Great Dao! It may be found on the left hand and on the right... it may be named in the smallest things. All things return and do not know that it is it which presides over their doing so; - it may be named in the greatest things." (Dao de Jing, Ch 34, Trans. Legge) Yet, neither concepts indicate simple monism. The ideas surrounding dualistic monism may too have some overlap. When the ideas of the Laozi and Zhuangzi synthesized with those of the Yin-Yang School, there was the adoption of the idea of Dao as the root of yin and yang, the perpetually changing opposites of creation and destruction. The following excerpt from Nietzsche sounds like it nearly could have been taken straight from a modern Zhuangzi, only with "Dao" instead of "energy", "it is rather energy everywhere, the play of forces and force-waves, at the same time one and many, agglomerating here and diminishing there, a sea of forces storming and raging in itself, for ever changing, for ever rolling back over in calculable ages to recurrence, with an ebb and flow of its forms, producing the most complicated things out of the most simple structures; producing the most ardent, most savage, and most contradictory things out of the quietest" (The Will to Power, §1067) Another concept from the Dao de Jing may also be relevant to the comparison. "De" (德), which is the second word of the Dao de Jing (道德經), is translated by most as "virtue," but by others as "power." The 38th chapter of the Dao de Jing (which is often understood as the first chapter of the "De Jing" as the text is often found split into two parts, a Dao and a De) says, The man of highest “power” does not reveal himself as a possessor of “power”; Therefore he keeps his “power”. The man of inferior “power” cannot rid it of the appearance of “power”... That is why it is said: “After Tao was lost, then came the 'power'; After the 'power' was lost, then came human kindness. After human kindness was lost, then came morality, After morality was lost, then came ritual. Now ritual is the mere husk of loyalty and promise-keeping And is indeed the first step towards brawling.” (Trans. Waley) This section and its implications may be seen as close to the critique of moral values that Nietzsche wrote in his book Beyond Good and Evil. However, when the psychological ideas surrounding Nietzsche's Will to Power are introduced, I believe it leads to conflict between the two philosophies. If the Will to Power is to be seen as the psychological drive for the projection of our ego through strength and pride, then it may be far from the ideas in the Dao de Jing and Zhuangzi that instead suggest, "the sage (ruler), wishing to be above men, puts himself by his words below them, and, wishing to be before them, places his person behind them." (Dao de Jing, Ch 66, Trans. Legge) The Will to Power as interpreted by the psychologist Alfred Adler as "the determination to strive for superiority and domination" could not be farther from the philosophy of the Dao de Jing and Zhuangzi. Despite their vastly different backgrounds, the philosophies of Nietzsche and the pre-Qin Daoists appear to have some fascinating overlap and its definitely something I'd like to explore further in the future. Thanks for the great question and for watching my content!
Ian Withy-Berry WOW. I appreciate this reply so damn much. I’ve just recently been introduced to both concepts, and you’ve helped me juxtapose them so much better than I’ve been trying to do myself. Thank you! Could you entertain one more thought?? I wonder if the psychological opposition of these philosophies can actually be complimentary rather than antithetical if viewed through a Jungian perspective. Jung’s description of the two will centers of the psyche, the ego and the Self, seem like they can be driven by the will to power and the dao, respectively. Adler’s interpretation of the will to power is almost perfectly characteristic of the ego, at least in the hero myth. Do you see a possible similarity between the Self as the unconscious, passive, and divine organizing principle of the mind and a psychological interpretation of the dao?? Cause that’d be dope af. Thanks again.
@@tavontebrown7394 Sorry for the late response. I'm not very familiar with Jung so I can't say much for certain. I agree that as understood by Adler the 'will to power' and the Jungian 'ego' particularly in terms of differentiation. But I am genuinely unaware of a psychological interpretation of the 'Dao,' and I'm not entirely sure what that would look like, since its references tend to transcend the human or suggest something a person could be in accord with or not depending on their actions. Certainly, I think there is the possibility for a psychological interpretation of 'Dao.' And a Jungian synthesis of Nietzschean and Pre-Qin Daoist ideas sounds fascinating!
Ian Withy-Berry No worries, this is some very nuanced territory haha. But now, especially after hearing a bit of your perspective, I feel like I have to figure out how far the rabbit hole goes. Looking forward to more of your content!
Wow, this is such a fresh analysis of Heraclitus, which is already a hard task, well done mate! If I may point out something from the original fragments. What you call the alternative reading is just another fragment, so assuming Plato accurately represented/understood Heraclitus, both his quote and the "alternative reading" are things that Heraclitus believed, rather than two alternative interpretations of his view. I made my own attempt at summarising Heraclitus' teachings (plus contextualising them and comparing them to what Greek philosophers before him were saying and how a lot of his views survived in the teachings of later Greek philosophers, rather than the comparisons to Daoism and Buddhism you make, which are so interesting!). Here's the link if you like to check it out: ua-cam.com/video/nzvahDBBkYg/v-deo.html
Sorry this is an extremely late reply but I feel more capable of answering this question now and I figure better late than never. I can't lay too much of a claim for moral relativism in the Daodejing or other Daoist texts, but it is one of the greatest threads of the Zhuangzi. The Zhuangzi seeks to undermine our presupposed ethical norms through commonly addressing the perspective of those who aren't human. Here's a quote from the second chapter translated by James Legge: "If a man sleeps in a damp place, he will have a pain in his loins, and half his body will be as if it were dead; but will it be so with an eel? If he be living in a tree, he will be frightened and all in a tremble; but will it be so with a monkey? And does any one of the three know his right place?" This suggests that there is not a fixed "right place" for all things and all peoples. From thing to thing, such judgements are bound to vary greatly. Hence, the Zhuangzi suggests that evaluations like right and wrong are just as dependent on our perspective as saying "this" and "that." It simply matters where you are standing. This then is moral relativism or perspectivism. Although, it's important to note that relativism wasn't simply the doctrine of the Zhuangzi. He sought not to advocate for this relativism as a position. Indeed, he even utilized arguments of skepticism at other points. (Skepticism and relativism being two contradictory doctrines.) The Zhuangzi seeks to use this as a stepping stone. It is the wrecking ball to demolish our many man-made distinctions hindering our experience of the world. Relativism and skepticism allow us to detach from forms of judgement that often lead us to fear, anxiety, and anger. One could ask someone on a date only to get rejected and called ugly. As most take it, this would be a damning evaluation that reflects back on one's person. But, through acknowledging that this is nothing more than the perspective of the other person, the judgement appears far less damning. Skepticism too can help by questioning whether it would have actually been a good thing if the other person were to say yes. Less concerned by conventional standards, the Zhuangzian is free to meet the endless transformations of the world with equanimity.
The two are certainly not opposed but, in my opinion, there associations may be more nuanced. Heraclitus' 'panta rhei' indicates the constant change of all things from one moment to the next, a becoming metaphysic. 'Sunyata', as articulated by Nagarjuna, indicates the "emptiness" of all things (the lack of 'svabhava' or "inherent existence") and is the denial of all (the four-fold) assertions. There does appear to be some overlap between these two concepts (in the non-substantiality of things). I believe that this overlap is to be found in the Buddhist idea that preceded 'sunyata' by centuries, 'anitya.' 'Sunyata,' developed by Nagarjuna roughly around the third century CE, is often understood to be the logical extension of the two central early Buddhist insights of 'anitya' and 'pratitya-samutpada.' In my understanding, 'anitya' indicates, like Heraclitus' 'panta rhei,' the impermanence and flux of all things, hence the parallel I draw in the video above. 'Pratitya-samutpada' indicates the interdependence of all things, often translated as "codependent origination." Nagarjuna, centuries after the Buddha's time, displayed how interdependence and impermanence pointed towards emptiness. In the fragments of Heraclitus' writings that are available to us today, there are the concepts of 'logos' as "unity" and 'panta rhei' as "flow." While I am not aware of an explicit idea similar to 'sunyata' throughout the work of Heraclitus, the ideas of 'logos' and 'panta rhei' hold some similarity to the early Buddhist concepts of 'pratitya-samutpada' and 'anitya.' Therefore, it may be possible to attain a Heraclitean "emptiness" through these concepts as Nagarjuna had through the early Buddhist concepts. I hope this helps and thanks for watching my video!
Excellent content again! I couldn't help but think throughout how Derrida would fit so well into this video, especially after your mention of the dichotomy and of the expression of logos, in particular the idea of flux-monism. 10/10 :)
One day I'll have enough of a grasp on the post-Structuralists to make solid connections. Until then, I'll be grateful for any that you point out!
@@IanWithyBerry i shouldnt bother, it is basically the exact same ideas but with a lot of pretentious jargon.
@@alecmisra4964 Hahaha, I'm actually in a course doing a couple of Post-Structuralists (Deleuze and Derrida) right now and I'm empathetic to your criticism. There's undoubtedly the factor of the limitations/biases of our current use of language, but I can't say I didn't wish it was a bit more accessible.
Very neat and quality video. I’m glad I discovered this channel. Keep up the good work!
Really happy to have found this channel when I did, I can't wait for it to blow up.
Keep doing what you're doing! You're doing an excellent job!
Dude did you come from reddit?
@@emo_girlbymgk8181 Yup!
Nice video you earned a subscription. I'd like to write about this comparison one day this video will be a great resource for that :) thanks!
Very good video!
Everything changes and yet nothing changes.
Music is by Nymano
Hey, I love your work. Random question: do you see a similarity between the dao and Nietzsche’s will to power? If so, to what extent? I recognize both as metaphysical processes that drive microcosmic and macrocosmic events, but I’m curious about your perspective.
That's a really good question!
I agree that both can be interpreted as you described and such an interpretation makes them an interesting comparison between two distinct philosophies. Of course, both have interpretations that are less metaphysical, often social and psychological in the case of the Will to Power and ritualistic or spiritual in the case of the Dao. But both ideas appear to stand as the ultimate principle of their respective philosophies.
As metaphysical principles, both can be seen as the driving force behind all things. In the case of the Will to Power, Nietzsche wrote, "The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterize as the 'Will to Power.'" (The Will to Power, §619) A metaphysical reading also places Dao at the source of creation as in the first chapter of the Dao de Jing where it is written, "nameless, it is the origin of heaven and earth. Named, it is the mother of the ten thousand things." In both cases, it also appears that there is nothing outside of them. "This world is the Will to Power-and nothing else! And even ye yourselves are this will to power-and nothing besides!" (The Will to Power, §1067) "All-pervading is the Great Dao! It may be found on the left hand and on the right... it may be named in the smallest things. All things return and do not know that it is it which presides over their doing so; - it may be named in the greatest things." (Dao de Jing, Ch 34, Trans. Legge) Yet, neither concepts indicate simple monism. The ideas surrounding dualistic monism may too have some overlap. When the ideas of the Laozi and Zhuangzi synthesized with those of the Yin-Yang School, there was the adoption of the idea of Dao as the root of yin and yang, the perpetually changing opposites of creation and destruction. The following excerpt from Nietzsche sounds like it nearly could have been taken straight from a modern Zhuangzi, only with "Dao" instead of "energy", "it is rather energy everywhere, the play of forces and force-waves, at the same time one and many, agglomerating here and diminishing there, a sea of forces storming and raging in itself, for ever changing, for ever rolling back over in calculable ages to recurrence, with an ebb and flow of its forms, producing the most complicated things out of the most simple structures; producing the most ardent, most savage, and most contradictory things out of the quietest" (The Will to Power, §1067)
Another concept from the Dao de Jing may also be relevant to the comparison. "De" (德), which is the second word of the Dao de Jing (道德經), is translated by most as "virtue," but by others as "power." The 38th chapter of the Dao de Jing (which is often understood as the first chapter of the "De Jing" as the text is often found split into two parts, a Dao and a De) says,
The man of highest “power” does not reveal himself as a possessor of “power”; Therefore he keeps his “power”.
The man of inferior “power” cannot rid it of the appearance of “power”...
That is why it is said:
“After Tao was lost, then came the 'power';
After the 'power' was lost, then came human kindness.
After human kindness was lost, then came morality,
After morality was lost, then came ritual.
Now ritual is the mere husk of loyalty and promise-keeping
And is indeed the first step towards brawling.” (Trans. Waley)
This section and its implications may be seen as close to the critique of moral values that Nietzsche wrote in his book Beyond Good and Evil.
However, when the psychological ideas surrounding Nietzsche's Will to Power are introduced, I believe it leads to conflict between the two philosophies. If the Will to Power is to be seen as the psychological drive for the projection of our ego through strength and pride, then it may be far from the ideas in the Dao de Jing and Zhuangzi that instead suggest, "the sage (ruler), wishing to be above men, puts himself by his words below them, and, wishing to be before them, places his person behind them." (Dao de Jing, Ch 66, Trans. Legge) The Will to Power as interpreted by the psychologist Alfred Adler as "the determination to strive for superiority and domination" could not be farther from the philosophy of the Dao de Jing and Zhuangzi.
Despite their vastly different backgrounds, the philosophies of Nietzsche and the pre-Qin Daoists appear to have some fascinating overlap and its definitely something I'd like to explore further in the future. Thanks for the great question and for watching my content!
Ian Withy-Berry WOW. I appreciate this reply so damn much. I’ve just recently been introduced to both concepts, and you’ve helped me juxtapose them so much better than I’ve been trying to do myself. Thank you! Could you entertain one more thought?? I wonder if the psychological opposition of these philosophies can actually be complimentary rather than antithetical if viewed through a Jungian perspective. Jung’s description of the two will centers of the psyche, the ego and the Self, seem like they can be driven by the will to power and the dao, respectively. Adler’s interpretation of the will to power is almost perfectly characteristic of the ego, at least in the hero myth. Do you see a possible similarity between the Self as the unconscious, passive, and divine organizing principle of the mind and a psychological interpretation of the dao?? Cause that’d be dope af. Thanks again.
@@tavontebrown7394 Sorry for the late response. I'm not very familiar with Jung so I can't say much for certain. I agree that as understood by Adler the 'will to power' and the Jungian 'ego' particularly in terms of differentiation. But I am genuinely unaware of a psychological interpretation of the 'Dao,' and I'm not entirely sure what that would look like, since its references tend to transcend the human or suggest something a person could be in accord with or not depending on their actions. Certainly, I think there is the possibility for a psychological interpretation of 'Dao.' And a Jungian synthesis of Nietzschean and Pre-Qin Daoist ideas sounds fascinating!
Ian Withy-Berry No worries, this is some very nuanced territory haha. But now, especially after hearing a bit of your perspective, I feel like I have to figure out how far the rabbit hole goes. Looking forward to more of your content!
Well done
Thanks!
Wow, this is such a fresh analysis of Heraclitus, which is already a hard task, well done mate!
If I may point out something from the original fragments. What you call the alternative reading is just another fragment, so assuming Plato accurately represented/understood Heraclitus, both his quote and the "alternative reading" are things that Heraclitus believed, rather than two alternative interpretations of his view.
I made my own attempt at summarising Heraclitus' teachings (plus contextualising them and comparing them to what Greek philosophers before him were saying and how a lot of his views survived in the teachings of later Greek philosophers, rather than the comparisons to Daoism and Buddhism you make, which are so interesting!). Here's the link if you like to check it out:
ua-cam.com/video/nzvahDBBkYg/v-deo.html
What would be the daoist perspective on moral relativism?
Sorry this is an extremely late reply but I feel more capable of answering this question now and I figure better late than never.
I can't lay too much of a claim for moral relativism in the Daodejing or other Daoist texts, but it is one of the greatest threads of the Zhuangzi. The Zhuangzi seeks to undermine our presupposed ethical norms through commonly addressing the perspective of those who aren't human. Here's a quote from the second chapter translated by James Legge:
"If a man sleeps in a damp place, he will have a pain in his loins, and half his body will be as if it were dead; but will it be so with an eel? If he be living in a tree, he will be frightened and all in a tremble; but will it be so with a monkey? And does any one of the three know his right place?"
This suggests that there is not a fixed "right place" for all things and all peoples. From thing to thing, such judgements are bound to vary greatly. Hence, the Zhuangzi suggests that evaluations like right and wrong are just as dependent on our perspective as saying "this" and "that." It simply matters where you are standing. This then is moral relativism or perspectivism.
Although, it's important to note that relativism wasn't simply the doctrine of the Zhuangzi. He sought not to advocate for this relativism as a position. Indeed, he even utilized arguments of skepticism at other points. (Skepticism and relativism being two contradictory doctrines.) The Zhuangzi seeks to use this as a stepping stone. It is the wrecking ball to demolish our many man-made distinctions hindering our experience of the world. Relativism and skepticism allow us to detach from forms of judgement that often lead us to fear, anxiety, and anger.
One could ask someone on a date only to get rejected and called ugly. As most take it, this would be a damning evaluation that reflects back on one's person. But, through acknowledging that this is nothing more than the perspective of the other person, the judgement appears far less damning. Skepticism too can help by questioning whether it would have actually been a good thing if the other person were to say yes. Less concerned by conventional standards, the Zhuangzian is free to meet the endless transformations of the world with equanimity.
प्रकृति खुद को छिपाने के लिए तैयार नहीं है।
Just found this from a 3 year old Reddit post.
👍
Do you think it would be inappropriate to associate Heraclitus' substantial change with sunyata?
The two are certainly not opposed but, in my opinion, there associations may be more nuanced. Heraclitus' 'panta rhei' indicates the constant change of all things from one moment to the next, a becoming metaphysic. 'Sunyata', as articulated by Nagarjuna, indicates the "emptiness" of all things (the lack of 'svabhava' or "inherent existence") and is the denial of all (the four-fold) assertions. There does appear to be some overlap between these two concepts (in the non-substantiality of things). I believe that this overlap is to be found in the Buddhist idea that preceded 'sunyata' by centuries, 'anitya.' 'Sunyata,' developed by Nagarjuna roughly around the third century CE, is often understood to be the logical extension of the two central early Buddhist insights of 'anitya' and 'pratitya-samutpada.' In my understanding, 'anitya' indicates, like Heraclitus' 'panta rhei,' the impermanence and flux of all things, hence the parallel I draw in the video above. 'Pratitya-samutpada' indicates the interdependence of all things, often translated as "codependent origination." Nagarjuna, centuries after the Buddha's time, displayed how interdependence and impermanence pointed towards emptiness. In the fragments of Heraclitus' writings that are available to us today, there are the concepts of 'logos' as "unity" and 'panta rhei' as "flow." While I am not aware of an explicit idea similar to 'sunyata' throughout the work of Heraclitus, the ideas of 'logos' and 'panta rhei' hold some similarity to the early Buddhist concepts of 'pratitya-samutpada' and 'anitya.' Therefore, it may be possible to attain a Heraclitean "emptiness" through these concepts as Nagarjuna had through the early Buddhist concepts.
I hope this helps and thanks for watching my video!
He also wrote "Changing it rests". So yes.
I am indian.
I believe the truth person.