I'm excited to see you cover more philosophers across traditions!! Curious if you plan to cover Fernando Pessoa's writings! There's some recent philosophical work on Pessoa by Jonardon Ganeri, Bartholomew Ryan, and others. Also Leo Strauss's theologico-political problem - something I've been thinking about of late.
Good reading, I love the tao te Ching. It’s definitely a way of looking at life and the universe from the “big picture” perspective. And I’m glad you mentioned non-duality. His writing shows you the interconnected quality of existence.
The last line you discussed I read as "before something is received, it has to be given", which is more 'common sensical' than the way you were discussing it as "before *you* receive, *you* must give"
Hello. I just found the channel and am starting to gobble up content. That's for sharing these discussions. I agree with another commenter about the fish - that a fish going into shallow water is more at risk, just as a state revealing its weapons puts it at risk. Being that these last sentences seem to be the real focus of this text, I believe those first lines are meant to be supportive of the final few. These all seem to be about the perception of states of being as seen from another. Because weakness follows strength, don't reveal strength and one's potential for weakness will not be seen. Don't show expansion and "the other" will not see your potential for shrinkage, etc.
The last two lines are parallel. The fish and the ruler must both be CAUTIOUS. The previous stanza established that failure follows strength. To display weapons is to invite war and one’s own death.
I find the reflections really interesting but one that that I would love to see is how your personal experiences connect with the aphorism. What strikes you about this idea? I think it would bring the discussion back to earth and closer to a personal meaning I could relate to. (Just thinking about this particular type of laid back video). Love the content though! Thankss
By presenting a series of oppositions, Lao Tze implies a flux, from one state to another, and change as the only constant. By extension, at the 'middle' of a given flux, one must be neither one nor the other; in other words, 'nothing', which is otherwise difficult to express or define. I think of this as analogous to the mathematical concept of limits, where zero or infinity can only ever be approached, but never reached.
Question: does he suggest that the "middle" has a value? For example, is it the same thing that the ancient Greeks thought of as "moderation in all things", which they saw as the most desirable state of mind? Or is it more like a mathematical concept, like "the average of a set of numbers"?
Following is Verse 36 of the Tao Ti Ching The Tarcher Cornerstone Edition/Penguin (2003) Translated by Jonathan Star: "Contraction pulls at that which extends too far. Weakness pulls at that which strengthens too much. Ruin pulls at that which rises too high. Loss pulls at life when you fill it with too much stuff. The lesson here is called “The wisdom of obscurity”- The gentle outlast the strong. The obscure outlast the obvious. Hence, a fish that ventures from deep water is soon snagged by a net. A country that reveals its strength is soon conquered by an enemy." My understanding on the last verse is that if one reveals one's strength then this allows one's enemy to plan in advance for that strength that is known in advance. But if one conceals one's strength then this means one's enemy cannot plan for what is unknown and therefore that enemy can be surprised in battle and hopefully unprepared. Maybe Sun Tzu in the Art of War may have had said something similar to this. I don't know.
Hello, I have a translation of the book in greek and the last line conveys quite a different meaning. Maybe it's a loose translation. It says that a fish in order to protect itself stays in deep waters but the world to protect itself must burry it's weapons. So the weapons here are buried not in order to be concealed but in order to not be used. It also has a note that says that the last line might not be original but a later addition, which maybe explains why it doesn't exactly fit with the rest.
Have you read the Jonathan Starr translation? It gives a translation but also a glossary of each Chinese character and all the possible translations so that the reader can potentially put together their own translation and generally gain deeper nuance and possibilities
Daodejing 36 is, among other things, military advice to a leader. In order to expand (your rule) you first have to contract, as in gather your power. The last two lines fit well with the rest because they make the military context a little more obvious.
Thanks! I used to love aphorisms, very much those of Lao Tze. Then, I lost interest in them with Nietzsche's overuse of them. ( who loved the mode of aphorism, or rather his take on aphorism) In his case, he often weakened rather than strengthened their perspective. For example, his personification of the strongman actually weakens him. Christ as weak actually makes him strong. Before Elle brought it up (kudos to her), I thought they were analyzing it, deconstructing it rather than taking it as whole wisdom. It flattens the beauty of aphorisms. On the last view of David, my mind reflected on Paramendias take on Este, being is. Metaphysics of logic, logically as one must be, can't be and not be( nothing ).cheers
"Before receiving there must giving" might also be interpreted as: "in order for somebody to receive,first somebody else must give," i.e., as referring to an act that necessarily involves two agents
With respect, I would have preferred a reading of the Daodejing that takes into account its political and cultural context and its intended audience (political leaders/kings/warlords).
There would be no night without the day and the same other way around, i think all the aphorism is at this point of view, interdependence and cycles throught the opposites
@@chuckles9767 agreed! Left hand up in a fist, for the cameras, right hand extended, palm up to receive a paycheck. Paychecks coming either from the military or 3M or Lockheed or whichever corporate interests have purchased them.
I think Dao De Jing is really all about the vibe. I'm sure its intuitive and internalisable nature, as well as. its beauty, accounts for its longevity and popularity. But it doesn't really stand up under forensic examination. That Ellie brought four translations tells us that not only is it hard to translate, but no one really knows what the text means. Its opaque language is often mocked by modern Chinese. 'The fish cannot leave the deep water' could be a line from SNL.
I'm excited to see you cover more philosophers across traditions!! Curious if you plan to cover Fernando Pessoa's writings! There's some recent philosophical work on Pessoa by Jonardon Ganeri, Bartholomew Ryan, and others. Also Leo Strauss's theologico-political problem - something I've been thinking about of late.
I live in Brazil and I love Overthink
Também :)
Good reading, I love the tao te Ching. It’s definitely a way of looking at life and the universe from the “big picture” perspective. And I’m glad you mentioned non-duality. His writing shows you the interconnected quality of existence.
The last line you discussed I read as "before something is received, it has to be given", which is more 'common sensical' than the way you were discussing it as "before *you* receive, *you* must give"
If you guys have goodreads accounts, kindly share.
Lots of love
Hello. I just found the channel and am starting to gobble up content. That's for sharing these discussions.
I agree with another commenter about the fish - that a fish going into shallow water is more at risk, just as a state revealing its weapons puts it at risk.
Being that these last sentences seem to be the real focus of this text, I believe those first lines are meant to be supportive of the final few.
These all seem to be about the perception of states of being as seen from another.
Because weakness follows strength, don't reveal strength and one's potential for weakness will not be seen. Don't show expansion and "the other" will not see your potential for shrinkage, etc.
The last two lines are parallel. The fish and the ruler must both be CAUTIOUS. The previous stanza established that failure follows strength. To display weapons is to invite war and one’s own death.
I find the reflections really interesting but one that that I would love to see is how your personal experiences connect with the aphorism. What strikes you about this idea? I think it would bring the discussion back to earth and closer to a personal meaning I could relate to. (Just thinking about this particular type of laid back video). Love the content though! Thankss
By presenting a series of oppositions, Lao Tze implies a flux, from one state to another, and change as the only constant. By extension, at the 'middle' of a given flux, one must be neither one nor the other; in other words, 'nothing', which is otherwise difficult to express or define.
I think of this as analogous to the mathematical concept of limits, where zero or infinity can only ever be approached, but never reached.
Question: does he suggest that the "middle" has a value? For example, is it the same thing that the ancient Greeks thought of as "moderation in all things", which they saw as the most desirable state of mind? Or is it more like a mathematical concept, like "the average of a set of numbers"?
Following is Verse 36 of the Tao Ti Ching
The Tarcher Cornerstone Edition/Penguin (2003)
Translated by Jonathan Star:
"Contraction pulls at that which extends too far.
Weakness pulls at that which strengthens too much.
Ruin pulls at that which rises too high.
Loss pulls at life when you fill it with too much stuff.
The lesson here is called “The wisdom of obscurity”-
The gentle outlast the strong. The obscure outlast the obvious.
Hence, a fish that ventures from deep water is soon snagged by a net.
A country that reveals its strength is soon conquered by an enemy."
My understanding on the last verse is that if one reveals one's strength then this allows one's enemy to plan in advance for that strength that is known in advance. But if one conceals one's strength then this means one's enemy cannot plan for what is unknown and therefore that enemy can be surprised in battle and hopefully unprepared. Maybe Sun Tzu in the Art of War may have had said something similar to this. I don't know.
Hello, I have a translation of the book in greek and the last line conveys quite a different meaning. Maybe it's a loose translation.
It says that a fish in order to protect itself stays in deep waters but the world to protect itself must burry it's weapons.
So the weapons here are buried not in order to be concealed but in order to not be used. It also has a note that says that the last line might not be original but a later addition, which maybe explains why it doesn't exactly fit with the rest.
Have you read the Jonathan Starr translation? It gives a translation but also a glossary of each Chinese character and all the possible translations so that the reader can potentially put together their own translation and generally gain deeper nuance and possibilities
Daodejing 36 is, among other things, military advice to a leader. In order to expand (your rule) you first have to contract, as in gather your power. The last two lines fit well with the rest because they make the military context a little more obvious.
It is appropriate and effective to try to understand that aphorism separate from the concept of Dao itself?
Thanks! I used to love aphorisms, very much those of Lao Tze. Then, I lost interest in them with Nietzsche's overuse of them. ( who loved the mode of aphorism, or rather his take on aphorism) In his case, he often weakened rather than strengthened their perspective. For example, his personification of the strongman actually weakens him. Christ as weak actually makes him strong. Before Elle brought it up (kudos to her), I thought they were analyzing it, deconstructing it rather than taking it as whole wisdom. It flattens the beauty of aphorisms. On the last view of David, my mind reflected on Paramendias take on Este, being is. Metaphysics of logic, logically as one must be, can't be and not be( nothing ).cheers
"Before receiving there must giving" might also be interpreted as: "in order for somebody to receive,first somebody else must give," i.e., as referring to an act that necessarily involves two agents
Eastern philosophy, let’s goooo 🥳
I wish you would give us life examples
🙏
With respect, I would have preferred a reading of the Daodejing that takes into account its political and cultural context and its intended audience (political leaders/kings/warlords).
There would be no night without the day and the same other way around, i think all the aphorism is at this point of view, interdependence and cycles throught the opposites
❤
"your" sry! no pun intended...
如果有兴趣的话可以关注一下老子思想的现代化发展“递弱代偿”
I tried to explode the binary of paid-professor and paying-student, but even my ardently left-wing professors wouldn’t go in for it, not even a dime.
@@chuckles9767 agreed! Left hand up in a fist, for the cameras, right hand extended, palm up to receive a paycheck. Paychecks coming either from the military or 3M or Lockheed or whichever corporate interests have purchased them.
I think Dao De Jing is really all about the vibe. I'm sure its intuitive and internalisable nature, as well as. its beauty, accounts for its longevity and popularity. But it doesn't really stand up under forensic examination. That Ellie brought four translations tells us that not only is it hard to translate, but no one really knows what the text means. Its opaque language is often mocked by modern Chinese. 'The fish cannot leave the deep water' could be a line from SNL.