These 3 wise men should be studied and followed by all. Their teachings are 1000s of times more profound and useful than anything you will find in monotheistic dogma.
@@PhilosophyAnimal How exactly do you calculate profoundness ? Useful to whom ? Millions of people find it very useful to pray to God. They might not always get what they want, but they surely get what they feel they need. Therefore, it is useful to them.
It is never necessary to disparage one spiritual belief in order to promote another. Everyone should be free to decide for themselves what they find to be profound and useful for their own lives.
My grandparent’s funeral was held in the form of Shingon-shu, a branch of Buddhism, but it was so colorful and loud (drums, pipes etc.) that I thought it’s like…well, chinese. I only recently found out that Shingon-shu is largely influenced by Taoism. Many people think that Taoism has a limited influence in Japan, but in fact through mutual influence with Buddhism, I think Taoism did influence our minds to a certain degree.
Taoism seems to have something in common with the stoic principle of only concerning oneself with those things one can control -- namely ones own attitude. If you accept this stoic principle wholesale, then you will not try to control or resist outside events, nor be disturbed by them to any large degree, but simply accept them as unalterable reality. The problem I have found in these views is that, if taken wholesale, they seem to advocate a kind of passivity in general, whereas life often appears to require assertiveness and action in a Nietzschean, life-affirming, will-to-power kind of way. A living being -- and especially a human being -- doesn't just passively accept events, as if he were just another inanimate object, he acts, behaves, operates with purpose to change reality and bring about events to achieve his goals and intentions in life. Of course, there is probably a middle-ground here between passively accepting reality and purposefully acting to change it. The key is to find that balance between the two, which is no easy task in itself. But it speaks to another ancient, even more profound philosophical truth -- NOTHING TOO MUCH !
Actually Taoists also wrote the Art of War and many martial arts spring from Taoist ideas. It is not passive. It just says that everything has it's own Tao or way. The ultimate Tao is the Tao of nature or the Universe and that is something we can aspire to but never truly reach because of our nature and constraints as humans. When you understand the way or Tao of a person or thing, you do not need to use enormous effort to get what you want. So in other words, having the key to a door is much easier and less damaging than breaking it down.
@@igweogba6774 To say that every thing has its own TAO is vague enough to work in an astrology or fortune-cookie way. How do you come to know what the Tao of anything or anyone is ? If you simply say that it is whatever is the 'key' to that thing or person, then you are merely begging the question by substituting the vagueness of 'Tao' with the vagueness of 'key'. The term 'key' is vague here because it is being used as a metaphor for whatever 'Tao' means -- which, the best we can tell, is merely what 'works' with the least resistance for any particular thing or person we are dealing with. But how can we know before actually dealing with this thing or person ? It seems we can't. This appears to lead us into a 'trial and error' methodology for discovering the 'Tao'. So, x is what has so far worked to get the results with the least resistance, so x must be its Tao. Ok, but what exactly is Tao ? According to Aristotle, everything has it 'virtue' -- by which he seems to mean its natural purpose. But what is the Tao of a thing ? It seems a vague something that belongs to that thing and makes that thing work effectively, but what exactly is it ? A spirit, a motivation, a purpose... ?
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Well everything requires trial and error to some extent because the universe is always changing. Taoism (and Buddhism) is based on observation. So the door might require a key to open today but it might be unlocked tomorrow so we won't need one. So least resistance is still possible if we observe and act accordingly. Ideally there should always be a gap between observing and acting. But is there any meaning to this? Does my desire in relation to a tree or a door or an apple mean anything? We have these lines from the Tao Te Ching: The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao If you try to change it, you will ruin it. Try to hold it, and you will lose it. As you are trying to open the door you are forgetting it's other aspects: weight, height, strength, material etc What is the point of it all? Nobody knows
@@igweogba6774 One needs a lot of faith to believe in the existence of a thing that cannot only not be seen nor grasped nor changed, but can't even be named or described in any literal or significant way, other than with metaphors that might change tomorrow, and is something that nobody even knows the point of its existing in the first place.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Not quite. This is reality in a nutshell. Let's say you have a friend called John. What is John? it's just a name given by his parents. But does it describe his hair, or his ankles or the thousands of thoughts, memories and fantasies in his brain, his past you know nothing about and he might even have forgotten? It is impossible to point to exactly what John is so this is why we say he cannot be named. You can call him John but given all of the complexities of a human being, what does it even mean? And what is the point of his existence either?
Why do we celebrate Confucianism when it encourages hierarchy, to "know your place" and know everyone's rank. So if you're a king you're at the top. That's messed up because most kings were simply born into it... doesn't mean they're special in some way, or better than the others
@heavenlypath1065 Not arguing the point but creating your own unrelated strawman is so fun to watch. I used to do this too. It was pointless. Just argue the point.
In Indian philosophy there are 6 orthodox schools and 3 unorthodox schools. The unorthodox schools are Charvaka, Jainism and Buddhism. The Charvaka are interesting imo because they rejected the idea of god, atma (soul), karma and rebirth. In essence they were proper atheist who only believed in empirical knowledge and didn't believe in anything beyond that. It's also called materialism.
It is interesting to speculate on the 'connections' between the philosophy of Heraclitus and Taoism. Heraclitus also seems to consider reality or nature as essentially fluid (or flowing), and he to uses the metaphor of a river to explain this fundamental truth. Moreover, he speaks of good and evil, and all opposites in general as being n a kind of 'yin and yang' relationship (although Heraclitus doesn't use this eastern terminology) as they are each necessary to the existence of each other, and, therefore, not completely opposed -- at least from the point-of-view of reality itself.
what should one follow is the biggest question. Should I follow the western philosophy of Plato and Socrates or Should i follow Buddhism and confusionism ? Personally I think one should be internally a Buddha but publicly follow confucianism
Interesting video. 💞 Loved it. I ve always thought that everything in the world is just a happening, good it was or bad. The purpose is to not try to control everything in life. nature has her own ways to control things too. ( it still a personal opinion).
What Greek philosopher advocated changing the world ? Outside of Plato, I can't really think of one major Greek philosopher who advocated for changing the world. The Pre-Socratics sought to describe the world and to explain its origin, not to change it. The sophists didn't really care about changing the world, so much as they cared about making the individual better by teaching him the arts of rhetoric, persuasion, and political advantage. Socrates also sought to make the individual better by teaching him the art of self-reflection through a rational examination of one's own life and values. Sure, Socrates upset the political/social/religious order by his persistent questioning of his fellow men, but it was not really his intention to bring about political/social reform, so much as it was to change the individual's dogmatic way of thinking and pursuit of not-well-thought-out pursuits and ambitions. It was only Plato who really sought to broaden Socrates' mission into an attempt to remake over society -- with his 'Republic' and its Philosopher-Kings, etc. Aristotle was much less interested in political/social reform than Plato, as his own interests are mainly more scientific/logical/metaphysical, and his ethics are more centered on the duties of the individual than the society. The Epicureans and Cynics are individualistic in their focus, as are the Skeptics. The Stoics view of a universal citizenship seems like a political view, but their main doctrine is not to change the world, so much as to accept it, and to adjust our demeanor to it.
@@SecretGarden-jc9ne I guess, you actually weren't a Christian and will finally become one. Toism isn't about faith but about observation - once you get the "eyes to see", then you'll see what you did not. I used to call myself a Christian long ago, but i also wasn't one - as i am now; as i see now. I used to look at the Bible and all i saw were figures of speech; things to repeat. Yet, now i see precise logic expanded in every word - all things make perfect sense. I don't know a book with greater insight into existence - nothing compares now. I have all my questions answered. Doesn't "the book of the way" in its passages come to the same conclusions from whose the Bible starts? The former shows the limit of human deduction, while the later shows the things known only to the existence itself - unattainable to those who are bound by it, those unable to not-exist yet understand. It is said: "If you see God face to face in all His Glory - you will surely die" .. only God will remain.
Life without desire is death. Imagine a man who always gets what he wants, and another who never gets what he wants. They will both eventually lose their desire. The first man will always get what he desires, and at first will be very happy, but eventually he will get bored and lethargic because it is all too easy, he only has to wish it, and it happens instantly -- he gets exactly what he desires. A man needs real challenges, obstacles to overcome, things to be conquered, in order to effectively and psychologically impose his will through Real EFFORT and STRUGGLE -- even suffering ! (see Nietzsche's will-to-power). The other man who never gets what he wants will be unhappy and begin to quickly despair, lose hope, and give-up. Sure, he might find some consolation in the teachings of the Tao, Stoicism, the Buddha, but he will surely have lost something vital that makes for real manhood -- the Will-to-Power !
With all due respect, I I believe you are missing the point of what is being discussed within the overall context of the video concerning these philosophies. You may not realize it, but at least part of what you are advocating (in a roundabout way) is very much akin to the Middle Path in Buddhism and the practices of balance, harmony, simplicity, naturalness, and spontaneity in Daoism. And when you think about it, what is Confucianism but the will-to-power within the various levels of social hierarchy within a society? Concerning desires, it is almost always financially wealthy people who can have their material desires generally fulfilled. But what about their deeper desires of emotional connection to others through feelings such as empathy? They may be lacking in that area. Also...their material gains may not fulfill that hole they feel in their hearts which some type of "enlightenment" could fulfill. As for those who desire much and don't get it, they are usually financially poorer people who can't afford much. I believe the best practice in life is to know the difference between needs and desires, because they are not the same thing (even though they may intertwine). If we focus on needs as a priority, then we can see which desires we possess and question why we have them so we can ascertain whether they are worth pursuing. There is a delicate balance to life here, and I believe it is better to exercise power over ourselves than over others in the general scheme of life. Wisdom is the key to all of this.
@@TheAgathist Regardless of whatever point the video is attempting to make, my statements are true, and the truth is what every philosopher should always desire to state.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Your statements are subjectively true to you. They don't have any universal application, or else they would be considered objective in a scientific sense. Whatever truth philosophers seek will be subjective outside of the scientific method itself. Since our own individual experiences are subjectively open to interpretation, any number of various philosophies could apply under an infinite number of circumstances...including my own view of Daoism as the general way of peace and balance. The exception to that way would be in the guise of Sun Tzu's Art of War, but that is the exception within a specific context. The will to power can fit (in a way) within the goal of mastering oneself in the arts of meditation, tai chi, qigong, or any other practice of self-cultivation. But any other area of life where it is applied over the control and use of force over others falls within the realm of Confucianism (which has lead to so many problens when it comes to a rules-based order within society).
@@TheAgathist As for the so-called 'scientific method', it is only a tool for discovering those physical and chemical laws that govern nature and the universe, and those psychological and sociological principles that determine general acts of human behavior. There is more to truth, however, than can be discovered by means of the scientific method. For example, the scientific method is not itself something that can be discovered by means of the scientific method. The truths of reason and logic, as well as those of mathematics, are no less objective than any discovery made by means of the scientific method. Philosophers attempt to use the objective truths of reason and logic to deduce philosophical principles. Suffice to say, philosophy is meant to be no less an objective study than is science
The typical problem with political/social hierarchy is that while the rulers should look after the well-being of those below them in the social hierarchy, the reality is that they almost invariably look-out for their own interests and welfare at the expense of those below them. This happens in both capitalist and communist countries alike, so restructuring the economic system is by no means a solution. Communism is based on the mythological premise that men always desire equality in their relations with their fellow men. No, men typically want to outperform and achieve more than their neighbors -- they are competitive by nature, and seek advantage at the expense of others when possible (think of buying and selling, everyone wishes to get the best deal for themselves.). So, there is in reality no doing away with hierarchy, as the failed communist systems ruled by wealthy party elites around the world are living proof of that ! The advantage of the capitalist system is that it is more open to social mobility and moving-up in the hierarchy precisely because it allows for more freedom than in communist countries controlled by autocratic governments. Of course, this freedom is really only possible when the capitalist country is also a fully-functioning democracy or democratically-elected republic.
While some interesting and informative insights were made in this video I found Cool History Bros to have a better explanation, not so subjective as this video is. Hard to tell the whole story of either of these philosophies in such a short video sure, but you must be honest about your inability to do so. also at 8:01 the painting of a Native American genocide is out of place for this content. thanks.
These 3 wise men should be studied and followed by all. Their teachings are 1000s of times more profound and useful than anything you will find in monotheistic dogma.
I agree.
The Bible understood the human nature better than any, these men or the Greeks...can only teach from human perspective.
@@PhilosophyAnimal How exactly do you calculate profoundness ? Useful to whom ? Millions of people find it very useful to pray to God. They might not always get what they want, but they surely get what they feel they need. Therefore, it is useful to them.
It is never necessary to disparage one spiritual belief in order to promote another. Everyone should be free to decide for themselves what they find to be profound and useful for their own lives.
monotheism is one of the greatest mistakes of all
My grandparent’s funeral was held in the form of Shingon-shu, a branch of Buddhism, but it was so colorful and loud (drums, pipes etc.) that I thought it’s like…well, chinese. I only recently found out that Shingon-shu is largely influenced by Taoism. Many people think that Taoism has a limited influence in Japan, but in fact through mutual influence with Buddhism, I think Taoism did influence our minds to a certain degree.
You figured tradition n forgot to open your ears wider , how can u let that moment go my boi what else are u complaining sbout
I’m living that same moment rn but your here complaining fam why though kid
Taoism seems to have something in common with the stoic principle of only concerning oneself with those things one can control -- namely ones own attitude. If you accept this stoic principle wholesale, then you will not try to control or resist outside events, nor be disturbed by them to any large degree, but simply accept them as unalterable reality.
The problem I have found in these views is that, if taken wholesale, they seem to advocate a kind of passivity in general, whereas life often appears to require assertiveness and action in a Nietzschean, life-affirming, will-to-power kind of way. A living being -- and especially a human being -- doesn't just passively accept events, as if he were just another inanimate object, he acts, behaves, operates with purpose to change reality and bring about events to achieve his goals and intentions in life.
Of course, there is probably a middle-ground here between passively accepting reality and purposefully acting to change it. The key is to find that balance between the two, which is no easy task in itself. But it speaks to another ancient, even more profound philosophical truth -- NOTHING TOO MUCH !
Actually Taoists also wrote the Art of War and many martial arts spring from Taoist ideas. It is not passive. It just says that everything has it's own Tao or way. The ultimate Tao is the Tao of nature or the Universe and that is something we can aspire to but never truly reach because of our nature and constraints as humans.
When you understand the way or Tao of a person or thing, you do not need to use enormous effort to get what you want. So in other words, having the key to a door is much easier and less damaging than breaking it down.
@@igweogba6774 To say that every thing has its own TAO is vague enough to work in an astrology or fortune-cookie way. How do you come to know what the Tao of anything or anyone is ? If you simply say that it is whatever is the 'key' to that thing or person, then you are merely begging the question by substituting the vagueness of 'Tao' with the vagueness of 'key'. The term 'key' is vague here because it is being used as a metaphor for whatever 'Tao' means -- which, the best we can tell, is merely what 'works' with the least resistance for any particular thing or person we are dealing with. But how can we know before actually dealing with this thing or person ? It seems we can't. This appears to lead us into a 'trial and error' methodology for discovering the 'Tao'. So, x is what has so far worked to get the results with the least resistance, so x must be its Tao. Ok, but what exactly is Tao ? According to Aristotle, everything has it 'virtue' -- by which he seems to mean its natural purpose. But what is the Tao of a thing ? It seems a vague something that belongs to that thing and makes that thing work effectively, but what exactly is it ? A spirit, a motivation, a purpose... ?
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Well everything requires trial and error to some extent because the universe is always changing. Taoism (and Buddhism) is based on observation. So the door might require a key to open today but it might be unlocked tomorrow so we won't need one. So least resistance is still possible if we observe and act accordingly. Ideally there should always be a gap between observing and acting.
But is there any meaning to this? Does my desire in relation to a tree or a door or an apple mean anything?
We have these lines from the Tao Te Ching:
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao
If you try to change it, you will ruin it. Try to hold it, and you will lose it.
As you are trying to open the door you are forgetting it's other aspects: weight, height, strength, material etc
What is the point of it all? Nobody knows
@@igweogba6774 One needs a lot of faith to believe in the existence of a thing that cannot only not be seen nor grasped nor changed, but can't even be named or described in any literal or significant way, other than with metaphors that might change tomorrow, and is something that nobody even knows the point of its existing in the first place.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Not quite. This is reality in a nutshell. Let's say you have a friend called John. What is John? it's just a name given by his parents. But does it describe his hair, or his ankles or the thousands of thoughts, memories and fantasies in his brain, his past you know nothing about and he might even have forgotten? It is impossible to point to exactly what John is so this is why we say he cannot be named. You can call him John but given all of the complexities of a human being, what does it even mean?
And what is the point of his existence either?
Why do we celebrate Confucianism when it encourages hierarchy, to "know your place" and know everyone's rank. So if you're a king you're at the top. That's messed up because most kings were simply born into it... doesn't mean they're special in some way, or better than the others
So how do you suggest we live without hierarchy?
@heavenlypath1065 Not arguing the point but creating your own unrelated strawman is so fun to watch. I used to do this too. It was pointless. Just argue the point.
@@josedanielherrera7115 says the guy who beats around the bush giving a low-handed passive aggressive diss
@@josedanielherrera7115 Your reponse brought zero value to my question. Can you try again?
In Indian philosophy there are 6 orthodox schools and 3 unorthodox schools. The unorthodox schools are Charvaka, Jainism and Buddhism.
The Charvaka are interesting imo because they rejected the idea of god, atma (soul), karma and rebirth. In essence they were proper atheist who only believed in empirical knowledge and didn't believe in anything beyond that. It's also called materialism.
following the main road is easy but men delight in difficult paths. Lao Tze
It is interesting to speculate on the 'connections' between the philosophy of Heraclitus and Taoism. Heraclitus also seems to consider reality or nature as essentially fluid (or flowing), and he to uses the metaphor of a river to explain this fundamental truth. Moreover, he speaks of good and evil, and all opposites in general as being n a kind of 'yin and yang' relationship (although Heraclitus doesn't use this eastern terminology) as they are each necessary to the existence of each other, and, therefore, not completely opposed -- at least from the point-of-view of reality itself.
The yin yang thing is actually a fundamental thought in almost every east asian philosophy and religion. Dualism/Monism
Bro in Buddhism,there is no soul, more specifically there’s no me. Consciousness is like electricity ⚡️
what should one follow is the biggest question. Should I follow the western philosophy of Plato and Socrates or Should i follow Buddhism and confusionism ? Personally I think one should be internally a Buddha but publicly follow confucianism
Interesting video. 💞 Loved it. I ve always thought that everything in the world is just a happening, good it was or bad. The purpose is to not try to control everything in life. nature has her own ways to control things too. ( it still a personal opinion).
Well said.
What Greek philosopher advocated changing the world ? Outside of Plato, I can't really think of one major Greek philosopher who advocated for changing the world. The Pre-Socratics sought to describe the world and to explain its origin, not to change it. The sophists didn't really care about changing the world, so much as they cared about making the individual better by teaching him the arts of rhetoric, persuasion, and political advantage. Socrates also sought to make the individual better by teaching him the art of self-reflection through a rational examination of one's own life and values. Sure, Socrates upset the political/social/religious order by his persistent questioning of his fellow men, but it was not really his intention to bring about political/social reform, so much as it was to change the individual's dogmatic way of thinking and pursuit of not-well-thought-out pursuits and ambitions. It was only Plato who really sought to broaden Socrates' mission into an attempt to remake over society -- with his 'Republic' and its Philosopher-Kings, etc. Aristotle was much less interested in political/social reform than Plato, as his own interests are mainly more scientific/logical/metaphysical, and his ethics are more centered on the duties of the individual than the society. The Epicureans and Cynics are individualistic in their focus, as are the Skeptics. The Stoics view of a universal citizenship seems like a political view, but their main doctrine is not to change the world, so much as to accept it, and to adjust our demeanor to it.
Taoism made me a Christian, lol
@@SecretGarden-jc9ne I guess, you actually weren't a Christian and will finally become one.
Toism isn't about faith but about observation - once you get the "eyes to see", then you'll see what you did not.
I used to call myself a Christian long ago, but i also wasn't one - as i am now; as i see now.
I used to look at the Bible and all i saw were figures of speech; things to repeat. Yet, now i see precise logic expanded in every word - all things make perfect sense. I don't know a book with greater insight into existence - nothing compares now. I have all my questions answered.
Doesn't "the book of the way" in its passages come to the same conclusions from whose the Bible starts? The former shows the limit of human deduction, while the later shows the things known only to the existence itself - unattainable to those who are bound by it, those unable to not-exist yet understand. It is said: "If you see God face to face in all His Glory - you will surely die" .. only God will remain.
Life without desire is death. Imagine a man who always gets what he wants, and another who never gets what he wants. They will both eventually lose their desire. The first man will always get what he desires, and at first will be very happy, but eventually he will get bored and lethargic because it is all too easy, he only has to wish it, and it happens instantly -- he gets exactly what he desires. A man needs real challenges, obstacles to overcome, things to be conquered, in order to effectively and psychologically impose his will through Real EFFORT and STRUGGLE -- even suffering ! (see Nietzsche's will-to-power). The other man who never gets what he wants will be unhappy and begin to quickly despair, lose hope, and give-up. Sure, he might find some consolation in the teachings of the Tao, Stoicism, the Buddha, but he will surely have lost something vital that makes for real manhood -- the Will-to-Power !
With all due respect, I I believe you are missing the point of what is being discussed within the overall context of the video concerning these philosophies. You may not realize it, but at least part of what you are advocating (in a roundabout way) is very much akin to the Middle Path in Buddhism and the practices of balance, harmony, simplicity, naturalness, and spontaneity in Daoism. And when you think about it, what is Confucianism but the will-to-power within the various levels of social hierarchy within a society? Concerning desires, it is almost always financially wealthy people who can have their material desires generally fulfilled. But what about their deeper desires of emotional connection to others through feelings such as empathy? They may be lacking in that area. Also...their material gains may not fulfill that hole they feel in their hearts which some type of "enlightenment" could fulfill. As for those who desire much and don't get it, they are usually financially poorer people who can't afford much. I believe the best practice in life is to know the difference between needs and desires, because they are not the same thing (even though they may intertwine). If we focus on needs as a priority, then we can see which desires we possess and question why we have them so we can ascertain whether they are worth pursuing. There is a delicate balance to life here, and I believe it is better to exercise power over ourselves than over others in the general scheme of life. Wisdom is the key to all of this.
@@TheAgathist Regardless of whatever point the video is attempting to make, my statements are true, and the truth is what every philosopher should always desire to state.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Your statements are subjectively true to you. They don't have any universal application, or else they would be considered objective in a scientific sense. Whatever truth philosophers seek will be subjective outside of the scientific method itself. Since our own individual experiences are subjectively open to interpretation, any number of various philosophies could apply under an infinite number of circumstances...including my own view of Daoism as the general way of peace and balance. The exception to that way would be in the guise of Sun Tzu's Art of War, but that is the exception within a specific context. The will to power can fit (in a way) within the goal of mastering oneself in the arts of meditation, tai chi, qigong, or any other practice of self-cultivation. But any other area of life where it is applied over the control and use of force over others falls within the realm of Confucianism (which has lead to so many problens when it comes to a rules-based order within society).
@@TheAgathist First of all, there is no such thing as 'subjective truth'. Truth is objective by definition.
@@TheAgathist As for the so-called 'scientific method', it is only a tool for discovering those physical and chemical laws that govern nature and the universe, and those psychological and sociological principles that determine general acts of human behavior. There is more to truth, however, than can be discovered by means of the scientific method. For example, the scientific method is not itself something that can be discovered by means of the scientific method. The truths of reason and logic, as well as those of mathematics, are no less objective than any discovery made by means of the scientific method. Philosophers attempt to use the objective truths of reason and logic to deduce philosophical principles. Suffice to say, philosophy is meant to be no less an objective study than is science
Taoism is the best follow by Buddhism. I don't like Confucianism at all. too rigid.
nothing worth getting, was ever easy
You didn't mention Krishna.... Buddhism, Taoism etc. came much later
Tell me about him
krishna wasnt a philosopher
Krishna was a not real... It's mythological character... Philosophy in the book is acceptable but not krishna as real person
Krishna Is as Real as Jesus you Doofus.
The typical problem with political/social hierarchy is that while the rulers should look after the well-being of those below them in the social hierarchy, the reality is that they almost invariably look-out for their own interests and welfare at the expense of those below them. This happens in both capitalist and communist countries alike, so restructuring the economic system is by no means a solution. Communism is based on the mythological premise that men always desire equality in their relations with their fellow men. No, men typically want to outperform and achieve more than their neighbors -- they are competitive by nature, and seek advantage at the expense of others when possible (think of buying and selling, everyone wishes to get the best deal for themselves.). So, there is in reality no doing away with hierarchy, as the failed communist systems ruled by wealthy party elites around the world are living proof of that ! The advantage of the capitalist system is that it is more open to social mobility and moving-up in the hierarchy precisely because it allows for more freedom than in communist countries controlled by autocratic governments. Of course, this freedom is really only possible when the capitalist country is also a fully-functioning democracy or democratically-elected republic.
While some interesting and informative insights were made in this video I found Cool History Bros to have a better explanation, not so subjective as this video is. Hard to tell the whole story of either of these philosophies in such a short video sure, but you must be honest about your inability to do so. also at 8:01 the painting of a Native American genocide is out of place for this content. thanks.
shop studied budd
Brahma: Confucius
Vishnu: Buddha
Shiva: Lao Tzu
Flying monkey believers getting mad 😂
Well rumor that this three was JESUS teacher when he was a child.
No, all these figures lived before Jesus was born.
"at least on paper" plus that subtle praise of confucianism, broh really said "I support the Chinese Communist Party, don't get me wrong"