Pop Philosophy and Its Usefulness
I was sent an article from the website Cracked a few years back from my nephew, titled "6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person", by Jason Pargin. Apparently it positively affected him and he wanted my thoughts about it, or at least to share its perceived wisdom.
I found it fairly juvenile. Mostly pop philosophy/psychology, distilled wisdom from various sources (Jesus, the Buddha, Aristotle, etc). Some of it was funny, some of it ridiculous and cringey. But years later, to my surprise I realized that parts of what was written in that article stuck with me.
Now of course I'd prefer my nephew (and anyone, really) read direct sources, to read Aristotle's Ethics or the Gospels or the Sutras. But that's not always realistic -- and it raises larger questions:
[hide="Reveal"] One snippet I kind of liked:
I found it fairly juvenile. Mostly pop philosophy/psychology, distilled wisdom from various sources (Jesus, the Buddha, Aristotle, etc). Some of it was funny, some of it ridiculous and cringey. But years later, to my surprise I realized that parts of what was written in that article stuck with me.
Now of course I'd prefer my nephew (and anyone, really) read direct sources, to read Aristotle's Ethics or the Gospels or the Sutras. But that's not always realistic -- and it raises larger questions:
- Is there not a place for articles like this, and pop philosophy in general?
- Are they helpful or do they do more harm than good?
- Was my initial reaction just an instance of snobbery, a kind of intellectual elitism?
- Can it even be done better than the philosophers and spiritual leaders from which it derives?
[hide="Reveal"] One snippet I kind of liked:
some people want to respond to that speech with Tyler Durden's line fromFight Club: "You are not your job."[/hide]
But, well, actually, you totally are. Granted, your "job" and your means of employment might not be the same thing, but in both cases, you are nothing more than the sum total of your useful skills. For instance, being a good mother is a job that requires a skill. It's something a person can do that is useful to other members of society. But make no mistake: Your "job" -- the useful thing you do for other people -- is all you are.
Comments (114)
I think your initial response (similar to mine) is elitism, which is just to say good taste. But kids don't like black coffee, and people who are only literate in the average way can't (yet) enjoy the better stuff. So for them it's dense obscure and useless.
Is there a place for the weak stuff, the coffee drowned in sugar and nondairy creamer ? I think there 'must' be, for this stuff 'is' the who of everyday beingthere. It's the generic or default 'softwhere' or identity of a generation. If a bot didn't write that article, a bot could have. Proximally and for the most part, we are bots. Kant quotes Leibniz on this in his anthropology. We are disturbed by others' repetition of themselves and failure to learn because they begin to seem mechanical and inhuman to us. My programming is a nightmare from which I, a bot, am trying to awake.
Can it be done better ? That seems like a great goal for introductions to thinkers. I adore philosophical novelists like Kundera and Hesse. That's one approach.
Sure. Why not? You can find good ideas anywhere, even in a fortune cookie.
Are they helpful or do they do more harm than good?
Both probably, as quality of articles may vary.
Was my initial reaction just an instance of snobbery, a kind of intellectual elitism?
If you were evaluating the source, rather than the ideas themselves, then maybe yes.
Can it even be done better than the philosophers and spiritual leaders from which it derives?
Absolutely. Not everyone understands "eschew obfuscation" but most people understand "strive to speak and write clearly".
Some thinking and refection is better than none. I am bombarded by these sorts of articles every week - mainly by HR companies and my own HR and strategy team. Mindfulness comes up a lot, as does stoicism. I have yet to read anything I personally can use. Some of the management team enjoy these pieces, but they are people who do not read much and are not natural thinkers. Is snobbery or elitism always bad?
I recall a quote from Australian art critic Robert Hughes, a man of modernist, old-school inclinations.
Excellent quote.
Suppose someone finds an interesting character in a TV show. They want to find out more about what makes this character "tick". These "... and Philosophy" books can be good to expand on certain themes in a show.
But then there's a bit of a dilemma: do you use the show as an excuse to introduce people to Plato, Augustine, Descartes? Or do you directly expand on the character itself, without pushing the classics on the reader?
I think there's room for both, but my general feeling is that they tend to opt with the second option, that of introducing Aristotle or Sartre or whoever. Which is fine, but then many of these books end up looking similar.
It's more honest to expand on what the person finds interesting in the show, than forcing Aristotle (or whoever) on to the reader.
Of course, there must be some authors who can combine the show with a historical figure and do a good job with it, but it often feels contrived. Perhaps a reference or two to some classics would do a better job than introducing Bentham for the 50th time. Might be a personal thing...
I like the coffee analogy.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yeah I definitely see mindfulness going "mainstream" the last decade or so. Even prior to that, in the 90s, I remember reading the top selling books of the week for nonfiction and it was usually "Who Moved my Cheese" and "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" and the like. (I remember like the latter when I read it -- but it's really a re-wording of a lot of buddhist principles.) Things haven't changed too much from then. Now it's a lot of stuff about habits and time management.
A lot of it coincides with pop psychology, of course.
Quoting Tom Storm
Nice.
Quoting Tom Storm
It's a good question. Having good taste isn't bad -- but probably being a snob is.
Quoting Manuel
Yeah, I mean one thing that comes to mind is The Matrix. That's had a lasting impact. All along it's just the brain in the vat thought experiment, itself an iteration of Descartes. A lot of fun -- but more worthwhile than actually reading Descartes? I'm inclined to say no.
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Mikie
Elitism judges the things, snobbery judges the person. Elitism holds up the best for everyone to see and appreciate if they can or want to, but snobbery merely holds up certain credentials as evidence of your superior status and the inferior status of everyone who is not in that class or in-group. Snobbery is always bad, but elitism isnt.
In this case @Mikie, because you say, I'd prefer my nephew (and anyone, really) read direct sources, youre an elitist but not a snob. You think the primary sources are the best and that your nephew has the potential to read and appreciate them.
On the other hand, Aristotle can be a chore to read, so theres nothing wrong with making things more digestible. Thats why we read introductions and secondary literature. I think the crucial difference is that pop philosophy, unlike secondary literature, is often dumbed down, written to please people or to catch the attention or to sell books, not to enlighten or teach.
:clap: Brilliant quote. (I miss his work and interviews.)
Quoting Mikie
It's the same place where e.g. Musak, juice bars and horoscopes belong.
Same as sugar.
Elitism. :up:
'Cheap knock-offs' are just that: cheap.
That specific example can be easily carried to past philosophers. But some of the stuff, say PKD writes, or Pynchon or even a character like Hannibal Lecter, these don't fit neatly into a specific philosophical lineage.
Or at least, it seems to me it could lead the conversation to the philosopher, instead of the character.
But yes, The Matrix can be used as an example for Descartes, Berkeley or Kant or Schopenhauer, Putnam, Bostrom, Baudrillard, etc.
Will some people get more out of reading Descartes and Kant? Depends on the person. They do have a larger wealth of ideas than film (in my opinon), but, there are aspects of the film which don't fit neatly with any philosopher. All I'm saying is that there can be interesting philosophical/psychological and ethical matters that could be discussed absent specific figure X.
But your point is quite valid.
Yes. And I believe there's more of an emphasis on making claims and associations in pop philosophy/psychology than in philosophy. Unfortunately the thing which distinguishes philosophy from self help and infotainment; argument and systems; is also something which makes philosophy unbearably dry.
Isnt philosophy, at its best, distinguished from self-help by its deep and original insights, rather than, or as well as, by its arguments? Self-help often strikes me as dishonest, manipulative, boring, and essentially individualistic, whereas good philosophy follows the ideas and respects the reader enough to think they can follow too.
My point here is that this actually makes it more exciting. Also, important philosophy is always critical and radicalagain, exciting rather than dry.
Having said that, I guess theres usually a barrier of dryness in presentation.
Partial agreement. Largely because, I think, following the arguments changes how you think, and you get to internalise the ideas and their nuances and flaws. In something closer to its raw form.
Example: self help transcendental aesthetic - "How you judge what's happening depends on inherent parts of people's minds and contingent things about you".
Philosophy transcendental aesthetic - amazing methodology developments, which lets you see the above as a trite aphorism in the light of the original text.
Well, I am also in partial agreement.
Lol. This could be a wellspring of nerd jokes. Title: "Become Whole Again", subtitle: "The Transcendental Unity Of Apperception".
Embrace Your Contradictions: How Hegels Science of Logic Can Help You Achieve Wholeness by Owning Your Inner Conflicts
:up:
That would sell.
Pop philosophy is about self-improvement. Real philosophy is about self-examination.
This one is great for insiders. I never cared much about that unity to I read some Brandom, and the joke works perfectly in that context. I got to go patch up a contradiction in the claims I am responsible for yet again.
:lol:
Quoting green flag
Would love to hear about that. But I don't think it's on topic here and it's detailed. Make a thread? Pretty please?
Edit: to be clear this isn't a request as a mod, it's a request as someone who wants to see it.
Be Happy By Being Average - The Secret Is Temperance
Both pop philosophy and pop science have their places, however, in sparking curiosity and reflection. And you do have to be a real philosophy buff to appreciate the finer differences of thought between two intellectuals who lived centuries, even millennia ago.
This. :up: A pithy distinction (à la sophistry / dialectics) that better illuminates for me a seemingly intractable family dispute.
Why examine oneself if not to improve oneself?
As I see it, though the former implies the latter, the latter neither presupposes nor implies the former.
Its a fine line to walk, let me tell you.
Quoting Jamal
Agreed. But when its done well, it can pique a persons interest.
In my own experience, pop philosophy/psychology books were very helpful as a kid and made me curious about the direct sources. I see articles like the one in the OP similarly the difference being Im more elitist now, do I have to counter the instinct to look down my nose.
Quoting 180 Proof
Eh, I wouldnt go that far.
Quoting 180 Proof
Better. :up:
Quoting Manuel
Surely and often are. In the specific case of the Matrix, the source was obvious. But if you take, say, a Kurosawa film, the influences may be there (Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Balzac) but are not that obvious.
Nah. But if true, then fuck real philosophy anyway.
:up:
Most people probably shouldnt question things, and are better off in not doing so. Of those who do, let their actions speak for its value. (In my experience, usually very little.)
Does that go for Heidegger too?
Absolutely. A fine example.
You previously were surprised to hear I spent time on Reddit. One of the reasons I go there is that they have some good discussions on their r/Taoism page. One very common kind of post from people who are new to Taoism is "How can I use Taoism to solve my problems." The answer is, of course, you can't. Taoism, philosophy in general, can help open your eyes so you can see your life more clearly. That may lead to problem solutions you wouldn't have found otherwise, but practicing Taoism to do so is a very un-Taoist thing to do. A very unphilosophical thing to do. And, in my experience, it doesn't work well.
In my experience, pop philosophy/psychology sources, and even serious secondary sources, often leave out important aspects of the primary authors ideas that people aren't aware of, examples - Einstein didn't prove the speed of light is a constant, he assumed it; Darwin included Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) as one of the mechanisms of evolution; Heisenberg's justification for the uncertainty principle is no longer accepted by quantum physicists. Thinker's descriptions of their ideas are usually more detailed, more nuanced, and more interesting than someone else's.
Might be all I am to them, but it's not all I am.
The guys at Nuremburg made the mistake of identifying with their jobs. "I am a soldier. Soldiers do what they're told."
Humans can decide what and who they're going to be, how they're going to be useful. You're human first. The job is a choice.
I was thinking about this again. What you're saying should be true. And I think philosophy at its best is revelatory, inspiring, critical, creative and well argued. A philosophy book should force you to see the world differently, "relearning how to see". I think that's a major distinction between a philosophy book and a self help book. A self help book may change your perspective, a philosophy book may change how you form perspectives in the first place.
But does a self help book really change your perspective, or does it just give you one to try on for a while? Thats pedantic though.
Otherwise, this is an interesting thread because I find myself agreeing with what @T Clark and @Michael have said, which has never happened before.
That sounds right. Unhappy people often seem uninterested in the world beyond them. Self-help books ('You Are A Badass') often hold up yet another mirror for getting lost in. What's lacking (among other things) is wonder or curiosity about the vast world beyond the petty self.
I imagine the latter, but I can't draw a strict line between that and philosophy. I read Heidegger, I don't lose the Cartesian goggles unless forcing myself to. Same with eliminative materialism/ "illusionism", with regard to how I treat other minds in social scenarios - like I can't see it otherwise in person. Unless, again, I focus a lot on turning the interaction into a cognitive exercise.
Though I'm sure some people are just "built different" and maintain constant Zen.
Dicks.
That a clear example of (in my opinion, of course) pretty bad "philosophizing", it was so pretentious and vacuous that I could get more than halfway through. Though I'm sure some swear by this book...
So the pop-thing is mixed. I do think there are quite interesting and unique "philosophical" aspects to some aspects of pop-culture, which should not be looked at derisively, as can happen.
But then there's the bad stuff we all know about...
That's silly; you, @Michael, and I agree on many things. Some examples:
I'm not suggesting that philosophy or Taoism be used as self-help, but I think there's an implicit suggestion in the concept of self-examination that suggests a telos of improvement. It doesn't have to be a willful and conscious striving at self-improvement, but the simple fact that someone has decided that self-examination would be a good thing suggests the telos to me. Like you're saying, philosophy can open one's eyes. To what and why? For what purpose?
Quoting 180 Proof
If you mean improvement in the sense of pop self-help books, I agree and I'm not advocating for them. But see above in reply to Clarky.
For no purpose. Because I'm curious. Because I have a drive for self-awareness. It's not a goal I'm striving for, it's a force that's pushing me, where I don't know and I don't really care. It's an engine, not a steering wheel.
Interesting. I think we have fundamentally different structures of experience. Then again, maybe you're just more well-adjusted while my neuroses dictate my philosophical thinking more than you.
Which is interesting, actually. I wonder to what extent people's interest in self-help correlates to their psychological states or conditions. And whether those interested in philosophy proper are in any better shape.
Good point. I assumed that's what he meant, but now I look at it and it isn't that clear even with the context put in.
I take him to mean something similar to Durant's take on Aristotle: "You are what you do." There's definitely something in that. Actions speak much louder than words, or in this case thoughts and feelings. "Job" in the sense of employment isn't what's meant, of course, but more in the sense of what you do with most of your time.
Or perhaps I'm giving this dude more credit than he deserves.
Many are disappointed with and turned off by philosophy because it is not what they expected it to be. What they find are concerns matters of language, concepts, and argument, and little or nothing about the self, or, more precisely, themselves. They regard it as abstract, lifeless, and sterile.
They are, to a large extent, right.
People need to be met where they are, with their limited abilities and resources. Pop philosophy has the virtue of addressing them at a level they can understand. It is true that a lot of it is garbage, but then again, so is a lot of traditional and academic philosophy.
Give me the corrupt, the endlessly unsatisfied, the unproductive and miserable! The lay-abouts, the good-for-nothings, the hippies, and the rabble! :D
Good question.
Quoting T Clark
Being curious is a reason, and the purpose is to learn something, or understand, or "see," etc. There's no way around wanting something -- even many Buddhists acknowledge that. You want to free yourself from suffering and attachment, for example. If you didn't, you wouldn't be meditating.
I never bought the claim that we do some things for no purpose whatsoever. We're pushing into a future, and while we may not consciously have a goal in mind, there's certainly a purpose to be found in everything we do. I don't see a way around it. Happy to have my mind changed though.
This isn't to suggest that "doing" philosophy (whatever that means exactly) has to be a means to some other conventional end, like making more money or learning how to be more confident (plenty of self-help books to that end) -- but to say there's no purpose in itself is contradictory.
Also, hey --- this website! Kind of. Maybe?
:up:
When we started to professionalize and mathematicize philosophy, especially in the late 19th century, it was the beginning of the end. Which is why it's worth going back to the Greeks, over and over again.
An unpopular opinion of mine: you're not truly an educated Western citizen unless and until you know Greek and Latin.
You know what's funny? I hadn't even thought of this forum as being a kind of "pop philosophy" thing. But I guess there's a decent argument for that classification.
I agree.
Feuerbach was already pointing this out in his time, but I suspect it's worse than ever, the more we can hide behind screens. I'm lucky to have a nice riverside park that's always busy nearby. I don't talk to anyone, but it's nice to see all those real people mostly being nice, enjoying the weather.
Quoting Jamal
I can relate. Personally I think the world is an out of control game of Jenga. The incentive structure works against caution and moderation and eliminates that kind of player from the game. We 'must' burn those fossil fuels, build AI weapons, etc. David Pearce may have found the essence of it in Darwinian evolution. We are great at cooperating, but can we do it without an outgroup that suffers the external costs of our internal virtue ?
But there's something beautiful or noble or X about thinking seriously and trying to live a relatively decent life.
You are too harsh on this book, in my opinion. I think it's great at times. The guy slowly remembering his past electricallyerased crazy-brilliant self as he makes his way back to the scene of his mad heroics....good stuff !
While I don't deny there have been some strong philosophers who earn their bread in schools, it does seem dangerous to make philosophy so respectable. The prototype was poor and eventually executed. Maybe the 'spiritual' function of philosophy moved into literature, art, politics.
A person who works for an institution has already answered yes to certain questions with their mode of existence. And how much can they get away with ? What will peers and students tolerate in terms of questioning ? Is safe philosophy an oxymoron ?
At the risk of admitting I am not truly educated I am somewhat in agreement. But knowing the languages is not enough. One must know and read the literature in those languages.
Yes indeed.
:up:
It's a mere problem of taste. Didn't do it for me at all.
But I can see why other people may think it's very good.
:up:
I doubt that.
Quoting Noble Dust
I've spent a significant amount of my life fairly fucked up, but my intellect is the healthiest thing about me.
Quoting Noble Dust
I've always thought that people's philosophical leanings are heavily influenced by their temperament.
Quoting Noble Dust
Based on the evidence we see here, definitely not.
That's not how I see it and it's not how it feels from the inside. The fact that I may learn something while doing it doesn't mean that was my purpose for doing it.
Quoting Mikie
I'm not pushing into the future. I'm being dragged, or maybe riding along. I think saying there is a purpose for everything we do is a linguistic trick. As if every time I find myself someplace that was my planned destination.
Quoting Mikie
It's not contradictory and it's not wrong, not for me at least.
I don't feel that way. Though I have an expansive notion of philosophy, too.
The academics are those who dedicate their professional life to it -- which is important! There are actors which dedicate their lives to the craft of acting, and I'd put these in similar positions. More importantly, though, I like to note how I benefit from people who have done this. Without academics I wouldn't be thinking what I think today. I owe an intellectual debt to the institution.
I'd say that the prototype is more Plato than Socrates -- Plato learned what that kind of philosophy would do, so set up a school to influence the youth in a less politically charged way. Then he wrote texts for his fellows to read with the purpose of improving the health of the city. At least as I understand it.
From that angle, safe philosophy is all there is :D
I agree. Having been in academia for many years I have some criticisms of it, but learned to separate the good from the bad.
I suspect that much of this must come down to judgement which gets refined as one learns, right? Do you feel you can summarise any basic principles you have identified along the way, that supports you in the process of winnowing the wheat from the caff (philosophically speaking)?
I do value the 'knowledge industrial complex,' and I don't think anyone will muffle Brandom, for instance, but it's not hard to find examples of professors losing their positions for asking the wrong questions, floating the wrong hypotheses, or just being tactless in socalled private life.
If institutions begin to look dogmatic or captured, it becomes harder to trust the claims of those who wave around the credentials they provide. Yet capturing such 'epistemic institutions' is an obvious goal for those seeking power. They rob banks because that's where the money is.
You wouldnt say that your philosophizing is an uncaused action, right? It has its causes and reasons. I would say it has even (non-theoretical) goals like everything else. Despite how it may feel. Its a bit teleological perhaps, but nevertheless true in my view.
When I sit around, I can claim Im doing nothing. It may even feel that way. But thats really not true. Its not nothing its something. Of course it is. Its also a kind of (perhaps subconscious) choice to sit there rather than doing anything else.
I dont see how its possible to act without any purpose or reason with the major caveat that it doesnt have to be consciously known to the actor and doesnt have to be an explicit goal or destination. Animals act purposefully and for known reasons, even if they dont know it.
So finding yourself some place may not be your desired destination, but something got you there: a series of choices and actions. Just because its not where you want to be doesnt negate that youre trying to get somewhere.
I may have no plan for my day, but I get up and have coffee and take a shower. None of these actions were planned or explicitly thought out. Mostly its out of the habit of routine. Does that mean theyre without purpose?
I agree. It brings up the psychology of philosophical investigation and self-examination, which, ironically, seems often unexamined. With respect @T Clark, it might not "feel inside" as if you're doing philosophy for any purpose, but that doesn't mean there isn't an underlying purpose or goal.
You and I see this whole subject so differently I don't think we'll be able to come to any agreement. Yes, I do think there are uncaused actions, both in the world at large and in my personal behavior. In Taoism, the philosophy I feel most at home in, the idea of "wu wei," acting without acting, without intention, without purpose, is central to the teachings. Actions arise spontaneously from within without reflection. This is not something theoretical I've learned about, it's something I experience on a regular basis. Do I behave that way all the time, no, but for my writing here on the forum I usually do.
I don't expect you to buy this. Many people on the forum and in the world in general don't. But I do. As I said, it's something I experience personally. I doubt either of us is going to convince the other.
I can't think of anything else I can say if you won't accept my description of my personal experience. We can leave it at that.
I accept your description of your personal experience in that I trust you're being honest about it. But are you not of the persuasion that there are often unconscious drives that cause us to do or pursue certain things?
I certainly have drives, both conscious and unconscious motivations, that push me in particular directions and influence my actions. But a drive is not the same thing as a purpose. This is certainly partially a difference in language between us, but it is also a substantive difference in both our experience of how and our understanding of why we behave the way we do.
Much has to do with preferences both for the philosophers I want to read and interpretive practices. Others, of course, might see things very differently.
Other kinds of philosophy may be enjoyable if you like studying and entertaining ideas just for the sake of it, just for entertainment, like you might enjoy collecting stamps or watching birds.
If pop philosophy fulfills either of these criteria, then it would be either useful or enjoyable. We might also think that being enjoyable is in itself useful. Michel Foucault wrote a book titled The Use of Pleasure; I haven't read it, but I guess it might have something to do with young Italian boys (joke).
I get what you're saying, but this suggests to me that a purpose is always a conscious decision made, which I disagree with. I could have said "unconscious motivations" rather than "drives". I guess it's a rather Jungian view, which I know can be controversial.
There are definitely good criticisms to be made of the university, especially in its modern incarnation.
I suppose I just feel the need to stick up for the institution of philosophy, and the work of academics. I really am in debt to them. Without the modern liberal university I'd still be too poor to live my life, and confused on top of that. I don't feel right if I don't acknowledge that and stand up for it on occasion.
:up:
I feel you. I love my university's library, and I have benefited very much from many scholars who work for universities.
That's good enough for me. I certainly encourage criticism of bad things.
It's wise to be grateful, so it was good that you reminded us of the good. :smile:
One serious criticism, not just of philosophy, but the humanities, is that the universities keep churning out PhD's in the face of bleak job prospects. It serves them on both ends, paying students who become exploited as TA's and adjuncts.
I always advised my students to not seek advanced degrees unless they had other sources of income when the got out.
One of the reasons I respect the institution so much is that academics will say what you're saying -- even in print. Several books give frank advice about the prospects, and I just had to realize I was the person who went there to be able to support themselves. So, science degree, but I read philosophy on the side. Then, industry.
:up:
Yeah, if wu wei requires that we abandon the law of causality, it really is woowoo. I dont interpret it that way I see it as a kind of flow situation.
But yes, if you think there are actions which have no cause, then I dont see how we can continue.
:up:
@Mikie
To put things in perspective, there are Taoist teachers and authors. There is certainly intention and purpose in what they do.
Here's what one noted mystic had to say in 1912:
Quoting Bertrand Russell - On the Notion of Cause
Quoting Fooloso4
To put things in the proper perspective, there have been a lot of "Taoist teachers and authors" over the years who have said a lot of things. Going to the source though, The Tao Te Ching:
Quoting The Tao Te Ching, Verse 27 - Stephen Mitchell version
That's the essense of wu wei - following intuition with no plans or intentions.
It is not just what a lot of Taoist teachers and authors have said but what the teachers and authors of the Tao Te Ching have said. Whatever wu wei means, and there is nothing close to a consensus on this, it does not exclude the plans and intentions of the authors of the Tao Te Ching to commit to putting things into words.
It's true, the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, and other Taoist texts are ambiguous. That's considered, as the cliche goes, a feature, not a bug. I don't claim to be, and I'm certain you don't claim to be, an expert on the plans and intentions of Lao Tzu. I just take him at his word.
I will point out that your argument begs the question. You state authoritatively that Lao Tzu had plans and intentions to put things in writing, but whether plans and intentions are required to act is the question on the table.
The question is too general. Were plans and intentions required to compile and organize the work called the Tao Te Ching? It did not happen spontaneously. Are plans and intentions required to read and attempt to understand the Tao Te Ching?
Consider Zhuangzi's Cook Ting. Did he learn his butchering skill without plans or intentions? His knife does not get dull because he does not hack. He cuts between the spaces in the joints.
If Lao Tzu lived in accordance with the Tao, then, no, no plans or intention were requried.
Quoting Fooloso4
According to the Tao Te Ching, it did. Again, you are using the conclusions you favor as arguments in this discussion.
Quoting Fooloso4
They aren't required, but they're hard to avoid for us normal non-sage humans.
Quoting Fooloso4
Almost certainly.
Really? Can you cite a reference?
Quoting T Clark
The story says otherwise.
Here is Thomas Merton's version of the story. I've hidden it because it's long:
[hide="Reveal"]Quoting Cutting up an Ox - Thomas Merton Version[/hide]
Russell isnt saying actions have no cause either. Because such a view is frankly incoherent. Hes making very specific criticisms of things which Im not claiming.
Im not arguing for anything like that.
Call them reasons, determinants, or whatever you like.
True, some actions could be magic. But that really is mysticism. I think its a misunderstanding of eastern thought, and as I see it happens frequently. In the same way that new agers latch on to quantum mechanics.
So were replacing plans and intentions with instinct and natural line, etc. Fine.
When I first started playing guitar, I needed to think about what I was doing and where my fingers went, etc. After years of playing, I dont have to do that any more.
So guitar playing is now supernatural? Beyond all understanding? Causeless? Influence-less? Done for no reason and without any motivation? I start playing, and have no memory of how or why I picked it up I just play. Come on.
This really must be word games. Use whatever word you think is better, but lets not descend into the nonsense.
The old Heidegger example: If I enter a room, I have to turn the doorknob but I dont try to turn the doorknob, have beliefs about it, have memory of it. All I know is that here I am, and I must have done it. Is this wu wei? Maybe I think of it as more to do with skill, but its in the same ballpark. Unconscious or non-conscious skilled activity, of which there are many examples in life.
Analysis of habits lends plenty of evidence to the idea of non-theoretical types of behavior as well.
So Im a firm believer in stuff like this. And meditation. But again we dont have to pretend that its magic to talk about it.
There are better translations. Here is one. [Added: chapter 3.2]
Cook Ding says:
It is because he had been dividing oxen for three years that he could no longer see the carcass as a whole. He saw that it is made up of parts. He say now:
The ability to guide his knife takes skill developed through practice. But this is not the difference between him and a good cook:
Going beyond skill does not mean to bypass skill. The cultivation of skill is an essential step.
I would still like to know where you found the claim that the Tao Te Ching occurred spontaneously.
Quoting T Clark
There is general agreement that Lao Tzu is not the sole author. There is less agreement as to whether he was an actual person.
He said "In the following paper I wish, first, to maintain that the word is so inextricably bound up with misleading associations as to make its complete extrusion from the philosophical vocabulary desirable." That's pretty definitive, your rationalization notwithstanding.
Quoting Mikie
Now you're just throwing out a straw man to paint me as a mystic. Dirty, dirty.
Quoting Mikie
Another non-argument by innuendo. You should be ashamed.
When I play sometimes the experience is what I would describe as wu wei. Other times I can't get out of my own way. On occasion it is as if I am watching myself play. But that is the result of many years of study and practice. It involves muscle memory which would not have developed without plans and intentions.
Quoting Mikie
But I have to admit that sometimes it feels as if it is.
This is really pitiful.
You just keep restating your conclusion over and over as if it were an argument.
Nuff said. I'm done.
:snort:
I have no objections to the version you provided. It doesn't change the meaning of the verse. There is this commentary at the end of it:
Quoting Chuang Tzu - The Tale of Cook Ding
Note "spontaneously performed skill."
Quoting Fooloso4
Reread what I wrote. I never said Lao Tzu had no plans or intentions for writing the Tao Te Ching and I don't know of anywhere it says he didn't.
You and @Mikie should both be ashamed at such rotten arguments. I'm all done.
In the opening paragraph:
And when he is done:
(In Ziporyn's translation he just stands there)
There is a sense of motion and rhythm, of dancing.
It should also be noted how Zhuangzi's stories are of ordinary people teaching those of a higher social rank.
@Mikie @Fooloso4
A) Largely non-cognitive, spontaneously improvising flow state within a mastered skill
is the same as
B) readiness to hand + disclosive attunement (I know you both Heidegger, that is why this is here)
is the same as
C)
Just seems that sees what counts as a "cause" is something a theoretical judgement derives, rather than being part of the oneness that forms the feedback between body and environment. That reciprocity provides the judgements which would conceive the causes, after the fact.
Escalate A and B to skill as a lived pattern (love, job, hobby, life routines as life itself), same message as C.
IMO anyway. Seems a quibble.
Why the snort? The best translations are being done by scholars who have studied the language, the history, and the philosophies of China and the West. The virtues of their translations may not be readily apparent to you based on a single story.
Quoting T Clark
It cannot be spontaneously performed without skill. The skill comes first and it takes practice to go beyond skill.
Quoting T Clark
You said:
Quoting T Clark
and:
Quoting T Clark
I pointed out that:
Quoting Fooloso4
and:
Quoting Fooloso4
In response, first you said:
Quoting T Clark
but then:
Quoting T Clark
and in response to my comment that it did not happen spontaneously:
Quoting T Clark
You still have not provided the evidence to back that up.
As I see it, this is what is at issue:
Quoting T Clark
I don't doubt that this happens, but simply acting spontaneously without reflection is not what wu wei is about, otherwise someone without impulse control or someone experiencing road rage or anyone with a cleaver could butcher an ox as long as they did it without reflection.
I am not claiming that this is what Clark is claiming, but that there is more to it than what is stated.
Thanks for the summary. I don't think it's a quibble, it's metaphysics. One way or the other I'm ready to be done with it.
As I noted, I don't think you and @Mikie are arguing fairly. You just keep throwing out rhetorical obstacles to try to trip me up rather than trying address my arguments.
I'm done.
Then why talk like a mystic? There are reasons (and causes) for meditating, for philosophizing, etc. To claim otherwise, and then citing Russell, is just playing games.
Ill ignore your hysterics. Next time take some responsibility and argue better, and clearer.
Quoting Fooloso4
Sure. I know people often talk about how when theyre in the zone, it feels like theyre not in control, etc.
:up: Youre probably right.
I am sorry you feel that way, but I am surprised. I have no intention of trying to trip you up. I am trying to address the question of wu wei. It is nothing personal. I have said nothing against you. You on the other hand tell me I should be ashamed of my arguments.
I am puzzled by what wu wei means in practice. It seems to me that there is something more to it than you have said. For one, the cultivation of skills. For another, a way of seeing. What in another context might be called an "expert eye".
There is a great deal of effort behind effortless action. This often goes unrecognized. I brought up Cook Ting because it addresses this and the opposite of effortless action, what he calls hacking. Forcing one's way through rather than, so to speak, seeing the joints and spaces, the natural divide of things.
When I post I have in mind others who might be reading. Even if not everything I say applies to you someone else might be interested.
[Added: See my next post.]
On the other hand, it does not feel like I have lost control, that I need to gain control.
The thing to frustrates a lot of musicians is not being about to get in the zone. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. You can't make it happen, but I think there are ways to allow it to happen more often.
Sorry to jump in without reading everything, but in the zone is something I can hopefully comment on. With us creatives, the Achilles heel is discipline. Picasso said it best: Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working. I like this quote because it doesnt dispel the myth (mythos) of creative inspiration, but it couches the fantastic within the monotonous everyday; that is, if you want to find inspiration, you must work. Hard. Flow comes and goes, but does so with the most frequency with those who show up to work.
As Bear Bryant said, "Victory is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." Wait, no, he said "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," or was that Picasso.
Well, he could have said that, but what he did say was (Wiki):
During the 1960s in visits to my parents in Tuscaloosa I would go exercise climbing on Bear's metal coaching tower, maybe thirty feet high with a covered roof and staunch guardrail fence around the top to keep him from falling off. He had a metal seat/cage attached to a hoist that his players would crank him to the top where he would sit with his feet hanging over the edge and chest against the guardrail fence. Not saying much, letting his assistant coaches do most of the yelling. There was a metal winding stair to the top but I don't think he used it. He was the next thing to a Deity in Alabama. The photo below taken maybe ten years after I last watched him doesn't show the hoist. That would detract from is popular image.
Pop philosophy from Bear: