/lit/ - Literature

Start uselessmaxxing bros. Being productive is a government hoax made to trick youngsters into becoming wagies, and loan slaves. Wake up, do nothing, eat, sleep, that's the ideal day. Also, just a heads up, but don't even start complaining about money, responsibilities, bills etc etc etc. bla bla bla bla. I don't want to hear it, and neither does anyone else.

Ah, the eternal cycle of threads! The anti-phonetics troglodyte drags his limp, unwashed body out of his hole and inspires the /clg/ Wild Hunt; the withering spring blossoms are washed away by the torrents of autumn, the troglodyte returns to his hole.

>>22999950
>>22999951
Well, I rather lack appreciation for poetry, and even when I do read history books, I care more for the idiosyncrasies of the author and his style than the pure recollection of events, so to speak. I read most of Gibbon without ever really worrying whether what he was describing was really 100% accurate, for example. I've gotten the impression that Classical Chinese history books, like e.g. the Spring and Autumn Annals -- although I may be singling out a particularly bad offender there -- and Xuanzang's Great Tang Records on the Western Regions are rather dry, factual recollections. I may very well be wrong here, but it is rather hard to come by lists of Classical Chinese books in English or decent summaries of them.
Besides history, I'd like what we could basically just call "novels", like those vernacular books I mentioned, or plays, myths, stories and such things. I know there must be some amount of these, but it seems like any proper inventory of what the language has to offer would be in Mandarin. Of course, it isn't very desirable to go in blind and only know what the language has to offer once you already have some degree of proficiency in it.

>>21835654
anyone can recommend a good introduction to zhangzi?

which books are a good introduction and study of the book of ZhuangZhi?

>>20205669
in which passage does he satisfy OP's wishes? he's phenomenal, anyways

>>19571966
I present to you the only, and I mean *only*, thinker who refutes Zapffe.

so I've stumbled upon a translated chinese novel a while ago (can't remember name for now)
In this story which is based in ancient china, the main character is the son of a lord and he has a good teacher teaching him, obviously as a kid he learned basic maths and languages, words, how to write, how to read, reading books, understanding them and applying them

But what really struck my mind was how much of a degree of importance philosophy and proper conduct in life.

As he grew to a teenager, basically everything he studied was related to wisdom, way of life, meaning of life, developing a proper way of conduct, beginning and maintaining relationships, having one's own moral code and dedicating one's self to it

It was just extremely suprising that these things were pondered upon so much to the degree where you would study just that for 4-5 hours a day
There was lots of mention of conficius, Laozi, Zhuang zou...

Now the point is, was this really true? or is it just a myth? that in ancient times people were more focused on studying the way of life rather than studying math, physics, science... similar to the modern world

am i mistaken to think that ?

>>19146102
Zhuangzi
>Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is there any difference, or isn't there? What does the Way rely upon,5 that we have true and false? What do words rely upon, that we have right and wrong? How can the Way go away and not exist? How can words exist and not be acceptable? When the Way relies on little accomplishments and words rely on vain show, then we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mo-ists. What one calls right the other calls wrong; what one calls wrong the other calls right. But if we want to right their wrongs and wrong their rights, then the best thing to use is clarity.

Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven.6 He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity.

>is the greatest Chinese prose stylist until Cáo Xuěqín
How did he reign supreme for about 2000 years?
What other writers/texts have been the crown-jewel of their literary culture for long times? I can almost only think of the Book of Job for Hebrew literature.

>"Let's go back to the beginning of this. You said, How do you know that the fish are happy; but in asking me this, you already knew that I know it. I know it right here above the Hao"

What did he mean by this?

>>15893372
shit taste, friend

KNOWLEDGE WANDERED North to the banks of the Black Waters, climbed the Knoll of Hidden Heights, and there by chance came upon Do-Nothing-Say-Nothing. Knowledge said to Do-Nothing-Say-Nothing, "There are some things I'd like to ask you. What sort of pondering, what sort of cogitation does it take to know the Way? What sort of surroundings, what sort of practices does it take to find rest in the Way? What sort of path, what sort of procedure will get me to the Way?"

Three questions he asked, but Do-Nothing-Say-Nothing didn't answer. It wasn't that he just didn't answer - he didn't know how to answer!

Knowledge, failing to get any answer, returned to the White Waters of the south, climbed the summit of Dubiety Dismissed, and there caught sight of Wild-and-Witless. Knowledge put the same questions to Wild-and-Witless. "Ah - I know!" said Wild-and-Witless. "And I'm going to tell you." But just as he was about to say something, he forgot what it was he was about to say.

Knowledge, failing to get any answer, returned to the imperial palace, where he was received in audience by the Yellow Emperor, and posed his questions. The Yellow Emperor said, "Only when there is no pondering and no cogitation will you get to know the Way. Only when you have no surroundings and follow no practices will you find rest in the Way. Only when there is no path and no procedure can you get to the Way."

Knowledge said to the Yellow Emperor, "You and I know, but those other two that I asked didn't know. Which of us is right, I wonder?"

The Yellow Emperor said, "Do-Nothing-Say-Nothing - he's the one who is truly right. Wild-and-Witless appears to be so. But you and I in the end are nowhere near it. Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know. Therefore the sage practices the teaching that has no words.1 The Way cannot be brought to light; its virtue cannot be forced to come. But benevolence - you can put that into practice; you can discourse 2 on righteousness, you can dupe one another with rites. So it is said, When the Way was lost, then there was virtue; when virtue was lost, then there was benevolence; when benevolence was lost, then there was righteousness; when righteousness was lost, then there were rites. Rites are the frills of the Way and the forerunners of disorder.3 So it is said, He who practices the Way does less every day, does less and goes on doing less, until he reaches the point where he does nothing, does nothing and yet there is nothing that is not done.'' Now that we've already become `things,' if we want to return again to the Root, I'm afraid we'll have a hard time of it! The Great Man - he's the only one who might find it easy.

"Life is the companion of death, death is the beginning of life. Who understands their workings? Man's life is a coming-together of breath. If it comes together, there is life; if it scatters, there is death. And if life and death are companions to each other, then what is there for us to be anxious about?

he's literally irrefutable, whether or not that is a good or bad thing is up to you

>By means of a finger (of my own) to illustrate that the finger (of another) is not a finger is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not so by means of what is (acknowledged to be) not a finger; and by means of (what I call) a horse to illustrate that (what another calls) a horse is not so, is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not a horse, by means of what is (acknowledged to be) not a horse. (All things in) heaven and earth may be (dealt with as) a finger; (each of) their myriads may be (dealt with as) a horse.
Does a thing seem so to me? (I say that) it is so. Does it seem not so to me? (I say that) it is not so. A path is formed by (constant) treading on the ground. A thing is called by its name through the (constant) application of the name to it. How is it so? It is so because it is so. How is it not so? It is not so, because it is not so. Everything has its inherent character and its proper capability. There is nothing which has not these. Therefore, this being so, if we take a stalk of grain and a (large) pillar, a loathsome (leper) and (a beauty like) Xi Shi, things large and things insecure, things crafty and things strange; they may in the light of the Dao all be reduced to the same category (of opinion about them). It was separation that led to completion; from completion ensued dissolution. But all things, without regard to their completion and dissolution, may again be comprehended in their unity - it is only the far reaching in thought who know how to comprehend them in this unity. This being so, let us give up our devotion to our own views, and occupy ourselves with the ordinary views. These ordinary views are grounded on the use of things. (The study of that) use leads to the comprehensive judgment, and that judgment secures the success (of the inquiry). That success gained, we are near (to the object of our search), and there we stop. When we stop, and yet we do not know how it is so, we have what is called the Dao. When we toil our spirits and intelligence, obstinately determined (to establish our own view), and do not know the agreement (which underlies it and the views of others), we have what is called 'In the morning three.' What is meant by that 'In the morning three?' A keeper of monkeys, in giving them out their acorns, (once) said, 'In the morning I will give you three (measures) and in the evening four.' This made them all angry, and he said, 'Very well. In the morning I will give you four and in the evening three.' The monkeys were all pleased. His two proposals were substantially the same, but the result of the one was to make the creatures angry, and of the other to make them pleased - an illustration of the point I am insisting on. Therefore the sagely man brings together a dispute in its affirmations and denials, and rests in the equal fashioning of Heaven. Both sides of the question are admissible.

>Great knowledge is wide and comprehensive; small knowledge is partial and restricted. Great speech is exact and complete; small speech is (merely) so much talk. When we sleep, the soul communicates with (what is external to us); when we awake, the body is set free. Our intercourse with others then leads to various activity, and daily there is the striving of mind with mind. There are hesitancies; deep difficulties; reservations; small apprehensions causing restless distress, and great apprehensions producing endless fears. Where their utterances are like arrows from a bow, we have those who feel it their charge to pronounce what is right and what is wrong; where they are given out like the conditions of a covenant, we have those who maintain their views, determined to overcome. (The weakness of their arguments), like the decay (of things) in autumn and winter, shows the failing (of the minds of some) from day to day; or it is like their water which, once voided, cannot be gathered up again. Then their ideas seem as if fast bound with cords, showing that the mind is become like an old and dry moat, and that it is nigh to death, and cannot be restored to vigour and brightness. Joy and anger, sadness and pleasure, anticipation and regret, fickleness and fixedness, vehemence and indolence, eagerness and tardiness;-- (all these moods), like music from an empty tube, or mushrooms from the warm moisture, day and night succeed to one another and come before us, and we do not know whence they sprout. Let us stop! Let us stop! Can we expect to find out suddenly how they are produced?

>>13522509
That would be Zhuangzi:

"The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

"Once upon a time, I dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was myself. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”

>>11854423
Ok but Zhuangzi BTFOs most of western philosophy and does it with beautifully elegant style and humour.

>>11850966
Easily Hoppe regarding democracy in particular. However, Ted is the most based and the most correct overall. Plato incorrectly separated form and representation, and presents a bastardised version of Heraclitus who was pretty spot on and recognised that man is nature and must be what he is. In the end, nature will win out over man's rebellion and Moldbug is a fool to bet on tech.

Zhuangzi worth reading?

>>11777594
What happens without man's conscious intervention. It can't be "forced" to happen.

>implying

>>11469567
Read it

Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, “The minnows swim about so freely, following the openings wherever they take them. Such is the happiness of fish.”

Huizi said, “You are not a fish, so whence do you know the happiness of fish?”

Zhuangzi said, “You are not I, so whence do you know I don’t know the happiness of fish?”

Huizi said, “I am not you, to be sure, so I don’t know what it is to be you. But by the same token, since you are certainly not a fish, my point about your inability to know the happiness of fish stands intact.”

Zhuangzi said, “Let’s go back to the starting point. You said, ‘Whence do you know the happiness of fish?’ Since your question was premised on your knowing that I know it, I must have known it from here, up above the Hao River.”