/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9678881]

“The Tao is always nameless” (Chapter 71)

Trying to narrow down the philosophy of the Tao Te Ching with limiting words is to violate its primordial essence. How can one describe the Universe, the natural order of things, the incessant flowing from being to non-being, the circular unity of a reality traditionally mismatched in dualistic terms?

The Tao Te Ching doesn’t provide answers because there needn’t be questions, just the harmony of moulding to the landscape rather than trying to impose a particular shape on it.
The Tao Te Ching is the route in itself, the path to emptying the human mind of ambitions, schemes and desires and allow it to be flooded with the smoothness of humility and the exhilarating liberation of a simple life.
The Tao Te Ching exults the feminine yin over the masculine yang in the eternal interdependence of opposites, identifying its indwelling suppleness with the intrinsic elements of the Tao.

“The great state should be like a river basin.
The mixing place of the world,
The feminine of the world.
The feminine always overcomes the masculine by its softness
Because softness is lesser.” (Chapter 61)

Thus the Tao cannot be expressed, it has no name, it is indivisible, inaudible and immutable but also the origin of multiplicity that gives way to ambivalent interpretation, which in turn engenders the befuddling suspicion that the more one wants to unravel the Tao the less one masters it because its aim relays precisely in attaining unforced wisdom.

Composed of eighty one aphorisms with aesthetic lyricism reminiscent of ancient riddles or even taunting wordplay, the Tao Te Ching dismisses moral teachings, embraces paradoxical dichotomies and differentiates itself from other doctrines like Confucianism because it relays in intuition rather than in duty rooted on imposed moral principles or any other contrived authority.
According to the introduction (*), some schools of thought have accused the Tao of endorsing chaotic anarchy and of not responding to consistent criteria, but such ambiguity in the use of language and its playful axioms are in fact a pure reflection of its skeptical views on measuring all actions according to artificial rules disguised as traditional rituals.

I can’t claim to have found everlasting serenity in connecting to the natural flow of Taoism and accepting its philosophy of “action through inaction”, but the idea of finding comfort in the constant contradiction of the positive and negative forces within oneself in order to embrace the convoluted intricacies of existence casts an overwhelming shadow to the absolute dichotomies and blind beliefs prompted by the more familiar monotheistic “fear based” religions, where guilt, punishment and suffering are the conduits to salvation.
Why crave for redemption if we learn to follow the “way things are” and welcome the natural interdependence between opposites, accepting disorder, nothingness and non-being as part of the indestructible unity of all things?

[Anonymous No.9678893]

Blah blah blah
Shut the fuck up, fag.
Stop talking.

[Anonymous No.9678912]

>>9678893
Typing isn't talking.

[Anonymous No.9678923]

>>9678912
Words are words.
Language is language.
You are gay.

[Anonymous No.9678928]

>>9678923
Is that a haiku?

[Anonymous No.9678943]

>>9678881
>Thus the Tao cannot be expressed
It can be expressed through non-action

[Anonymous No.9678952]

>>9678893
>>9678923

When did /lit/ become like this? Serious question. I started noticing it when I came back after a few months' absence.

[Anonymous No.9678956]

>>9678952
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.9678960]

>>9678956
I'm talking about the stupid shit posting. Do you happen to the person who posted them? It seems fairly evident considering what you're asking. I mean I even addressed the posts.

[Anonymous No.9678965]

>>9678960
The situation has been getting worse for the past 1-2 years, /lit/ is getting less discussion and more shitposting by the day.

[Anonymous No.9678967]

The Way cannot be described in words and yet every word describes the Way.

[Anonymous No.9678971]

>>9678960
Ayn Rand was banned from discussion for years because it got shitposted into the ground. 90% of posts about Kafka and David Foster Wallace are, by your standards, 'shitposts.' I honestly don't know what you expect from this board other than shitposting. I'm here because it's better than /his/, but not by much, and anyone who comes here expecting to find nothing but serious discussion is bound to be disappointed.
You're on fucking 4chan, bro.

[Anonymous No.9678975]

>>9678967
Even "gay" and "retarded"?

[Anonymous No.9678978]

>>9678975
The Way is gay. The Way is retarded. Yes :)

[Anonymous No.9678982]

>>9678971
I know where I am. I don't mind the old Kafka and DFW shitposting. I don't even have high standards, but /lit/ used to be a fun place with shitposting AND proper discussions. I just feel like you can smell the teenagers through the fucking screen, and their shitposting is just boring. Like the ones I linked. At least have some fun with it, you know?

[Anonymous No.9678996]

>>9678982
>but /lit/ used to be a fun place with shitposting AND proper discussions
Maybe if you'd read the book in the OP you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my posts as 'shitposting.' I'm sorry but this is a special case. The Daodejing is in many ways a radically anti-language text. Did that subtext elude you? I thought it even came out in some places. This isn't an unthinkable position. Wittgenstein echoes it in a different way thousands of years later and continents away in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The more someone talks about the Dao, the less they understand it. OP's post about what he 'thinks' the Dao is shows that his perspective, that of rational thought and the language that comes with it, can be discarded. Moreover, he's uptight as fuck. Everyone in this thread but me and >>9678978 is uptight as fuck. You guys need to wind down; just accept that as long as you're on this site you'll be called gay or stupid or told to kill yourself. It's how it works.
I'm just saying, any post as long as OP's about a book like this ought to be discarded, and the poster laughed at.
I put some effort into making those haikus, by the way, I resent your assumption that I'm just shitposting, and I recommend that you rethink your primitive dualist perspective w/r/t the relationship between serious discussion and shitposting on this website and everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.9679016]

>>9678996
>Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
wrong book pseud

[Anonymous No.9679030]

>>9678923
>>9678996
>Words are words
>Language is language
>I put some effort into making those haikus
I'm sure rappers also put some effort into rhyming hoe with hoe

[Anonymous No.9679034]

>>9679016
What do you think I'm talking about? Because I'm pretty sure the TLP ends with the conclusion that language is inherently limited and that we're better off not trying to express some things with rational language because of their inexpressible nature.

[Anonymous No.9679040]

>>9679030
I don't really see your point.

[Anonymous No.9679043]

>>9678996
I've read it. Don't be so quick to assume others aren't as well-read as you are. Arrogance is not becoming.

>>I'm sorry but this is a special case.

In what way?

>>The Daodejing is in many ways a radically anti-language text

On what grounds? Your simple understanding of the context in which it was created seems to be the problem here. Did you read a translation?

>>Using Wittgenstein - a guy who lived during the 19th-20th century, at various times in complete seclusion - to illustrate your point about a document that was written in the 4th century BC.

Stop being so fucking narrow in your analysis of texts. Have you considered the different nuances between English and Chinese and how that might get lost in translation? Have you considered the historical background of philosophy in Ancient China?

>>Uptight

Dude, no body is "uptight", stop projecting. We're all on 4chan, we know it comes with the territory. The fact is your post (if you did write them) were just not funny.

>>I resent your assumption that I'm just shitposting

Uh, you were? My claim is that it is stupid, not that it is a shitpost. Also, I don't give two fucks what you resent.

>>I recommend that you rethink your primitive dualist perspective w/r/t the relationship between serious discussion and shitposting on this website and everywhere else.

So anything you write lands somewhere between the two and simultaneously encompasses both "shitposting" and "serious discussion". Boy, are you valuable to have in a conversation.

If anyone should wind down, it's you.

Also get the fuck outta here with Wittgenstein talking about this. It's so clear now that he had limited sources/knowledge of Oriental culture to make any kind of a relevant statement regarding the philosophy of Taoism. Just cause our (yes, I'm Chinese) work doesn't fit into your body of work and/or viewpoints doesn't make it a "radically anti-language text" you conceited moron.