Favorite Deep Quotes

[Gwaithmir]

“An atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads man back to nature, to experience and to reason.” (Baron d'Holbach) 

[Dānu]

[Dānu]

[Phaedrus]

[Szuchow]

“The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. The man who is endowed with important personal qualities will be only too ready to see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, since their failings will be constantly before his eyes. But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”

Artur Schopenhauer.

[Gwaithmir]

“Man did not weave the thread of life. He is part of it. Whatever he does to the world, he does to himself.” (Chief Seattle) 

[Dānu]

The ancient masters were subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive.
The depth of their knowledge is unfathomable.
Because it is unfathomable,
All we can do is describe their appearance.
Watchful, like men crossing a winter stream.
Alert, like men aware of danger.
Courteous, like visiting guests.
Yielding like ice about to melt.
Simple, like uncarved blocks of wood.
Hollow, like caves.
Opaque, like muddy pools.

Who can wait quietly while the mud settles?
Who can remain still until the moment of action?
Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment.
Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change.

Lao Tzu, The Tao Te Ching, Ch. 15

[Gwaithmir]

"Why should we take advice on sex from the Pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't." (George Bernard Shaw) 

[Dānu]

"Why should we take advice on sex from the Pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't." (George Bernard Shaw) 

You always have some remarkable quotes. I have a page in my OneNote notebook that primarily consists of quotes that you've posted. Your quotes are head and shoulders above anybody else's.

[Gwaithmir]

"Why should we take advice on sex from the Pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't." (George Bernard Shaw) 

You always have some remarkable quotes.  I have a page in my OneNote notebook that primarily consists of quotes that you've posted.  Your quotes are head and shoulders above anybody else's.

A Solstice for Andrea by Karl W. Ploran (Writing as Karlmir Stonewain)


In windblown heath the

Larkspur sways in herbal undulation,
Or, bedewed, nods in shade of
Verdant hills aglow in
Eoan rays of solstice morn.

Young nymph, fair of face, my
Oread. Come share my
Upland home and gambol in my groves of

Ash and oak.
Nestle close by me at
Dawn upon the mossy knoll.
Rigel rising in the twilight.
Earth at
Aphelion. 

[vulcanlogician]

Lao Tzu, The Tao Te Ching, Ch. 15

Thanks for this, Danu. I wonder if an atheist can be a Daoist sometimes. I'd like to think I can be. I, for one, certainly appreciate Daoism. What say you? Can an atheist be a Daoist?

But, I suppose, the real question that springs to mind, if one carefully reads Lao Tzu, is: Can a Daoist be a Daoist? If one considers himself/herself a Daoist, then one must take into consideration what a Daoist is not. And if a Daoist is going to really be a Daoist, he/she must also strive not to be a Daoist, right? Because what a Daoist is not is every bit as essential to Daoism as what a Daoist is.

Hold on to the center.  

[Gwaithmir]

"When a friend asks, there is no tomorrow." (New England Proverb)

[Inkubus]

A temple was worth a dozen barracks; a militia man carrying a gun could control a small unarmed crowd only for as long as he was present; however, a single priest could put a policeman inside the head of every one of their flock, for ever.

Iain M Banks. Matter.

[Dānu]

Lao Tzu, The Tao Te Ching, Ch. 15

Thanks for this, Danu. I wonder if an atheist can be a Daoist sometimes. I'd like to think I can be. I, for one, certainly appreciate Daoism. What say you? Can an atheist be a Daoist?

But, I suppose, the real question that springs to mind, if one carefully reads Lao Tzu, is: Can a Daoist be a Daoist? If one considers himself/herself a Daoist, then one must take into consideration what a Daoist is not. And if a Daoist is going to really be a Daoist, he/she must also strive not to be a Daoist, right? Because what a Daoist is not is every bit as essential to Daoism as what a Daoist is.

Hold on to the center.  

I wanted to respond to your questions, but I'm going to be brief, which might not do the subject justice. It depends upon a lot of things. Taoism postulates certain metaphysical truths which may or may not be correct, but unless one is going into the question of the relationship between Shang Di, heaven, and the Tao, I don't see anything that necessarily requires theism. Taoism is more about a supposed warp and woof of reality than it is about any dependence on theist concepts. That set of beliefs may be wrong, but I don't think it precludes atheism.

Your second question echoes the sentiments of a certain segment of Taoists and observers of Taoism, and ones to which I'm not particularly sympathetic. Like Aristotleanism, I think a reasonable reading of Lao Tzu indicates that he is suggesting the Tao displays feminine qualities of accommodation and acceptance, and the idea of striving toward some sort of an ideal or perfect Taoism just seems all wrong when evaluated in that light. Thoughts such as you voice here seem like a tempest in a teapot -- of interest to the non-serious student of the way, but largely ignored by other students of the way. I think the crowd that thinks that way about Taoism is overly focused on an appearance to the detriment of focusing on the substance and general character of Lao Tzu's conception of the way. I have over the past 40 years confined myself to what Laozi and Zhuangzi have written, and it's possible that other authors and traditions which followed after them might be more compatible with such views. I don't know. Taoism bifurcated multiple times and found many a strange bedfellow between Laozi and Zhuangzi and the present, so it's possible.

[vulcanlogician]

Your second question echoes the sentiments of a certain segment of Taoists and observers of Taoism, and ones to which I'm not particularly sympathetic.

Thanks for your insights. Aside from having read and enjoyed the Dao te Ching, I'm not so well-versed in the Daoism. I detected a bit of "anti-systemism" in it, which is what my thoughts in the last post meant to reference. But I did find Laozi rather thought-provoking and profound. I've read several translations of the Dao te Ching just to see if I could understand a little more about what the author wished to convey.

I've tried looking into other works but have found many of them unsatisfying. Plus that, there is the annoying woo-adjacency found in websites concerning it. You mentioned Zhuangzi. Anything by him that you think I'd find interesting? (At this point, you probably know me well enough to guess what philosophy I might dig.)

[Dānu]

Your second question echoes the sentiments of a certain segment of Taoists and observers of Taoism, and ones to which I'm not particularly sympathetic.

Thanks for your insights. Aside from having read and enjoyed the Dao te Ching, I'm not so well-versed in the Daoism. I detected a bit of "anti-systemism" in it, which is what my thoughts in the last post meant to reference. But I did find Laozi rather thought-provoking and profound. I've read several translations of the Dao te Ching just to see if I could understand a little more about what the author wished to convey.

I've tried looking into other works but have found many of them unsatisfying. Plus that, there is the annoying woo-adjacency found in websites concerning it. You mentioned Zhuangzi. Anything by him that you think I'd find interesting? (At this point, you probably know me well enough to guess what philosophy I might dig.)

The views you suggested are one take on Taoism, just not my take. Zhuangzi and Laozi are considered the two fathers of Taoism, though who each was and the relationship of the two is a matter of some speculation. There is the canonical Zhaungzi which consists of what are known as the inner chapters, being those writings which can confidently be attributed to Zhuangzi (aka Chuang Tse), and those works which are also attributed to him, but without any great confidence regarding them. Where Lao Tzu is simple and uncomplicated, Zhuangzi is nuanced, complex and somewhat difficult. Both are considered the primary sources for canonical Taoism. Both authors vary considerably in translation, Zhuangzi no less than Laozi. I like the Gia Fu Feng translation, but that's more a result of having encountered Fu Feng's translation of the Tao Te Ching long before the Zhuangzi or other translations of the Tao Te Ching. You might also get some benefit out of the Dummies or Idiot's guide / books on Taoism. Beyond those three, it gets pretty complicated, as I noted earlier, Taoism evolved in multiple different and sometimes incompatible directions in the centuries following the writings of Laozi and Zhuangzi.

ETA: It occurs to me that the idea you suggested is somewhat reminiscent of a similar paradox in Buddhism. Supposedly, according to Zen Buddhism, direct insight is the only valid source of truth, and talking about the insights that one might or have gained from Zen meditation is always going to be necessarily inadequate and misleading. Yet how are you to find your way to the insights of Zen meditation if not from recognizing them in the discussions you've had about Zen Buddhism and the direct insights to be gained? If one talks about them, it leads one into error. If one doesn't talk about them, one cannot be led to those truths. It's a paradox, and I don't know that either Taoism or Buddhism has offered a rational path out of that paradox. But then, maybe that's the point.

[Gwaithmir]

"They say the streets are going to be beautiful in Heaven. Well, I'm trying to make the streets beautiful here....When it's clean and beautiful, I think America will be heaven. And some people are hell." (Butterfly McQueen)

I had the pleasure of meeting Butterfly McQueen and shaking her hand at an atheist convention in Atlanta, Georgia in the fall of 1989.

[Alan V]

You mentioned Zhuangzi. Anything by him that you think I'd find interesting? 

I have read Burton Watson's translations, and I found them very accessible and interesting.  I preferred Chuang Tzu to Lao Tzu, who I found too obscure. 

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=burton+watson...ss_sc_1_17

[mordant]

Your second question echoes the sentiments of a certain segment of Taoists and observers of Taoism, and ones to which I'm not particularly sympathetic.

Thanks for your insights. Aside from having read and enjoyed the Dao te Ching, I'm not so well-versed in the Daoism. I detected a bit of "anti-systemism" in it, which is what my thoughts in the last post meant to reference. But I did find Laozi rather thought-provoking and profound. I've read several translations of the Dao te Ching just to see if I could understand a little more about what the author wished to convey.

I've tried looking into other works but have found many of them unsatisfying. Plus that, there is the annoying woo-adjacency found in websites concerning it. You mentioned Zhuangzi. Anything by him that you think I'd find interesting? (At this point, you probably know me well enough to guess what philosophy I might dig.)

The views you suggested are  one take on Taoism, just not my take.  Zhuangzi and Laozi are considered the two fathers of Taoism, though who each was and the relationship of the two is a matter of some speculation.  There is the canonical Zhaungzi which consists of what are known as the inner chapters, being those writings which can confidently be attributed to Zhuangzi (aka Chuang Tse), and those works which are also attributed to him, but without any great confidence regarding them.  Where Lao Tzu is simple and uncomplicated, Zhuangzi is nuanced, complex and somewhat difficult.  Both are considered the primary sources for canonical Taoism.  Both authors vary considerably in translation, Zhuangzi no less than Laozi.  I like the Gia Fu Feng translation, but that's more a result of having encountered Fu Feng's translation of the Tao Te Ching long before the Zhuangzi or other translations of the Tao Te Ching.  You might also get some benefit out of the Dummies or Idiot's guide / books on Taoism.  Beyond those three, it gets pretty complicated, as I noted earlier, Taoism evolved in multiple different and sometimes incompatible directions in the centuries following the writings of Laozi and Zhuangzi.

ETA:  It occurs to me that the idea you suggested is somewhat reminiscent of a similar paradox in Buddhism.  Supposedly, according to Zen Buddhism, direct insight is the only valid source of truth, and talking about the insights that one might or have gained from Zen meditation is always going to be necessarily inadequate and misleading.  Yet how are you to find your way to the insights of Zen meditation if not from recognizing them in the discussions you've had about Zen Buddhism and the direct insights to be gained?  If one talks about them, it leads one into error.  If one doesn't talk about them, one cannot be led to those truths.  It's a paradox, and I don't know that either Taoism or Buddhism has offered a rational path out of that paradox.  But then, maybe that's the point.

What about the Jade Emperor? Isn't that considered some sort of deity in Taoism?

It seems to me that when it comes to both Buddhism and Taoism, one might as well do what any adherent of any religion does, which is cherry pick what works for you and ignore the stuff that doesn't, or that it is just in your view useless cruft. To my way of thinking, both religions originated in a time when supernatural beings and realms were assumed and accepted as unremarkable, so the fact that there is a Jade Emperor (Taoism) or Bodhisatvas and hungry ghosts (Buddhism) -- gods or demigods or lesser supernatural beings or a kind of afterlife, albeit cyclic -- is unsurprising. But in the spirit of separating the value from background noise, I think one could adhere to either of those religions without becoming a believer in the supernatural or other forms of woo -- assuming one is willing to find the right sect or be a "sect of one" if necessary.

One can even arguably do this with Christianity -- extract the "love one another" ethos and similar sentiments and ignore the fabulist constructs. Extract the teachings of Jesus that have value without being dogmatic about whether Jesus literally ever said or taught those things or even existed. Ignore the authoritarian stuff, etc. The difference in my view is that you'd have to discard 80% of Christian dogma to be left with things of actual value, and they end up being pretty much intuitive "don't be a dick" principles concerning which Christianity is not even a necessary element. Whereas arguably Buddhism and Taoism (which themselves have interacted with each other for centuries) would have more concentrated value; it seems to me you could eject 20% of it and keep 80% rather than the inverse.

Just my $0.02 for what it's worth. Interested in your thoughts on this is if you have time and are so inclined.

[Gwaithmir]

“I’m an atheist and Christianity seems to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I’m puzzled that so many people can’t see through a religion that encourages bigotry and irresponsibility. As my ancestors are free from slavery, so now I am free from the slavery of religion.” (Butterfly McQueen) 

[Dānu]

Thanks for your insights. Aside from having read and enjoyed the Dao te Ching, I'm not so well-versed in the Daoism. I detected a bit of "anti-systemism" in it, which is what my thoughts in the last post meant to reference. But I did find Laozi rather thought-provoking and profound. I've read several translations of the Dao te Ching just to see if I could understand a little more about what the author wished to convey.

I've tried looking into other works but have found many of them unsatisfying. Plus that, there is the annoying woo-adjacency found in websites concerning it. You mentioned Zhuangzi. Anything by him that you think I'd find interesting? (At this point, you probably know me well enough to guess what philosophy I might dig.)

The views you suggested are  one take on Taoism, just not my take.  Zhuangzi and Laozi are considered the two fathers of Taoism, though who each was and the relationship of the two is a matter of some speculation.  There is the canonical Zhaungzi which consists of what are known as the inner chapters, being those writings which can confidently be attributed to Zhuangzi (aka Chuang Tse), and those works which are also attributed to him, but without any great confidence regarding them.  Where Lao Tzu is simple and uncomplicated, Zhuangzi is nuanced, complex and somewhat difficult.  Both are considered the primary sources for canonical Taoism.  Both authors vary considerably in translation, Zhuangzi no less than Laozi.  I like the Gia Fu Feng translation, but that's more a result of having encountered Fu Feng's translation of the Tao Te Ching long before the Zhuangzi or other translations of the Tao Te Ching.  You might also get some benefit out of the Dummies or Idiot's guide / books on Taoism.  Beyond those three, it gets pretty complicated, as I noted earlier, Taoism evolved in multiple different and sometimes incompatible directions in the centuries following the writings of Laozi and Zhuangzi.

ETA:  It occurs to me that the idea you suggested is somewhat reminiscent of a similar paradox in Buddhism.  Supposedly, according to Zen Buddhism, direct insight is the only valid source of truth, and talking about the insights that one might or have gained from Zen meditation is always going to be necessarily inadequate and misleading.  Yet how are you to find your way to the insights of Zen meditation if not from recognizing them in the discussions you've had about Zen Buddhism and the direct insights to be gained?  If one talks about them, it leads one into error.  If one doesn't talk about them, one cannot be led to those truths.  It's a paradox, and I don't know that either Taoism or Buddhism has offered a rational path out of that paradox.  But then, maybe that's the point.

What about the Jade Emperor? Isn't that considered some sort of deity in Taoism?

It seems to me that when it comes to both Buddhism and Taoism, one might as well do what any adherent of any religion does, which is cherry pick what works for you and ignore the stuff that doesn't, or that it is just in your view useless cruft. To my way of thinking, both religions originated in a time when supernatural beings and realms were assumed and accepted as unremarkable, so the fact that there is a Jade Emperor (Taoism) or Bodhisatvas and hungry ghosts (Buddhism) -- gods or demigods or lesser supernatural beings or a kind of afterlife, albeit cyclic -- is unsurprising. But in the spirit of separating the value from background noise, I think one could adhere to either of those religions without becoming a believer in the supernatural or other forms of woo -- assuming one is willing to find the right sect or be a "sect of one" if necessary.

One can even arguably do this with Christianity -- extract the "love one another" ethos and similar sentiments and ignore the fabulist constructs. Extract the teachings of Jesus that have value without being dogmatic about whether Jesus literally ever said or taught those things or even existed. Ignore the authoritarian stuff, etc. The difference in my view is that you'd have to discard 80% of Christian dogma to be left with things of actual value, and they end up being pretty much intuitive "don't be a dick" principles concerning which Christianity is not even a necessary element. Whereas arguably Buddhism and Taoism (which themselves have interacted with each other for centuries) would have more concentrated value; it seems to me you could eject 20% of it and keep 80% rather than the inverse.

Just my $0.02 for what it's worth. Interested in your thoughts on this is if you have time and are so inclined.

Short answer, before I forget you again, it depends upon what flavor and school you subscribe to. Since there really are no authoritative texts in Buddhism, that's a question of whether one's choices are legitimate as opposed to your idea that selective appropriation of Buddhist sources is cherry-picking. Without an authoritative set of texts, the concept of cherry picking doesn't seem to apply. With regard to Taoism, it's true that some very supernatural notions were incorporated into various schools that developed after Laozi and Zhuangzi, those are not authoritative sources either, so one is free to choose which school and whose ideas one follows as far as that goes. There is nothing that says that a Taoist must believe in the Eight Immortals. Arguably Laozi and Zhuangzi can be considered authoritative texts, but I'm not aware of similar supernatural things beyond some references to heaven, ancestors, and perhaps Shang Di in them (I'd have to check the latter). With the exception of Shang Di, there is nothing necessarily theistic in any of that (as there really isn't in the Buddhist concept of rebirth and dependent origination).

(The Wikipedia entry on Taoism offers a start on the question of the various schools and branches of Taoism that developed over time. I did have a good book on it at one time, but I no longer have the book and don't remember the details.)

[Gwaithmir]

"Tell General Howard I know his heart. What he told me before, I have it in my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Too-hul-hul-sote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are—perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, to see how many I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever!" (Chief Joseph) 

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

"Only when all who surround you are different will you truly belong." Fred Tate from Little Man Tate (1991)

"Mathematics is not about numbers, equations, computations, or algorithms: it is about understanding." William Paul Thurston

[Dānu]

“Good advice is often a doubtful remedy, but generally not dangerous because it has so little effect......”

― C.G. Jung

[Gwaithmir]

"It is a great point of wisdom to find one's own folly." (Roman Proverb)