Re: For what to live?
Hey Dark.
Sorry, I might have muddled things. Most of the stuff I've posted is from Daoism, only the chariot simile is from Buddhism. Briefly, Daoism's basic idea is that things have ziran, which is something like their own spontaneous nature. If you leave them alone and don't force them to do things, everything will be fine. This is mostly based on nature, e.g. there's nobody forcing heaven and earth to do what they do.
This is why you get talk about comparisons. The idea is, well let's take ugliness. Ugliness can only arise once you have beauty. The same sort of comparison is made with stuff like right and wrong, again responding to the Confucians, more or less. The basic idea is the same. Let's say we suddenly decide talking in public is illegal. There you go, we've created a wrong we didn't have before, and we'll come up with all sorts of reasons for why it's justified.
I'm vastly simplifying of course. Daoism is really complicated and doesn't really have a viewpoint, but a collection of them. In case you're interested in it, here are some decent articles.
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/r?ent … ery=daoism
They have an article on both Laozi and Zhuangzi, and if you just search on Daoism it looks like you get some interesting stuff, e.g. on comparative philosophy. BTW just to fill out the picture, here's the fancy philosophical talk on animism. Well, it's not quite the same thing exactly, but close enough. Animism is a lot more interactive, e.g. I say instruments have taught me things, just as you might teach me something, and for the same reason, you're both alive.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
