道 - Introduction to Taoism

Topic of yesterday: “ce qui est le philosophe” – what is philosopher.  First, we have to ask what is philosophy? According to its Greek origin, the word is a combination of philo (love) and sophy (knowledge) “Love of knowledge”. Therefore a philosopher is a "lover of knowledge."
Blandine, one of our café-philosophers who has studied Chinese for some years, made the observation that some philosophical concepts could be more easily expressed picturesquely in written Chinese. It took me some time to understand this remark and make sense of her comment. After some contemplation, I came to the conclusion that the concept of Chinese philosophy differs from what you would normally classify as the “love of knowledge”. Philosophy in ancient China could be more accurately associated with the German phrase die Weltanschauung or “world view”.

Take Taoism for example, as a branch of philosophy, it represents a view of nature and recommends a life style in harmony with nature rather than seeking the truth or knowledge.

In most philosophical schools, we ask ourselves three questions:

To be, to have, or to do? - Who are we? Why do we exist? What is the purpose? Descartes’ famous line: “je pense donc je suis” – “I think therefore I am” stresses the question of “to be” and “to do”.

In Taoism, we can examine the following words:

道 (Dao, or Tao) – path, way, nature

氣 (Qi, or Chi) – breathing, air, to be alive, to be

無 (Wu) – to have not; without

爲 (Wei) – action, to do

One of the most important concepts of Taoism is expressed as: 無爲 Wu Wei. The literal meaning of Wu Wei is “have no action” – in other words, “Do nothing!” The aim of Wu Wei is to achieve a state of perfect equilibrium, or alignment with the 道 Dao (or Tao) – in harmony with the path of nature, and, as a result, obtain an irresistible form of "soft and invisible" power.

The Taoist sage Laozi (ca.400 BC), who lived a non-material existence like Siddhartha, demonstrated the concept of Wu Wei by introducing 氣功 Qi Gong (or Chi kong) – breathing exercises - meditative training increasing longevity and as means of accessing higher realms of existence.

In Western society, some people justify their existence by accumulating unbridled wealth (investment banker’s philosophy). Some people aim to make their life meaningful by seeking fame (“Reality Show” contestant’s philosophy). Some people seek to “make history” by waging wars in the world (politician’s philosophy). Interestingly, there are also people in the West who are sick of a modern society which advocates blind pursuit of money and power. They prefer to live as hermits enjoying their own company. By detaching from society with its demands for conformity, they seek to achieve an inner peace. This kind of life-style is not very far from the Taoist concept of Wu Wei.

Notes:
子 - Zi or Tsu - archaic meaning: "Master", or "Sir". (modern meaning: “son”, “child”)

孔子 - Kongzi – founder of Confucianism (551-479 BC)

老子 - Laozi - Taoist sage (c.400 BC)

孫子 – Sunzi - Military strategist and philosopher (c.544-496 BC)

老子 Laozi

Choice and Future

Dear Philosophers,

You have probably made resolutions for the New Year. We all do, or we ought to. Resolutions manifest that we take our happiness seriously and stir our lives in the direction we choose rather than allow it to drift aimlessly. Is it a choice, though? Our personal stories appear as series of crossroads, from which paths opened up, and we went down this one and that one, not knowing where they ultimately led and forfeiting the opportunities that the other destinations might have offered. Because no map shows the journeys ends, and our bodies, our education, our circumstances restrict our possibilities, many thinkers claim we didnt choose. We lacked the necessary information. Our decisions were the mechanical results of a concatenation of previous events and social constraints.

It is a rather incoherent way of reading our lives narratives, is it not? The only information we would need to make secure life choices is knowledge of the future, and that will forever be lacking. In the Hassidic tradition the past is spatially represented in front of the subject, where she can see it; the future is in her back, invisible an accurate depiction of our human condition. If the future were knowable, we would not be making choices; we would let ourselves be unfailingly guided by our interest.

And the reason we can make choices at all is because our possibilities are restricted. Imagine that out of the blue a voice commanded you Choose! Your reaction would be: between what? Tea or coffee? Stay or leave? Hang on or dump my partner? Chamonix or the Maldives? Take the job or keep searching? The blue one or the red one? Without a given historical context decisions are impossible. There must be a menu for us to choose from. So the issue is not whether we make choices, but rather that certain menus are less palatable than we would like. It may be the consequence of wrong turns at previous crossroads, or physical and social limitations, but, however restricted, choices still are possible.

Lets choose the right resolutions for the New Year. It is about our happiness, after all.

Christian

Dilemmas

Related article by Céline: Dilemme... (in French)

Posted on behalf of Peter:

1. APPROACHING DILEMMAS – VIA CRITICAL THINKING (LOGIC)

Dilemma as valid argument form

A dilemma can be an acceptable type of argument. We are offered alternative courses of action, each of which entails a certain set of consequences. We have to take one of the alternatives, so have to accept one set of consequences. If the consequences are true, and it is a matter of a straight choice between them, this is a valid dilemma.

Bogus dilemma
However, if there are other alternatives and / or the consequences are incorrect, then the dilemma is bogus. It can then be refuted as follows:

1. Denying that the consequences of the choices as stated are correct. This is called ‘Grasping the dilemma by the horns’.
2. Showing the choice is false – there are other options.  This is called ‘Going between the horns of the dilemma’.  

It often occurs with the fallacy of ‘bifurcation’ (‘either / or’, ‘black / white’). Example: ‘you are either with us or against us’…

Source
How To Win Every Argument. The Use and Abuse of Logic (Madsen Pirie). Pub: Continuum.

2. APPROACHING DILEMMAS – AS CONSCIOUS DECISION PROCESS
Dilemmas can also be considered as complex decisions.

One of the best methods I’ve come across is the following:
1. Define the problem.
2. Specify your objectives.
3. Create alternatives.
4. Understand the consequences.
5. Grapple with tradeoffs between choices.
6. Clarify uncertainties.
7. Think about your risk tolerance.
8. Consider linked decisions.

Future prediction
It was pointed out in the meeting, quite rightly, that one cannot know the future. Some things are largely unpredictable e.g. the explosion of Facebook and other social networking sites, the Irish bank crisis etc.

However one can improve one’s odds in many decisions by using informed estimates on the probability of events happening: the whole purpose of the ‘risk industry’, in all its permutations, is to try and work out the best way to approach an uncertain future.. So in the sequence above, steps 4, 6 and 7 would entail some sort of (informed) probability estimation.

There’s a quote I like from the source book I have used here. “You can make a good decision and still get a bad outcome, due to something unpredictable / unpleasant happening. You can also make a bad decision and get a good outcome, due to pure luck” (e.g. you made a decision based on the flight pattern of starlings as they flew past your window, and it worked....)

Apples and oranges
Some dilemmas require choice between things that have no common base of comparison. If the question is ‘what holiday should I choose ?’, then comparison can be made on cost, weather etc. But what about ‘should I go on holiday, or get a new kitchen ?’ A good decision process will allow some weighting factors, to help prioritise (step 5 above).

Uncertainty (Donald Rumsfeld).
He was widely pilloried for his ‘things we know’ speech, given in the context of dealing with political uncertainty. It’s about the one thing he said I agreed with…I haven’t got around to checking the exact words, but it was broadly along the lines of:
1. There are things we know
2. There are things we think we know
3. There are things we know we don’t know
4. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
e.g. (1). Al Qaida are planning attacks (2) Possibly by end of the year (3) Don’t know the target (4) We ought to be paying attention to who is training in flying schools in the southern US.

Source
Smart Choices (Hammond, Keeney, Raiffa). Pub: Harvard Business School Press.
 
3. APPROACHING DILEMMAS – AS UNCONSCIOUS DECISION PROCESS
This is the ‘sleep on it’ method. You get all the facts, try to come to a decision consciously, come to an impasse, then deliberately turn it over to the subconscious and forget about it. The answer may then come unexpectedly when you are driving, showering, making love, ironing, fleeing a burning building, performing neuro-surgery etc…

The issue here is: how does one trust one’s intuition ? The conventional wisdom is to ask yourself: ‘Did I put in enough prior work to give my subconscious the information it needed to work on?’ If I buy some shares based on decent research, it’s worth listening to my subconscious intuition. If I buy some shares based on one newspaper article I may lose money (I did…).

4. APPROACHING DILEMMAS – AS MORAL CHOICE
Some people will resolve some dilemmas by referring to their internal value system. ‘Should I give money to a street beggar ?’. A Christian will probably think ‘yes’.

However sometimes this leads to disaster – case the Credit Crunch. The dilemma was (and is): ‘How should we run the world’s financial systems ?’. For the last 20+ years the Chicago School inspired Efficient Market Hypothesis held sway, with unregulated markets being regarded as leading necessarily to the public good. This became conflated with the political view ‘state always bad, individuals always good’. It took the world economy to come within an inch of imploding for the moral position ‘leave it to the unregulated market in all cases’ to be questioned.

Peter

Related article by Celine: Dilemme... (in French)

Some thoughts on Freedom of Information

Dear Philosophers,

We are told that rights should apply equally to all human beings, and if one of them is allowed an action it would be illicit to deny another the same action. Except, of course, that the people who are supposed to guarantee our rights government officials are the ones who claim exemption from this rule of universality. The Wikileaks affair reveals strikingly how rights don't apply equally. Forget taxes, pension differentials, life employment and impunity from prosecution in many countries, and other markers of the difference between government and the governed. It is now the most immaterial of goods, information, that is at stake. Governments collect it in all possible forms, requiring records of all bank transactions, credit card payments and airline reservations, ordering Microsoft and other companies to give them backdoor entries into software systems, tracking all phone and internet conversations, and making it illegal to protect your privacy by encrypting your correspondence or keeping your assets invisible.

The fury when the table is turned and when some people do to a government what it does to all of us (spying) is the great entertainment of these last days of 2010. And these could well be the first days of a new era.

Christian

Some thoughts on Democracy

Topic of the day: Can we reject Majority rule?
Majority rules – the basic principle of democracy. But are the majority always right? Does the government voted by majority represent the true interests of the majority? That’s the fundamental question. The majority arrive at their voting decision based on the information available given by the party campaigners even if that information is as absurd as the three slogans of the Ministry of Truth in the Orwellian world:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Every political party of whatever persuasion has to have a gimmick or slogan to sell their soap powder to the great unwashed.

For those who still hold firm to the belief that the Party is always right and the War on Terror is fully justified (despite any unintended consequences), perhaps they should spare a thought to the words of Norman Mailer:
“Fighting a war to fix something works about as good as going to a whore-house to get rid of the clap” (The Naked and the Dead, 1948)

May I also remind you, the motto of our beloved politicians:
“Don’t treat people like Idiots. But never forget that they are Idiots!”

(Ne prenez pas les gens pour des cons, mais n’oubliez jamais qu’ils le sont. – F.Beigbeder, 99 francs, 2000)

Dilemme...

Que faire s’il on vous offre un travail bien payé dans un pays étranger, mais que vous ne pouvez pas emmener avec vous la personne que vous aimez ? Choisissez-vous l’argent ou l’amour? Ecoutez-vous votre tête ou votre cœur ?


Lequel des deux médecins que vous consultez croire s’ils vous donnent deux diagnostiques et deux traitements différents?

Qui, de sa femme ou de sa maîtresse, un homme devrait-il emmener en vacances?

On parle de dilemme quand on trouve difficile de prendre une décision entre 2 ou plusieurs choix, mais qu’aucun n’est défendable. Que faire face à un dilemme ? Peser le pour et le contre de la situation. Habituellement, on choisit la meilleure option, mais le résultat peut être regrettable.

D’une part, on peut penser que le processus de prise de décision dépend de nos origines culturelles et de nos valeurs, elles-mêmes composées également de nos préjugés. Ceux qui ont été élevés dans un environnement chrétien prennent souvent des décisions basées sur le jugement moral. « Faire ce qui est juste », ainsi on trouve l’harmonie en soi, sans recriminations. Beaucoup de décisions sont influencées par les origines sociales de la personne concernée, et des livres que cette même personne a lus : la culture apportera la solution.

« Si les décisions que l’on a prises sont influencées par la culture, est-ce qu’on peut trouver la solution dans les livres qu’on a lu ? » Ceux qui ont lu des œuvres classiques sont-ils capables de résoudre les dilemmes dans leur vie quotidienne en utilisant ce qu’ils ont appris dans les livres ? Dans la tragédie « Hamlet », le prince du Danemark faisait face à l’énorme dilemme qui consistait à tuer son oncle et sa mère pour venger son père. Comment ce type de tragédie peut-il nous offrir une solution applicable dans notre vie quotidienne?

D’autre part, on peut penser que la définition d’un dilemme n’est pas seulement un choix difficile voire impossible à faire, mais qu’il s’agit également de ce dont on a foi. L’ancien philosophe Grec parlait souvent du dilemme entre le corps et l’esprit. Croit-on en nos corps ou en nos cœurs ? Autre exemple : une mère préfère un de ses fils à l’autre, mais le second lui dit que son préféré a planifié de la tuer. Qui doit-elle croire entre lui et son préféré ?

Cependant, quelqu’un a souligné qu’un « dilemme » n’est pas seulement un problème qui peut être résolu en prenant simplement une décision. Un dilemme représente un problème difficile, qu’il est pratiquement impossible de résoudre. Quelques fois, une bonne décision peut aboutir sur un mauvais résultat, et vice versa (une mauvaise décision peut avoir de bons résultats). Par exemple, que l’Ouest commence une guerre avec l’Iran peut être vu comme un dilemme pour les gens qui ont leurs doigts posés sur les détonateurs. Il y a toujours un élément de prise de risque dans toute décision cruciale du fait que le futur est imprévisible. Les conséquences de nos décisions peuvent être inconcevables. Le projet du CERN sur l’expérimentation de la théorie du “Big Bang” est vue comme un dilemme, car si elle s’avère vraie, l’Humanité résoudrait le mystère le plus grand: les origines de l’univers. Si c'est un échec, ça n’engage pas seulement la perte financière et scientifique de ressources humaines colossales, mais de manière plus importante, il court le risque de détruire la planète entière (si les critiques sont justes).

L’idéogramme chinois pour le mot « dilemme » est composé de 2 lettres, l’un qui est le symbole de la lance, l’autre qui représente le bouclier : la lance attaque, le bouclier défend, aucuns des deux ne gagne : c'est ce qu’on appelle un « dilemme » 矛盾

 

Related article by Peter: Dilemmas (in English)

Marriage Vs Love

Looking into the subject of marriage in the attempt to write something, I was amazed that most thoughts on this matter were rather humoristic and satirical. Indeed, what to think, just as examples, of George Bernard Shaw's "Marriage is the story of a young man and a young woman whom by picking a flower receive an avalanche on the head", or even of Montenoy's "People say that marriage is the grave of love"?

In the other quotes, it seems that the difference between marriage and love is very often brought forward. Isn't it important to differentiate the "idea" of marriage and its institution? And if so, can we think that, on the opposite of the ideal of marriage, which changes with the society and time, its institution is the only man-made creation which tries to give the notion of marriage some kind of consistency?

--------------------------
En essayant d’écrire quelques lignes sur le sujet de conversation de Samedi 20 Novembre, j’ai été surprise de voir que la majorité des dictons sur le mariage était humoristiques, voir amers. En effet, que penser de la citation de Georges Shaw « Le mariage, c'est l'histoire d'un jeune homme et d'une jeune fille qui cueillent une fleur et reçoivent une avalanche sur la tête », ou encore de Montenoy qui affirme que « le mariage est le tombeau de l’amour » ?

Dans les autres citations, le discernement entre l’amour est le mariage est souvent mit en avant. En effet, n’est-il pas important de séparer « l’idée » du mariage de son institution ? Dans ce cas, peut-on penser qu’au contraire de « l’idéal » du mariage qui change en fonction de la société et du temps dans laquelle nous vivons, son institution est la seule fabrication humaine qui tente d’apporter à la notion du mariage une certaine consistance ?

“Good” vs “Bad”



Last judgement

The adjectives “good” or “bad” used frequently in our Café often sound rather puerile to start with. We remember how our parents used to lecture us on how to be “good”: “Be a good girl/boy. Do what your teacher says. Stay with the group. Don’t talk to strangers...” What does it mean to “be good”? When our parents taught us to be good, it often implies that we ought to follow the rules, to be obedient to authority.  If the object of “being good” is to maintain social order, then perhaps a communist society, or a police state would be a good place to live because there no rebellious behaviour or criticism of the government would be tolerated. A totalitarian society is built upon conformism where individualism and original ideas are not encouraged.

Perhaps religion (no matter which faith or belief) is a more effective disciplinary tool than state policing, as religion under the guise of spiritual teaching, often uses the promises and punishment in the afterlife to regulate the behaviour of its followers. Can we say that religious doctrine is our yardstick of “goodness”?

How do you judge who is good who is bad? To be “good” do we have to be a saint? A person who sacrifices all earthly desires and devotes his life to helping others is generally praised as a “good person”. How do you describe a person who steals a loaf of bread in order to save some starving children? Or a person that kills an aggressor to help a victim? How do you qualify a "good thing" or a "bad thing"? If we define that an action that benefits majority of people but only harms a minority of people is a “good thing”; can we also classify an act of gang rape which satisfies a group of rapists but damages only one woman as a “good thing”?



If we say that all killing, rape, theft are “bad things” because they are morally wrong, why then there are such distinctions as “just war”, or “unjust war” where in both instances great numbers of innocent people were killed, raped, plundered? Why some historical instances were described as “crime against humanity”, “genocide”, but some others were described as “war on terror”, “war against tyranny”? The flip side of “bad” thing is considered a “good” thing depending on which side you are on.  If what Nazi did in the WWII was an act of genocide, why then the bombing of Dresden and dropping Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not also acts of genocide? Does it mean that punitive action, no matter how barbaric, can be justified as “good thing”? This proves the point that history is only written by the winners. 

Course at Mary Ward Centre

An interdisciplinary course, On Poverty, at the Mary Ward Centre, drawing on philosophy and economics will start in the new year.

The course will be looking at diverse perceptions of poverty: a curse in the Torah; a liberating condition in Stoicism, Christianity and Buddhism; a condition to be eradicated in modern economics... Themes opened for discussions will range from women and poverty, Michel Foucaults Great Confinement, Marx and the pauperisation of the proletariat, the deserving poor; and will go on to the reversal operated by the Welfare State, when poverty was deemed to grant rights, rather than wealth to create duties. We will be calling, of course, on the recent works by Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum, Amartya Sen, and the authors around the CARE movement.

The course is open to all; it will run every Wednesday, 4 to 6pm, starting on 12 January, for 11 meetings. No prior knowledge of economics or philosophy is required. A friendly, illuminating and topical course is guaranteed.

An 18th-century Paris Café-philo

We have approached the topic of Atheism numerous times in our previous discussions, coinciding with the rise of the celebrity writers and scientists the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, to Steven Hawking...

Just discovered a delightful new publication, Wicked Company: Freethinkers and Friendship in Pre-Revolutionary Paris by Philipp Blom (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2010), tracing the story behind a scandalous Paris salon – our earliest model of Café-philo, where philosophers met to eat and drink and deny the existence of God and the soul – run by Baron Paul Thierry d’Holbach. Its members included Denis Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and their contemporaries.

See review from The Economist, 28 October 2010