Meditations on the Tao Te Ching: Chapter 11

Thirty spokes join together in a wheel’s hub,
It is the center hole that makes the wheel useful.
We shape clay to fashion jugs;
It is the hollowness within that makes a jug useful.
We cut doors and windows in a house wall;
It is these empty spaces that make the house useful.

Thus things are valuable because of what they have
And they are useful because of what they lack.

-Translation by Agnieszka Solska

The usefulness of a thing depends on the differences between it and other things. In this case the contrast described is between solid things and empty space; for instance, a hammer would be useless if there was no empty space through which to swing it.

This observation applies to other things too–work would be useless if we spent all day every day working because we would have no time to enjoy the fruits of our labor, and happiness would be unappreciated if there was never a time when we were not happy.

The mind can only grasp the significance of things when it has something to contrast the thing to. This is why the meaning of life can only be grasped once we become fully conscious of death.

Meditations on the Tao Te Ching: Chapter 10

In holding the soul and embracing oneness
Can one be without straying?
In concentrating the energy and reaching relaxation
Can one be like an infant?
In cleaning away the worldly view
Can one be without imperfections?
In loving the people and ruling the nation
Can one be without manipulation?
In the heavenly gate’s opening and closing
Can one hold to the feminine principle?
In understanding clearly all directions
Can one be without intellectuality?
Bearing it, rearing it
Bearing without possession
Achieving without arrogance
Raising without domination
This is called the mystic virtue

-Translation by Derek Lin

This chapter deals a bit more with the mystical aspects of Taoism, about which I don’t know what to say. What is meant by opening and closing the gates of heaven? What is meant by holding the soul and embracing oneness? I really can’t say at this time, so I’ll just do my best to analyze the rest of this chapter.

Concentrating the energy and reaching relaxation refers, I think to breathing exercises which involve breathing more “naturally”, as we used to do when we were babies; deeply, slowly, and with the diaphragm rather than the chest muscles.

Cleaning away the worldly view means, I think, learning to look at everything as it is, without any preconceptions or expectations that change how we see things. This involves seeing everything as being part of the Tao. 

Ruling the people without manipulation–letting things happen as they will, without trying to force an outcome or impose one’s own will onto them.

Understanding without intellectuality–to understand without getting engrossed in the process of thinking, or reasoning. Reason is useful for some things, but it has a limited reach, thus one shouldn’t try to use it to understanding all things.

The last five lines more-or-less repeat some of what’s already been said in previous chapters. They describe that passive sort of action that doesn’t try to impose an outcome onto events, that lets things develops as they will, without worrying too much about how that will be.

Free will: on Physical Determinism

In my previous post in this series, I tried to get the definition of “free will” sorted out. To sum things up, I concluded that although the phrase “free will” is too ambiguous to be used without bringing up certain issues, it does have a core meaning around which all discussion on the matter revolves, that meaning being the freedom from external necessity–the idea that our choices are made by us, not forced onto us by external factors.

Having clarified that, I want to say some things about incompatibilism, the idea that determinism infringes on “free will”. The idea is a very common one in the free will debate–most people I’ve seen participating in such debates seem to agree with it–but does it actually hold water? What is the argument for it being impossible for us to make our own choices if determinism holds true?

Since I am most familiar with physical determinism–the most popular form of determinism currently–I’ll only be addressing the arguments for physical determinism being incompatible with “free will”; other forms of determinism, such as theological determinism, I don’t feel qualified to comment on.

Now, in my experience the basic argument for this physicalist incompatibilism goes like this:

“If everything is physical then our decision-making process must also be physical, located somewhere in the brain of course; and if all physical things can only behave in a specific way, which is dictated by the laws of nature, then our decision-making process and thus our decisions must be determined by our brain acting according to the laws of physics, not by us.”

The logic may seem sound at first glance–it certainly seemed that way to me at first–but a deeper examination reveals that the argument is based on two unstated and unproven assumptions, both of which contradict one of the argument’s premises.

In the first place, the argument assumes that the physical decision-making process is something separate from us–that we are not the brain. But if we are not the brain, then what can we be? Are we a disembodied mind? If so, that contradicts the premise that all things are physical, which is the basis for the entire argument.

If we’re to assume that physicalism is true, then we must be consistent about it, and so we must assume that we are something physical as well, in which case the brain must surely be a part of us, and if the brain is a part of us, saying “You don’t make your own choices, your brain makes them for you” makes as little sense as saying “I didn’t punch you, my fist did it for me”. If physicalism is correct then the brain must be that part of our body which we use to make our own decisions, just as the fist is that part of the body we use to punch people; therefore, our decisions being made in our brains doesn’t imply that we don’t make our decisions.

Of course, that’s only a part of the argument being presented here; if we accept that decisions are made in the brain and that the brain is a part of us, the physicalist incompatibilist can still object that the brain does not behave by its own volition; its behavior is dictated by the laws of nature, thus it is those laws which are really responsible for our decisions, not our brains. But this argument is based on a certain assumption about the metaphysical “nature” of the laws of nature.

To say that the laws of nature dictate that behavior of things only makes sense if we assume that the laws are real things which objectively exist somewhere “out there”, with real causal power and the ability to make everything physical behave a certain way. While I won’t argue against this being a valid interpretation of the laws of nature, it is one which conflicts with the assumption of physicalism. After all, the laws aren’t physical objects–they lack all qualities of physical objects, such as mass, electrical charge or spatial location. If the laws exist, they exist as non-physical things which somehow lord over the physical world–literally super-natural (above nature). Since the laws under this interpretation aren’t physical, this interpretation contradicts the premise of physicalism that the argument is based on.

Again, if we’re to assume physicalism we must be consistent about it; physicalist incompatibilists can’t use an interpretation of the laws of nature under which they’re non-physical entities to argue for physicalist incompatibilism. A more fitting interpretation would be that the laws of physics are human inventions that describe certain regularities that have been observed in nature. Under this interpretation the laws of physics can’t force anything to do anything, therefore they can’t responsible for our decisions.

So, having analyzed and rejected the basic argument for physical determinism being incompatible with free will, does that mean the position can be discarded altogether? Well, no, not yet. There is one argument for incompatibilism that I consider much more convincing, which I’ll be getting around to some two posts after this one. In the meantime, my next post on the topic will be on the idea that having free will requiers that we “could have done otherwise”.


Other posts in this series:
Part 1 — On “Free Will”
Part 3 — Free Will: «Could Have Done Otherwise»
Part 4 — Free Will: Incompatibilist «Freedom»

Meditations on the Tao Te Ching: Chapter 9

 Better to stop short than fill to the brim.
Oversharpen the blade, and the edge will soon blunt.
Amass a store of gold and jade, and no one can protect it.
Claim wealth and titles, and disaster will follow.
Retire when the work is done.
This is the way of heaven.

-Translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

A blade being sharp, a cup being full, owning a lot of gold; these things are generally considered “good,” yet to pursue these things beyond a certain point is counterproductive.

Sometimes we want things that are good in moderation, but because of our worries or insecurities, we go way overboard in these pursuits in an attempt to pacify these worries, and just end up hurting ourselves. Understand when enough is enough; better to show moderation and awareness in your pursuits rather than to mindlessly chase after something you think you should have.

On «Free Will»

Today I have something a little different for you. Now that I’ve warmed up my writing muscles a bit with the Tao Te Ching, I’ll start posting some original philosophical writings here alongside my commentary on the TTC. To kick things off, I’d like to say a few things about the free will debate, which was one of the first philosophical issues I ever really cared about.

This topic is one I’ve given a lot of thought to over the years, and almost from the start, I came to the conclusion that most of what’s been said about it fails at bringing the debate closer to any definitive answer, instead circling around the same few ineffective arguments time and time again. 

In order for discussion on free will to get out of the rut it’s in, it’s necessary to acknowledge and address some of the ambiguities and unexamined assumptions that are responsible for its sorry state, which is precisely what I intend to do here, beginning with a couple that need to be addressed before any discussion on the topic can be had–two issues that stem from the phrase ”free will” itself.

The first problem with the phrase is that it’s vague; it doesn’t make explicit to what freedom it refers, so different people will use it to refer to different types of freedom. One person might say “free will” and mean freedom from determinism, while another might say the same phrase and mean freedom from coercion, and if they start arguing with each other about the existence of “free will”, they’ll both be arguing about different things while thinking they’re arguing about the same thing (unless they first go through the effort of defining their terms, which most people don’t do).

The second problem with the phrase “free will” is that it’s exclusive; despite there being a multitude of freedoms which the will may or may not have, each person only ever uses the phrase to refer to one type of freedom, and that freedom will in their estimation be raised far above all others simply because it’s the one they happen to associate with the phrase “free will”, a phrase which society tells us refers to something incredibly important.

Because of these issues I usually prefer to avoid using the phrase “free will” altogether and instead refer to specific types of freedom, thus avoiding any confusion as to what freedom I’m referring to and not privileging any one type of freedom over the others.

Now, it might seem that the vagueness of the phrase “free will” means that it isn’t a coherent topic that one can comment on and discuss, but rather a mishmash of different topics that get lumped together under the same vague phrase. However, in all the time I’ve spent discussing and reading about the topic, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is something that connects almost all of what has been said about “free will” and makes a coherent topic of it.

I believe that there is one particular freedom lies at the core of pretty much all uses of “free will”, and this freedom I call by the name “freedom from external necessity”. This refers to the idea that people’s decisions are their own, not something forced onto them by the situation or their brains or what have you. All the other freedoms people call “free will”–e.g. freedom from determinism or freedom from coercion–are freedoms that different people believe are prerequisites for us to have the freedom from external necessity; they believe our decisions aren’t really be ours if they’re determined, or if we’re being coerced into making them. As such, this will be the freedom I’ll focus on in my posts on “free will”.

Anyways, now that I’ve gotten that all cleared up, in my next post on the topic I’ll be exploring whether or some of the different freedoms people like to call “free will” are actually necessary for the freedom from external necessity.


Other posts in this series:
Part 2 — Free will: on Physical Determinism
Part 3 — Free Will: «Could Have Done Otherwise»
Part 4 — Free Will: Incompatibilist «Freedom»

Meditations on the Tao Te Ching: Chapter 8

 The highest good is like water.
Water give life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.
It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.

In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In daily life, be competent.
In action, be aware of the time and the season.

No fight: No blame.

-Translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

The Tao, or the flow of things, goes whichever way it “pleases,” not caring one whit whether people, plants or animals like how it flows. It blooms and withers, grows and dies. It is like water, which flows ever downwards, following its nature, bringing spring showers and hurricanes alike.

About the rest of the chapter I don’t know what to say, other than that it’s a fairly straightforward set of aphorisms. If there is any deeper meaning to it, I can’t see it, and if I tried to explain it in any greater detail I would just muddle it up.

Meditations on the Tao Te Ching: Chapter 7

 The Tao is infinite, eternal.
Why is it eternal?

It was never born;
thus it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself;
thus it is present for all beings.

The Master stays behind;
that is why she is ahead.
She is detached from all things;

that is why she is one with them.
Because she has let go of herself,
she is perfectly fulfilled.

-Translation by Stephen Mitchell

The Tao is eternal because it has no beginning. Things which have a beginning–which come into being–also have an end–they cease to be. Only that which has no beginning, that which has always been, can exist eternally, without end.

The tao is infinite because it has no selfish desires. Selfishness involves an idea of oneself as a thing separate from other things. Being selfless, the Tao does not distinguish between itself any anything “else”–it is everywhere because it is everything.

The last six lines express much the same sentiment in different ways. In general, they speak of achieving enlightenment or fulfillment through selfless action.

Fulfilling a selfish desire can make you happy for a while, but living with these desires positions you for disappointment and frustration when they’re not fulfilled. Even the idea of not fulfilling your desires can make you scared, so you spend a lot of time chasing after what you want and running away from what you don’t, which can leave you feeling stressed out.

The more one lets go of these desires, the more one can simply accept whatever comes and be relaxed, instead of being constantly on the run to/from the next desirable/undesirable thing.

Meditations on the Tao Te Ching: Chapter 6

 The valley spirit never dies;
It is the woman, primal mother.
Her gateway is the root of heaven and Earth.
It is like a veil barely seen.
Use it; it will never fail.

-Translation by Gia Fu Feng and Jane English

This one is short and sweet, and mostly metaphor. I don’t really have a lot to say about it at the moment.

From what I understand, valleys in Chinese culture are considered nourishing places; nourishing like a mother. The valley spirit is the Tao, from whose “gateway”, or womb, all things spring.

The Tao hangs over everything like a veil so thin it can barely be seen. Something you might just ignore if you don’t stop and look carefully.

One makes use of the Tao, not by trying to control it, but by going along with it, just as a ship’s captain makes use of the wind by unfurling the sails and letting the wind carry it forward.

Meditations on the Tao Te Ching: Chapter 5

 The Tao doesn’t take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn’t take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.

The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

Hold on to the center.

-Translation by Stephen Mitchell

The Tao contains both “good” and “evil” things. Life and death, saints and sinners, lush forests and barren wastelands, nourishing rains and destructive hurricanes, are all are as much a part of the Tao all the others are. The Tao doesn’t judge and say “these things are good and these other things are bad,” it treats them all the same. If the Tao itself doesn’t judge things, then what right does a human have to do so?

The first two lines of the second verse are reminiscent of the line from the previous chapter, “The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.”

A bellows works cyclically, by first sucking in air and then blowing it out. A lot of other things also behave cyclically: the sun, the moon, the planets, the tides, the turning of the galaxy, the cycle of life, the water cycle, the carbon cycle. Through the “infinitely capable” tao all things rise and then fall, grow and then shrink, live and then die.

The third line of the second verse means, I think, that the more one makes use of the Tao, the more one gets out of life. Swimming along with the flow of the water gets you farther and faster than swimming against the current.

The fourth line repeats an idea that’s been mentioned a few times already in previous chapters: The Tao cannot be grasped through language. The more weight you give to anything that is said about the Tao, the less you can understand it. That is not to say that language is useless in understanding Tao (if Lao Tzu believed that were so he wouldn’t have written a book about the Tao), just that it should be kept in mind that it’s a limited tool that can’t embrace the real Tao.

I believe the last line, “Hold on to the center,” has to do with the idea of the center as the place furthest from the extremes. Neither too hot nor too cold, neither too long nor too short, neither too much work nor too much leisure. Find a balance in life

Meditations on the Tao Te Ching: Chapter 4

 The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled. 
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things! 
Blunt the sharpness, 
Untangle the knot, 
Soften the glare, 
Merge with dust. 
Oh, hidden deep but ever present! 
I do not know from whence it comes. 
It is the forefather of the gods.

-Translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

The first line can be seen as a callback to what was said in chapter 1 about how «The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao». The Tao can be described in any number of ways, yet no matter which words or how many words we use, they will never provide a full picture of what the Tao is.

On the other hand, the first line can also be interpreted a saying that the Tao can hold everything that there is yet even so it remains unfilled; it is greater than the universe. As the source of all things (so says the second line), it might even be capable of holding all that could possibly exist. In a sense, the Tao might be considered the fact of existence itself, or that which allows things to exist; a blank canvas on which any number of things might be painted.

"Blunt the sharpness, 
Untangle the knot, 
Soften the glare, 
Merge with dust."

The Tao undoes all that is done, makes all that is so become otherwise. It is change and all things, both what we call «good» and what we call «bad».

"Oh, hidden deep but ever present! 
I do not know from whence it comes. 
It is the forefather of the gods."

These last few lines reiterate what came before: The Tao is hidden but always present, again like the canvas on which the universe is painted; though covered by the paint, it is nonetheless there. It precedes all things, even the gods, and if it has an origin of its own, it’s not something that anyone knows about.

Diseña un sitio como este con WordPress.com
Comenzar