3 ms·

> it says right at the beginning, that the ideas can't be communicated by language If that’s true, why bother reading further?

d-z-m 3y ago
Sometimes language is used, to point to that which is beyond language.
- pierat 3y ago
  What does sugar taste like? Can you describe it by not using 'sugary' or 'sweet' as descriptors? Can you define it using no other sense or emotion words?
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    “Stop eating salt. Take a piece of chocolate. Eat it.” You can use language to guide and point. Talking about chocolate is difficult. Pointing to chocolate is not. Ceasing the consumption of “salt” may be difficult and the “chocolate” in question may be subtle so you may need many intermediate steps. Nothing we experience can be transcribed into words. Literally nothing. There is not one thing you can experience that’s possible to pin down into script. It’s pointers all the way down.
dudefeliciano 3y ago
That is the irony of the whole thing, it starts out: The Dao that can be talked about is not the Real/Eternal Dao - then proceeds to talk about it for 81 chapters. He was just funny like that.
- pierat 3y ago
  It's not an irony. How do you describe the taste of 'saltiness' to convey the sense of saltiness, if who you're writing to has no understanding of it? That's the problem with written word. We can write all around, and try to help someone identify the moment the sense happens, but words are incapable of sharing the sense. The writings about the Dao are so that those looking for it in real life can identify it when they think they find it. Just reading with no doing will never show you the Dao. They describe emotions and senses that writings can never convey.
  - dudefeliciano 3y ago
    I mean, maybe it was unintended, but you can't deny the irony. You don't have taste buds so you'll never understand saltiness, so now let me cover you in salt for you to understand what salt tastes like. IMO the whole point is about unlearning, not looking for something forcefully, or trying to "get" something. That's just my idea though.
- bovermyer 3y ago
  If you can't describe a thing, then you have to talk around it and hope you given the listener enough contextual clues that they figure it out for themselves. Given that, 81 chapters seems appropriate for an amorphous subject that we can't yet define in language.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Guess because you have to try. Almost everything in the world comes with warning labels. Does that mean you just sit down and don't move? There are dozens of branches of religions and philosophy and SCIENCE, that questions the ability of language to pass information, its 'fidelity'. That doesn't mean you just sit at home and stair at the wall. Thought that is one very valid solution. Actually, just staring at a wall is the way some interpret as the best way to deal with the situation.
MadSudaca 3y ago
It's like courting a woman. If you're too direct in your communication, you will lose. When trying to make your philosophy expand, if you're too direct in your communication, there won't be anything to speculate about, making its discussion short-lived.
mcguire 3y ago
Have you seen the amount of ink used by analytic philosophy?

d-z-m 3y ago

Sometimes language is used, to point to that which is beyond language.

pierat 3y ago
What does sugar taste like? Can you describe it by not using 'sugary' or 'sweet' as descriptors? Can you define it using no other sense or emotion words?
- SanderNL 3y ago
  “Stop eating salt. Take a piece of chocolate. Eat it.” You can use language to guide and point. Talking about chocolate is difficult. Pointing to chocolate is not. Ceasing the consumption of “salt” may be difficult and the “chocolate” in question may be subtle so you may need many intermediate steps. Nothing we experience can be transcribed into words. Literally nothing. There is not one thing you can experience that’s possible to pin down into script. It’s pointers all the way down.

dudefeliciano 3y ago

That is the irony of the whole thing, it starts out: The Dao that can be talked about is not the Real/Eternal Dao - then proceeds to talk about it for 81 chapters. He was just funny like that.

pierat 3y ago
It's not an irony. How do you describe the taste of 'saltiness' to convey the sense of saltiness, if who you're writing to has no understanding of it? That's the problem with written word. We can write all around, and try to help someone identify the moment the sense happens, but words are incapable of sharing the sense. The writings about the Dao are so that those looking for it in real life can identify it when they think they find it. Just reading with no doing will never show you the Dao. They describe emotions and senses that writings can never convey.
- dudefeliciano 3y ago
  I mean, maybe it was unintended, but you can't deny the irony. You don't have taste buds so you'll never understand saltiness, so now let me cover you in salt for you to understand what salt tastes like. IMO the whole point is about unlearning, not looking for something forcefully, or trying to "get" something. That's just my idea though.
bovermyer 3y ago
If you can't describe a thing, then you have to talk around it and hope you given the listener enough contextual clues that they figure it out for themselves. Given that, 81 chapters seems appropriate for an amorphous subject that we can't yet define in language.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Guess because you have to try. Almost everything in the world comes with warning labels. Does that mean you just sit down and don't move? There are dozens of branches of religions and philosophy and SCIENCE, that questions the ability of language to pass information, its 'fidelity'. That doesn't mean you just sit at home and stair at the wall. Thought that is one very valid solution. Actually, just staring at a wall is the way some interpret as the best way to deal with the situation.

MadSudaca 3y ago

It's like courting a woman. If you're too direct in your communication, you will lose. When trying to make your philosophy expand, if you're too direct in your communication, there won't be anything to speculate about, making its discussion short-lived.

mcguire 3y ago

Have you seen the amount of ink used by analytic philosophy?