It’s true—I tend to ramble way more than I should... usually in this misguided attempt to be clearer (which is pretty ironic if you think about it).
Look, I have a deep love for philosophy, even though I know some people just prefer plain talk, no bullshit. That’s fair. But honestly? One of the biggest flaws in philosophical circles is how everyone is so obsessed with shouting their own "truths" that they completely tune out anyone else. Actually, if we’re being real, that’s a massive flaw in human society as a whole.
Even though I clearly enjoy getting lost in long-winded tangents, I really try my best to stay polite and show respect to everyone I interact with. In my mind, being decent to people matters way more than whether my writing style gets a little confusing sometimes.
At the end of the day, though, Tao tells us: "more Word count less." That’s a lesson I’m still working on mastering. 🙂
P.S.
"...nor a friend..."
Oh, come on! How could you *not* want to be friends with an eloquent philosopher like me? You know we always tell the absolute best jokes... 😉 😁
Jack Harris3, if I’m reading her correctly, she’s a total believer in that "street wise" doctrine—the idea that you can only truly gain wisdom through your own firsthand experiences.
Now, personally, while I certainly don't want to downplay the value of living through things yourself, I’ve always felt that wisdom can also be gathered via a more "book-wise" approach—essentially, by learning from the lived experiences of others.
In fact, if we really look at it, I think those two methods end up overlapping quite a bit in most situations.
No, no, I totally get where you're coming from. It’s just that, in my view, you’re bound to get burned if you don't truly grasp the nature of the "fire" itself... You can lecture me all day about the physics of fire—the causes, the effects, the mechanics—but if you haven't internalized what fire actually *is*, you're going to get scorched sooner or later. There really isn't any way to outrun your own mistakes; in fact, if you spend all your energy trying to dodge them, you'll just end up tripping over new ones.
A lonely soul, clearly. 😁
It’s lonely up at the summit, sure, but that’s where you have to be if you want the view. 😉
Maybe. Or maybe not. If that’s the case, then what exactly defines an enlightened person? 🙂
Look, do you *have* to stick your hand in a campfire just to realize it's hot? Maybe. But there’s a difference between being "street wise" and being "book-wise." A "street wise" person is someone who has been burned more than a few times and managed to squeeze some gritty, practical wisdom out of those scars. On the flip side, "book-wise" describes someone who learns through the experiences of others—history, literature, and all that. In my experience, it's incredibly rare to find someone who is strictly one or the other.
A truly wise person doesn't go overboard—and that applies to how they spend their money, too. It’s not that a wise person can't have a good time; it's just that they don't go looking for trouble or act completely reckless in the process.
So come on—honestly, have you ever *not* learned something from watching someone else's mistakes? 🙂
I mean, that’s just standard behavior for women. They tend to think a man’s primary role during a shopping trip is just to be a glorified bag carrier—but in reality? A man is there to act as a buffer against the inevitable bankruptcy that would hit if they were actually allowed to run wild. 🙂
As for what constitutes a "good time"... well, I suppose that depends entirely on your definition. Personally, I don't need much, and I usually stick to places where it's hard to blow too much cash anyway—you just grab some groceries and you're done. 🙂 For me, the real joy is being by the ocean, which naturally involves dodging those maniacs on jet skis and the tourists who think that's peak entertainment (and while you're at it, they'll drain your wallet faster than a hungry mosquito—actually, scratch that, mosquitoes suck blood, but these people suck money even faster). 😁
My ex was absolutely clueless when it came to finances. She had a pretty decent salary, yet she’d go out and drop everything on a new iPhone for $667 or some other luxury indulgence, leaving her completely broke by the end of the month. It got to the point where she’d have to beg friends to lend her a few bucks just so she could afford bread and milk. I mean, sure, you *can* live like that, but the question is: would a sensible person actually choose to? 😉
Dragonfly, of course you can take a moderate approach. Look, you could head down to the coast for a getaway, but always keeping in mind that you’re stretching your household budget a bit—meaning you spend enough to actually enjoy yourself, but not so much that you end up behind bars later. Or, you could opt for the "ramen noodles and tap water" lifestyle for those couple of weeks... alternatively, you could hit the beach by putting a massive second mortgage on your house, blowing through cash like a maniac, bathing in milk, and hiring two personal assistants just to fan you with gold-plated palm leaves. 😉
Mr. Pes said:Well, I actually made my point a long time ago! Why didn't you just agree with me right away instead of letting me rant through five whole pages? 😁
Or maybe you’re just as good at listening to me as I am to you? 😂
Looks like we might need to work on our communication skills... 😛
Well... err... hmmm... 😁
To be honest, you seemed to be having such a blast that I just couldn't bring myself to interrupt. Yeah. That was... well, it was out of... out of... hm... out of pure empathy! Yes, total empathy for all living beings!
Look, Alexander, I’m really not about to try and "get to the point" when I haven't even had the chance to properly digest what everyone else has been saying. How can you expect to actually connect with someone if you aren't even listening to their side of the story first?
Sapienti sat, truly. She latched onto a single word and suddenly thinks she’s finished the entire novel. 🙄
As for me—I actually make an effort to listen to others; or, at the very least, I try my hardest to read and truly grasp what people are attempting to communicate. I’ll be the first to admit I don't always get it right, nor am I perfect at interpreting everyone's intentions. But honestly, this entire debate feels a bit circular—the fundamental premise was simply that moderation is born from wisdom, which is an undeniable fact. There was never any need to "twist my philosophy," because there wasn't much there to twist in the first place! If you had actually followed the thread of the discussion, it would have been obvious. In fact, your comment about agreeing with Dog just means you actually agree with me too, since the back-and-forth between Dog and me was basically just one long game of telephone. So, there's "the point." If I didn't know better, I'd say you just showed up as Raven's version of "reinforcement." 😉
Thanks for understanding, Alexander... that really does mean a lot to me. 😘
Look, if you take a step back and look at this whole thread, it’s pretty obvious that half the people here totally missed my point—and I mean really missed it. As for the other half? Well, they seem to have some personal hang-ups about me, so you can probably guess how many of them actually bothered to read what I was saying before jumping in to try and "tear me apart." 😉
I’ve mentioned a few times now that moderation is an outcome, not just a random trait. Honestly, I don't have the energy to sit here and write a three-mile-long dissertation on the poet's underlying intent. 🙂
So, hopefully, it’s crystal clear now: a wise person is a moderate one. That’s because moderation is simply the result of wisdom.
I really should have just laid it out like that from the jump. Serves me right for trying to be all eloquent and fancy. 😵 😁
Baphomet said:Honestly... I don't see what there is to contemplate when everything is laid out so clearly and simply.
Ah, well—therein lies the rub. That's exactly why you've misread the situation. You shouldn't approach Taoist (or even Confucian) philosophical texts like you're reading a standard novel... instead, you take a single passage and really sit with it. You chew on it. Once you feel like you've truly grasped the core essence of the message, then—and only then—do you move on. This is precisely why even the most straightforward sentence can demand hours of deep reflection. Some parts of these texts are incredibly difficult to interpret correctly without a solid grasp of Chinese history and the specific era in which they were penned. These works definitely aren't meant for a superficial skim, which is why I posted my comment in the first place—I actually assumed no one would bother taking the time to truly ponder the quotes themselves. And if you look at my comment, you'll see there isn't even a mention of suppressing emotions.
You’ve got quite the imagination there. Someone actually posed the question in this thread, asking "why moderation is a sign of wisdom."
Your point is that a person should simply be who they are.
And honestly, I couldn't agree more—at the end of the day, a person can't really be anything other than what they truly are.
But here's the thing: my entire argument has been about why moderation serves as an indicator of wisdom— not that moderation ought to be some universal North Star for every single soul on this planet. As I’ve pointed out a few times now, moderation is a characteristic of wisdom, not its fundamental cause. Yet, everyone (or at least everyone on the "other side" of this debate) seems to have jumped to the conclusion that I'm peddling some kind of one-size-fits-all recipe for being wise. For whatever reason. I suppose people on this forum aren't exactly used to reading posts that stretch beyond five sentences. 🙄
To put it bluntly, I keep writing and writing, only to have my words constantly stripped of their context and twisted around. The only thing keeping me tethered to this discussion is my own warped sense of humor. 😉
Ryan Wilson2 said:In short... it’s talking about eliminating sensation. We reach balance through elimination. Elimination has nothing to do with moderation.
That is completely off base. Honestly, I have no idea where you got that from—it's almost as if you didn't even bother reading my interpretation of those quotes, which I specifically laid out right there just so you wouldn't have to spend half an hour staring at them trying to figure out what they mean. The middle doctrine might only be a few pages long, but you could spend days lost in it.
If we’re going to use household appliances as a metaphor for aviation—fine—then a fighter jet is NEVER a symbol of moderation. A fighter jet is inherently loud, aggressive, always charging forward, and notoriously difficult to steer off its path; it's a nightmare to control, and honestly, even harder to bring to a halt. It gulps down fuel like there's no tomorrow, completely indifferent to any obstacles in its flight path, burning through everything in a flash. It flies far, sure, but you can't really see much from the cockpit because everything passes by way too fast. It craves altitude, yet it can never truly settle in at the top.
No, if you want an example of a moderate person, look to the glider. It glides elegantly and silently, observing everything, never rushed or frantic. Because of how it's built, it understands the wind currents perfectly, allowing it to travel wherever there is open sky. A glider can go both far and high, turning with ease and grace. And because it's quiet, it can actually hear the sounds of the world around it—it isn't deafened by its own internal racket. It isn't aggressive, but it will get exactly where it wants to go, moving at its own steady pace.
Moderation is born from wisdom, because a wise person is a thoughtful person—and a thoughtful person is never impulsive or combative. You are all mistaken if you confuse gentleness with weakness, or moderation with mediocrity; you're simply wrong because you fail to grasp the true aspirations of a wise soul, blinded by the ego-driven belief that you have already attained wisdom. I know enough to realize I am not wise—I know that I don't truly understand what I think I know—and so, I dampen my own noise just so I can listen to the heavens and learn the path of wisdom. But you? You fighter jets, caught up in your own strength and tension, see nothing beyond the narrow line you tear through the sky, hearing nothing but the deafening roar of your own engines.
It's pointless to try and convince you, because you're simply deaf to anything else. 🙂
Heh, in that case, you're seeing something that simply isn't there. But look, I’m genuinely curious about how you’re interpreting those quotes—could you dive a bit deeper and walk me through your thought process? Just so I can follow your logic, okay?
I think I’ve finally settled on my PhD topic in philosophy—something along the lines of "The Influence of Household Appliances on 21st-Century Modern Thought." 😉
Jack Harris3, the sheer depth and scope of your thoughts seem directly tied to how much you actually know. That’s really why we study—because even if some truths are meant to be discovered personally, ignorance acts as this massive, natural barrier whenever we try to articulate those realizations in our own minds.
Beyond that, even when we *do* grasp certain truths, there’s no point in just "wandering" around them aimlessly—unless, of course, you have a way to step inside someone else's mind. Your perspective is uniquely yours, and honestly, you're probably more tethered to it than you realize. This is where books come in; they allow us to "enter" an author's consciousness and, if only for a moment, view the world through the lens of their work rather than just our own limited awareness. Experiences like that change us—if nothing else, they teach us just how incredibly diverse the world truly is.
So, please, find a little more value in the written word—without that recorded thought, you wouldn't have a single thread to keep you company while you're lost in a book. 🙂
If nobody can tell you anything, why even bother listening? 😉
I mean, obviously, you shouldn't take everything so literally. You can read and quote all you want if that makes you happy. 🙂 But honestly, all those sages are just spinning their wheels because wisdom isn't exactly contagious. 😁
Confucius doesn't start by pulling the horse's tail. It doesn't work like that—where you first manufacture some artificial harmony and then try to act peacefully within it—rather, harmony is simply the result, much like how a modern digital watch just keeps perfect time on its own. 😁 Your famous "Middle Way" isn't actually the starting point of the story. Why the wise guys didn't mention that, I haven't a clue. Maybe they just got lost in their own profoundness... 😁
Well, nobody ever claimed the Middle Way was the beginning of the whole narrative. But you're missing the point regarding Confucius; otherwise, you wouldn't have said what you did about Harmony. He taught that Balance is the root and Harmony is the consequence. You’re essentially saying the exact same thing, yet you're insisting he's wrong. 😉
Sure, everything might just sit there like a digital watch, but even a watch stays silent if no one touches it. Does that make sense? Moderation happens naturally—it's something we embody just by existing. There's no fine-tuning required, no tightrope walking involved. Moderation is simply who you are, not something you struggle to become. If you have to try hard to be moderate, then you aren't truly moderate.
And let's be real, not every book ever written was a waste of paper. You seem to have forgotten this:
The greatest truths can be expressed in many ways; the best way to grasp the greatest truths is to view them from many different perspectives. That's why I enjoy reading other people's thoughts on things I already understand—because I want to see that truth reflected through their lens too.
Alright, I’d like to throw in a few extra thoughts here—hopefully, they might help clarify some of the concepts I brought up earlier, which, looking back, I think I made unnecessarily complicated.
From the Doctrine of the Mean (Confucius):
"While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of EQUILIBRIUM. When those feelings have been stirred, and they act in their due degree, there ensues what may be called the state of HARMONY. This EQUILIBRIUM is the great root from which grow all the human actings in the world, and this HARMONY is the universal path which they all should pursue."
Or, just to lay it out clearly for everyone:
"When there is no stirring of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, one could say the mind is in a state of EQUILIBRIUM. Once those emotions are stirred, provided they act in their proper measure, we reach what can be described as a state of HARMONY. This EQUILIBRIUM serves as the profound root from which all human actions in this world spring, and this HARMONY represents the universal path that all should strive to follow."
So, really, it's vital that our journey stems from EQUILIBRIUM and lives within HARMONY. A balanced person doesn't just suppress their emotions—that's not it at all—nor do they let those emotions rip them right out of their roots.
Chung-nî said, "The Superior man embodies The course of The mean ; the mean man acts contrary to The course of The mean."
"Chung-nî said, "The Superior man embodies The course of The mean ; the mean man acts contrary to The course of The mean."
Ultimately, moderation isn't just some result of conscious, grinding effort; rather, it's something we embody with our entire being.
Ryan Ruiz, I’m not entirely sure if you’ve had a chance to read through this entire thread yet... there’s been quite a bit of back-and-forth and a lot of deep dives into the details, so I find myself repeating a few points. 🙂