wandelaar

Lao tse has his chapter about the small village where people live a simple modest life and don't desire anything else, so I think there is reason to believe Lao tse would have though it important to adapt our life's circumstances (when that's possible) with an eye on making it easier to life a Taoist life.

You are free to belief so, but Chuang tse didn't. Every creature (and that includes human beings) has his own possibilities and impossibilities, and it is only sensible to arrange your life's circumstances in such a way that you may flourish. That may not always be possible, but there is nothing non-Taoist in recognizing your own limitations as an individual human being, and trying to be a Taoist within the range of possibilities.

@ Lost in Translation I haven't followed this topic until now so it might have been said before, but I see a relation between being a Taoist and ones economic situation. First: an ideal Taoist should be able to live in almost any circumstances. But most of us are not ideal Taoists, so lets see what we have for non-ideal Taoists (n-Taoists for short). A n-Taoist living in luxury might get used to having everything as he wishes, and consequently get in trouble in case he loses his wealth. And in the measure that he realizes what might happen his peace of mind will get disturbed even if it doesn't happen. So that might be a problem for a rich n-Taoist. The situation of a hermit n-Taoist is quite different. He has simplified his life so that living naturally becomes a real-life possibility. So in a sense I guess it's easier for a hermit n-Taoist to life as a Taoist then for a rich n-Taoist. Perhaps the best thing one could do (at least from the perspective of Lao tse) is avoiding the extremes and living in ordinary circumstances. That is - when one has the choice.

It's also important to realize that historically Taoism had to "fight" Confucianism. The emphasis on learning was already well taken care of by Confucius so to arrive at a middle way (where both learning/training and "letting go" find their place) the Taoists had to overemphasize "letting go". Nevertheless even Lao tse used a lot of rules of thumb (yes! - he did ) and Chuang tse used exemplary stories. So even the founding fathers of Taoism didn't think everything comes naturally.

Do you mean just as animals naturally act as befits their species? Chuang tse has some stories suggesting this approach.

So both are needed. Just as I am saying....

I sure hope the irony of my post didn't escape even the most casual reader. But you are right: better safe than sorry. I have added a warning.

Sure! We can all be a butcher, painter, writer, anything we want (or not want) to be by just letting go. No need to train, or study, or acquire any skills. That's why we see lots of beautiful examples on this forum of people actually living a Taoist life. Let it all come naturally. Dream on brother, you can fly... (The above is to be considered ironic.)

Good question! And as the answers I have already given did not particularly resonate I will wait to see what others have to offer. Maybe they come up with something better? That would be nice!

Well I guess Lao tse must have included those rules of thumb because he needed some extra characters to fill up his book, and not to give some sagely advise from an old man to those wishing to follow the Way. Or did he?

Taoist literature abounds in paradoxes. Reading the paradoxes I often find it hard to get at their meaning. One way of looking at it is seeing the paradoxes as forms of hyperbole. So "doing nothing" (wu wei) isn't literally doing nothing, but getting things done by subtly intervening at the right moment and without making a big show of it. Are there any other general ways of looking at Taoist paradoxes that may help to reveal their meaning?

And that might very well include the idea (derived from classical logic) that reality itself has to be free from contradictions.... I used to be a firm supporter of the idea that real paradoxes (that is: concerning nature or reality) are impossible. But dialetheism has some strong arguments to the contrary. It did cost my a rather heavy headache today, but now that it's over I am much more tolerant to the proposal that there might be real (insoluble) paradoxes in reality itself. Read the article: The Way of the Dialetheist: Contradictions in Buddhism.

I haven't found anything useful on dialetheism and Taoism but there are interesting articles by for instance Graham Priest on dialetheism and Buddhism. And those articles are relevant to this topic because of the similarities between Taoism and Buddhism. See Priest's web page: http://grahampriest.net/publications/papers/ Just finished reading the following article (very helpful in understand the different meanings of paradoxes!): The Way of the Dialetheist: Contradictions in Buddhism Yasuo Deguchi, Jay L. Garfield, Graham Priest Philosophy East and West, Volume 58, Number 3, July 2008, pp. 395-402

On reading a comic book on Lao tse I wondered about the similarities between Taoism and Epicureanism. So today I searched on the internet and to my big surprise discovered that lately 'The Church of the Latter-Day Dude' has been founded on the combined teachings of Lao tse and Epicurus. How serious is this? And if not - are there any other books comparing the teachings of Lao tse and Epicurus?

Aha!! Found it! See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Now lets see whether there are some studies of its relation to Taoism...

Hm! The occasional difference between facts and our expectations isn't surprising. It would be much more surprising when our expectations were always fulfilled.

There are some logical curiosities like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox But I wonder whether there are more practical irreducibly self-contradictory statements, if possible from the Taoist tradition....

Ah - you know some examples of useful paradoxical statements of fact? I will be happy to see them. But I now realize "paradoxical" doesn't quite capture what I want to say. There are lots of paradoxical statements that are just spicy ways of saying something that can also be said in a non-contradictory way but with less literary quality. Those are not the examples I am looking for. The statement should be self-contradictory in an irreducible way.

Now there seems to be a possibility that reality itself is paradoxical. In which case paradoxes could simply be statements of fact. How about that? And how could that be of any use in daily life?

There is one more strange thing about the two space ships: the guys in both space ships will consider the clocks in the other space ship to be ticking slower than their own. This is connected to the infamous twin paradox.

It is. The laws of (special) relativity are such that material objects will appear to move at speeds less than that of light for all observers. So the guys in one space ships will consider the other space ship to be moving at a speed less than that of light. And consequently they will be able to see each other (of course when the earth doesn't obstruct their view and with a certain delay because of the distance between the spaceships).

It was meant to be a joke, but I guess it carries more truth then appears on first sight.

To bad I followed the rule "don't overdo things", now I will have to continue living life my way instead of your way. Or am I living it your way after all just because I am following my way?

I haven't won, and you haven't won. But happily we were both wise enough to stop when continuing would have been useless.

@ Rocky Lionmouth So the idea is that real virtue is beyond conventional virtue, because conventional virtue doesn't cover all possible cases? That was also my interpretation.