not this again. blue sky, once again, there is a huge difference between philosophizing and coming up with evidence scientifically. "yin" and "yang" do not translate into "matter" and "antimatter" in any context at all, except for when you try to relate the two concepts. the chinese had no conception whatsoever of antimatter, and in fact no one did, until this century.
more importantly, today we have mathematical models to describe these things, and i doubt even you would believe that lao tzu could have said the same. the job of a philosopher is to make grand statements about the nature of the world; the job of a scientist is uncover practical information. if you don't read into either, they seem similar.
the thing about lao tzu is that he spoke in vague and seemingly contradictory ways. when you have that kind of cryptic material to work with, you can make it fit just about any meaning. the problem is, when you do that, you're basically saying that there was nothing substantial or meaningful there to begin with. trying to make someone's statements mean something they don't is not a good way of paying respect to that person. in my opinion, lao tzu's writings were plenty insightful enough without needing to project false meaning on them.
more importantly, today we have mathematical models to describe these things, and i doubt even you would believe that lao tzu could have said the same. the job of a philosopher is to make grand statements about the nature of the world; the job of a scientist is uncover practical information. if you don't read into either, they seem similar.
the thing about lao tzu is that he spoke in vague and seemingly contradictory ways. when you have that kind of cryptic material to work with, you can make it fit just about any meaning. the problem is, when you do that, you're basically saying that there was nothing substantial or meaningful there to begin with. trying to make someone's statements mean something they don't is not a good way of paying respect to that person. in my opinion, lao tzu's writings were plenty insightful enough without needing to project false meaning on them.
Comment