Philosophy begins with how we can, through reason and rationality, explain most truthfully what there is and how to explain what there is.
We know pre-philosophically that there is guilt and shame for example, so how do we reason this phenomena? I thought psychology would be the place to go, but it's mostly informed by philosophy anyway.
It's very difficult to separate psychology from philosophy.
In a previous thread we discussed how philosophy uses language as a logical tool, then it sets out for the application, praxis and the right way to think about life and the disciplines that are necessary to reach understanding. Is philosophy really therapy?
As a personal anecdote, I believe philosophy has helped me overcome many psychological problems of alienation. It has helped me to reach a more compassionate view of life, it helps me to value what is important in life and to approach difficult subjects such as guilt and shame without denial and further destructive tendencies, myself and everyone else in my life.
Philosophy then, to me, is the study of experiencing experience, but I am now looking at some philosophy that appears to be studying the study of experiencing experience. An outside view of an outside view.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is philosophy therapy?
Moderator: atreestump
Forum rules
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
Philosophy is useful to rationalizing experience and explaining it during therapy. Going through counseling myself right now though, I am certain that Philosophy is not Therapy in itself. Whether or not you have decided the best way to act does not mean that you are emotionally nurtured or have the tools to overcome fear and act the way you believe is right. Philosophy is not social enough in itself to provide that. Positive social dialogue is necessary in addition to philosophy.
Understanding isn't therapeutic. I am tortured by understanding. I go crazy from my sanity. This is from the contradiction of operating in society versus my own identity. Cooperation and social activity is the only way to fix it. Sometimes you do need to surrender to others at the right time, just to stay alive.
It has helped me to reach a more compassionate view of life, it helps me to value what is important in life and to approach difficult subjects such as guilt and shame without denial and further destructive tendencies, myself and everyone else in my life.
At the same time, there are times when others have no answers for you and no way to ease your suffering. This requires self action. But philosophy is not always the right method of self action.
Understanding isn't therapeutic. I am tortured by understanding. I go crazy from my sanity. This is from the contradiction of operating in society versus my own identity. Cooperation and social activity is the only way to fix it. Sometimes you do need to surrender to others at the right time, just to stay alive.
It has helped me to reach a more compassionate view of life, it helps me to value what is important in life and to approach difficult subjects such as guilt and shame without denial and further destructive tendencies, myself and everyone else in my life.
At the same time, there are times when others have no answers for you and no way to ease your suffering. This requires self action. But philosophy is not always the right method of self action.
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
Never mind now that I'm out of counseling I realized that it did jack shit, criticizing my own philosophy made me happier
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
atreestump
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
lol I think anyone whose done philosophy will see the limits of psychotherapy very quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
Philosophy is therapy because it asks the question "from what are we sick and for how can we be such?" even in the word itself, in other words "what do we need and why do we need it at all?" to which the answer is "We Don't" with the addition of "but you Do regardless". So it is due to this forced blustering that philosophy emerges, and like any babe, is praised and glorified and called sweet miracle of mankind and mystery of nature for no true reason other than it is and we do and would not if we were to not. An absurd blast from a horn made intelligible, known through its structure of violence, formed in our view by its stresses upon and within our form, a hideous eruption within our inescapable and ever accepting womb of being. The terror of doors which can not be closed like a mind which can not be opened.
-
atreestump
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
'but you do regardless' - I agree. Suffering is something that is truly at the heart of philosophy and religion for that matter. I like how you used the term 'absurd', I got my copy (well, my partners' copy) of 'The Myth of Sisiphyus' by Albert Camus today, which is focused on this exact absurdity. It asks a proper concrete philosophical question - why do we commit suicide?
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
Really relevant and important stuff! It is great that you continue to read and study and maintain curiosity and interest in all these things!
-
atreestump
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
Thanks, Albert.
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
Haha I do enjoy representing things!
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: Is philosophy therapy?
I'm bumping this, as I'm looking through all my posts, 67 pages of posts, and not just for reminiscing, but for a dark comedic process of self-censoring due to paranoia and fears and concern with being understood in ways I don't intend or desire, all of which are clownish concerns considering how no one would likely care even if they were to see any of this, which are both highly unlikely, just as the absurdity of me suddenly being regarded in any way by anyone would also be comedic and ridiculous, but people are doing just that, it is happening all the time, and so the concern of "winning the lottery" and getting even a tiny speck of attention from anyone that may turn negative due to my language, lol, is why I'm on this properly stupid adventure, and for a stupid prize too, a sense of security, with a secondary reward of regret at having done any of it.
I'm also experiencing a mixed urge to both get a randomizing thing to go through and destroy my entire record of comments under certain accounts. All this is because of the way that the evil governments and those whose side they are on and who ultimately are controlling them and benefiting from their efforts may someday, even soon, have the means to make worse the lives of even the most small and harmless of people who ever uttered any objection to them.
For others I want to also eliminate swear words, even they they are meant to represent strong emotions.
I might cancel this futile and evil project of self-censoring in favor of just accepting potential doom, even though this might be the way or increase chances of such, it could also come to me any other way.
It would be funny also to be hated and further isolated and targeted due to what I have expressed, especially since what I typically express is a hatred for what I consider to be vile stuff that I think everyone should very strongly hate too, and which gets their emotions going. I think a proper channeling of logic based emotional responses to horrors are what are trying to be disrupted and perverted by humanity's anti-human foes, and that a large part of philosophy and ethics is just a further elaboration or rationalization based on quick calculations and reactions to things which occur pretty naturally and automatically, but then some people somehow think themselves and talk others into very potentially destructive things, including unreasonable, universal, and over-prolonged, faux and surface level, practically pseudo-rationality, and "acting cool" in the face of what needs even very berserker type responses. We're living in a reality, again, where "savagely" tearing certain people limb from limb, is the right response, which people are being restrained from.
Like if you saw a co-worker r*ping a child in clear view, and not only said nothing, and did nothing, but went further, like I am considering doing, and removing any evidence that might be taken to demonstrate that I had any sentiments about it at all. Like going through video showing clearly that I was there and saw it, but editing out any jolt from the footage of my body that could be interpreted as accidentally viewed at displeasure of what would have been universally recognized as at the very least causing one to be startled slightly upon seeing it, but not in this case, for some reason, since he must belong to the mafia or something in our view and there is no protection from the mafia these days.
"You said f*ck, when you saw Brother Carmichael r*ping "it", we have it recorded"
"I meant nothing by it, I think there was something in my shoe that hurt my toe"
"A likely story, but certainly not one that we believe, why don't you confess that you had a problem with what Brother Carmichael was doing?"
"I don't, I really don't, whatever he was doing was perfectly alright and understandable for him to be doing, he was in the right."
"Mere lip service. This isn't the first time that we have seen evidence of strange behaviours around certain of our actions, it is clear to us that you disapprove."
"What can I do to convince you that I sincerely am not against you or anything that our people do, that I'm with you and one of you?"
"You'll need to be taught properly, but you'll be put on a permanent list due to your penchant for using inappropriate language, showing emotional instability, and abnormal reactions. If you make any more mistakes, you will be restricted."
"I understand, thank you. Will I be able to redeem myself in such a fashion as to not be put on a list?"
"No."
You wrote:
"
Philosophy begins with how we can, through reason and rationality, explain most truthfully what there is and how to explain what there is.
We know pre-philosophically that there is guilt and shame for example, so how do we reason this phenomena?
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_trip
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipul ... sychology)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment_(psychology)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology)
"
Extinction is a behavioral phenomenon observed in both operantly conditioned and classically conditioned behavior, which manifests itself by fading of non-reinforced conditioned response over time. When operant behavior that has been previously reinforced no longer produces reinforcing consequences, the behavior gradually returns to operant levels (to the frequency of the behavior previous to learning, which may or may not be zero).[1][2]
In classical conditioning, when a conditioned stimulus is presented alone, so that it no longer predicts the coming of the unconditioned stimulus, conditioned responding gradually stops. For example, after Pavlov's dog was conditioned to salivate at the sound of a metronome, it eventually stopped salivating to the metronome after the metronome had been sounded repeatedly but no food came.
Many anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder are believed to reflect, at least in part, a failure to extinguish conditioned fear.✓/[3]
"
You also wrote:
"
As a personal anecdote, I believe philosophy has helped me overcome many psychological problems of alienation. It has helped me to reach a more compassionate view of life, it helps me to value what is important in life and to approach difficult subjects such as guilt and shame without denial and further destructive tendencies, myself and everyone else in my life.
Philosophy then, to me, is the study of experiencing experience, but I am now looking at some philosophy that appears to be studying the study of experiencing experience. An outside view of an outside view.
"
Compassion and Passion are what are now becoming increasingly dangerous to showcase, similar also to the Minority Report, along with McCarthyism and depictions of Communist Purging, Nazi investigations and accusations, and the Christian Witch Hunts and Catholic Inquisition, possibly even seen in the New Testament with verses like:
"
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
"
Matthew 5:21-5:22
"
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
"
Matthew 5:27-5:28
So, whoever desires something seriously and would have it occur if they could, is according to this idea and that of the people trying to control and destroy mankind and all freedom, one who has already committed the crime and is liable to be judged just as if they have committed it, even if only in thoughts.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tw ... a1c8644297
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi ... text%3Ddlj
The slime that is currently committing atrocities in the colony are very likely also doing things like this, which they would happily broadcast to their demented and wholly irredeemable public like they did the r*p*s they were supported for.
Objections to such activities may soon become the very things that end up putting one difficulties, rather than the other way around.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/9 ... ed-of-rape
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases ... -and-other
A lot of therapy has to do with helping people to continue to navigate life, or even want to participate at all, after things occurred which are very disturbing, and in many cases which also had no nice resolution, like if there were bad people, the bad people just keep on hurting more people and the victims who survive just get to watch, and are told to get on with life since nothing seems to be happening about the victimizers having harmed them and continuing to harm others, and the problem really is that the victim is just letting the rest of whatever they have to call a life to not be as pleasant as it still could be.
"Before you were r*p*d and your entire family was m*rd*r*d, such things happened to many other people, and you were pretty much happy and fine and feeling a lot better, especially as you had never heard of such things occurring, so what is really all that different now? Can't life go on for you just as it did, even while those things had happened?"
"I don't have anyone, and I can't get justice"
"So why don't you find people, and don't worry about things you can't have?"
"If I find people, what if they are taken away? What if there is something I can do?"
"If they are taken away, find more, this world has billions. There just isn't much you can do, you are wasting time looking into ot and feeling bad about it, and when there just isn't a way forward with that, then there is no choice but to move on."
"I am so angry, I don't want to be part of a world like this."
"Yet, you are, and you were even before you realized it, so you can keep finding things to love, and enjoy, and to be happy about!"
I saw a film, maybe one of the very few Stephen King films that I consider any good and enjoyed, called The Monkey.
In the film, you turn the key that gets the monkey to move, and it so happens that something bad occurs around you or nearby, or something.
There is another film called The Box, where one is told that things will go well for them if they press a button, but someone they don't know will suffer or die if they do.
I think the neighbor behind me is watching p*rn in the bathroom or something, there is a lot of moaning going on in whatever they are watching.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_of_invisibility
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diomedes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stheno_and_Euryale
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xunzi_(philosopher)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xunzi_(book)
"
Chapters
edit
List of chapters in the Xunzi
No. Title
English Chinese
1 Exhortation to Learning 勸學
2 Cultivating Oneself 修身
3 Nothing Improper 不苟
4 On Honor and Disgrace 榮辱
5 Against Physiognomy 非相
6 Against the Twelve Masters 非十二子
7 On Confucius 仲尼
8 On Achievements of the Ru 儒效
9 The Rule of a True King 王制
10 Enriching the State 富國
11 The True King and the Hegemon 王霸
12 The Way to Be a Lord 君道
13 The Way to Be a Minister 臣道
14 On Attracting Men of Worth 致士
15 A Debate on Military Affairs 議兵
16 The Strong State 強國
17 Discourse on Heaven 天論
18 Correct Judgments 正論
19 Discourse on Ritual 禮論
20 Discourse on Music 樂論
21 Undoing Fixation 解蔽
22 Correct Naming 正名
23 Human Nature Is Bad 性惡
24 The Gentleman 君子
25 Working Songs 成相
26 Fu 賦
27 The Grand Digest 大略
28 The Right-Hand Vessel 宥坐
29 The Way to Be a Son 子道
30 The Proper Model and Proper Conduct 法行
31 Duke Ai 哀公
32 Yao Asked 堯問
The essays in the Xunzi are not arranged in chronological order.[6]
"Discourse on Music"
edit
Mozi, another philosopher of the Warring States era (pre-unification of China), discouraged the use of music and other forms of culture as being wasteful of resources needed to keep the state healthy and prosperous. Xunzi's chapter on music questions this stance, specifically naming Mozi. Why, poses Xunzi, should music be renounced if created by the sage kings to create order in expression, or if it brings people into unity and harmony and soldiers into order (for example, via war dances)? Or what if it has the ability to reform people? Following a line of Confucian thought, Xunzi argues that music, as defined and ordered by the ancient sage kings, acts like ritual in that it moderates and restrains the person listening and the person performing. It also positively inspires people and is thus an effective means of governing. However, and again agreeing with Confucius, Xunzi does admit that there are types of music which can lead one into licentious behavior, but states that the gentleman knows to be wary of his environment and the sounds he hears.
Music embodies an unchanging harmony, while rites represent unalterable reason. Music unites that which is the same; rites distinguish that which is different; and through the combination of rites and music the human heart is governed... Because he criticized music, one would expect Mozi to have met with some punishment. And yet in his lifetime the enlightened kings had all died and there was no one to correct his errors, so that stupid men continue to study his doctrines and bring jeopardy to themselves.[7]
"Undoing Fixation"
edit
Xunzi's chapter on dispelling obsession can be understood via the use of an ode he uses from the Book of Odes:
I pluck and pluck the burr-weed But it does not fill my slanting basket. I sigh for my loved one; I would be in the ranks of Zhou.[8]
Because the mind of the plucker in this ode is divided between her task at hand and the love she has for a man in the ranks of Zhou, she cannot complete the simple task of filling her basket. Xunzi warns against falling into obsession in this chapter. When one is subject to obsession, it means that one is focusing so intently on a certain thing (Xunzi claims that Mozi focused too much on utility, while Zhuangzi focused too heavily on Nature, for example) that one's mind will not be able to absorb any new information outside of the realm of one's obsession. One's true mind is thus divided in the sense of there being a wall too tall to see over in one's head separating the obsession from everything else. Obsession, as argued by Xunzi, is so strong that the ineptitude it causes can lead to one's death without one even knowing it. Examples of people who fell into such obsessions include rulers who neglected their duties at the hands of an obsession (for a particular concubine, for example) and thus fell into discord with their people, and usurpers of the throne who also met their end because of their obsession with gaining power.
Alternately, a sage uses the Way (道 Dào) to refrain from obsession and to keep his mind open. In order to accept the Way, one must first understand it, then approve it, then abide by it. The Way is the path away from obsession because of the nature of its interaction with the mind, which is empty, unified and still, according to Xunzi, when it is in accord with the Way. When it happens that one's mind is empty, one is able to possess much intellect without said intellect interfering with the process of absorbing new information. When it happens that one's mind is unified, one understands differences and the variety of information, but does not allow "one fact to impinge upon that of another."[9] When it happens that one's mind is still, although one may daydream and imagine and have a mind constantly in motion, one does not allow these mental meanderings to distort perceptions. Xunzi is referring to peace of mind rather than an attempt to unlearn what one has learned, as Laozi does, when he refers to the mind as being empty, unified and still. When one accords with the Way one is able to treat the world holistically, while outside of the Way one can only see the world as a collection of unrelated units. With this achieved, learning can be done, and should be done to the point of sufficiency (having the understanding of a sage or king, the former having control over morality and the latter having control over society).
For Xunzi, the mind is the ruler of the body, the emptying of which leads one closer to the Way. His argument is similar to that of Zhuangzi, who says that the emptying of the mind will lead one to be actively spontaneous and in harmony with the way. However, as noted below in the "Human Nature Is Bad" section, Xunzi argues for the use of ancient rites and regulations to hone the self, while Zhuangzi believes that simply emptying the mind, without absorbing such information regarding ritual and regulation, and thus falling into a state of wu-wei ("non-action" or "effortless action") is sufficient to walking the path of the Way.
"Correct Naming"
edit
See also: Rectification of names
Employing a technique used by philosophers before him, such as Mozi and Confucius, Xunzi argues for the rectification of names. There are several reasons why Xunzi considered the correct and consistent naming of things was important: so a ruler could adequately command his people in accordance with the Way, without being misunderstood. If misunderstandings were too easily made, then the Way would not effectively be put into action. This appears to be Xunzi's most important reason: "When the ruler's accomplishments are long lasting and his undertakings are brought to completion, this is the height of a good government. All of this is the result of being careful to see that men stick to the names which have been agreed upon."[10] Also, without universally accepted definitions, right and wrong would become blurred (being specific about what constitutes "right" and "wrong" causes morality to be more objective).
To "[distinguish] between things that are the same and those that are different'[11] one must use their senses to understand a thing (via sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) and then compare it to understandings of other things. From these observations, names can be given based on the sameness or difference between things. Individual things will have their own names in this construct as will groups of things (those are musical instruments). The naming of things can become either more or less precise from this point Xunzi also speaks of "things which share the same form but occupy different places and things which have different forms but occupy the same place."[12] The former, such as two flutes, should be distinguished as two separate flutes, although they are of the same form, because they occupy different spaces. However, as one flute is used and becomes damaged or broken over time, it appears to change into something else. But even though it seems to become something different, it is still the same flute and should be regarded as such.
This attention to detail perhaps sounds satirical, but has practical use. Xunzi elaborates on exactly what the name "sage" means, what sort of person it can apply to. Ideally, if all people are able to accurately employ the word "sage" finding a proper teacher (the importance of this is described in the section below), for example, would be easier. Likewise, the idea of being concise and accurate in speaking is made to be a characteristic of the sage and thus antithetical to the sloppy speaking of a fool, who is incapable of learning without the understanding of names.
Xunzi also uses the rectification of names to refute previous philosophers such as the writers of the Daodejing or Laozi (the alleged author of the Daodejing). In this chapter, although without obvious reference to any particular person or school of thought, calls into question the word "desire." In the Daodejing, Laozi argues for the renunciation of desires on the basis that they only lead to excessive and selfish races toward satiety. Xunzi, however, argues that "those who maintain that desires must be gotten rid of before there can be orderly government fail to consider whether desires can be guided..."[13] Here Xunzi asserts that if someone truly understood desires, they would not make such a contradictory statement (desires, in Xunzi's mind, cannot be guided). Xunzi focuses on the mind's ability to reform actions: if one's mind is trained, although there are many desires they will not be acted upon. Conversely, if the mind is untrained, although there are few desires they will be acted upon. In this way, Xunzi uses classification and understanding to assert his point: it is the mind which has control over desires, desires cannot simply be forgotten because they are part of human nature and are from Heaven, as he continues to explain. Also, if a man is truly in accordance with the Way, he will not allow mere desires to change his course of direction.
The rectification of names is an important one considering the course of Chinese philosophy in this era. Philosophers such as Confucius and Laozi, for example, used similar words and ideas (Dao, wu-wei [effortless action], sage) to mean slightly different meanings. One of the aims of name rectification was to create a consistent language that would allow each word to have a consistent and universal meaning, so to avoid the confusion of multiple Ways, etc.
"Human Nature is Bad"
edit
Xunzi believed that all people are born with natural tendencies toward "waywardness": that is, a taste for profit and beauty and a susceptibility to jealousy and hate, all of which, if indulged in, would lead to disorder and criminality. In order to attain a oneness with the Way, a dedication to morality, Xunzi argued for the guidance of a proper teacher: only this would allow one to become morally upright. A proper teacher would have been trained in the teachings of the ancient sage kings who saw that human nature was inherently immoral and thus wrong. From this realization, the sage kings developed rituals and regulations to shape people into accordance with the Way. Thus the process of following the teachings of the sage kings (and a teacher who can teach them) equates a renunciation of one's evil nature and a commitment to conscious activity (conscious activity because one must deliberately and willingly change their actions in order to overstep their evils which would otherwise occur naturally, without conscious thought).
Xunzi departs from the arguments of previous Confucians here: Confucius claimed that some people (but not all, and not even Confucius himself) were born with the ability to love learning and act in accordance with the Way. Mencius believed that all people were inherently good and that it was negative environmental influences which caused immorality in people. But Xunzi picks apart Mencius's argument in his writing. Mencius, whom Xunzi refers to by name, does not distinguish between nature and conscious practice. The former is inherent, as sight is to the eye or hearing is to the ear: one cannot be taught to see. However conscious thought is something which must be taught and learned:
Now it is the nature of man that when he is hungry he will desire satisfaction, when he is cold he will desire warmth, and when he is weary he will desire rest. This is his emotional nature. And yet a man, although he is hungry, will not dare to be the first to eat if he is in the presence of his elders, because he knows that he should yield to them, and although he is weary, he will not dare to demand rest because he knows that he should relieve others of the burden of labor. For a son to yield to his father or a younger brother to relieve his elder brother – acts such as these are all contrary to man's nature and run counter to his proper forms enjoined by ritual principles.[14]
However, the gap in Xunzi's argument is as follows: if human nature is naturally evil, how did the sage kings come to invent the idea of goodness and morality? Xunzi recognizes the apparent flaw and argues that, just as a potter consciously creates a pot (an object and action not part of his own nature), so does a sage consciously create the rituals and regulations to be followed if morality is the goal. These creations are not part of one's nature, but rather stem from a departure from nature. Xunzi states that "every man who desires to do good does so precisely because his nature is evil... Whatever a man lacks in himself he will seek outside" [15] as the sage kings did when they consulted their personal experiments and ideas to create a means toward morality. According to Xunzi, if people were naturally good, then leaving peoples and governments without laws and restrictions would cause no harm or disorder. Xunzi does not believe this state of affairs to be possible.
Xunzi believed that all people are born with the capacity to become good. For example, great kings like Yao and Shun were born no different from thieves like Robber Zhi or the tyrant Jie: that is, all four possessed the same nature at birth.
The man in the street can become a Yu. What does this mean? What made the sage emperor Yu a Yu, I would reply, was the fact that he practiced benevolence and righteousness and abided by the proper rules and standards. If this is so, then benevolence, righteousness, and proper standards must be based upon principles which can be known and practiced. Any man in the street [can become a Yu].[16]
Xunzi argues that if one associates with gentlemen, one will become a gentleman; if one associates with the immoral, one will become immoral (a similar sentiment can be found in the Analects of Confucius). Xunzi ends the chapter with, "'If you do not know a man, look at his friends; if you do not know a ruler, look at his attendants.' Environment is the important thing! Environment is the important thing!" [17] This attitude toward nurture over nature may appear similar to that of Mencius, but the stances of the two in this case should not be confused: while Mencius argues that people are born good but need a positive environment in order to fully prosper with the Way, Xunzi argues that it is only the environment which can save a person from immorality.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names
"
Nets are for catching fish; after one gets the fish, one forgets the net. Traps are for catching rabbits; after one gets the rabbit, one forgets the trap. Words are for getting meaning; after one gets the meaning, one forgets the words. Where can I find people who have forgotten words, and have a word with them?
— Zhuangzi, Ch. 26
Xun Zi wrote a chapter on "The Rectification of Names" developing a theme that had been introduced by Confucius saying: "Let the ruler be ruler, the subject subject; let the father be father, and the son son."[22] Chapter 22, "on the Rectification of Names", claims the ancient sage kings chose names (Chinese: 名; pinyin: míng) that directly corresponded with actualities (Chinese: 實; pinyin: shí), but later generations confused terminology, coined new nomenclature, and thus could no longer distinguish right from wrong.
Xun Zi not only wrote that chapter on the topic of the rectification of names but went as far as to develop/expand the rectification into a system of logic.[23] Xun Zi, who believed that man's inborn tendencies need to be curbed through education and ritual, countered to Mencius's view that man is innately good. He believed that ethical norms had been invented to rectify mankind. Other philosophers and logicians such as Guanzi, Mozi, and Gongsun Long developed their own theories regarding the rectification. Li in itself can be seen as the root of all this propriety and social etiquette discussed in the rectification of names as the cure to society's problems and the solution to a moral and efficient government and society.
"
The best use of anything having to do with other people which may influence anything that we end up dealing with, is to get it and it influencing any "them" towards ultimate benefit overall, so that wherever we go and whatever we deal with, there might be less trouble and pollution.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/don%27 ... re_you_eat
"
don't shit where you eat
(idiomatic, vulgar) One should not cause trouble in places, groups, or situations that one holds as important or necessary to one's happiness or well-being.
Usage notes
edit
Often used as a warning of the dangers of workplace romances.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/it%27s ... st#English
"
it's an ill bird that fouls its own nest
A condemnation of anyone who damages their own group, reputation or interests.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/foul_o ... st#English
"
foul one's own nest (third-person singular simple present fouls one's own nest, present participle fouling one's own nest, simple past and past participle fouled one's own nest)
To damage one's environment.
To hurt one's own interests, especially to damage the reputation of one's self, family or group.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/shoot_ ... ot#English
"
(idiomatic) To act against one's own interests; to unintentionally behave self-destructively.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/dig_on ... ve#English
"
(idiomatic) To behave in a way that is likely to cause one to lose or fail, including, but not limited to, result in death.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cut_of ... ce#English
"
(idiomatic) To harm oneself as a result of attempting to harm an adversary.
"
If I could click a button and kill a whole bunch of people right now, similarly to how so many are doing just that but clearly in the extreme wrong, I would do so and believe that not doing so would be the wrong thing to do, that it would be like watching a horrific crime occurring, being able to prevent it or put it to an end, and not stopping it immediately. That hatred in my heart that I have for what I consider truly evil, makes me a murderer without ever killing anyone, according to the New Testament logic. It is that same logic that makes the evildoers fear the survival of their victims, which made the slaveowners fear the response of the slaves, that they will obviously not be pleased if they realize what is happening, and that they will want the cruel ones who were so cruel to them and their loved ones to be punished, so such much be prevented at all costs and the people who may want revenge have to be brutally suppressed or killed, and even their children will not like bring wronged and having their parents, siblings, relatives, friends, and beloved pets brutally dismembered and mutilated, so are also going to have ill will inside, making them murderers.
Lol, it is really that evil and stupid.
So right now measures are going through to make travel impossible for people who may ever be determined as having any ill will towards vileness, since they are a threat to the vile while the vile are in the open and in power, so they should be suppressed as much as possible, as they are as though they have committed crimes by hating evil, and they would click the killing button if they could, if they ever got the chance, to stop the r*pes and mutilations.
So I ended up here, which showed up as the very first post, the last on page 67 of all my posts, considering clearing my good name as a malicious killer who has never knowingly killed.
I'm also experiencing a mixed urge to both get a randomizing thing to go through and destroy my entire record of comments under certain accounts. All this is because of the way that the evil governments and those whose side they are on and who ultimately are controlling them and benefiting from their efforts may someday, even soon, have the means to make worse the lives of even the most small and harmless of people who ever uttered any objection to them.
For others I want to also eliminate swear words, even they they are meant to represent strong emotions.
I might cancel this futile and evil project of self-censoring in favor of just accepting potential doom, even though this might be the way or increase chances of such, it could also come to me any other way.
It would be funny also to be hated and further isolated and targeted due to what I have expressed, especially since what I typically express is a hatred for what I consider to be vile stuff that I think everyone should very strongly hate too, and which gets their emotions going. I think a proper channeling of logic based emotional responses to horrors are what are trying to be disrupted and perverted by humanity's anti-human foes, and that a large part of philosophy and ethics is just a further elaboration or rationalization based on quick calculations and reactions to things which occur pretty naturally and automatically, but then some people somehow think themselves and talk others into very potentially destructive things, including unreasonable, universal, and over-prolonged, faux and surface level, practically pseudo-rationality, and "acting cool" in the face of what needs even very berserker type responses. We're living in a reality, again, where "savagely" tearing certain people limb from limb, is the right response, which people are being restrained from.
Like if you saw a co-worker r*ping a child in clear view, and not only said nothing, and did nothing, but went further, like I am considering doing, and removing any evidence that might be taken to demonstrate that I had any sentiments about it at all. Like going through video showing clearly that I was there and saw it, but editing out any jolt from the footage of my body that could be interpreted as accidentally viewed at displeasure of what would have been universally recognized as at the very least causing one to be startled slightly upon seeing it, but not in this case, for some reason, since he must belong to the mafia or something in our view and there is no protection from the mafia these days.
"You said f*ck, when you saw Brother Carmichael r*ping "it", we have it recorded"
"I meant nothing by it, I think there was something in my shoe that hurt my toe"
"A likely story, but certainly not one that we believe, why don't you confess that you had a problem with what Brother Carmichael was doing?"
"I don't, I really don't, whatever he was doing was perfectly alright and understandable for him to be doing, he was in the right."
"Mere lip service. This isn't the first time that we have seen evidence of strange behaviours around certain of our actions, it is clear to us that you disapprove."
"What can I do to convince you that I sincerely am not against you or anything that our people do, that I'm with you and one of you?"
"You'll need to be taught properly, but you'll be put on a permanent list due to your penchant for using inappropriate language, showing emotional instability, and abnormal reactions. If you make any more mistakes, you will be restricted."
"I understand, thank you. Will I be able to redeem myself in such a fashion as to not be put on a list?"
"No."
You wrote:
"
Philosophy begins with how we can, through reason and rationality, explain most truthfully what there is and how to explain what there is.
We know pre-philosophically that there is guilt and shame for example, so how do we reason this phenomena?
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_trip
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipul ... sychology)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment_(psychology)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology)
"
Extinction is a behavioral phenomenon observed in both operantly conditioned and classically conditioned behavior, which manifests itself by fading of non-reinforced conditioned response over time. When operant behavior that has been previously reinforced no longer produces reinforcing consequences, the behavior gradually returns to operant levels (to the frequency of the behavior previous to learning, which may or may not be zero).[1][2]
In classical conditioning, when a conditioned stimulus is presented alone, so that it no longer predicts the coming of the unconditioned stimulus, conditioned responding gradually stops. For example, after Pavlov's dog was conditioned to salivate at the sound of a metronome, it eventually stopped salivating to the metronome after the metronome had been sounded repeatedly but no food came.
Many anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder are believed to reflect, at least in part, a failure to extinguish conditioned fear.✓/[3]
"
You also wrote:
"
As a personal anecdote, I believe philosophy has helped me overcome many psychological problems of alienation. It has helped me to reach a more compassionate view of life, it helps me to value what is important in life and to approach difficult subjects such as guilt and shame without denial and further destructive tendencies, myself and everyone else in my life.
Philosophy then, to me, is the study of experiencing experience, but I am now looking at some philosophy that appears to be studying the study of experiencing experience. An outside view of an outside view.
"
Compassion and Passion are what are now becoming increasingly dangerous to showcase, similar also to the Minority Report, along with McCarthyism and depictions of Communist Purging, Nazi investigations and accusations, and the Christian Witch Hunts and Catholic Inquisition, possibly even seen in the New Testament with verses like:
"
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
"
Matthew 5:21-5:22
"
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
"
Matthew 5:27-5:28
So, whoever desires something seriously and would have it occur if they could, is according to this idea and that of the people trying to control and destroy mankind and all freedom, one who has already committed the crime and is liable to be judged just as if they have committed it, even if only in thoughts.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tw ... a1c8644297
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi ... text%3Ddlj
The slime that is currently committing atrocities in the colony are very likely also doing things like this, which they would happily broadcast to their demented and wholly irredeemable public like they did the r*p*s they were supported for.
Objections to such activities may soon become the very things that end up putting one difficulties, rather than the other way around.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/9 ... ed-of-rape
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases ... -and-other
A lot of therapy has to do with helping people to continue to navigate life, or even want to participate at all, after things occurred which are very disturbing, and in many cases which also had no nice resolution, like if there were bad people, the bad people just keep on hurting more people and the victims who survive just get to watch, and are told to get on with life since nothing seems to be happening about the victimizers having harmed them and continuing to harm others, and the problem really is that the victim is just letting the rest of whatever they have to call a life to not be as pleasant as it still could be.
"Before you were r*p*d and your entire family was m*rd*r*d, such things happened to many other people, and you were pretty much happy and fine and feeling a lot better, especially as you had never heard of such things occurring, so what is really all that different now? Can't life go on for you just as it did, even while those things had happened?"
"I don't have anyone, and I can't get justice"
"So why don't you find people, and don't worry about things you can't have?"
"If I find people, what if they are taken away? What if there is something I can do?"
"If they are taken away, find more, this world has billions. There just isn't much you can do, you are wasting time looking into ot and feeling bad about it, and when there just isn't a way forward with that, then there is no choice but to move on."
"I am so angry, I don't want to be part of a world like this."
"Yet, you are, and you were even before you realized it, so you can keep finding things to love, and enjoy, and to be happy about!"
I saw a film, maybe one of the very few Stephen King films that I consider any good and enjoyed, called The Monkey.
In the film, you turn the key that gets the monkey to move, and it so happens that something bad occurs around you or nearby, or something.
There is another film called The Box, where one is told that things will go well for them if they press a button, but someone they don't know will suffer or die if they do.
I think the neighbor behind me is watching p*rn in the bathroom or something, there is a lot of moaning going on in whatever they are watching.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_of_invisibility
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diomedes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stheno_and_Euryale
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xunzi_(philosopher)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xunzi_(book)
"
Chapters
edit
List of chapters in the Xunzi
No. Title
English Chinese
1 Exhortation to Learning 勸學
2 Cultivating Oneself 修身
3 Nothing Improper 不苟
4 On Honor and Disgrace 榮辱
5 Against Physiognomy 非相
6 Against the Twelve Masters 非十二子
7 On Confucius 仲尼
8 On Achievements of the Ru 儒效
9 The Rule of a True King 王制
10 Enriching the State 富國
11 The True King and the Hegemon 王霸
12 The Way to Be a Lord 君道
13 The Way to Be a Minister 臣道
14 On Attracting Men of Worth 致士
15 A Debate on Military Affairs 議兵
16 The Strong State 強國
17 Discourse on Heaven 天論
18 Correct Judgments 正論
19 Discourse on Ritual 禮論
20 Discourse on Music 樂論
21 Undoing Fixation 解蔽
22 Correct Naming 正名
23 Human Nature Is Bad 性惡
24 The Gentleman 君子
25 Working Songs 成相
26 Fu 賦
27 The Grand Digest 大略
28 The Right-Hand Vessel 宥坐
29 The Way to Be a Son 子道
30 The Proper Model and Proper Conduct 法行
31 Duke Ai 哀公
32 Yao Asked 堯問
The essays in the Xunzi are not arranged in chronological order.[6]
"Discourse on Music"
edit
Mozi, another philosopher of the Warring States era (pre-unification of China), discouraged the use of music and other forms of culture as being wasteful of resources needed to keep the state healthy and prosperous. Xunzi's chapter on music questions this stance, specifically naming Mozi. Why, poses Xunzi, should music be renounced if created by the sage kings to create order in expression, or if it brings people into unity and harmony and soldiers into order (for example, via war dances)? Or what if it has the ability to reform people? Following a line of Confucian thought, Xunzi argues that music, as defined and ordered by the ancient sage kings, acts like ritual in that it moderates and restrains the person listening and the person performing. It also positively inspires people and is thus an effective means of governing. However, and again agreeing with Confucius, Xunzi does admit that there are types of music which can lead one into licentious behavior, but states that the gentleman knows to be wary of his environment and the sounds he hears.
Music embodies an unchanging harmony, while rites represent unalterable reason. Music unites that which is the same; rites distinguish that which is different; and through the combination of rites and music the human heart is governed... Because he criticized music, one would expect Mozi to have met with some punishment. And yet in his lifetime the enlightened kings had all died and there was no one to correct his errors, so that stupid men continue to study his doctrines and bring jeopardy to themselves.[7]
"Undoing Fixation"
edit
Xunzi's chapter on dispelling obsession can be understood via the use of an ode he uses from the Book of Odes:
I pluck and pluck the burr-weed But it does not fill my slanting basket. I sigh for my loved one; I would be in the ranks of Zhou.[8]
Because the mind of the plucker in this ode is divided between her task at hand and the love she has for a man in the ranks of Zhou, she cannot complete the simple task of filling her basket. Xunzi warns against falling into obsession in this chapter. When one is subject to obsession, it means that one is focusing so intently on a certain thing (Xunzi claims that Mozi focused too much on utility, while Zhuangzi focused too heavily on Nature, for example) that one's mind will not be able to absorb any new information outside of the realm of one's obsession. One's true mind is thus divided in the sense of there being a wall too tall to see over in one's head separating the obsession from everything else. Obsession, as argued by Xunzi, is so strong that the ineptitude it causes can lead to one's death without one even knowing it. Examples of people who fell into such obsessions include rulers who neglected their duties at the hands of an obsession (for a particular concubine, for example) and thus fell into discord with their people, and usurpers of the throne who also met their end because of their obsession with gaining power.
Alternately, a sage uses the Way (道 Dào) to refrain from obsession and to keep his mind open. In order to accept the Way, one must first understand it, then approve it, then abide by it. The Way is the path away from obsession because of the nature of its interaction with the mind, which is empty, unified and still, according to Xunzi, when it is in accord with the Way. When it happens that one's mind is empty, one is able to possess much intellect without said intellect interfering with the process of absorbing new information. When it happens that one's mind is unified, one understands differences and the variety of information, but does not allow "one fact to impinge upon that of another."[9] When it happens that one's mind is still, although one may daydream and imagine and have a mind constantly in motion, one does not allow these mental meanderings to distort perceptions. Xunzi is referring to peace of mind rather than an attempt to unlearn what one has learned, as Laozi does, when he refers to the mind as being empty, unified and still. When one accords with the Way one is able to treat the world holistically, while outside of the Way one can only see the world as a collection of unrelated units. With this achieved, learning can be done, and should be done to the point of sufficiency (having the understanding of a sage or king, the former having control over morality and the latter having control over society).
For Xunzi, the mind is the ruler of the body, the emptying of which leads one closer to the Way. His argument is similar to that of Zhuangzi, who says that the emptying of the mind will lead one to be actively spontaneous and in harmony with the way. However, as noted below in the "Human Nature Is Bad" section, Xunzi argues for the use of ancient rites and regulations to hone the self, while Zhuangzi believes that simply emptying the mind, without absorbing such information regarding ritual and regulation, and thus falling into a state of wu-wei ("non-action" or "effortless action") is sufficient to walking the path of the Way.
"Correct Naming"
edit
See also: Rectification of names
Employing a technique used by philosophers before him, such as Mozi and Confucius, Xunzi argues for the rectification of names. There are several reasons why Xunzi considered the correct and consistent naming of things was important: so a ruler could adequately command his people in accordance with the Way, without being misunderstood. If misunderstandings were too easily made, then the Way would not effectively be put into action. This appears to be Xunzi's most important reason: "When the ruler's accomplishments are long lasting and his undertakings are brought to completion, this is the height of a good government. All of this is the result of being careful to see that men stick to the names which have been agreed upon."[10] Also, without universally accepted definitions, right and wrong would become blurred (being specific about what constitutes "right" and "wrong" causes morality to be more objective).
To "[distinguish] between things that are the same and those that are different'[11] one must use their senses to understand a thing (via sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) and then compare it to understandings of other things. From these observations, names can be given based on the sameness or difference between things. Individual things will have their own names in this construct as will groups of things (those are musical instruments). The naming of things can become either more or less precise from this point Xunzi also speaks of "things which share the same form but occupy different places and things which have different forms but occupy the same place."[12] The former, such as two flutes, should be distinguished as two separate flutes, although they are of the same form, because they occupy different spaces. However, as one flute is used and becomes damaged or broken over time, it appears to change into something else. But even though it seems to become something different, it is still the same flute and should be regarded as such.
This attention to detail perhaps sounds satirical, but has practical use. Xunzi elaborates on exactly what the name "sage" means, what sort of person it can apply to. Ideally, if all people are able to accurately employ the word "sage" finding a proper teacher (the importance of this is described in the section below), for example, would be easier. Likewise, the idea of being concise and accurate in speaking is made to be a characteristic of the sage and thus antithetical to the sloppy speaking of a fool, who is incapable of learning without the understanding of names.
Xunzi also uses the rectification of names to refute previous philosophers such as the writers of the Daodejing or Laozi (the alleged author of the Daodejing). In this chapter, although without obvious reference to any particular person or school of thought, calls into question the word "desire." In the Daodejing, Laozi argues for the renunciation of desires on the basis that they only lead to excessive and selfish races toward satiety. Xunzi, however, argues that "those who maintain that desires must be gotten rid of before there can be orderly government fail to consider whether desires can be guided..."[13] Here Xunzi asserts that if someone truly understood desires, they would not make such a contradictory statement (desires, in Xunzi's mind, cannot be guided). Xunzi focuses on the mind's ability to reform actions: if one's mind is trained, although there are many desires they will not be acted upon. Conversely, if the mind is untrained, although there are few desires they will be acted upon. In this way, Xunzi uses classification and understanding to assert his point: it is the mind which has control over desires, desires cannot simply be forgotten because they are part of human nature and are from Heaven, as he continues to explain. Also, if a man is truly in accordance with the Way, he will not allow mere desires to change his course of direction.
The rectification of names is an important one considering the course of Chinese philosophy in this era. Philosophers such as Confucius and Laozi, for example, used similar words and ideas (Dao, wu-wei [effortless action], sage) to mean slightly different meanings. One of the aims of name rectification was to create a consistent language that would allow each word to have a consistent and universal meaning, so to avoid the confusion of multiple Ways, etc.
"Human Nature is Bad"
edit
Xunzi believed that all people are born with natural tendencies toward "waywardness": that is, a taste for profit and beauty and a susceptibility to jealousy and hate, all of which, if indulged in, would lead to disorder and criminality. In order to attain a oneness with the Way, a dedication to morality, Xunzi argued for the guidance of a proper teacher: only this would allow one to become morally upright. A proper teacher would have been trained in the teachings of the ancient sage kings who saw that human nature was inherently immoral and thus wrong. From this realization, the sage kings developed rituals and regulations to shape people into accordance with the Way. Thus the process of following the teachings of the sage kings (and a teacher who can teach them) equates a renunciation of one's evil nature and a commitment to conscious activity (conscious activity because one must deliberately and willingly change their actions in order to overstep their evils which would otherwise occur naturally, without conscious thought).
Xunzi departs from the arguments of previous Confucians here: Confucius claimed that some people (but not all, and not even Confucius himself) were born with the ability to love learning and act in accordance with the Way. Mencius believed that all people were inherently good and that it was negative environmental influences which caused immorality in people. But Xunzi picks apart Mencius's argument in his writing. Mencius, whom Xunzi refers to by name, does not distinguish between nature and conscious practice. The former is inherent, as sight is to the eye or hearing is to the ear: one cannot be taught to see. However conscious thought is something which must be taught and learned:
Now it is the nature of man that when he is hungry he will desire satisfaction, when he is cold he will desire warmth, and when he is weary he will desire rest. This is his emotional nature. And yet a man, although he is hungry, will not dare to be the first to eat if he is in the presence of his elders, because he knows that he should yield to them, and although he is weary, he will not dare to demand rest because he knows that he should relieve others of the burden of labor. For a son to yield to his father or a younger brother to relieve his elder brother – acts such as these are all contrary to man's nature and run counter to his proper forms enjoined by ritual principles.[14]
However, the gap in Xunzi's argument is as follows: if human nature is naturally evil, how did the sage kings come to invent the idea of goodness and morality? Xunzi recognizes the apparent flaw and argues that, just as a potter consciously creates a pot (an object and action not part of his own nature), so does a sage consciously create the rituals and regulations to be followed if morality is the goal. These creations are not part of one's nature, but rather stem from a departure from nature. Xunzi states that "every man who desires to do good does so precisely because his nature is evil... Whatever a man lacks in himself he will seek outside" [15] as the sage kings did when they consulted their personal experiments and ideas to create a means toward morality. According to Xunzi, if people were naturally good, then leaving peoples and governments without laws and restrictions would cause no harm or disorder. Xunzi does not believe this state of affairs to be possible.
Xunzi believed that all people are born with the capacity to become good. For example, great kings like Yao and Shun were born no different from thieves like Robber Zhi or the tyrant Jie: that is, all four possessed the same nature at birth.
The man in the street can become a Yu. What does this mean? What made the sage emperor Yu a Yu, I would reply, was the fact that he practiced benevolence and righteousness and abided by the proper rules and standards. If this is so, then benevolence, righteousness, and proper standards must be based upon principles which can be known and practiced. Any man in the street [can become a Yu].[16]
Xunzi argues that if one associates with gentlemen, one will become a gentleman; if one associates with the immoral, one will become immoral (a similar sentiment can be found in the Analects of Confucius). Xunzi ends the chapter with, "'If you do not know a man, look at his friends; if you do not know a ruler, look at his attendants.' Environment is the important thing! Environment is the important thing!" [17] This attitude toward nurture over nature may appear similar to that of Mencius, but the stances of the two in this case should not be confused: while Mencius argues that people are born good but need a positive environment in order to fully prosper with the Way, Xunzi argues that it is only the environment which can save a person from immorality.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names
"
Nets are for catching fish; after one gets the fish, one forgets the net. Traps are for catching rabbits; after one gets the rabbit, one forgets the trap. Words are for getting meaning; after one gets the meaning, one forgets the words. Where can I find people who have forgotten words, and have a word with them?
— Zhuangzi, Ch. 26
Xun Zi wrote a chapter on "The Rectification of Names" developing a theme that had been introduced by Confucius saying: "Let the ruler be ruler, the subject subject; let the father be father, and the son son."[22] Chapter 22, "on the Rectification of Names", claims the ancient sage kings chose names (Chinese: 名; pinyin: míng) that directly corresponded with actualities (Chinese: 實; pinyin: shí), but later generations confused terminology, coined new nomenclature, and thus could no longer distinguish right from wrong.
Xun Zi not only wrote that chapter on the topic of the rectification of names but went as far as to develop/expand the rectification into a system of logic.[23] Xun Zi, who believed that man's inborn tendencies need to be curbed through education and ritual, countered to Mencius's view that man is innately good. He believed that ethical norms had been invented to rectify mankind. Other philosophers and logicians such as Guanzi, Mozi, and Gongsun Long developed their own theories regarding the rectification. Li in itself can be seen as the root of all this propriety and social etiquette discussed in the rectification of names as the cure to society's problems and the solution to a moral and efficient government and society.
"
The best use of anything having to do with other people which may influence anything that we end up dealing with, is to get it and it influencing any "them" towards ultimate benefit overall, so that wherever we go and whatever we deal with, there might be less trouble and pollution.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/don%27 ... re_you_eat
"
don't shit where you eat
(idiomatic, vulgar) One should not cause trouble in places, groups, or situations that one holds as important or necessary to one's happiness or well-being.
Usage notes
edit
Often used as a warning of the dangers of workplace romances.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/it%27s ... st#English
"
it's an ill bird that fouls its own nest
A condemnation of anyone who damages their own group, reputation or interests.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/foul_o ... st#English
"
foul one's own nest (third-person singular simple present fouls one's own nest, present participle fouling one's own nest, simple past and past participle fouled one's own nest)
To damage one's environment.
To hurt one's own interests, especially to damage the reputation of one's self, family or group.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/shoot_ ... ot#English
"
(idiomatic) To act against one's own interests; to unintentionally behave self-destructively.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/dig_on ... ve#English
"
(idiomatic) To behave in a way that is likely to cause one to lose or fail, including, but not limited to, result in death.
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cut_of ... ce#English
"
(idiomatic) To harm oneself as a result of attempting to harm an adversary.
"
If I could click a button and kill a whole bunch of people right now, similarly to how so many are doing just that but clearly in the extreme wrong, I would do so and believe that not doing so would be the wrong thing to do, that it would be like watching a horrific crime occurring, being able to prevent it or put it to an end, and not stopping it immediately. That hatred in my heart that I have for what I consider truly evil, makes me a murderer without ever killing anyone, according to the New Testament logic. It is that same logic that makes the evildoers fear the survival of their victims, which made the slaveowners fear the response of the slaves, that they will obviously not be pleased if they realize what is happening, and that they will want the cruel ones who were so cruel to them and their loved ones to be punished, so such much be prevented at all costs and the people who may want revenge have to be brutally suppressed or killed, and even their children will not like bring wronged and having their parents, siblings, relatives, friends, and beloved pets brutally dismembered and mutilated, so are also going to have ill will inside, making them murderers.
Lol, it is really that evil and stupid.
So right now measures are going through to make travel impossible for people who may ever be determined as having any ill will towards vileness, since they are a threat to the vile while the vile are in the open and in power, so they should be suppressed as much as possible, as they are as though they have committed crimes by hating evil, and they would click the killing button if they could, if they ever got the chance, to stop the r*pes and mutilations.
So I ended up here, which showed up as the very first post, the last on page 67 of all my posts, considering clearing my good name as a malicious killer who has never knowingly killed.