I mostly lost interest in philosophy when I came to realize it's all just some fag's opinion that leads nowhere. I have a philosophy degree. I read the Greeks, then Descartes, Hume, Kant, and a few others, and ultimately it did nothing for me except drive me even further into relativistic thought. I genuinely think Daoism is as close as you can get to an "objective" philosophy because it talks about how every single thing in human society is just that: an opinion. Ironically this is just an opinion too, but at least it's honest about it.

>>24451222 (OP)
You don't have a philosophy degree. Explain Kant's system of philosophy without consulting ChatGPT or any other source. (You have 7 minutes after the publication of this post, and if it's ChatGPT, we'll know).

>>24451222 (OP)
Start with the Buddha

>>24451222 (OP)
>Just an opinion ...
>At least it's honest about it ...

Not just a man, a barber.

post the passage where zhuanzi says daoism is just like his opinion man? did u get lied to by a chatbot again?

>>24451222 (OP)
The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects arouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, however, we find that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty which is the true answer to the doubts that it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities, which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

>>24451238
From a Kantian perspective, dismissing someone's self-reported academic background without evidence undermines the moral duty to treat others as ends in themselves by denying them the respect owed to their rational agency and truthfulness.

>>24451222 (OP)
>there was once a zen master who spent his life wandering the mountains. He frequented a hidden school and upon hearing this honorable 4th Patriarch Daoxin went to seek him at the age of 14.

>upon reaching the zen master Daoxin said: "I entreat you to teach me the truth that grants release and liberation."

>the master responded: "who has bound you?"

>Daoxin responded: "nobody."

>the master replied: "then why are you seeking liberation?"

>Daoxin became awakened and served for 9 years as a disciple.

>many years later and in a different part of the country where Zen was not outlawed Daoxin founded a school. He was known for his extreme meditations.

>one day the emperor sent a messenger to summon Daoxin to the imperial court.

>Daoxin refused.

>the emperor sent the messenger back with a sword and said if he refuses again cut his head off.

>the messenger returned and informed Daoxin of the demand and presented the sword.

>Daoxin refused again and bent his head. He said: "go ahead and cut my head off."

>the messenger stood for some time and after reflection sheathed the sword. The messenger said: "I was told not to harm you but threaten you and now I'm not sure what to do."

>Daoxin laughed and said: "now I've taught you what someone who meditates looks like.

>>24451222 (OP)
Yeah I read 150 books then I had to move back in with my parents
Should've optimised looks, bought the nice furniture, financed a nice car, worn gaudy designer clothes, gone to music festivals, and stuck my tongue up every coworkers and managers arse while fucking becky every weekend

>>24452725
Holding a person to a standard is respect.

>>24451222 (OP)
The answer has always been psychology, not philosophy.

You wasted your time, OP.

>>24451510
Based Bertrand Russel

>>24451510
Pure unfiltered reddit

>>24453035
Psychology done properly--so no freudian gobbledygook--is a subfield of philosophy.

>>24451222 (OP)
Someone else I know had that opinion too. Hating philosophy is an opinion, and a philosophy in of itself. He and I no longer talk anymore and I'm pretty sure he's dead.

>>24451222 (OP)
>Ironically this is just an opinion too, but at least it's honest about it.
Don't you think that undercuts the point, though? There are two ways that relativism gets weird:
>1) All truths are relative, except for this one.
The question we then must ask is why must we allow special pleading here.
>2) It is my opinion that all truths are relative. But that is just an opinion.
This answer seems to leave the door open for objective truth to arrive and obliterate all inferior "relativist" opinions. So, it's a bit self-defeating.

That's the gist. Relativist claims are either self-defeating in logic or they are self-defeating in principle, respectively.

>>24452796
nigga was lucky the guy was bluffing. otherwise he'd be known as decapitaxin.

>>24453932
>logic
All just opinion. What you say might be true in a debate hall but is it objectively true that relativism is self-defeating? As in, if humans didn't exist to posit the logical argument that relativism is self-defeating, would it still be true if there were no philosophers around to argue the point?

>>24453942
When you say that even deductive logic is just an opinion and has no inherent law-like properties, not even a validity (putting away soundness for now), then you defeat yourself entirely.

Again, you are trying to argue logically. That presupposes that logic makes sense. But if you are rejecting that, then on what basis do you have to disagree except that you disagree? Why would it even matter?

>>24453945
I'm just playing devil's advocate. Logic makes sense to the pattern seeking species that humans are. Any conversation we have has to follow some logic. My dog however doesn't care about logic, nor does any other creature on Earth other than humans.
>on what basis do you have to disagree except that you disagree? Why would it even matter?
It doesn't really matter at all.

>>24453969
I'm not quite sure you understand my point enough to be an effective devil's advocate. I'm not trying to argue for an objective truth, at least at this stage. That's why I distinguished between soundness and validity.

If there is no objective truth about everything, then nothing is sound because there would be no "principle" for objective explanations to flow from, but at least logic gives us the concept of validity. And it is this concept of validity that allows us to evaluate arguments as having any meaning.

But if you're going as far as denying that logic can be valid, then what are you even arguing for? And even if a dog doesn't think about logic, it still thinks that "if I want to eat, then I should run to my owner and be cute and whine". There is always a logic to things, and it is the minimum level of coherency needed for the world to operate as it does and for us to say anything meaningful about it.

>>24453973
I do understand your point. I agree with what you say. But I think this is an irreconcilable paradox of human existence. We do our best to explain the world in terms that are meaningful to us as human organisms but which do not necessarily make sense for other organisms. It appears to us humans that the dog is logical for going to its owner for food because this kind of logical flow of things is how we make sense of the world. And to us, "the world" is a logical thing based on rules and systems that philosophers and scientists have thought up. It's all we know and all we ever will know because we cannot step outside the medium of our own existence. We can never ask the dog what its thought process is or even if it has a different mode of explanation for how "the world" works, and the very fact that we cannot communicate such a question to a dog I think shows how relativistic our concept of "the world" really is.

>>24453938
Does that matter?

>>24453991
Logic presupposes itself. I agree with that.

>>24451222 (OP)
reading philosophy is for midwits, actual smart people don't need some thought daddy to give them their worldview

>>24454408
Agreed. Reading philosophy is basically inviting the author to spread the lips of your brain pussy and shove in his fat thought cock until he cooms his worldview all over your consciousness. Extremely extremely GAY

>>24453050
>thought: absent
>proof by demonstration

>>24454408
It reads: I do not read philosophy and consider myself hierarchically superior to those who do. Using imaginary argument. You are a limbic system monkey operating on primitive dominance instincts! You are a decadent!

If you actually read all those authors earnestly and you even got a philosophy degree and still have this utterly pedestrian perspective, then you are NGMI. You have a profoundly shallow and uncurious mind.

>>24451222 (OP)
>filtered

>>24451222 (OP)
I find it utterly impossible to respect a man's opinion, his worldview, and his philosophy if that man had never been to 4chan. It's proof that he's from a primitive, distant world and that the life that formed that philosophy is profoundly alien to my own. I might as well seek advice and inspiration from a snail, or a fish. People who didn't live in the 21st century barely register as human to me.

>>24455011
Now THIS is based.

>>24451222 (OP)

Read the Bible.
Jesus Christ is the "Way"

Taoist text is pretty good, like a Chinese Book of Proverbs.

>t. former taoist

>>24451285
>start with the Buddha
>end with the Buddha
Now what?

>>24451222 (OP)
The narrative of philosophy you were taught in school was wrong anon. Philosophy is not separate from religion or mysticism, it is emergent from those and a part of those. Every single philosopher up to the world wars was basing their ideas off of religion and esoteric mysticism. Same with every other important innovative figure in the west.

>>24455546
This is a false perspective even if you hear it often on this board. Philosophy is or aspires to be science - a mode of discursive knowing and understanding like any other science. Mystics claim a non-discursive, immediate intuition of the absolute. That’s fine but it is not philosophy. Some philosophers (broadly speaking, “Platonists”) think that discursive reasoning can be a means to ascend to mystical insight but this is not a universal opinion and it isn’t of the essence of philosophy qua philosophy. Many philosophers are actively hostile to the pretensions of mysticism. If you want to be a mystic, join a monastery or something. If you want to understand philosophy, you will be studying and thinking, not enjoying some sort of revery. It’s really a fatal mistake to take incommunicable “mystic” vision and then transform it into philosophy because they are apples and oranges. “Well if there’s not some pot of gold mystick insight at the end of the journey, what’s the point of philosophy?” If you don’t understand the value of trying to grasp reality by thinking alone then you’re not meant for it. If you think philosophy is basically mysticism or grounded in mysticism you don’t know a thing about it and frankly probably haven’t read much of it.

>>24456368
There are philosophers who were also mystics, and there have been mathematicians who were also mystics. Some philosophies are more at home with mysticism than others but it’s wrong to conflate philosophy and mysticism. “How can you say mathematics has nothing to do with mysticism?! Just look at heckin’ Pythagoras!!!”

The fundamental misunderstanding is thinking that philosophy is about reading. It's about thinking. You use dead people's thoughts from thousands of years ago to liberate your mind. Once that has happened you do not really need text any more.

The only practical branch of philosophy is epistemology, everything else is indeed wank.

>>24451222 (OP)
you read the greeks and yet didn't understand pyrrhonism?

>>24456630
this; thinking is shared via paper. having considered something and rejected, or accepted it, is the same whether it came from you or another mind.

>>24451285
>the Buddha
retroactively refuted by Lao-Tsu and Zhuangzi

>>24453991
I am not sure if there is a paradox to consider. It is almost like whether the question of "Why is there something instead of nothing" is even a legitimate question. For if there was merely Nothing, then there would be nothing to explain (perhaps this could be a double entendre, and maybe Nothing deserves an account regardless). But there seems to be value in trying to figure out why is Being the way that it is. And the fact that animals act as they do through some heuristical instincts and even a kind of primitive "calculative" judgment suggests that they are interfering with an intelligible, logical universe. For if the universe was not logical, then their ends as animals could not be achieved in any practical way. Perhaps this trivializes thinking and logic, but I always preferred the most inclusive definitions of logic, reason, thinking, etc. Whether our understandings are cross-species communicable is more like an engineering problem than a philosophical problem IMO, and I don't think that it leads to relativistic answers (skepticism and a deferral of judgment is more appropriate here).

bump

>>24455011
are you even human?
>>24455212
>Jesus Christ is the "Way"
If you have actually seriously read all the texts in your pic related, then how do you reconcile them with this? Why do you believe in Christ? Genuinely asking.

>>24451510
Almost that entire last chapter of "The Problems of Philosophy" is kindred to me. It was like discovering someone made almost the same painting as you, with its private meaning intact despite you never knowing each other. I use different words, express them in a different way but an uncanny similarity persists. It's ironic that though Russell was an atheist he nearly sounds like Sertillange when discouraging a self-assertion which "bounds the greatness of its goods," much like the "self-will which hates order" and prevents our union with the Spirit of prayer in study (which itself enables us to witness God's greatness in the eternal and infinite).

I think the last sentence in Problems summarizes it best (though doesn't render the experience in someone):

"Philosophy is to be studied... above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good."

That "universe" is not limited to the physical universe but is an omnidomain of ideas. Something about liminal spaces suggests this to me, and I think that's also why I find them intriguing.

>>24454798
>that image
kek

>>24454798
what is the ought presupposed to recognize what is?

>>24458038
I have not read ALL of them, some specifically titles 9,10, and 11 on the list, which deal with alchemy and magic, and a lengthy legal text from a Taoist perspective I have only paged through but all the others I have read.

>Why do you believe in Christ?
Because, the philosophy presented by Jesus Christ IS the WAY.

More specifically I believe Jesus Christ, is an easier way to understand God the Father, or as he might be called in this context, the Tao.

The Tao, as described by Lao Tzu, is elusive, indescribable, intangible. Look it can not be seen, listen it can not be heard, grasp, it can not be felt etc, this concept, or in general the concept of The Absolute Energy at Rest, as described similarly between major religious groups all agree that there are no words that can adequately describe the all pervading force that binds us and created us all.

The point is this, that God in his ultimate form or more precisely the personality of God is more easily understood and emulated by us, in the form of the perfect man, Jesus Christ, than an indescribable all pervading energy that is everywhere, and is everything.

That being said, everyone is on their own path, and all paths lead to God. Some are shorter of course, and some are lost in myth and translation and allegory.

IF the Tao became a person HOW would that person act? He would act like Jesus Christ.

Are there other ways to understand and align with God the father? Yes of course. Do I think that the most direct path to that connection is through the philosophy of Jesus Christ? I don't think I know.

I still enjoy reading the Tao, and consider it a holy book. But it is not as refined as the Philosophy of Christ, though there may be more dogma with the modern Christian Church, I was raised atheist and I do not go to Church, though I read my Bible every day.

You take from this what you will, but when it boils down to it, the questions of how you should live your life, and what way you should worship, I think those are answered more clearly by, a clear headed reading of the Gospels, ESPECIALLY, the Gospel of Thomas, which is more like the Tao than anything. Try an interlinear Greek reading of it, even though it's clunky, the language is more appropriate. It is essentially just 114 "Jesus said" quotes.

If you've read this and you still do not understand why I believe in Jesus Christ, as the Way. Then I will continue to expound further on the points after you reply.

>>24458038
>>24459054

and I didnt feel like grabbing the whole list off the shelf, but here is most of them thrown on to my futon.

>>24456368
>Philosophy is or aspires to be science
>mfw
midwit u really gotta learn ya place i mean sheesssh

>>24459054
>God is more easily understood and emulated by us, in the form of the perfect man, Jesus Christ, than an indescribable all pervading energy that is everywhere, and is everything
I don't necessarily agree. The human intellect is so constituted as to grasp toward concrete representations, but in doing so, it stultifies its own emergence as a dynamic living being. And as a protestant, you might not see it this way, but I think both practices are only really understood through being part of a traditional lineage. 90% of Western Taoists are really just people with a washed-down ideology of "just like stop caring man", just like 90% of Western Christians are part of modernist lgbt churchianity. It isn't any better in the East; it just takes its own forms of cultural impurity.
>it is not as refined as the Philosophy of Christ
Again, I don't quite agree. Do you have any examples of Christian concepts that don't find their analogue in other traditions and in Taoism?
For me, the defining feature of the Christian worldview that separates it from other mystical philosophies is the concept of Original Sin as described in Genesis. Differing views on the original nature of man and its authentic mode are the most substantial difference in practical mysticism between Taoism, Sufism, and various Buddhist and Christian approaches. If this resonates with you at all, I highly recommend reading William James' Varieties. (A mostly Christian book, ironically enough.)
>the questions of how you should live your life, and what way you should worship, I think those are answered more clearly by, a clear headed reading of the Gospels
Maybe so, but essential to the Taoist's view of the authentic man is that he does not need to be *told* or shown how to live and worship in any exclusive outward form, but rather through degrees of patient affirmation and practice induced into the inexhaustible phenomenological disposition at the mysterious living core of Tao.
>If you've read this and you still do not understand
I've read Thomas, and I found in it nothing that isn't in Eastern systems (really I should use another word than system). And how many of these apocryphal sayings were uttered by Jesus the man anyway? When I read a piece of wisdom from a historical or living master, I am not cast into doubt as to the veracity of the statement, since it does not make the initial claim to be the Word of God.

At any rate, one thing I appreciate in the Eastern traditions is the concrete and practical wisdom that, at the same time, does not overreach into grand theological narrative.
>Mencius went to see King Hui of Liang. The King was standing over a pond. ‘Are such things enjoyed even by a good and wise man?’ said he, looking round at his wild geese and deer.
>‘Only if a man is good and wise,’ answered Mencius, ‘is he able to enjoy them. Otherwise he would not, even if he had them.

>>24459583
>as a protestant??

That post was my first post in this thread so, maybe another anon, or are you speaking for your self? I was raised atheist and read the Bible for my own curiosity when I was 29.
I think the only corruption free Christian Church is the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian.

As to your other points, lets discuss them;

Firstly I would agree, that 90% of practitioners on both sides are just going with the flow but not in the way the Tao would recommend. However, I tried to separate my morals from the dogma of the church, at least in my post.

The human intellect can not grasp the fullness of God the Father, however it can understand and emulate the life and philosophy of Jesus Christ. This alone gives more weight to the Christian system for presenting a more relatable end state.

>Do you have any examples of Christian concepts that don't find their analogue in other traditions

Yes. The focus on 2 major points. Forgiveness as a key aspect of your life. And that salvation lies open to all. Not a specific sect of "chosen" people, but to All of us.

And those are the two defining factors of Christianity. You mention the "original sin" aspect of Genesis, and the shame/guilt cycle presented by the Catholic and other Churches is a distortion of the message of the Bible.

That message of course, is that life is worth living. And that God is not finished.

The original nature of man is not my concern honestly, we are living in the hear and now, and the origins of the universe are remote and unknowable. I want

as to your point about
>the Taoist's view of the authentic man

Yes and no, the truly good man, does not go out and try to do good, he simply is. I think that there is merit in the ideas presented about returning to stillness, the un-carved block. That there isn't a need to "correct" everything, as is presented in the opposing philosophies of Confucianisms is apparent by the ideologically superiority of the Tao compared to, it or Buddhism. But I think to your point
> the inexhaustible phenomenological disposition at the mysterious living core of Tao

That is love, that is Jesus Christ, that energy is not outward it is inward, that energy is in your heart. You are you're own worst enemy and you are the adversary that stands in your way. And truly it is a gift to forgive others.

My first read through Thomas wasn't anything noteworthy but, as I said, the interlinear Greek shows a different story, the English translations are all junk. They try to polish his speech to much, the ironic musings are lost.

I think, that any system that leads you to a more spiritual life has value, and I do still think there is merit in Taoism. But it lacks the compassion and accessibility that is there with Christs message.

Christ lays open the way to God the Father, and the best way to live your life, in a way that Taoism does not.

>>24459113
>doesn’t know older sense of the word “science”
>calls others midwits
Welcome to nu/lit/

>>24459854
>doesn’t know older sense of the word “science”
Nigga im just playing, but you really don't get philosophy (in the older sense) if you think its all about knowledge

>>24459874
>if you think its all about knowledge
nta, but what else would it be about?

>>24459984
Transcending a proposition-based worldview for one thing.
Unshakeable internal peace for another.
Ofc this is the older sense of philosophy before it got commoditized

>>24459754
>it can understand and emulate the life and philosophy of Jesus Christ. This alone gives more weight to the Christian system
Where is the justification for this? If you just want to emulate an individual you wouldn't be much worse off if you just picked one from history or even a fictional one from a play or a novel, in fact that's literally what Jesus is, insofar as we know him.

>Forgiveness as a key aspect of your life
This is a part of every single religious tradition. Holding a grudge is impossible to justify in a transcendental sense.
>And that salvation lies open to all. Not a specific sect of "chosen" people
Also not exclusive to Christianity for obvious reasons.

>the shame/guilt cycle presented by the Catholic and other Churches is a distortion of the message of the Bible
Original Sin has little to do with shame or the psychology of man, except maybe on a derivative level. It has metaphysical significance that bleeds into (and indeed informs) every aspect of the Christian cosmology. I don't think you understand your own creed very well, to be honest.

>The original nature of man is not my concern honestly, we are living in the hear and now
We are living in the eternally returning origin. Christ says he is the Alpha and Omega, does he not?
>the origins of the universe are remote and unknowable
Wrong. The principle (from 'in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram' (Fun fact: The Chinese translations of John 1 say, In the beginning was the Dao....)) is nearer to us than the present moment in time, which latter is an abstraction of the concrete reality of the former.
To be unconcerned with the original nature of things is to be unable to let their essence enter into your intellect. The principle or dao has a moral imperative to be known, and indeed is the only moral imperative as such.
Jesus even calls himself the Way. I would say that to know Christ is to know the Way, rather than the Man, although the Man is known by knowing his Way.

>there isn't a need to "correct" everything
There is no need to do anything at all, but Taoism is morally relative, and sometimes the best course (free and easiest) is to correct things, as the Yellow Emperor, who is held up as an exemplar, often does in the Zhuangzi.

>That is love, that is Jesus Christ
Or any other enlightened individual (and doesn't Thomas affirm this?)

>But it lacks the compassion and accessibility that is there with Christs message
I would say Christ himself was perfectly compassionate, but Christianity is by and large not. The way to attain Christ's passions is to tread his Way. The Dao says that the sage 'treats others as straw dogs' and this is really the zenith of compassion if approached with a sober mind.

Still, I think we are more in agreement than not.

>>24460006
All of those things come through knowledge. Anything done through language is concerned with knowledge. You really are a midwit like the guy said.

>>24452796
That messenger is gay af. He was explicitly told to decapitate if refused.

>>24460023
>semantics
>potentiality is actuality
lol okay dimwit

>>24460051
>>semantics
that's you dumb fuck
even the mysticism you posted is a kind of knowledge

>>24460076
>doesnt get the finer subtleties and nuances of the point, either due to a lack of sufficient mental faculties or pride
u gotta chill b and be more humble. Ya got ego out of bounds lol

>>24460092
>doesnt get the finer subtleties and nuances
That's a funny way to refer to your recently downloaded autist delusions, but your mother would really like you to clean your room now.

>>24460022
>>24460022
Hey I appreciate your reply, though replying to any one with a tripcode is against my better judgement.

I disagree with what most of you said, yet I would also agree with your last point, that we are more in agreement than not on most points.

Firstly I do not think there is another person in history or literature whose life and teachings can be emulated with the same transformation effect as Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, ie the personality of God the Father, is not a warrior, not a conqueror, his message and his way are unique, though many touch on or get close to his greatness.

Love your enemies, forgive every one, the path to salvation and to God lies open to "anyone" "everyone" all of us.

That concept is not universal at all, not then, not now. Especially not from the group Jesus came to save initially.

These 5 points are unique to Christ.

1. Love of enemies

“Love your enemies, bless those who curse you...” (Matt 5:44)

This goes beyond mere forgiveness or non-attachment found in Taoism or Buddhism. The explicit active love toward enemies is rare and radically unique.

2. Personal relationship with God as Father

In Taoism, the Tao is impersonal, beyond relation.

Jesus teaches “Our Father”, not some distant principle. This frames human life within a personal love relationship with the Creator.

3. Incarnation — God becomes man

The Tao does not become flesh. No other major system claims the Source of all things willingly enters human frailty for the purpose of redeeming it.

4. Victory through self-emptying love

Not by force, law, mystical attainment, or esoteric knowledge.

The Cross is a complete inversion of all world systems of power. This is truly absurd to the philosophical mind — a God who triumphs through death, humility, and forgiveness.

5. Grace over merit

Taoism, Buddhism, and most systems rely on cycles of karma, merit, or inner attunement.

Jesus offers grace: the unearned gift of union with God through trust in Him. This is unparalleled.

As for the unknowable nature of the origins of the universe, I was referring to the scientific or cosmological origins of the universe, which remain unknowable to us in their ultimate causality. Knowing the Logos or Tao as living principle is another matter entirely — one which, I would argue, is most clearly revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

>>24460278
Jesus is just one enlightened teacher among thousands and all of this, if not AI slop, is just Christian dogma. You also got nothing out of reading all those books if you think the Tao is a distant platonic principle and that enlightenment is a function of karma and merit.

>>24455546
This, philosophy was always just a branch of religion.

>>24460624
>Jesus is just THE ONE.
Fixed that for you. No Ai slop here nigger.

Just opinioins you can't handle.

I read all those books, and I was not "raised" Christian, infact I identified as a Toaist in my early 20's.

Clearly your nigger brain can't even read my full post becuase I said time and and again, the Tao is God the Father, not some
>distant platonic principle

Read the Bible and grow out of your obsession with Asian culture. Fag.

>>24461087
>No Ai slop here nigger.
Sorry, your style, diction, and midwitted bullet points are very similar to how current model large language models operate.
>can't even read my full post
I read it with all of its non-sequitur.
>Jesus is just THE ONE.
[Proof still needed.]
>the Tao is God the Father, not some
>distant platonic principle
This is just semantics. God the Father is literally in Plato's Timaeus. This is why you start with the Greeks.

>>24461216
Nice non-answer faggot.

Put my comments into your shitty ai and ask it if its AI generated? You just can't handle someone who has read all your books only to disagree with you.

Seriously, can't even believe I'm talking to some nigger who thinks Jesus Christ was a fictional character.

Go goon in your cave until enlightenment comes from your "inner stillness" or whatever gay shit you think you get from all your intellectual posturing.

>>24461271
>Nice non-answer faggot.
What would you like me to answer? You haven't asked anything.

>thinks Jesus Christ was a fictional character
Nowhere have I said this.

Anyway, I'm glad this conversation went the way it did because it serves to perfectly highlight the average level of intelligence and spiritual development of this type of christfag.

>>24461281
>ask my why I believe in Christ
>completely ignore all my points about the uniqueness of Christian philosophy
>say insane shit like this gem

> "a fictional one from a play or a novel, in fact that's literally what Jesus is"

>Claim my post is midwit tier and ai generated
>give no backing or augmenter
>claim intellectual superiority based on nothing but your own mental masturbations

There is a reason your life is shit and you are posting in this thread trying to justify your wasted degree and time.

I have nothing but pity for you as, the answers to your problems lie before you yet you choose to wallow in your own self doubt.

The conversation "went" this way because you ignored all of what I said and rambled on about bull shit unrelated to the discussing at hand.

>>24461389
I also equated him to a historical character... because that's literally what he is. Anything written down in a text is equivalent to that you dimwit. Check out the discrepancies between the gospel accounts sometime. A good chunk of it has to be false just by logic.

>give no backing or augmenter
You fail to read just as you fail to write.

>There is a reason your life is shit and you are posting in this thread trying to justify your wasted degree and time.
The seethe is so palpable that you're spouting headcanon now. >>>/x/

>I have nothing but pity for you as
That sort of narcissistic flailing is part of your sanctimonious religious system, so I can imagine. Other spiritual traditions do not think about you at all.

>self doubt
Actual projection. Taoism has nothing to do with faith in the first place.

>>24461496
tldr you are a turbo fag

>>24458038
Not that anon with the Taoist texts but there are some really strange coincidences between some teachings and sayings of the Tao Te Ching, and Christ’s sayings and teachings in the Gospels. I didn’t have to read the book by Hieremonk Damascene to see them. They’re pretty compelling and leap out if you have familiarity with the TTC and the Gospels. Some Christians can also have a pseudo-perennialist view, holding that other cultures could’ve understood something or been inspired in some ways also by the Word of God, or the Logos, even while they privilege Christ as the supreme exemplar of Divine Truth in human person.