4 ms·
> but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me the a/symmetry of the opening bits in Chinese, visually echoes a taiji: > 道可道， > 非恆道； > 名可名，
by mbivert 8mo ago
> but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me
the a/symmetry of the opening bits in Chinese, visually echoes a taiji:
> 道可道，
> 非恆道；
> 名可名，
> 非恆名。
given the diversity of translations available for those bits, I think it's fair to say that there's room for debate regarding their exact meaning − dare I say
amusingly, by being certain one understand what it means, somehow one really does not. Lao-Tseu may have been way, way wiser than average.
- sifar 8mo agoExactly. It subrly hints at the limitations of language in capturing true understanding. This is something I was impressed with. Almost every other ancient text starts of being full of certainty or being the authoratitve truth.
- mbivert 8mo ago> It subtly hints at the limitations of language in capturing true understanding and that's still one interpretation ^_^ > Almost every other ancient text starts of being full of certainty I can't say for sure about ancient texts, but famous wise men certainly (always?) encouraged a fair amount of humility (e.g. Shakyamuni, Socrates, Jesus, Confucius). But few actually wrote. however, in general, their followers − and popular interpretations − embarrass themselves much less with humility. in case this isn't known to you − I find this delightful − note that the (respectful) "子" suffix used in names (e.g. Lao-tseu is 老子, Confucius is 孔夫子) means "small thing", "seed", "child".