Taoism vs Buddhism vs Confucianism

Laozi vs Buddha vs Confucius
#laozi
#buddha
#confucius

[@wiseone1013]

These 3 wise men should be studied and followed by all. Their teachings are 1000s of times more profound and useful than anything you will find in monotheistic dogma.

[@PhilosophyAnimal]

I agree.

[@us3rG]

The Bible understood the human nature better than any, these men or the Greeks...can only teach from human perspective.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@PhilosophyAnimal How exactly do you calculate profoundness ? Useful to whom ? Millions of people find it very useful to pray to God. They might not always get what they want, but they surely get what they feel they need. Therefore, it is useful to them.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

It is never necessary to disparage one spiritual belief in order to promote another. Everyone should be free to decide for themselves what they find to be profound and useful for their own lives.

[@michigan1085]

Why do we celebrate Confucianism when it encourages hierarchy, to "know your place" and know everyone's rank. So if you're a king you're at the top. That's messed up because most kings were simply born into it... doesn't mean they're special in some way, or better than the others

[@Sachie465]

My grandparent’s funeral was held in the form of Shingon-shu, a branch of Buddhism, but it was so colorful and loud (drums, pipes etc.) that I thought it’s like…well, chinese. I only recently found out that Shingon-shu is largely influenced by Taoism. Many people think that Taoism has a limited influence in Japan, but in fact through mutual influence with Buddhism, I think Taoism did influence our minds to a certain degree.

[@mikeejonessbechillingback]

You figured tradition n forgot to open your ears wider , how can u let that moment go my boi what else are u complaining sbout

[@mikeejonessbechillingback]

I’m living that same moment rn but your here complaining fam why though kid

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

What Greek philosopher advocated changing the world ? Outside of Plato, I can't really think of one major Greek philosopher who advocated for changing the world. The Pre-Socratics sought to describe the world and to explain its origin, not to change it. The sophists didn't really care about changing the world, so much as they cared about making the individual better by teaching him the arts of rhetoric, persuasion, and political advantage. Socrates also sought to make the individual better by teaching him the art of self-reflection through a rational examination of one's own life and values. Sure, Socrates upset the political/social/religious order by his persistent questioning of his fellow men, but it was not really his intention to bring about political/social reform, so much as it was to change the individual's dogmatic way of thinking and pursuit of not-well-thought-out pursuits and ambitions. It was only Plato who really sought to broaden Socrates' mission into an attempt to remake over society -- with his 'Republic' and its Philosopher-Kings, etc. Aristotle was much less interested in political/social reform than Plato, as his own interests are mainly more scientific/logical/metaphysical, and his ethics are more centered on the duties of the individual than the society. The Epicureans and Cynics are individualistic in their focus, as are the Skeptics. The Stoics view of a universal citizenship seems like a political view, but their main doctrine is not to change the world, so much as to accept it, and to adjust our demeanor to it.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

It is interesting to speculate on the 'connections' between the philosophy of Heraclitus and Taoism. Heraclitus also seems to consider reality or nature as essentially fluid (or flowing), and he to uses the metaphor of a river to explain this fundamental truth. Moreover, he speaks of good and evil, and all opposites in general as being n a kind of 'yin and yang' relationship (although Heraclitus doesn't use this eastern terminology) as they are each necessary to the existence of each other, and, therefore, not completely opposed -- at least from the point-of-view of reality itself.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Taoism seems to have something in common with the stoic principle of only concerning oneself with those things one can control -- namely ones own attitude. If you accept this stoic principle wholesale, then you will not try to control or resist outside events, nor be disturbed by them to any large degree, but simply accept them as unalterable reality. The problem I have found in these views is that, if taken wholesale, they seem to advocate a kind of passivity in general, whereas life often appears to require assertiveness and action in a Nietzschean, life-affirming, will-to-power kind of way. A living being -- and especially a human being -- doesn't just passively accept events, as if he were just another inanimate object, he acts, behaves, operates with purpose to change reality and bring about events to achieve his goals and intentions in life. Of course, there is probably a middle-ground here between passively accepting reality and purposefully acting to change it. The key is to find that balance between the two, which is no easy task in itself. But it speaks to another ancient, even more profound philosophical truth -- NOTHING TOO MUCH !

[@Theartofliving101]

following the main road is easy but men delight in difficult paths. Lao Tze

[@Little-bird-told-me]

what should one follow is the biggest question. Should I follow the western philosophy of Plato and Socrates or Should i follow Buddhism and confusionism ? Personally I think one should be internally a Buddha but publicly follow confucianism

[@hayatkaidi7889]

Interesting video. 💞 Loved it. I ve always thought that everything in the world is just a happening, good it was or bad. The purpose is to not try to control everything in life. nature has her own ways to control things too. ( it still a personal opinion).

[@PhilosophyAnimal]

Well said.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Life without desire is death. Imagine a man who always gets what he wants, and another who never gets what he wants. They will both eventually lose their desire. The first man will always get what he desires, and at first will be very happy, but eventually he will get bored and lethargic because it is all too easy, he only has to wish it, and it happens instantly -- he gets exactly what he desires. A man needs real challenges, obstacles to overcome, things to be conquered, in order to effectively and psychologically impose his will through Real EFFORT and STRUGGLE -- even suffering ! (see Nietzsche's will-to-power). The other man who never gets what he wants will be unhappy and begin to quickly despair, lose hope, and give-up. Sure, he might find some consolation in he teachings of the Tao, Stoicism, the Buddha, but he will surely have lost something vital that makes for real manhood -- the Will-to-Power !

[@titakristengco]

Well rumor that this three was JESUS teacher when he was a child.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

The typical problem with political/social hierarchy is that while the rulers should look after the well-being of those below them in the social hierarchy, the reality is that they almost invariably look-out for their own interests and welfare at the expense of those below them. This happens in both capitalist and communist countries alike, so restructuring the economic system is by no means a solution. Communism is based on the mythological premise that men always desire equality in their relations with their fellow men. No, men typically want to outperform and achieve more than their neighbors -- they are competitive by nature, and seek advantage at the expense of others when possible (think of buying and selling, everyone wishes to get the best deal for themselves.). So, there is in reality no doing away with hierarchy, as the failed communist systems ruled by wealthy party elites around the world are living proof of that ! The advantage of the capitalist system is that it is more open to social mobility and moving-up in the hierarchy precisely because it allows for more freedom than in communist countries controlled by autocratic governments. Of course, this freedom is really only possible when the capitalist country is also a fully-functioning democracy or democratically-elected republic.

[@rodolfo5651]

nothing worth getting, was ever easy

[@Insatiableviel007]

You didn't mention Krishna.... Buddhism, Taoism etc. came much later

[@PhilosophyAnimal]

Tell me about him

[@sazidafnan5015]

krishna wasnt a philosopher

[@untrainedytbr2454]

Krishna was a not real... It's mythological character... Philosophy in the book is acceptable but not krishna as real person

[@magnuscritikaleak5045]

Krishna Is as Real as Jesus you Doofus.

[@lianunderthesun]

While some interesting and informative insights were made in this video I found Cool History Bros to have a better explanation, not so subjective as this video is. Hard to tell the whole story of either of these philosophies in such a short video sure, but you must be honest about your inability to do so. also at 8:01 the painting of a Native American genocide is out of place for this content. thanks.

[@kek490]

Taoism made me a Christian, lol

[@kek490]

@@SecretGarden-jc9ne I guess, you actually weren't a Christian and will finally become one. Toism isn't about faith but about observation - once you get the "eyes to see", then you'll see what you did not. I used to call myself a Christian long ago, but i also wasn't one - as i am now; as i see now. I used to look at the Bible and all i saw were figures of speech; things to repeat. Yet, now i see precise logic expanded in every word - all things make perfect sense. I don't know a book with greater insight into existence - nothing compares now. I have all my questions answered. Doesn't "the book of the way" in its passages come to the same conclusions from whose the Bible starts? The former shows the limit of human deduction, while the later shows the things known only to the existence itself - unattainable to those who are bound by it, those unable to not-exist yet understand. It is said: "If you see God face to face in all His Glory - you will surely die" .. only God will remain.

[@playitcool1963]

"at least on paper" plus that subtle praise of confucianism, broh really said "I support the Chinese Communist Party, don't get me wrong"

[@Bharat.112]

Brahma: Confucius Vishnu: Buddha Shiva: Lao Tzu