‘Yin and Yang’ is a Chinese philosophy that describes "how opposite or contrary forces are actually complementary, interconnected and interdependent in the natural world."
This comes to mean that the opposites need each other to exist.
How could you know how good is a God if there is not an Evil to compare?
Good and Bad are complementary, and none of them can exist without the other. There is no God without Evil or Night without Day.
I've always liked this kind of philosophies...
For instance: Think about a tree. You picture it as an independent 'object' and that’s what it is, somehow. But if you really think about it, you'll see that it doesn't have any independent existence: The rain, falling over its leaves and helping it to keep fed; the wind stirring the branches and spreading its seeds, the soil standing it up and feeding it, the air/oxygen that produces and 'breathes', the seasons, the weather, the sun, the moonlight... Everything is part of the tree. The whole universe helps to make the tree what it is and you can't isolate it from that... That's why we can say that things are empty and meaningless by themselves: because nothing has an independent existence. That's why there is not right without wrong, black without white and so on.
Everything is like this. A mirage, a dream, an illusion... A landscape covered by the white snow's brightness, making everything look nice and beautiful... But beneath that white blanket there is the mud being part of the scene too, even though our willful blindness is helping us to ignore the ugly for not to ‘disturb’ our nice view. But is there. The mud is there and is part of what we consider ‘beautiful’ and ‘good’. You can’t isolate it.
At this stage, I guess we all know that we don't need to be blind to feel the darkness, just like we don't need to have eyes to see that nothing is how it seems.
We are part of a huge Whole.
What we ARE NOT is also helping us to be how WE ARE, and that’s part of us too.
Because the Nothingness is part of the Being.
Thanks for reading.
*cheese dance!*
...and this is how, with an animated gif, I lose now all the credibility right after my serious
philosophical reflection... sigh. I couldn’t help it :/
---
Sorry Eva, I haven't been able to add the food-related words!
Actually, I’ve added most of the words in a very clumsy way (just using them all together)
I’m not very skillful when I’ve to follow some rules :(
Comments
Well, in philosophy, we say that it is impossible to have an infinite chain of dependency. I think this concept is not really complicated to accept, is it?
On the other hand, considering a loop of dependent things is also impossible. Suppose a point on the area of a circle. How is it possible that this point is dependent on the previous point, for example on its left, while that point is also dependent on that firstly supposed point? When you have two points which are dependent on one another, you can not say which one was the cause of the other!
So either of considering a circle or an infinite chain are not logical theories.
Because of the above reasoning, you have no way to suppose a starting point for the whole universe.
I think this our main point of disagreement: You need to believe the circle was drawn by 'someone' and I just think about the circle itself as a whole.
OKay, now let's say for a moment there is a 'God' or 'Superior Being' who made that circle. Now you can keep going further, you can keep asking your question about a 'starting point': the 'starting point' of the circle is a 'God' who made it. Okay so now: What is the 'starting point of God'?? How showed up 'God'?? Who 'made it'?? How that God 'comes to existece'??
Now it happens that your question is infinite too! :) We can always keep asking what is the 'starting point' of everything... and maybe there is none and everything is just like an infinite loop :)
For some reason that I can't get to understand, people who believe in God can't conceive that the Universe is infinite and it wasn't created by anyone. However, is very easy for you to believe that God is infinite and it wasn't created by anyone... And this is very 'funny' for me, because I find more easy, likely and credible the first option :)
Well, about a circle; the area of a circle seem to have no starting point; yet, how a circle comes to existence? You may be confused to find the starting point of a circle if you look at it after having been drawn. But, there is no confusion when you know how it can be drawn. Something out of the circle has created it. For example, you draw a circle using a compass. So, the starting point of that circle is known to you, isn't it?
Zahra, nice to see you here again with more question! :D
I'm glad to discuss about it even if, as I said in my previous comment, all these concepts are too abstract and many things are very hard to explain or understand. I don't understand myself lot of things! :D
Okay, the lines you've emphasized of my blog are those related with religion and as I said in my previous reply, I probably shouldn't have used religious concepts as 'God' and 'Evil' because the message can be mixed and confused.
You said: "Things depend on one another to survive". Yes, that's exactly what I say in my metaphor of the tree: The tree is what it is because it depends on everything around it. The tree is not an independent 'object', but a part of a whole.
Then you also say: "There must be a starting point". Well... can you tell me what is the starting point of a circle? :)
It's interesting that you mention the circle yourself but you say it's 'confusing'. Actually, the circle has been always a symbol of the absolute and the perfection. The Earth and the Sky. It's everything but 'confusing'! That's how I believe is the Universe... Like a circle without beginning or end (infinite) where everything is interconnected :)
Good challenging blog! ;)
The whole world is a complex system. Things depend on one another to survive. Now, this whole world, altogether, as a box, doesn't need another being to be dependant on?
I say there must be a starting point. This starting point should not be dependant, otherwise, there becomes a confusing circle with no starting point.
And now, if that independent starting point is to be described, there may need to be other things so that it can be describable! You see, the existence of this starting point is not dependent. The other beings who are dependent on it, using themselves and other dependent beings, try to describe that starting point and name it.
Dear Marry, thanks for your attention and broad response.
I have a comment on one of the statements in your blog.
You said:
then:
OK, now suppose that something exists. You can call it anything. Does it need another thing to be called something?
I think maybe describing a being needs a complementary or something with different and contrary descriptions, but it does not mean that its being and existence is dependant on that other thing with contrary description. For example, I say something. So my words exist. Now to know that it was either a false or true statement, you need to know the fact about which I am talking. But, it does not mean that my words do not exist unless you know that real fact, or unless a real fact exists at all to be talked about!
I hope that I was clear enough here!
What do you say?
Zahra! Sorry, I didn't notice your comments before, it's very nice to see you here and I'm glad that you're asking so many questions! :D
I think your questions are not as 'abstract' as what I wrote on my blog and they are related with some concepts of your religion... I'm gonna try to reply the best I can, taking in mind that i'm not any philosopher myself!
Okay first off, you ask how can we know what is 'good' and what is 'bad' and not to 'mix it'... Well, what is 'right/good' or 'bad/wrong' depends on which moral codes are you using to measure ("What is 'good' for the spider, is 'bad' for the fly") We basically decide what is 'good' or 'bad' for us, but that's not the question in my blog; what I try to set out is that you can't know what is 'positive' if there is not a 'negative' and viceversa. You can establish later that 'positive' is gonna be 'good' and 'negative' is gonna be 'bad' and make a rule to follow that statement. But the thing is that you need two opposites to make a distinction; otherwise there is nothing to distinguish.
Your second question is also complicated to explain because is very related with the belief that there has to be something/someone who 'creates' everything. Here I could reply talkin' about science, but that's not the topic and neither is part of the topic to talk about a 'creator'.
You said: "OK, suppose that there existed nothing"... if you can say that there is a 'nothing', then it's because there is a 'something'. Again, you can't be aware of the first one if there is not an opposite. Imagine you're living in a 2D world and you see crossing the sky a 3D ball. Then I ask you to explain how was that 3D ball. The only way your 2D experience can explain how is the 3D ball is saying that it was a circle very small that was becoming gradually big and then small again... You just can understand the 3D ball as a 2D object because you don't have any other references. In this way, you can't even know/understand what is 'nothing' if there is not the reference of the 'everything' and viceversa. One is impossible to understand without the other.
But anyway, all these are very abstract concepts and probably I shouldn't have used religious concepts as 'God' and 'Evil' because the message can be mixed and confused, as I can see for your comments. But I appreciate all your questions! :)
I wish I could know more about philosophy to explain myself better! Sorry if I didn't make myself clear...
Thanks for reading!
By the way, good to see you sharing your thoughts! Thanks.
Something else to ask. OK, suppose that there existed nothing. Now, how could being come to existence without any other thing but nothingness? So if this supposition does not make sense, we have to say the there existed a being and then nothingness could then be somehow created!
Can you answer this using your philosophy?
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next