For example, the following could be verified via some kind of socioeconomic data analysis:
>Do not glorify the achievers
>So the people will not squabble
As for the Tao Te Ching, many interesting ideas can be extracted on how to deal with contemporary challenges.
Part 1 introduces the basic philosophical, religious and scientific concepts that will be drawn upon throughout the course, and then goes on to cover early Shang and Zhou religious thought, the Analects of Confucius, the Daodejing (a Daoist text attributed to Laozi), the utilitarian thinker Mozi, the newly discovered and very exciting Guodian texts, and the momentous philosophical changes that occurred in the mid Warring States period.
https://www.edx.org/learn/humanities/university-of-british-c...
Excellent course on this period's philosophy.
First, it wasn't clear when the Tao Te Ching was written. Anyway, the political philosophy that survived and emerged "victorious" during the turbulent periods was the legalist school of thought, which was like Lao Tzu and Confucius married and had a child together. The Taoist ideas of Wuwei (non-action) morphed into the idea of automation via laws and regulations. Their logic was that rulers are not supposed to do the work themselves because it would not "scale". In the end, Qin, who went all in on legalism, having made the whole kingdom a terrifying economic and military machine governed by strict regulation (incidentally, informed by "behavioral economics"), conquered all the other states.
The Taoist ideas we know from Tao Te Ching only gained prominence after the legalist school was dealt a deadly blow due to the quick dissolution of the Qin empire. The new elite (that of early Han) thought that the harshness of strict laws and cutthroat competition were the cause of the empire's collapse. It was only then that the "take it easy", "small government" kind of Taoist ideas took hold.
I would suspect the “take it easy” part took root due to the strictness of legalism. Indeed, there’s verses in the TTC that I see as a criticism to legalism, for example, 74.
Really, it says right at the beginning, that the ideas can't be communicated by language, these are some pretty aloof descriptions. Not sure testing is how we should value ancient texts.
The Art of War is held up as some great text, but it has a lot of contradictions, and bad advice. (Not sure on this) Wish I had link, but apparently it was not used by generals in ancient times, it was more of a puff piece by a non-military writer.
If that’s true, why bother reading further?
Can you describe it by not using 'sugary' or 'sweet' as descriptors? Can you define it using no other sense or emotion words?
You can use language to guide and point. Talking about chocolate is difficult. Pointing to chocolate is not.
Ceasing the consumption of “salt” may be difficult and the “chocolate” in question may be subtle so you may need many intermediate steps.
Nothing we experience can be transcribed into words. Literally nothing. There is not one thing you can experience that’s possible to pin down into script. It’s pointers all the way down.
How do you describe the taste of 'saltiness' to convey the sense of saltiness, if who you're writing to has no understanding of it?
That's the problem with written word. We can write all around, and try to help someone identify the moment the sense happens, but words are incapable of sharing the sense.
The writings about the Dao are so that those looking for it in real life can identify it when they think they find it. Just reading with no doing will never show you the Dao. They describe emotions and senses that writings can never convey.
You don't have taste buds so you'll never understand saltiness, so now let me cover you in salt for you to understand what salt tastes like.
IMO the whole point is about unlearning, not looking for something forcefully, or trying to "get" something. That's just my idea though.
Given that, 81 chapters seems appropriate for an amorphous subject that we can't yet define in language.
Almost everything in the world comes with warning labels.
Does that mean you just sit down and don't move?
There are dozens of branches of religions and philosophy and SCIENCE, that questions the ability of language to pass information, its 'fidelity'.
That doesn't mean you just sit at home and stair at the wall. Thought that is one very valid solution. Actually, just staring at a wall is the way some interpret as the best way to deal with the situation.