"...The man of superior virtue is not (conscious of) his virtue,
And in this way he really possesses virtue.
The man of inferior virtue never loses (sight of) his virtue,
And in this way he loses his virtue..."
(Tao Te Ching, 38)
Most of the people nowadays, specifically those who are entitled to be professionals and authorities, therefore, knowledgeable people are actually the dumb and inefficient ones while those who are believed to be so, is actually more deserving than that of the first. Why is that so? Is it a matter of complacency? Or is it really the truth?
As how Socrates would put it: "To know that you don't know is actually knowing". At first, it would somehow appear absurd, for how come one be "knowing" if what he knows is that, he/she doesn't know anything. But actually, this"not-knowing" is really a kind of knowing/wisdom; it is even the highest of its forms. And such is proved to be true using a lot of theories: (1) It could be that true knowing is associated with humility; when one is humble enough to impose that he/she knows a thing, he /she is actually knowing. (2) It could be that true knowing is associated with that of the insufficiency of man compared to God; when one knows that only God is knowledgeable, and that he/she him/her self is not, then he/she is actually knowledgeable. (3) It could be that of the nature of poles/opposites; that when one knows he/she doesn't know, he/she then actually knows it. These theories and that of the like, however, just gives us an idea that really, man is knowledgeable when one doesn't claim such entitlement, and that he/she is ignorant when he/she claims it.
This is perhaps, although he uses virtuousness instead of knowing, the idea that Lao Tzu is trying to address to us in his assertion (above) found in the Tao Te Ching, 38. That man is virtuous when one is not mindful that he is, and that he is not when he is sentient enough to claim that he is.
(Apology for the late submission [01-29-15]. Reason: No internet connection)
As how Socrates would put it: "To know that you don't know is actually knowing". At first, it would somehow appear absurd, for how come one be "knowing" if what he knows is that, he/she doesn't know anything. But actually, this"not-knowing" is really a kind of knowing/wisdom; it is even the highest of its forms. And such is proved to be true using a lot of theories: (1) It could be that true knowing is associated with humility; when one is humble enough to impose that he/she knows a thing, he /she is actually knowing. (2) It could be that true knowing is associated with that of the insufficiency of man compared to God; when one knows that only God is knowledgeable, and that he/she him/her self is not, then he/she is actually knowledgeable. (3) It could be that of the nature of poles/opposites; that when one knows he/she doesn't know, he/she then actually knows it. These theories and that of the like, however, just gives us an idea that really, man is knowledgeable when one doesn't claim such entitlement, and that he/she is ignorant when he/she claims it.
This is perhaps, although he uses virtuousness instead of knowing, the idea that Lao Tzu is trying to address to us in his assertion (above) found in the Tao Te Ching, 38. That man is virtuous when one is not mindful that he is, and that he is not when he is sentient enough to claim that he is.
(Apology for the late submission [01-29-15]. Reason: No internet connection)
No comments:
Post a Comment