[FrustratedMonky]

Would probably stand up to the test of time, say a little better than if we put the bible under some testing for "verified via some kind of socioeconomic data analysis".

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.

[umanwizard]

> it says right at the beginning, that the ideas can't be communicated by language

If that’s true, why bother reading further?

[dudefeliciano]

That is the irony of the whole thing, it starts out: The Dao that can be talked about is not the Real/Eternal Dao - then proceeds to talk about it for 81 chapters. He was just funny like that.

[pierat]

It's not an irony.

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.

[dudefeliciano]

I mean, maybe it was unintended, but you can't deny the irony.

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.

[bovermyer]

If you can't describe a thing, then you have to talk around it and hope you given the listener enough contextual clues that they figure it out for themselves.

Given that, 81 chapters seems appropriate for an amorphous subject that we can't yet define in language.

[d-z-m]

Sometimes language is used, to point to that which is beyond language.

[pierat]

What does sugar taste like?

Can you describe it by not using 'sugary' or 'sweet' as descriptors? Can you define it using no other sense or emotion words?

[SanderNL]

“Stop eating salt. Take a piece of chocolate. Eat it.”

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.

[FrustratedMonky]

Guess because you have to try.

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.

[MadSudaca]

It's like courting a woman. If you're too direct in your communication, you will lose. When trying to make your philosophy expand, if you're too direct in your communication, there won't be anything to speculate about, making its discussion short-lived.

[mcguire]

Have you seen the amount of ink used by analytic philosophy?