Tweet

@Mariusj001

https://twitter.com/mariusj001/status/1620554193227620352

More from @Solzi_Sez

Sol 太阳 쏠

@Solzi_Sez

Jan 31

https://twitter.com/solzi_sez/status/1620209607036764160

Thousands of years ago, Chinese civilization already had this debate: “individualism vs society.” 🧵

There’s something relevant here, in these conversations from 300 BC, for understanding both 1) East Asia, and 2) America’s failed path.

https://twitter.com/solzi_sez/status/1620209607036764160

Do we even destroy our human relationships, and cannibalize our nation state, all for the sake of individualistic profit?

Or, do we strengthen human relationships, with applied moral philosophy, and then profit as a whole civilization down the road?

Two ways, 二道! /2

Yang Zhu was essentially Milton Friedman “the only moral responsibility (of business) is profits for ourselves.” But how did that work? That philosophy of selfishness was that of the Warring States, which was a time of war and chaos lasting hundreds of years. /3

Read 7 tweets

Sol 太阳 쏠

@Solzi_Sez

Jan 29

A thread on Neo-Confucian “quiet-sitting.” 🧵 #靜坐 #정좌

I’ll cover the most illuminating quotes from Zhu Xi’s correspondence on the matter of Confucian “jìngzuò” vs Sino-Buddhist meditation.

For China, meditation wasn’t a tradition in ancient times (500 BC). It was introduced by Buddhism (~400 AD). But those ritual structures were largely dismantled by the “Zen” Buddhist revolution (~900 AD), which were then effectively vanquished by the Neo-Confucians (1200 AD). /2

Zhu Xi noted the lack of this tradition in ancient times, yet masters were able to penetrate reality without it…

“You raised the question that Cheng Yi at times also taught people quiet-sitting. However, Confucius, Mencius, and earlier stages did not have such a teaching.” /3

Read 12 tweets

Sol 太阳 쏠

@Solzi_Sez

Feb 23, 2022

“If everyone refrains from sacrificing even a single hair on their own head and if everyone refrains from benefiting the world, the world will be in order.”—Yang Zhu (d.360 BC) #楊朱

Q: Is this not Milton Friedman’s doctrine?

Discussion: It occurs to me how similar this Warring States philosophy is to the current philosophy of liberalism, especially Friedman’s neoliberalism. They are all extremist doctrines of selfishness which deny responsibility to, or even recognition of, civilization. /2

As Friedman famously said “There is one and only one social responsibility of business: to increase its profits.”

In his philosophy, if everyone pursues their own greed an “invisible hand” will magically bring the world into order. This is indeed Yang Zhu’s same doctrine! /3

Read 6 tweets

Sol 太阳 쏠

@Solzi_Sez

Jul 7, 2021

“The world was well governed in earlier ages because of sages. It was well governed in later ages because of sages. The virtue of sages earlier or later was not different, and therefore good government in earlier ages and today is not different.”—Wang Chong, Han dynasty

“The nature of earlier ages was the same as the nature of later ages. Nature does not change, and its material forces do not alter. The people of earlier ages were the same as those of later ages.”—Wang Chong 2/4

What Wang Chong points out is key in macro historic analysis and forecasting—in our understanding of eternal forces: assume nature, and human nature, have not changed. At least as far as the core rules of the game; this time is probably not different. 3/4

Read 5 tweets

Sol 太阳 쏠

@Solzi_Sez

Mar 28, 2021

The Anglosphere’s entire 300-year model [capitalism + imperialism] is breaking. #SundayThoughts ☕️

2. First, we need an objective review of history. It started with the British—navel based war, colonizing, and “forcing markets open.” Uhh, “free trade,” over the barrel of a white person’s gun.

3. After the British Empire, their model migrated to the United States—today it’s the U.S. military occupying 150 countries, media propaganda to infiltrating societies, forced democracy, USD hegemony, sanctions, and by these means the achievement of globally controlled markets.

Read 9 tweets

Sol 太阳 쏠

@Solzi_Sez

Mar 10, 2021

British academic David Harvey lists typical explanations for capitalism’s crisis:

1. just human nature; greed
2. anglo-cultural origins
3. based on false theory; neoliberalism
4. institutional failure requires reconfiguration
5. failure of govt policy

2. He claims these all have truth. Partly human nature, certain parts are nurtured by American/British cultural roots, it features a central theory which is flawed, and it’s now seeing widespread institutional failures with a lack of policy response.

3. He then offers his British Marxist perspective—it’s a problem of capital accumulation, and resultant excess power of finance capital which crowds out labor and other interests. He concludes we have to first admit this system “is crap,” then change our “mode of thinking.”

Read 9 tweets

Share this page!

Sol 太阳 쏠

People who liked this thread also liked...

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Solzi_Sez

Sol 太阳 쏠

Sol 太阳 쏠

Sol 太阳 쏠

Sol 太阳 쏠

Sol 太阳 쏠

Sol 太阳 쏠

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!