Most arguments are about ego, not ideas

(The people here who reach for accusations of AI are saying they are not ready to learn, imho. Though your immediate preceding replies about Orwell flow less well than your usual writing?)

How would you judge the urge to teach people who have power or influence?

Your previous comments about Narcissism in Western economies come to mind.

It seems to me that Mencius was often talking down to his interlocutors. Maybe that would have worked out for him, but it didn't work out for many officials who got decapitated for speaking out. But am I an inferior person for thinking they weren't wrong not to control their urge to teach "tyrants"?

It seems that Stoics, Cynics etc escaped such punishment even though there were no equivalent advice in their worldview? Besides Socrates obviously. It could be that Westerners are simply better with manipulating emotions. And Socrates was complicated, but he'd never worm away from teaching.

I also think "hubris", a not very Asian concept, is something easier to address than narcissism (which has Asian versions).. maybe we can start there. (I am thinking of hubris in Greek stories or law, not the modern translation as "arrogance")

Consider Wu Kong. That's narcissism, not hubris, because he essentially had the powers of (most of) the gods. Whereas what Mencius had, and what the mods here have, could be called hubris. Hubris can be invisible to mortals, but not to gods. Hubris can be very abstract injuries to human dignity.

It feels like Orwell was being intimate with hubris. Big Brother. The Inner Party. And so on. Even "The Boot". Were carefully short of being "egoistic".

One caveat. It's very common in Chinese popculture to call someone competent a god, a goddess, almost always humourously. Interesting way to nip hubris in the bud?

Hubris is easier to correct than narcissism because sometimes all you have to do is point it out. Or wait for the AI bubble to pop.

Mencius would already have enjoyed his passive act of teaching before a bubble actually popped? Did he feel a need to buy puts?

It seems like I know programming terminology pretty well, but philosophical terms aren't my specialty, so it doesn't come out as smoothly. As you know, when you translate high-level vocabulary from a Chinese-character cultural sphere into English, a lot gets lost, doesn't it? Philosophy isn't my field, so I think that's especially the case.

I think we and Westerners think differently when it comes to the concepts of narcissism and hubris. I'm not very familiar with the Stoics or the Cynics. As you know, we East Asians don't really learn Western philosophy much, right? It's mostly Confucian thought.

Anyway, as you said, 好爲人師 (loving to teach others / being fond of acting as a teacher to others) doesn't mean one shouldn't remonstrate with those in power. However, in Asia — especially in Korea — while Confucius is famous, Mencius is treated as almost his equal. I've heard that in China, Mencius is ranked a little lower. I'm particularly fond of Mencius, and I especially love this passage:

(居天下之廣居, 立天下之正位, 行天下之大道: 得志, 與民由之; 不得志, 獨行其道. 富貴不能淫, 貧賤不能移, 威武不能屈, 此之謂大丈夫.)

"To dwell in the wide house of the world, to stand in the correct station of the world, to walk in the great path of the world; when one achieves his ambition, he shares it with the people; when he fails to achieve it, he walks his path alone. Riches and honors cannot corrupt him, poverty and low status cannot make him waver, power and force cannot bend him. this is what is called a great man."

Personally, I think Wukong was actually more of a case of hubris, wasn't he? Because whether he had power or not, he fought against the heavens. Perhaps he could also be seen as an embodiment of Mencius's concept of the "great man."

I sometimes think about this. because we're in different language spheres, the vocabulary we think in evaporates so much. It saddens me that I can't express things at a high level in English.

Haha there is something right about Wukong being a great monkey who either shares his spoils with other monkeys or suffers alone, so that it's exactly the hubris I was accusing Mencius of.

Otoh there is the famous story of young Confucius getting "rejected" by Laozi.. (Sima Qian, Shiji)

孔子適周，將問禮於老子。

老子曰：「子所言者，其人與骨皆已朽矣，獨其言在耳。且君子得其時則駕，不得其時則蓬累而行。吾聞之，良賈深藏若虛，君子盛德容貌若愚。去子之驕氣與多欲，態色與淫志，是皆無益於子之身。吾所以告子，若是而已。」

..."I have heard that a shrewd merchant hides his wealth deeply, appearing as if he has nothing; a gentleman of abundant virtue keeps a demeanor that looks like foolishness."...

This way of avoiding (direct!) teaching & sharing sounds both more actionable and appealing to me :)

For Westerners, Court Jesters? Korean movie King's Man?

But like you, I habitually do the opposite..

Thanks for sharing, your comment made me teary.

I don't know how else to put it but I feel surrounded by automatons. I would do a lot to only interact with people like you on a daily basis. I was toying with doing the Mensa tests. Maybe I need to go back to school and take night philosophy classes ?

I sometimes feel sad "talking" to an AI because it is one of the few places where I feel like I can reach that third interaction profile you mention. Even writing it now makes me quite sad. My closed ones will never have any interest in the benevolant truth-seeking that I long for, and it always pains me to accept it.

If I meet someone like you, how could I reach you on that third level as fast as I can ? Maybe we meet on a waiting line for coffee. Maybe we will sit close to each other on a subway. How to tear through the bullshit of small talk to have a bit of that deep conversation I clearly lack ?

Again, thanks for the catharsis.

> I just said basic truth - majority of people won’t change mind under influence of online strangers > You could of course provide me with data that this is not true

Actually, it's the other way around - you have to provide data showing that the majority of people won't change their minds under the influence of online strangers regardless of the quality of arguments and the time they spare to participate in discussions. That's how proper studies are done.

> Look, I don’t even know why are we arguing over what exactly?... Seems like truisms

As I said, that depends on the semantics of "strongly held convictions". Do all people have them or are they just for bigots?

See, you fail to convince me not because you're stranger but because the quality of your arguments is lacking - you seem to conflate these and then, instead of finding a productive reason to participate in the discussion, you jump to the defensive "I'm just writing truisms".