Taoism revisited

Since I wrote my first article on Taoism, I've read some different versions of the Tao Te Ching. I'd like to recommend the book by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo as a good place to start if you are interested in learning about Taoism ("Tao Te Ching", 1993, Hackett Publishing).

This version presents a mostly literal translation that preserves a lot of the characteristics of the original Chinese. Like the original, it is terse and ambiguous, with a poetic feel. This book leaves the interpretation up to the reader, rather than trying to explain everything.

If you would like to dig deeper into the Tao Te Ching, there are two books by Robert Henricks that I recommend. These books are based on recent discoveries of ancient versions of the Tao Te Ching, and contain more discussion about the text. One of the books is called "Lao-Tzu Te-Tao Ching" (1989, Ballantine Books), and is based on mostly complete texts found at Ma-wang-tui. The second book is called "Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching" (2000, Columbia University Press). This book is a translation of texts found at Guodian, which are a subset of the traditional Tao Te Ching, with a different ordering of the chapters.

Both of these books give the reader a better feel for the problems of translation of this text, and also talk about the meaning of some of the more obscure passages.

First steps: Ecclesiastes

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full" - Ecclesiastes 1:7.

Ecclesiastes talks a lot about the futility of human efforts. Other famous quotes along these lines include "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecc 1:9) and "vanity of vanities; all is vanity" (Ecc 12:8). I wonder if he might change his mind if he saw some modern technology. Would he count a Ford Mustang as something new? Or is it perhaps just another version of a chariot, and not truly new?

Anyway, Ecclesiastes goes on to consider all the activities of people, and one by one he concludes that they are ultimately futile. He was a great king who collected treasures and built great works, but in the end it was all vanity and vexation of spirit. Then he turned to collecting wisdom, instead of material possessions, but he realized that the wise man dies the same as the fool.

Justice seems to be in short supply in his view. He has seen a good man who died young and a wicked man that lived long (Ecc 7:15). He also observes that no one can control the events of their lives. The swift don't always win the race, and the strong don't always win the battle, but chance happens in all things (Ecc 9:11). People who are born into an evil time will lead troubled lives, through no fault of their own. Yet, as long as there is life, there is hope, so it is better to be alive, and even a living dog is better than a dead lion (Ecc 9:4).

In the end he concludes that the ways of God are a mystery that we can't understand. So it is best to treasure the good that comes into our lives, and enjoy the simple pleasures of life, while not forgetting the dark days that we have experienced. Charity is also a good thing, because while you may be well off today, and able to help others, in the future the situation might be reversed. You never know today what will happen tomorrow.

One interesting observation in Ecclesiastes is that people and animals have a lot in common. "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; ... as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast" (Ecc 3:19). This raises an interesting ethical point. If people are truly not different in kind from the animals, then is it right to use them the way that we do?

Most of the early philosophies place mankind in a special category that is different from the beasts, and so they don't seriously consider this question. Even this remark in Ecclesiastes is only made in passing, and not expanded on. Still, it is the earliest reference that I know that questions the special nature of mankind.

First steps: Taoism

It's interesting how both the English and the Chinese words for path carry the same dual meaning. It can refer to the way to travel to a particular destination, or it can refer to a way of life. Perhaps this analogy between finding a path out of the forest and finding your way in life is something that comes naturally to humans everywhere.


Taoism gets its name from the Chinese word meaning way (above). This is the first word of a Chinese text that was supposed to have been written by the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu. See the Wikipedia article on the Tao Te Ching for more details, and also the one on Taoism.

The Tao Te Ching is a short book of 81 chapters, and each chapter is a self-contained verse of ten to twenty lines. So it's a quick read, although it is a bit strange to try and read it straight through. The topics change frequently, and there is a lot of juxtapositions of opposites in the verses. It might be better just to flip around and read chapters at random.

The quotes in this article are from the Jonathan Star translation.

The Tao seems to be some underlying principle of the universe, present in all things, eternal and unchanging. "I do not know its name, so I call it Tao" (chapter 25). When you live in harmony with Tao, then you are natural, simple, selfless, truthful, and content.

Taoism is skeptical about learning and the rituals that the Confucians promoted. "True words are not born of the mind" (chapter 81) and "If you need rules to be kind and just, ... this is a sure sign that virtue is absent" (chapter 18).

The Tao Te Ching gives out advice to rulers, warriors, and ordinary people. This advice is often the opposite of what you might expect, so that warriors, for example, are advised to not regard their opponent as an enemy and to fight without anger. Rulers are urged to place themselves below the people, and to lead as if behind them. People are told to be happy by having less (and also desiring less). Regard the easy as difficult, and the difficult will become easy.

---

This constant contrariness wears on you after a while, but it provides some interesting things to think about. The point I would like to consider is the contrast between acting naturally and acting according to ritual (as in Confucianism). Last week I was playing a chess game, and I made a mistake in the opening. After a long struggle, I lost the game.

I was a bit upset, mostly at myself for blundering, but I congratulated my opponent on a well played game, and shook his hand. After all, he had played well, and it wasn't his fault that I screwed up. This is behaving according to ritual, so I suppose that this makes me a Confucian, at least in this instance.

But if I were to act naturally, I might have banged my fist on the table, swore, and stomped off. Is this what a Taoist would advocate? Somehow, I don't think so. But what is the right thing to do in a case like this? Perhaps the root of the problem is my desire to win, which leaves me angry when I lose. The Taoist answer, then, is to lessen my desire, so that I don't feel this way. Then I can admire the game as if I were a bystander.

This answer strikes me as a bit impractical, although it is perhaps a goal to strive towards. As a practical matter, I'd prefer to live in a society were there was at least some respect for ritual. It's these social niceties that allow us all to get along, at least until we reach that state of perfection where our passions no longer rule us.

---

The most famous Taoist quote is probably this one: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" (chapter 64).

First steps: Confucianism

First steps: Confucianism

"Lead the people with administrative injunctions and put them in their place with penal law, and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them with excellence and put them in their place through roles and ritual practices, and in addition to developing a sense of shame, they will order themselves harmoniously. " (Analects II, 3)

See Confucianism, where I got that quote above, for a more detailed discussion of Confucianism.

Confucianism seems obsessed with maintaining order, which makes it a difficult philosophy to love. Is it really our highest goal to lead an orderly (harmonious) existence? But you have to like the way they go about it. Instead of having a bunch of laws, if you could instill in people an understanding of their role in society, and a sense of shame, then they would take care of themselves.

It's interesting how this relates to the idea of reason in Stoicism (see my earlier post on Stoicism). In the modern world, it seems that the idea of the individual rising above his environment is more prevalent, but both of these ancient philosophies promote the idea of living harmoniously with your environment.

Perhaps it has to do with the idea of progress. Progress is something we take for granted today, but in ancient societies life was much more chaotic. Any fledgling attempts to improve the conditions of life generally could be wiped out in a moment by an invading army.


But let's return to that part about roles and ritual practices (that's the Chinese character for rite, above). Ritual practices in Confucianism has a different meaning than it does in the west. It's not talking about large ceremonial gatherings like weddings or baptisms, but rather about day to day activities.

Examples of this kind of ritual practice are how a child should behave when talking to an elder, or how a guest should greet his host. Behaving properly according to these rules helps make it clear to everyone what a person's role in society is. But to be truly effective, it has to be more than lip service, you have to be sincere. When you sincerely engage in these ritual acts, you naturally come to feel the respect that the ritual calls for.

There seems to be a good understanding of human psychology in this aspect of Confucianism. It's been shown that when you act humble, or excited, or happy, then you start to feel the corresponding emotion. So by performing these ritual acts, you are improving your character by making it more consistent with your place in society.

---

Now, you might not be so happy with this philosophy if you don't like the basic hierarchical model of society that it implies. It does seem to be a danger with this philosophy that it could be used to reinforce an existing model of society and work against change, even when change is needed. But there are a few characteristics of Confucianism that work against despotic tendencies.

One of these is the idea that a ruler needs to cultivate personal virtue. A ruler's virtue will be reflected in his or her domain. But if a ruler lacks humanity, then the subjects will fail to act humanely as well, and then the ruler runs the risk of losing authority and position. This idea seems to parallel Plato's ideal of the philosopher king.

The idea of meritocracy and the nobility of virtue in Confucianism also opposes to some degree the idea of a rigid hereditary ruling class. A person is noble by reason of virtue, and not by birth. Rulers should be those who are best qualified to rule.

---

OK, we can't leave Confucianism without at least mentioning the Confucian version of the golden rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you".

First steps: Stoicism

Check out the Wikipedia explanation of Stoicism. I liked finding out the origin of the name, which has nothing to do with being stoic. (That's a teaser - go read the article to find the answer.) Anyway, being called stoic sounds much better than being called a Zenonian, like you were an alien from the planet Zeno.

Stoicism seems like a coherent and understandable philosophy, although I have some trouble with this part: "The stoics considered passionate emotions to be the result of errors in judgment ... ". That doesn't seem right to me. I'm more inclined to take the evolutionary view of emotions. We have emotions because they perform a useful function. Of course an emotional response isn't always correct or appropriate, but sometimes it is. Sometimes it is important in life to respond emotionally, even passionately. I like the Mr. Spock persona (from Star Trek, not the baby doctor), but I wouldn't want to be that way all the time.

But the stoics had a lot more to their story. The stoic idea of logic or reason was much broader than what we think of as logic today. It incorporated the idea of understanding the natural world and how it functions. So when the stoics say that you ought to follow where reason leads, they are saying more than just use your head. They are saying that you should try to align yourself with the world.

From this point of view, people are unhappy when they willfully oppose or resent the natural course of events. Sort of like standing in front of a steam roller. Stuff happens and if you don't want to become part of the pavement, you should get out of the way. On the other hand, if you can arrange your thoughts and attitudes so that they conform with nature, then you can achieve happiness.

Another appealing feature of stoicism is their idea that all people should be treated the same, regardless of position or wealth. They had this concept of the universe as a single living entity, and individuals are manifestations of this universal spirit. So under the skin we are all equal, and we should treat each other with respect and mutual support.

Maybe this is the best feature of Stoicism. This idea, although a bit mystical for my taste, does provide a rationale for a humanistic morality. Each individual has intrinsic worth, because every one holds a share of this universal spirit.

First steps: Pragmatism

I wanted to start with pragmatism because of an idea that I remember as being associated with this philosophy. It is the idea that we choose a particular philosophy because we find it congenial, not because of its intrinsic merit.

I went looking on wikipedia for the reference, but I can't find it now. Anyway, here's a pointer to the wikipedia article on pragmatism.

What I like best about pragmatism is the idea that you can judge an idea or a philosophy by its results. If you find that adopting a particular philosophy leads to horrific acts or terrible depression, then just don't go there! No need to bogged down in long chains of logic.

But pragmatism, for me, doesn't really work as an axiom or a basis for philosophy. I see it more as a sanity check. Or perhaps as a tool, something to be used in philosophy like Ockham's razor for science.

The problem is that I am interested in issues of ethics and morality, and I would like to establish a philosophical basis for discussions on these topics. When the pragmatic test is applied, it pre-supposes some ethical or moral standards. So there is a problem of circular reasoning if I were to use pragmatism as this basis.

Returning to the first point in this post, pragmatism is a philosophy that I find congenial, so far as I understand it, but it doesn't seem to work for my intended application. So in subsequent posts I will attempt to identify a philosophy (or philosophies) that is both congenial to me and suitable for use in discussions on ethics and morality.

Dead blog?

OK, so I haven't posted here in over two years, sorry about that. I have some more time now, so maybe I will try to revive this blog. I would like to post some philosophical speculations here. If you have anything that you would like to say about people, the universe, or everything, this is the place.

- J.