Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
sentential items (actions, events, beliefs) particularly as conclusions of belief plus desire mental arguments. Instead, it focuses on the interplay of The madman Jie Yu said, “This is bogus virtue! To try to govern the world like this is like trying to walk the ocean, to drill through a river, or to make a mosquito shoulder a mountain! When the sage governs, does he govern what is on the outside? He makes sure of himself first, and then he acts. He makes absolutely certain that things can do what they are supposed to do, that is all. The bird flies high in the sky where it can escape the danger of stringed arrows. The field mouse burrows deep down under the sacred hill where it won’t have to worry about men digging and smoking it out. Have you got less sense than these two little creatures?” Cover Image Source: Zhuangzi Dreaming of a Butterfly, by 18th century Japanese painter Ike no Taiga via Wikimedia Commons The proposals put forward by the Confucians, the Mohists , and the Legalists, to name some of the principal schools of philosophy, all are different but all are based on the same kind of commonsense approach to the problem, and all seek concrete social, political, and ethical reforms to solve it. The potter says, “I’m good at handling clay! To round it, I apply the compass; to square it, I apply the T square.” The carpenter says, “I’m good at handling wood! To arc it, I apply the curve; to make it straight, I apply the plumb line.” But as far as inborn nature is concerned, the clay and the wood surely have no wish to be subjected to compass and square, curve and plumb line. Yet generation after generation sings out in praise, saying, “Bo Luo is good at handling horses! The potter and the carpenter are good at handling clay and wood!” And the same fault is committed by the men who handle the affairs of the world!
Only by inhabiting Dao (the Way of Nature) and dwelling in its unity can humankind achieve true happiness and freedom, in both life and death. This is Daoist philosophy's central tenet, espoused by the person-or group of people-known as Zhuangzi (369?-286? B.C.E.) in a text by the same name. To be free, individuals must discard rigid distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong, and follow a course of action not motivated by gain or striving. When one ceases to judge events as good or bad, man-made suffering disappears and natural suffering is embraced as part of life. It is generally agreed that the seven “inner chapters,” all of which are translated here, constitute the heart of the Zhuangzi. They contain all the important ideas, are written in a brilliant and distinctive—though difficult— style, and are probably the earliest in date, though so far no way has been found to prove this last assumption.
Table of Contents
He who knows he is a fool is not the biggest fool; he who knows he is confused is not in the worst confusion. Nivison, David Shepherd (1999). "The Classical Philosophical Writings". In Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward (eds.). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 745-812. ISBN 0-521-47030-7. Roth, H. D. (1993). " Chuang tzu 莊子". In Loewe, Michael (ed.). Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China; Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley. pp.56–66. ISBN 1-55729-043-1. Their big limbs are broken off, their little limbs are yanked around. Their utility makes life miserable for them, and so they don’t get to finish out the years Heaven gave them but are cut off in mid-journey. They bring it on themselves—the pulling and tearing of the common mob. And it’s the same way with all other things. In Plato’s Politeia, active governance is pervasive, while true freedom is highly limited: for the purpose of justice, Plato’s philosopher king has nearly unlimited power and entitlement to political expediency. The two most conspicuous features of Plato’s philosopher’s rule are literary/artistic/musical censorship and the noble lie, both of which represent an attempt to shape or even control citizens’ thoughts. All of these policies, for Zhuangzi, would fall under the category of ‘action,’ which he should firmly reject as bad governance against the Way. Plato’s philosopher actively seeks involvement in governance, and Plato himself went down to Syracuse three times, hoping to realise his political ideal. Zhuangzi, by comparison, declined the offer to become the prime minister of Chu. The critical catch-22 for Zhuangzi is this: once one is driven to ‘action’ by some political ambition, one ceases to be a real philosopher, yet with non-action, the philosopher in minor political roles can have little effect on the reappearance of the age of Perfect Virtue. Therefore, I argue that for Zhuangzi, it is not a problem for the real philosopher to be in politics, but there is no merit to it either. Ultimately, Zhuangzi’s solution to his turbulent time is philosophical inspiration rather than political participation – the king should become a philosopher, but the philosopher should not try to be king.
That a son should love his parents is fate—you cannot erase this from his heart. That a subject should serve his ruler is duty—there is no place he can go and be without his ruler, no place he can escape to between heaven and earth. These are called the great decrees. Therefore, to serve your parents and be content to follow them anywhere—this is the perfection of filial piety.In the words of Laozi, that “he who knows what is enough will not be shamed; he who knows where to stop will not be in danger.” Idema, Wilt; Haft, Lloyd (1997). A Guide to Chinese Literature. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan. ISBN 0-89264-123-1. Both Zhuangzi and Plato should then agree with the conviction that “there would be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till…political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands” (Plato 192). However, it is crucial to note that their conceptions of the real philosopher and the philosopher’s role as ruler are radically different. Plato’s Politeia is a perfect meritocracy: education/examinations are the methods that are employed to distinguish the talented from the mediocre, and thus to select the members of the ruling guardian class. His philosopher, then, is simply the wisest member of the educated elites, knowledgeable, trained in reasoning, and thus able to rule. In contrast, Zhuangzi is deeply concerned about the dangers of human knowledge (知), sometimes even treating it as a vice. The true philosopher, for Zhuangzi, has no human knowledge but grasps the Way itself: his/her mind is emptied and is able to “sit down and forget everything (坐忘).” In many examples in the Zhuangzi, those who grasp the Way are not educated elites, but men from lower classes. Having read multiple ancient philosophical works, I found Taoism, Stoicism and Zen Buddhism to most resonate with me. Zen Buddhism feels like a modern offspring of Taoism, which it to a certain degree is, while Taoism and Stoicism share practical advice to deal with whatever life throws at you (Stoicism is a lot more straightforward about it, though).
What is Zhuangzi’s utopia, the age of Perfect Virtue, like? The following sentence might be the best summary: “Rulers are like the high branches of a tree; the people, like the deer of the fields” (Zhuangzi and Watson 194). The rulers and the people both merely exist and know each other’s existence, but they do not actively interact. Without active social interaction, there would not arise competitions or civil desires and virtues; this is why in the age of Perfect Virtue “the worthy are not honoured” and “the talented are not employed.” For Zhuangzi, the best form of rule is no active human rule at all, but rather the rule of nature, which follows the Way. Yet, as Zhuangzi repeatedly suggests, it is difficult for a ruler to not be moved by the desire for gains or fame and rest content with mere existence. To refrain from active rule is a greater challenge than any form of ‘good rule’: even the ancient sages Yao and Shun failed in it. Therefore, the ruler of Zhuangzi’s utopia must also be one who understands the Way and masters non-action – a philosopher.Knowledge enables men to fashion bows, crossbows, nets, stringed arrows, and like contraptions; but when this happens, the birds flee in confusion to the sky. Knowledge enables men to fashion fishhooks, lures, seines, dragnets, trawls, and weirs; but when this happens, the fish flee in confusion to the depths of the water. Knowledge enables men to fashion pitfalls, snares, cages, traps, and gins; but when this happens, the beasts flee in confusion to the swamps. And the flood of rhetoric that enables men to invent wily schemes and poisonous slanders, the glib gabble of “hard” and “white,” the foul fustian of “same” and “different,” bewilder the understanding of common men. To conclude, Zhuangzi does not argue that philosophers should not be in politics, but that they should follow the principle of non-action to be real philosophers. Unlike Plato, Zhuangzi’s philosophy does not appear to appreciate the possibility of the philosopher becoming the ‘king’; instead, the rulers must be inspired to grasp the Way. In my view, Zhuangzi’s philosophy clearly avoids the danger of a nearly totalitarian meritocracy suggested by Plato, but his views on politics might not be convincing unless one is already convinced by his metaphysical conception of the Way. Dull and unwitting, they have no desire; this is called uncarved simplicity. In uncarved simplicity, the people attain their true nature. trending pro-silence posture. Deeming all 言 yán language as not-可 kě assertible is not 可 kě assertible. The explanation, later Mohists One should therefore think of Confucianism and Daoism in Han times not as rival systems demanding a choice for one side or the other but rather as two complementary doctrines.
He who practices the Way does less every day, does less and goes on doing less until he reaches the point where he does nothing; does nothing and yet there is nothing that is not done. Do not be an embodier for fame; do not be a storehouse of schemes; do not be an undertaker of projects; do not be a proprietor of wisdom. Embody to the fullest what has no end and wander where there is no trail. Zhuangzi’s answer, however, the answer of one branch of the Daoist school, is radically different from these and is grounded on a wholly different type of thinking. It is the answer of a mystic, and in attempting to describe it here in clear and concrete language, I shall undoubtedly be doing violence to its essentially mystic and indescribable nature. Zhuangzi’s answer to the question is: free yourself from the world. Confucius’s, starts from different standards, different 成 chéng constructed commitments to linguisticIn my opinion, someone who was really good at handling the affairs of the world would not go about it like this. The people have their constant inborn nature. To weave for their clothing, to till for their food—this is the Virtue they share. They are one in it and not partisan, and it is called the Emancipation of Heaven. Therefore, in a time of Perfect Virtue, the gait of men is slow and ambling; their gaze is steady and mild. In such an age, mountains have no paths or trails, lakes no boats or bridges. The ten thousand things live species by species, one group settled close to another. The torch of chaos and doubt—this is what the sage steers by. So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity.
Great Deal 
New Comment