The main philosophical problem, for Lao Tzu, is the absence of the natural harmony; the disorder that is present in nature that is unlike that of Confucius idea of disorder as something that is solely centered to the society. Yes, Lao Tzu agreed that there are really presence of wars and other societal conflicts which of course, inflicts pain and suffering. But for him, it is not the main problem, but rather only a "symptom", a sign/indication of a much more deeper underlying primordial problem. It is like that in a devastating occurrence of a, let's say Tsunami, there is this much more dreadful and massive earthquake that exists. Or let's say, in a excessive devaluation of life, like there are a lot of incidences of suicide or euthanasia, for say, there is a presence of a core problem that causes one to end up his own or another's life.
One example given by Lao Tzu as a pewee problem is the presence of war. For him, such phenomenon is just brought up by a more intense and crucial problem which, for Lao Tzu, is the absence of the Tao. Such absence was somehow best depicted in the Tao Te Ching 46 (1-4), which uses the horse's example; If Tao is present, the horses will be on the fields providing fertilizers (through their carcasses), not on the city gates for war purposes. Thus, it is clear, that war is just an indicator; a branch (not the main problem) of the main problem, which is again the absence of Tao. Clearly, it doesn't mean that once there is no occurrences of war, there is actually no problem at all; because, there is a lot more to worry than such societal (although violent) snag.
Now, if we are to analyze, we can see the difference between the Confucian 'Tao' and that of Lao Tzu's; the Taoist 'Tao'. Confucius speaks of the 'Tao' as something that can be applied through human means like that of the virtues. For him, once the virtues are adhered by the people, 'Tao' would be present. But Lao Tzu, on the other hand, refuted such idea, because for him, the 'Tao' is everywhere; it is all that there is. Well, it could be referred as the universe, but when we say "universe", in a scientific sense, it is just the ever-emerging space which somehow, since is emerging, is not the "boundless" one; it is just a big space that could perhaps have something bigger than it, therefore, it is not the Tao referred here by Lao Tzu, 'cause again, he refers to it as the entirety of all. Such idea of the Tao then can never be totally grasped by the human beings. For him, the people cannot do anything about it, because it is how all the things go, and human beings are just a tiny part such vastness. We can then suggest that such Confucian virtues then is just an alternative; an artificial cure because these human virtues only treat the symptoms of the main problem, not the main problem itself, which is the absence of Tao. The point here is that, it is not the people who can suggest the Way. It is not in their virtues, practices, rituals, etc. that they can achieve the solution to all of these problems. But rather it is for that of the above; the 'One' that could somehow be the one who is responsible for this, and again, not the human beings. That is why, human beings are not encouraged, by Lao Tzu, to act as if they are knowledgeable; that they know how to solve such problems, because actually they are not.
Such idea then of the misleading and faulty knowledge of the people will open the gates of our discussion to that of the other problem; the harmful human knowledge and desire. Lao Tzu mentioned such inefficiency of the said matters. First with the devious human knowledge. Such idea of knowing things, especially the ones that suggest what is good, then became an official problem for Lao Tzu because it enables one to have the tendency to do the otherwise, or let say, the not-good. Since one will have the idea of the good, eventually, the initiative of the bad will also appear, and that's how things work, especially in the case of the law of opposites; that the presence of one, will also result the presence of its opposite, because how can an individual know what it is, if he doesn't have any idea of what it is not. And since there is a knowledge to that of what is not, it creates a 50-50 possibility that such will happen/be done. Therefore, such knowledge then is really a hitch that could somehow, instead do us the favor, will actually be the reason why such favor we ask will not be deemed to transpire/occur. Second is with the deceptive human desires. Such desires, as we know, since are made up by imperfect human beings, could somehow, instead of providing the said individuals a favorable response, will actually endow them disadvantageous retort not only to their selves, but also to the other people that surrounds them. On their part, it becomes disadvantageous to them if they have desires driven by their personal preferences, because it will make them not to be able to perceive all of the others; the things that is outside that of their private preferences, causing them not to see or sense out clearly. In short, they will become insensitive. On the other people's part, it will be detrimental for them because if one will continue to desire for his self, it will make him somewhat focused to that of his desires, allowing him to crave for it, which will lead him to do anything for that to happen, even if it means an invasion to other's should-have's/essentials, making them have less while the filthy desiring individual have more. Evidently, such desires, as referred by Lao Tzu, is really harmful (to the self and to others).
Now, the philosophical viewpoint that was suggested by Lao Tzu is that there is a need for an ethical way that is not based on the criteria given by the human beings for the human beings of what is moral and not, but rather on something that is already imposed in the nature of things. Such moral way then, is not to be fabricated through the use of the humanistic idea of what is good, but rather of something/someone that is far more beyond the human means of understanding. It could be referred as the heavenly ethics, but I would prefer to base it on the Taoist idea of Tao which is the main ruling that should be followed, as suggested by Lao Tzu, because it is the accountable way of all that there is; all that constitutes all of these, that is technically not the human beings who are precisely just a speck of what there is as a whole, and are never to be considered the ones that are in control and knowledgeable of such vastness of the entirety of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment