The philosophy that is demonstrated in Ancient Chinese philosophy, as revealed in the assumptions of Lao Tzu for a solution to the philosophical problem, which is the lackness of natural harmony, is the methodological way of acknowledging and adhering the unanimous ruling of nature. Before going in to the discussion, let us first break down the said terms in order for such precept to be vindicated. First, methodological, in a sense, not because it comprises a lot of procedures and operations, but rather because it is continuous; it is running and doesn’t cease. Thus, such philosophy must first then to be considered as ever-flowing principle to be abided upon, and must never, ever end. Second, unanimous, in a sense that it is a completely consented and therefore agreed by all of the constituents of the universe, and therefore is absolute. Such “unanimous-ness” , as to be tackled below, is characterized by the very essences of the Tao as the origin which then “flows in everything”, which in this case, justifies that is definitely absolute. And lastly, the ruling of nature, or simply, the laws of nature. Such laws, is neither the same with the state’s laws, criminal laws, or any law that are observed and promulgated by the justice system of a specific territory. Nor business laws, or even scientific and mathematical laws that standardizes certain human operations and processes. And it doesn’t even that since it is called the laws of “NATURE”, these rulings are then chiefly concerned of the natural environment, or the flora and fauna, and so on. These edicts or rulings are rather moral regulations of what is ought to be in accordance to the higher occurence/thing (which also manifests in all the lower occurences/things); the Tao.
Now, in order for us to be acquianted of such philosophy of the Tao, we will first begin with one of its primordial manifestations; the primal child of the Tao which is the nature of opposites. Now, we know that all of the things that there is, have variations with each other. Such things carry out differences and deviations to the point that some of them become opposite to the other. Such opposition then, as suggested by Lao Tzu, is normal; For him, it is the default mode of things to oppose each other. But this opposition, as for him, doesn’t cause annihilation of things and is rather not contradictory, instead it causes for the things to be as it is. This opposition then is not eradicatory that it allows the presence of one wipes out the other, but it is rather contributory in the sense that it makes the one to make up the other. Good exists because there is bad, and vice versa. Same as to beautiful and ugly, fat and thin, big and small, tall and short, “easy and difficult”, and more. The point is, without the other, one cannot be it is; I mean you cannot consider a thing as bad without knowing what makes up a good, nor big without small and so on. Being then, or the is-ness then of a certain thing comes from it’s opposites. Without the opposite, there is no thing. But then again, we are to be reminded that such nature of the opposites, is again just a manifestation of the big picture which is the Tao. It is just a mere offspring of the vast and everlasting yet ever-humble and non-provoking Tao. And to consider such nature of the opposites to be the origin of all the things is too hasty and faulty. This is because, the Tao is the origin, and the said nature is just a part, yet a major one, of it.
The Tao, however, is “no-thing” (Chuang Tzu). It doesn’t have any definition, or form, or matter, etc. Such nothingness of the Tao then justifies its first essence; being empty/empty of definitions. The Tao, in a way then is like an empty cup, or to be more clear, it is no cup at all. It doesn’t represent something, or anything at all. It is just what it is, and that is a no-thing. In short, it is there, but it is not represented; it doesn’t even have a definition. The word “Tao” though is just a name for what it is. Like the term ‘ehyeh esher ehyen’ ancient people gave as God’s name which means “I am what I am”. And also that of the Hebrew YHWH, which is not really the name of God, but is just a human interpretation of the latter’s identity. The Tao is then all that what it is, and it can never be called anything else, except Tao. Long explanation short, it is the name for the unnameable.
Such emptiness though, as the illustration given by Lao Tzu, is the essence of the Tao as an ‘is’ that “is used, but never filled”. It means that even though the Tao must be perceived as a no-thing, it makes up usefulness and worthiness. Like a gourd, the empty space inside it makes it a gourd, which allows the latter to serve as a container of something. Without such empty space of the gourd, it cannot fulfill its purpose. Such emptiness or nothingness then leads to formlessness. Formlessness then leads to limitlessness. And limitlessness then leads to the second essence; openness. The Tao is open and is indeed impartial; it doesn’t carry out any bias or preference. It goes along in everything; from black to white, from big to little, from visible to non-visible, and all that there is. It doesn’t takes sides. It doesn’t limit itself in a single or two things. It is not range-bounded inside a certain bounded zone. It moves, it flows, and it is indeed open.
Given that the Tao is open enough to embrace all that there is, it is then to be expressed as something that is non-pursuing or non-exerting, and is then therefore ‘weak’. Such weakness though, is not to be incapable and frail. Weakness here is to be non-exceeding to the point of going beyond what is enough. It is not to be greedy and insatiable to the point that it goes out what is due. Weakness here then implies tranquility and passiveness, or simply simplicity; to be not of too much; just enough. By such weakness, one can overcome even the strongest who feeds more than what is appropriate. This is because if one is weak, and therefore is lacking, such lackness will then make up something useful from that of the one. Like the previous example of the gourd, if it is already full, to the point that it doesn’t have any space for the water to fill in, it will be useless, and is therefore not a gourd! Such weakness then, since it is of softness and tranquility, it will now carry on humility. Humility, as another expression of the Tao, suggests that one must, since is “weak”, must not carry out pride and conceitedness. Since he is nothing to be strong about, he must calm his feet on the ground for the Tao is the only one who/which must carry out the honor and dignity; that only the Tao is great. Such humility then implies a notion of not daring to be ahead of others, because only the Tao is ahead of all that there is. Here, by not putting yourself on the lead of others, and by putting them instead on the lead of you, because that is the way of Tao, clearly one can make a good leader from one’s self.
Tao then is the name Lao Tzu infer to that of that “is” which makes up everything that there is, and therefore persists in everything that there is. It’s somehow analogous to the Greek term “arche”, which was use by the Pre-Socratics in defining that primal element that constitutes all things and is therefore everything. According to Thales, a Milesian philosopher, it is “water” ( or hydor) which makes up everything; thus, everything is water. Now, going back to the Tao, since it makes up everything, everything then is Tao. All of the essences and expressions of the Tao then: (Emptiness, Openness; Weakness, and Humility) clearly justifies that the Tao is the origin of all the things and the things itself. Emptiness makes something to be useful; Without it, nothing will be put to use. Openness depicts impartiality and non-bias; Without it comes favoritism therefore makes the Tao the origin of only ‘some’ of the things, and flows in only ‘some’ of the things, not all. Weakness illustrates simplicity and non-sophistication; Without it, the Tao will be some sort of a complex, isolated, far-out ‘is’ and is therefore not persisting in all the things that there is. And humility which signifies contentment and unconceitedness in order to put emphasis nad honor the Tao only; Without it, there will be no difference between that of things and the Tao; granting no credits from the Tao, making it not the origin of things.
Clearly, we can really identify that what philosophy Lao Tzu is trying to convey in his assumptions of a solution to the problem of natural disharmony is the methodological way of acknowledging and adhering the unanimous ruling (laws) of nature, which is composed and caused by the Tao. Methodological, again, in the sense that such acknowledgement and adherence to that of the ruling of nature, must ever-flow and continue to operate; it must not be put into an end or stop. Unanimous, in the idea that of the Tao, since is asserted in the Taoist philosophy as the precursor of all the things, the very cause of all that there is, and therefore is the main root of the said philosophy, as the absolute source of all and is therefore persisting in all the things that there is.
