ANCIENT CHINESE PHILOSOPHY
( as demonstrated by Confucius and Lao Tzu )
The philosophy for the Ancient Chinese is a way one is ought to live life. Confucius and Lao Tzu, two of the primordial thinkers and pioneers of philosophy in the Ancient China, although have different precepts of what is the fundamental basis of such manner an individual is ought to subsist his/her life, maybe that of ‘man’ or ‘nature’, was still able to fuse a definition that philosophy is indeed a way man should live out his/her life, may that could be rooted socially or naturally. Such idea of philosophy then, as a way, allows the man to develop an ideal character that will make him/her an instrument, both individually and influentially, to bring forth harmony althroughout; from the tiniest of things, to the enormous accounts of the “all”. Once things are in a harmonious pattern, there will nothing to be worried about. Thus here, the “all” will be able to achieve the higher good the “all” is pursuing about.
I- Confucius; Man
“For if we do our duty, that duty through our very act is morally done, regardless of the external success or failure of our action.”
-Fung Yu-Lan
For Confucius, philosophy, as a way one is ought to live, is rooted from one’s responsibility to the whole humanity. As an individual, what/how/why he/she does/thinks must be intended for the entire human race; from his/her self, to the others. People then, in their way of living out their life must recognize their responsibilities and obligations to the human society, and work to uphold the rules and jurisdictions of the human entirety; which then leads to a harmonious operation of the humans themselves. His idea of philosophy asserts that respect for the humans is essential for it allows the attainment of good things. That's why he taught mostly about the code of proper human conduct; which involves the cardinal virtues, expressions, roots, etc. If everyone is living out as a good citizen, as provided in the example of the ‘man-of-men’ (Chun Tzu), the entirety will achieve peace, harmony, and happiness.
A
In the way he perceives the basic philosophical problem, Confucius asserted that philosophy is a recognition of ‘man’ as the most important among all that there is in living out his/her life.
Primarily, he said that it was the "human disorder" which is the major problem of the world. Such disorder is the very disintegration of things in human, specifically, societal basis. As for him, it constitutes the wars, killings, injustices, and other anthropologically unpleasant occurences which are totally not customary for the humans themselves. That’s why he referred to it as a “disorder”; a disarray of what is the usual for the human beings. He indicated such through his idea of “the Way that has not prevailed”, where the Way signifies the standard of things in a human basis; what would be good for the people. And since it hasn’t prevailed, things went bad for the people respectively.
Given such disorder, the people then lost their hope for peace and harmony and just accepted the way things happen in front of their very eyes; they became submissive or passive to let the “torrential” human destruction to flow. In other words, they didn't do anything to solve such perceived-to-be-inevitable snag in the society. In response to that, Confucius opened the people's consciousness that there could really be a solution; a key in the midst of the “inevitableness” of the chief problem that will bring us to harmony and peace.
Now, in order to see such dodge, like a flooding street, one must first find where the leak is located; the very root of the problem. Such root of the problem, for Confucius, was the non-correspondence of the names that are given by the humans themselves to things, and the actualities of such; the clash between ‘what things are called by the humans’ and ‘what these things really are’. The said non-correspondence of the human designation of things and the things themselves can be solve, according to Confucius, through the act of rectifying such. Such rectification though is not just any act of correction, for it is molded through philosophy; the identification that man is the ultimate among the “all”. Upon such realization, the rectification of the names and their actualities will be based to what is good for the ‘man’. For example, the term ‘ruler’. Since the ‘ruler’ during their time acted as some sort of a mighty, powerful, and influential ‘military general’ who is hungry for power. Upon being rectified, the ‘ruler’ will be an advocator of the human good. Instead of craving for self-power, he will desire for the power of the whole humanity itself. Also in the process of rectification, the so-called 'people' will then be a people who are humanly good, and not creatures that crave power and superiority over one another. Also the named 'society' will be a society of human harmony, and not a bloody battlefield of power-fuelled warfare.
In that way, we can see that, truly, Confucius, in the midst of the given problems, is trying to picture out an image of philosophy as the recognition of the ‘man’ as the most essential among the ‘all’.
B
In the way he lays down the solution for the basic philosophical problem, Confucius declared that philosophy is the awareness of one’s responsibility to ‘man’ in living out his/her life which is molded through the realization of the (1) Tao or Way, (2) primal tradition, (3) basic educability and goodness of man, and (4) the very example of the man-of-men or Chun Tzu.
In the midst of all the societal problems, Confucius came up with a solution through the presence of (1) first, The Tao or Way. The Tao is (as Confucius would assert it) the moral-social way of things. Moral, in the sense that it suggests a certain set of criteria of what is ought to be done and not to be done by the people to achieve harmony. It acts as the decent etiquette for the man to follow in his pursuit of the synchronization of all that there is. Social, in the sense that it is intended for the good of human beings, and not for any other far-flung ideas of who-knows-what-it-is. In other words, it is primarily centered to the man’s sake. Thus, the Tao, for Confucius, is the measuring stick of what would be good or not for the human beings (not for any sort of divine or non-physique supremacy) which they must follow and be faithful about. (2) Second, is the primal tradition; it is the original way of things in time basis. Such are needed to pay adherence to with in order for one not to lose his/her way and to make sure that he/she is still on the track; the track for which the things were following along since the very beginning. But since it is a track, it doesn't suggest passivity that one should not move on to that of the past, but rather it encourages innovation and change yet still in accordance to the past; "to create something new with the old", as for say by Confucius himself. (3) Third would be the basic educability and goodness of a person. Such "basicness", or primitiveness (like that of the prime tradition) of these two suggests and somehow justifies the idea that such, since is proven in a time-basis according to Confucius, must also be adhered and be obeyed by the people. The basic goodness of man referred here is the nature of a person to be upright from the beginning of his/her life. As what Confucius pointed out in the Analects that: "Man is born with uprightness. If one loses it he will be lucky if he escapes with his life" (6:17). Such assertion somehow presuppose that the basic goodness of man is really a thing; that it really exists, which can be interpreted as something that unifies us all by nature despite of our differences which were brought up by our later experiences. As for what the Master said: "By nature, men are alike. Through practice they have become far apart" (17:2). Aside from that of goodness, a man also carries with him/her his/her aboriginal nature of educability. Evidently, we started our lives as curious creatures wondering how and why things appear the way they are; although we were still innocent, we are able to gain interest to education. Such primal educability of a person was then given emphasis by Confucius when he suggested that he "will only give education to those who are interested for it" (7:8). Given that, I think the logic here is, since all of us have this basic hunger to that of learning in us, which means nobody is left untouched by such desire, we can conclude that really, education is indeed for everyone. Both of which must then be the ‘molding hand’ of men in recognizing his responsibility to the whole collection of men in the way that he recognizes not only the basic goodness and educability of others, but also of his own self. (4) And lastly, the development of the man-of-men, or Chun Tzu Although it could somehow create confusion for the term ‘Chun Tzu’ is particularly referred by the Ancient Chinese to be the primal character of nobility and decency. But Confucius, it is not only that. Chun Tzu, for him, is rather the ideal man that lives with the virtues for the good of the whole humanity. Superficially, in order for one to become a man-of-men, one must observe and live a virtuous kind of living that is not focused on a particular lens, which most likely could be of his own self. Rather, one must be men of the whole humanity, that aspires for the good of the human entirety.
C
In his way of characterizing the ideal human being, Confucius affirmed that philosophy is a guide on how to become a man of humanity in living out his/her life.
Upon charactizing the ideal man, which he refers as the man-for-men or Chun Tzu, he mentioned that one must follow a certain idyllic disposition which is fabricated by means of virtues. These virtues, however, is not just any virtues, but rather these are the human-heartedness (jen), righteousness (yi), propriety (li), and wisdom (chih). First, an ideal man consists the character of jen, or human-heartedness. As how it was illustrated in its Chinese character, such virtue depicts the idea of "offering one's heart to another as if it was a dish to be served using a plate". Human-heartedness then means the idea of preferring what is good for the entire humanity without bothering what will be left for him. It is then for the whole whom one, as a man of jen should confer over instead of his personal preferences. In preferring the “all human”, jen addreseses such in two ways; the positive (Chung) and the negative (Shu) way. The positive way is to "do what one wants others to do to him". The negative, on the other hand, is to "not to do what one doesn't want others to do to him". Such ways then signifies the presence of fairness; of righteousness or yi. Fairness, for the fact that the ideal man wants others to be treated in the same way he is. If he has a better living, he would also want others to have such; thus, every human beings will have a better living. As how it was said in the Analects: "The ideal man understands righteousness, while the non-ideal man understands profit". Thus, the ideal man is indeed unselfish enough to think of his personal profit in order to overpower his self over the whole, which somehow vindicates the idea that the ideal man is a "man-for-men", not for his self. However, it is not to be misunderstood as pure loving (the fact that the "heart" is generally associated to that of love). As said in the Analects, the man of jen knows how to love and hate; how one should feel when he is loved and how one should also feel when he is hated. But with that ability of loving and hating, this man of jen must carry out the responsibility of doing it appropriately. That is why there is the need for the virtue of propriety or li, for one cannot just love one and hate another just because he prefer to do so. Li then prefers an idea of discipline of what is to be and what is not to be for the ideal man. However, according to Confucius, in order to know what is appropriate, one must rely on what is customary and traditional, like that of the rituals (3:17). Thus, as for Confucius, the appropriate is the old-fashioned, the time-honored, for it is familiar and fixed and permanent, therefore is stable enough to be held upon. It is what we, contemporary people, refer as the "proven and tested" value that portrays security and assurance unlike the new and pristine which, since is newfangled, indicates an capriciousnes and instablity. Such stability brought by the customary, however, constitutes consistency. This is for one, in order to be fixed must be steady and constant enough to not to shift to an unpredictable phase. This consistency then gives way to the idea of the correspondence of one's knowledge and action, or if I am to say it, the wisdom or Chih, as imposed by Confucius. Wisdom, as we usually refer it, is the knowledge that is perfected through the use of the external experience. As for it's Chinese character, it means "to speak like an arrow, straight and true". And in order for a knowledge or word or speech to become "accurate" (straight and tru), it must be corresponded by the individual's action. If one would say this or know that, he must justify such through his action/deed towards the whole assembly of human beings.
D
In the way Confucius lays out the way to become the ideal human being, he stated that philosophy is a refinement of one as he/she lives out his life as a ‘man’ that is responsible to the whole humanity’s sake.
Here, according to Confucius, after being guided by the virtues, one must then refine his/her own self. Confucius started to illustrate the very cultivation of the own individual. As for him, in order to cultivate oneself, one must first start with the rectification of one's own mind, in order for it to be set to a ‘mood’ that it could respond effectively to the very dealings of an individual; from learning, to the very application of such knowledge. It must be 'healthy', ‘well-prepared’ and ‘competent’ enough to handle such great primary responsibility in becoming a ‘man-for-men’. If an individual has a "dirty mind", it makes him a filthy person. If a person has a virtuous mind, it will make him a person of values. Now, when the mind is already perfected, a person is now ready to learn. Learning then is the next pace after having a competent mind, and since one has already modified and acquired such kind of mind, one can now learn effectively through the guidance of such proper cognition. In learning, one is to gain knowledge; to encounter new things (or newness in familiar things) that will add up more contents to one's knowledge as a human being. In other words, such activity (learning) will somehow enhance one's own rectified, therefore efficient cognizance. But then again, in order to be sure that it is really 'enhancement' which is happening to one's mind upon the process of learning, and not the otherwise, one must secure that such knowledge that is acquired is well-reflected and critically-investigated, whether that knowledge will be for the betterment of his being or not. It was mentioned by Confucius that, aside from knowing things, one must also be able to think of it (2:15). Think in the sense that it is mentally reviewed and properly categorized. This is what The Great Learning (Chap. 5) referred as the act of "perfecting one's knowledge" (Chap. 5). To think or somehow examine one's gained knowledge allows one to know whether such are really to be considered as perfectly true knowledge or not. In examining or testing-into-the-fire such learning then, one can see clearly if what he/she acquired or learned is whether to be considered as a thing that is worth known for or not. As suggested by Confucius, there are 2 ways of perfecting one's knowledge. First (Ge), is to know that there is a need to discover and find out things; every nukes and crannies must be unearthed to be able to illustrate the whole, without leaving no piece or fragment untouched. And by doing so, one then will be able to unravel the mystery of the entirety of things. Yet, one is also reminded that he cannot just discover all of the things; he must set up a boundary for he cannot just include everything to be known for (We). Just like in reading a book: inspection is done in order for one to know whether such idea needs to be elaborated and be dealt further with or not. Such is needed in order to guide one not to be lost or be in danger for having been sophisticated and complex inappropriately. Also by investigating rightly then, allows one to develop his self in terms of being sensible enough to consider all matter and suitable enough to consider only what is perfectly appropriate. Now after being able to rectify one's mind, learn things out, and perfect such learning, consistency of such things must then be observed. Like planning, after formulating the entirety of the plan, one must stick to the plan itself. Such consistency then implies sincerity; the loyalty of one's actions to that of one's words or ideas. Sincerity, as it was associated with consistency, talks about the accurateness and at the same time, the preciseness of one's motives; no speck of refutation/contradiction, just pure confirmation to one's own cause and intention. From that of the mind, to gaining knowledge, to correcting such knowledge, one must then reveal such perfected knowledge through one's deeds.
E
Finally, in the way Confucius specified the solution for the basic philosophical problem, he claimed that philosophy is a leadership of one in governing the people as they live out a life that is rooted to their responsibility to the whole humanity itself.
He suggested the notion of leading out the people in also becoming the ‘men-for-men’ themselves. Starting from that of the family which is the basic unit of society. Since it is where the practice of virtue starts, it is easy thereby easy to mold. Because of that, the family must then have the primal priority in pusrsuit to what is good for the human beings themselves. Thus, one must succumb and abide to the family's preference; one must attempt virtue starting off with the family. The family must also be highlighted primarily before that of the state or law.If one's family member is to commit any misconduct from what is legally suggested, one must adhere to his/her family, not to the law. This is because it is where one’s being an example of becoming a man-for-men, is well-appreciated and best boosted. Such assertion then advocates idea of the family as the primal priority of the individual in terms of rehearsing the virtues to offer a model of a well-lived life. Such familial prioritization in terms of leading is then, according to Confucius, followed by the state. State, for according to the Master, it is a family “written-large”. It is a big family which consists of rulers and fellows which were somewhat analogous to that of the parents that responsibly take charges of the people and their concerns, and the siblings that pay adherence to that of their parents. Upon leading so, everybody is to be molded by the virtues and not by the law or coercion. There is no implementing of one's preferences, even if it is justified by means of legal acceptance, just pure virtues of humanity. Such virtues then is to be lived with consistently; not only by the ruler as an example, but also by the people who will be later on examples themselves.
This is what philosophyis: the act of leading out the whole people to become people who are responsible also for the people as fabricated throught the use of virtues. Such opened the possibilities for all other people, not only the primal ‘man-for-men’, to become examples themselves in becoming the agents of the human good. Here, everybody is to become a sage-emperor; a philosopher-king. Philosopher, in the sense that he instills the moral virtues in his headship to that of the people. And a king, in the sense that he creates, not necessarily a prestige and noble image, but an influential character to that of the people that encourages them to follow his virtuous example. As a final point, Confucius encouraged us to act and behave in accordance to the virtues for the good of all the humans, not only of ourselves and of others, but all of us as a whole.
SUMMARY:
The philosophy then, again, for Confucius is a way one is ought to live life that is rooted in his obligation to the whole humanity by (1) first, recognizing the idea that it is the ‘man’ which is important among all. (2) Second, by being aware that since ‘man’ is the most essential in the “all”, one must be indeed observe his responsibility for the man to achieve what is humanly good. (3) Third, by being aware, one is then to be guided through the example of the Chun Tzu; the man-for-men that observes well-generated virtues. (4) Fourth, through such prior guidance, one then is to be refined; be educated and be well-improved in order to become a responsible man of humanity. And (5) lastly, after such refinement, one is then to lead the whole people through his example in becoming also ‘men-for-men’. Through here, as for Confucius, everybody is deemed to become a man, in living his life, that is concerned primarily to what could be good for the whole humanity itself, for that is the primal task of us people upon subsisting out in this life of ours.
II- Lao Tzu; Nature
"Lao Tzu's thought is driven by a sense of exile that derives from a fundamental rupture between human being and natural process. During the Paleolithic, humans began to be aware of themselves as separate from natural process, and the distance that this separation opened allowed the generative-centered worldview to arise..."
-Hinton, 2000
For Lao Tzu, on the other hand, philosophy is also a way one is ought to live out life, but is entrenched in the concern for the Nature. For him, one should try to live in harmony with the whole actuality of nature, rather than countering it and focusing to the limited ways of human beings. For him, instead of living out life by strongly-held rules and regulations, people should try to work with the natural way of the world. In his idea of philosophy, he did not argue of what is humanly good or bad, or try to change things. Rather he enforce to accept things as they are naturally, and that is, for him, the primal obligation of an individual: to follow the course of nature without restraint.
A
In the way Lao Tzu perceives the basic philosophical problem, he asserted that philosophy is a recognition of of the ruling of ‘nature’ as the most essential thing among all in living out his life.
Given such, everybody is tasked to allow the nature do its thing. Yes, the ruling of nature. It refers to the authority of the natural forces of the world (the one that is made up by all that there is). In other words, it refers to the things natural course, without any human (or any other thing specific) intrusion. Authority, in the sense that it rules out the whole world in all its processes and procedures; from the tiniest of things, to the most immense amongst that operates. Although it could somehow create a confusion of why is it referred to as an “authority”, if it actually refers to the natural procedure of things, which means free from any influence or simply, authority-free. The point that is being made here is that, there is no other authority to be considered except that of nature’s, which means the only authority that should be upheld is that there is ‘no authority’, because again, to allow the natural course of things means to be free from any authority. Thus, to allow the nature to rule out means allowing nothing to rule out over all the procedures that there is.
Lao Tzu formulated such assertion of him through his perception of the basic problem which is the presence of natural disorder. Note that this is not pertaining to a disorder that occurs naturally, but this rather indicates that things are not in their usual, which is natural, order. Thus, we can say here that the nature was not able to rule out on things. In pertaining to the nature of things, we are not talking about the mere things themselves, but rather it is that of their primal actuality; what they were at the very first place. It could pertain to that of their very grounds and roots or their primary causes on what they are now.
Lao Tzu then is not just refering to the problem as the mere presence of war and suffering which is contrary to the usual peace and order in a society. What he is referring to as the main problem is the loss of nature (especially to that of human beings), which is the very root of the other branching problems that exist in the society. In the scenario mentioned in the Tao Te Ching, chapter 75: “Why are the people starving? Rebellious? And not afraid of death anymore? Because of the government”(1). The problem here then is not starvation, nor mayhem, in which one can solve it by feeding those who are starving, or by providing the needs of those wild-hearted people. Instead, the problem here is the government’s, which is the very grounds of a people, being lost of its own nature which is of leading back the people to its nature, and not of putting up excessive human (therefore, not natural) intrusion; too much taxation and interference, etc. . If all will be able to live out the philosophy which acknowledges the nature as the one whose action must prevail, not any other else, there would be no problem; all things well rest in harmony. Nonetheless, Lao Tzu doesn’t mean to neglect totally the human government. What he proposes is a government which only cares to what it is ought to be done by a human system and by letting the nature do the rest of the ruling.
What’s with the human beings then and why should one depend on the nature’s way instead to that of his/her self’s? Lao Tzu started it all out by seeing the nature of human beings as subjects/variables, which presupposes them to be faulty, distinct (unique) and is therefore unstable; man for him then is not to be depended upon. For him, every man is subjective; have different and distinct ways/knowledges/tastes, etc. . Such faultiness and distinctiveness is due to the man’s natural limitedness that brings upon his/her tendency to withdraw from that of the whole and instead perceive the specific. Such withdrawal, which is caused by a particular drive, allows him/her to see a limited view of the whole instead, in respect to that of scope of what he/she knows and prefers. Such particular drive then referred is actually rooted from that of knowledge and desires.
From there, Lao Tzu then enforced the idea that in going back to nature, one must get rid of knowledge and desires. If man would not seek for knowledge, one will not have any idea about the distinctions, or worse, oppositions of things. This is because through knowledge, things will be categorized according to their man-made contradicting values. Man-made in the sense that it is only created by means of a specific human criterion. Such contradiction is then justified in the case that if there will be the good, there will also be the not-good; as the idea of the former will exist, the initiative of the latter will also appear. This is the natural law of things; if there is one, there would also be its opposite. For example, the general people will incorporate something as knowledge like: “This is good”, therefore making the not-”this” not good, as if it is really (for truth’s sake) not good at all. But because it is made up using man’s standard of values, which is then again limited, thus is dangerously volatile.
Since it creates an avenue for oppositions to occur, there will be categorization of things, peculiar or not. There will be a suggestive propriety that tells us what to do (and not to do), for if we will not do it (or in the case of the latter, do it), there will be a great impact to our ways of living. Let’s say in a situation that the general people will integrate something as knowledge like: “Not-killing is good”, thus making the idea of “killing” as bad. This means that in case that one will, let’s say, feel bad for the other, the former will feel the urge to kill the latter because to kill is to do bad, and in that way, such badness felt (by the former) is then compensated. While if there is no knowledge, therefore no acknowledgement of killing as something bad, then people will never feel the urge to do killing, for even at the very first place, why would he/she think and do something bad if he/she doesn’t have any idea that what he/she felt is indeed bad. With that, there will be no categorical ideas of which is humanly bad or good; everything is just what they are naturally; no descriptions, etc. . Hence, in neglecting human knowledge which is then not of nature’s, one will be able to recognize the nature to rule out instead .
Same thing goes with the human desires. If knowledge creates categorical yet open-to-doubt acknowledgements to things, so does desires. If one would have the ability to prefer one (specific) than the other (or the whole), there will be categories, thus comes strife and separations to that of the choices (and to that of the choosers), as if they were naturally separated; which they are actually (thus naturally) not. Such separation will later on create avenues for conflict to happen; cases like: One, since is attached to his desires (which means he is to be separated from that of the other) crosses the line and interacts to the other to impose his preferences, then the other will not agree which then means -War! Without desires then, one would be able to live freely without being reluctant that what if he/she will, intentionally or not, result for the other to feel challenged or opposed, or argued, because by nature there is no line that separates them at all. All of the people will then just live out their lives in a que sera sera-ic (what ever will be, will be) way; without desires or aims, or ambitions; just plain, humble, and natural living. Therefore, allowing again the nature to rule out.
Thus, in the world that is recognized in which nature rules out, there will be no need to know something and prefer another. There will be no need for one to do, know, choose man-made virtues and values to be followed (e.g. Confucian virtues) because everything and everyone is naturally virtuous and valuable at the very first place if one will just base it on the nature. The point here is that, it is not the people (or any other else specific) that will be favored here using what they have in mind (knowledge), or heart (desire). Nor their virtues, practices, rituals, etc. will solve all of the problems and will later on result to harmony. But rather it is of the nature’s Way of things. Thus, it must then be recognized and be given importance to in one’s act of living out his life.
B
In his revelation of the assumptions for a solution to the basic philosophical problem, Lao Tzu declared that philosophy is an awareness of one’s responsibility to nature itself upon living out his life.
In being aware of the nature, one should know the natural system of opposites. We know that all of the things that there is, have their own opposites; big has small, tall has short, etc. Such opposition then, as suggested by Lao Tzu, is natural; For him, it is the natural state (or default mode) of things to have their oppositions because to have no oppositions is to have no being; to become nothing. These oppositions, as for him, however don’t cause annihilation of things and their opposites. Instead, it causes for the opposite things to be as it is. This opposition then is not eradicatory that it allows the presence of one to wipe 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 opposite other, one cannot be what it is, and with the opposite other, one can be what it is; and that is all natural. It can be justified by the idea that we cannot justify a thing as bad without knowing what makes up a good, nor big without small and so on. But then again, we are to be reminded that such nature of the opposites, is again just one of the manifestations of nature. Yes, it is natural to have opposites, but it doesn’t just end there.
Now, about the natural manifestations or ways of things, Lao Tzu then enforced their primordial cause which he inferred to be called as the Tao. Tao, generally means “path” or “way”. Thus, it is the Way, as for Lao Tzu, that causes such natural procedures to happen which allows the good to be attained. The Tao, however, is “no-thing” (3 Chuang Tzu). It doesn’t have any absolute 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, nor 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 ‘Godly’ terms: ‘ehyeh esher ehyen’ ancient people gave as God’s name which means “I am what I am”, and 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.
The Confucian Tao though is another thing. If we are to compare, we can see the difference between the Confucian 'Tao' and that of Lao Tzu; the Taoist 'Tao'. Unlike the Confucian Tao, The Taoist Tao is not incorporated to human beings, nor their cardinal virtues. If Confucius would say, one needs to do/observe this and that (e.g. propriety and filial love) in order to follow the Tao, Lao Tzu would prefer one not to do anything, and let the nature do its Way; naturally not learning anything and humbling of one’s self down; in that way he/she will attain the good. Confucius then 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, 'the Tao' would be present. But Lao Tzu, on the other hand, refuted such idea, because for him, the 'Tao' naturally flows everywhere. Such idea of the Tao then can never be totally grasped by the human beings, nor their values. For him, the people cannot do anything about the Way of Tao, because it is how all the things go, and human beings are just what they are; too little and limited to formulate such Way.
Since the Tao (Taoist) flows everywhere, we can really justify its no-thingness, for whatever is present in everything, is not a thing itself, and to say it is cancels out its presence to those of the other things which is not it; thus, is not present in everything. Such nothingness, or simply emptiness, then is the primal essence of the Tao which indicates it is ‘is’ that “is used, but never filled”. It means the Tao is to be perceived as a no-thing, it is then worthy and useful. 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 of the Tao, which is 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 its is empty, it fulfills its purpose. But 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 not, since is “weak”, 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 the nature on the lead, because that is the way of Tao, clearly one can make a good ‘example’ from one’s self. Thus, will be able to fabricate the ‘man-for-nature’ that adheres to the rule of nature.
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; the origin of all things. 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.
C
In the way Lao Tzu characterizes the sage, he claims that philosophy is a guide on how to become a man of nature in living out his/her life.
After finally re-fabricating the characteristics and values of the ‘man-for-nature’, one must then be able to be guided with such ideal character himself. This tells us that we ourselves, in living our lives, must be that of the ‘man-of-nature’, or sage, that follows back the Way of Tao: which is to reallow the nature of things to prevail. In other words, after being able to frame up the right formula to solve the subsisting problem and to finally attain harmony, we must now experience and live with it (formula) ourselves as we are supposed to do so at the very first place. Now let us discover what are the “should be/have”s and “should be/have not”s in living as the example man (or the sage) which are made in accordance to the Way of Tao, and are signs of adherence to the ruling of nature.
It was given that the ‘example’ man, upon tracing the Way of Tao, is enforced to carry out no knowledge, nor desires with him. ‘No knowledge’: Well it’s like, along the Way of Tao (which is the Way of going back to the nature), the stroller, which is the ‘example’ man, is ordered to clear up all his/her baggages of knowledge. He/she must abandon the knowledge; all that he/she has been carrying out and all that he/she will be acquiring later on. He/she then must submit to ignorance and be ignorant himself. It is since because first, knowledge is not good because it is just a worldly thing that is left behind, and is therefore of no use once the one who has it is already dead. As how Chuang Tzu would say in his writings: “Duke Hwan and the Wheelwright”, that knowledge is just a “ dirt that is left behind” (Merton, 1965). Here, we can see that knowledge will just remain in the world, and as the world would pass away, knowledge will also come with it. It will not transcend and go beyond unto the heavens, and is therefore not Tao’s, and whatever that is not Tao’s is not good. Second, knowledge is not good because it just complicates things up, it will just allow the person who has it to go far out of the Way. It’s like when one acquires knowledge, he/she will be able to project and fabricate a new way in living his/her life (in accordance to such knowledge), giving him/her an ‘avenue’ to go out the real Way. Then another knowledge will be attained, which means another way, and another, and another; making it a series of complex expressways. Such convolution, aside from allowing the individual to go farther away of the nature, which means disallowing him/her to go back to the latter itself, it also veils up the reality that there is only one constant, stable and unchanging Way; the Way of Tao. It covers instead the truth that only the nature’s ruling is the only one that should persist. Lastly, knowledge is not good because it allows one to assume that he/she is the one who needs and matters most, and not the other people. When one knows, he/she becomes aware of his/her own life as the one that must be valued most. For him/her, nothing is more important than his/her own self-knowledge that elevates him/her above other people, which in fact, is not of the Tao. For the Tao affirms that it is not the self, but rather the other which has the bearing in one’s life. Aside from elevation, it will also create divisions among the human beings. Through knowledge, one will be able to categorize his/her fellow individuals in conformity to his/her realization, allowing separation to occur between them -thus, conflict! To sum it up all, knowledge is really not good, and should not be attained in living out the life of an ‘man-for-nature’, for it leads one out of the Way of Tao, thus, does not acknowledge the ruling of nature.
While ‘no desires’ means to have no own-interests; no personal preferences. Same as to having no knowledge, ‘no desires’ signifies to put oneself before the others. Others must be primarily favored over the self. As how Lao Tzu would say: it is to “place oneself in the background...” (Wing Tsit Chan, Tao te Ching 7). Such non-preferences to the self though, doesn’t indicate a total isolation to that of the self. As said in the continuation of the statement above: “...but finds himself in the foreground” (Wing Tsit Chan, Tao te Ching 7). It means that in preferring others, one will be able to perceive what he/she is ought to prefer, which is the others. It is, in desiring for the good of others, one will be able to desire for his/her self, since it is the authentic desire he/she must carry out. Aside from formulating dangerous selfishness, it will also give one the idea of death. This is because, upon having such desires, one will struggle and “strive” (as Wing Tsit Chan would translate) in order to achieve such desires. I mean, there is no way one would desire for something, but will just sit on the corner and will wait for that thing he/she desires to come. One will indeed make an effort for it. And when we say “make an effort”, it signifies that that one will try to do everything in order to fulfill such desire. Now, try to consider this one, people, as we know, have different tastes and preferences (sometimes even opposite to each other), which justifies that they have different (or worse, opposite) desires in them. Well, some would say: de gustibus non est diputandum (In terms of tastes/preferences, no one shall dispute). But the truth is, nobody can just remain silent, stay on their bend and do their own businesses instead. The fact that they will do anything for their desires to be fulfilled justifies that somewhere, sometime, that difference or contradictory-ness of their desires will result to a conflict, which would lead to further implications, example of which could mean most likely the ending of the other’s, whose desire is of opposite, life. Without desires, one would be able to live freely without being reluctant that what if he/she will, intentionally or not, result for someone to feel challenged or opposed, or argued, which would then somehow result to an unpleasant thing to happen between them. All of the people will just live out their lives without desires or aims, or ambitions; just plain and natural living.
Clearly, the ‘man-for-nature’ (or the sage) must submit to that of the nature’s course, must not carry out with him/her any knowledge nor desires, for the two will just detract the individual, making him/her lose his/her way in acknowledging back the nature. Now, we are done with the things what the ‘man-for-nature’ should NOT have. How about the things he/she should have?
First, he/she must possess the idea of Wu-wei; action through non-action. He/she must execute by not executing, do without doing, -act without acting. This might sound absurd because how can one act without actually acting. But in fact, it is not; it doesn’t cancel out its essence and it clearly has a point. The point here is to let the nature do the action itself. By letting the nature act, there will be necessary an action, which to be clear, is a natural action; an action made by the nature. Non-action pertains to the non-intrusion of human beings (or any other else specific). Through no human intrusion, nature will prevail. On the other hand. if one will do something, one will end up doing nothing. But if one will not, one will actually have done something. For example, the idea of ‘yielding to overcome’. Let’s say in a war between states: if you will put up arms and fight for you nation, you will lose a lot of your fellow statesmen, thus making you a loser. But if you will succumb, give way to your rival countries, there will be no loss of lives, especially in your side. Thus, in this way, without doing anything, except surrendering, one can actually do something, which is to save lives. This is what Lao Tzu mean in saying: “Capturing the enemy without attacking”. Thus, upon living as the ‘man-for-nature’, one should recognize the idea that he/she has nothing to do in order for something to be done. What he/she then should have, in living as an ‘man-for-nature’, is a non-acting human system that allows the action to be done by the nature itself.
Such ‘action through non-action’ will then give us the idea that one, as the ‘man-for-nature’ should be humble. Upon acknowledging the rule of nature, one is being able to lower oneself under the said rule. The ‘man-for-nature’ then is indeed humble. Yes, he/she recognizes his/her self, but he/she does it by not bragging. He/she also values his/her character, but through being not conceited. The point is, he/she, as an example, identifies his/her nature to be worthy as an example, but by not showing off. Instead, what he/she shows off is the idea that nature rules out; that the nature must be the one to show off. I mean, as an example to others himself/herself, he/she will consider his/her self to be worthy enough to be followed, but only through recognizing that the nature is only the one that rules, not him/her. But again, it doesn’t mean that once he/she qualified, he/she will then boast up and promote his/her self. As how Lao Tzu would identify the ‘sea king’: “It is the king of the hundred streams, because it lies below them”. This is because by showing-off, advancing one’s self, and imposing his/her will forcefully, one, aside from exercising his/her desires, will also elevate oneself as if he/she is the one whose words are to be heard upon; as if he/she is the ‘one’, which will then cancel out the essence of the nature as the main authority that allows everything to subsist; as the ‘one’ that rules up the whole universe. Therefore, in living out as the ‘man-for-nature’, one should be humble and unassuming, in order for which the nature is to rule out on things.
D
In the method Lao Tzu lays out the steps for the development of the sage, he affirmed that philosophy is a refinement of one as he/she lives out his life as a ‘man’ that is responsible to the nature’s sake.
In improving oneself to become eventually the ‘man-for-nature’, one must first despise knowing; he/she must unlearn, will never learn, and will never be an instrument of learning. In getting rid of knowledge (and desires) that we acquire through our sensorial experience, which affects in the way we live out our lives, one superficially unlearns. He/she closes his/her self, primarily his/her senses, from any knowledge, from those he/she had and those which he/she will later on attain. This knowledge, since it is brought up by one’s senses which are admittedly defective and imperfect, are also of defects and imperfectness. Sometimes, we perceive the truth, sometimes not. Sometimes, our senses are effective, while other times it fails. Hence, our sensorial means are not that stable to be relied upon. And since it is unstable and erratic, its ‘produce’ which is the knowledge we acquire through it are indeed volatile and dangerous. Volatie, for it is not effective, hence is not worthy to be adhered by one in living out his/her life. Dangerous, for with the eratic-ness of knowledge, one could assume something that is not totally assured, which could put up bad implications. With knowledge, one would identify things. In identification then comes categories; there will be those which are preferred over the other. And through preferential categories comes limitations and prejudices. Yes, such limitations/controls could be good, for these things offer propriety and orderliness in the universe. But since it is brought up by the unreliable sensorial knowledge, it will just give an avenue for confusion and misapprehension. That’s why it is not and will never be welcome in the Way of Tao. For in the nature’s Way, only the Tao knows; it is the only one whose assertions are true. By knowing the Tao, which is a knowledge but technically not a sensorial one, one knows that only the Tao knows, and not him/her. That’s why he/she is to unlearn and exude any traces or spots of worldly knowledge and acknowledge the Tao. But aside from that, one must not also tolerate and be an agent of learning to others. As an ‘man-for-nature’, aside from unlearning his/her self, must also unlearn others through his/her example, and of course, not of force. In being the ‘man-for-nature’, one must not give human knowledge, for this might sound absurd because how can he/she give something that he/she has already got rid of. Anyway, the point is that, upon showcasing the character of the man of Tao to others, one primal step to model out as a man of ‘nature’, is to unlearn. Through this, problems and conflicts will be resolved, and harmony will, in place, persist.
After that of despising knowledge (or learning), in modeling out oneself as the ‘man-for-nature’, the individual must grip on the notion of Wu-wei which is to left nothing undone by not doing anything beyond. What this notion is trying to say is that the ‘man-for-nature’ himself/herself is to stop when he/she is already done with what he/she is ought to do; not going to an extra mile, nor pursuing for more (non-exceeding), and to be humbly contented of his/her natural work instead. The idea here is that, upon not doing more so, one will be able to recognize, acknowledge, and allow the Way nature is doing things; the natural course of things. If the Way of nature is to persist, there will be harmony, for things will be done naturally, without any appaling instances that could cause disharmony instead. The point here is that, if one will just rely on the nature’s way, which means not exceeding his/her own nature in doing things, there would be no chaos, no harm, etc. -just harmony and agreement of things. Through this, Wu-wei, one can be an effective exemplar that advocates for the re-adherence of the people to the nature.
E
Finally, in the way Lao Tzu specified the solution for the basic philosophical problem, he stated that philosophy is a leadership of one in governing the people as they live out a life that is rooted to their responsibility to nature itself.
Lao Tzu, as a whole, suggests the idea of returning to the nature, and to do that, one must govern others throught its Way (Tao). After fabricating and eventually becoming and living as a ‘man-for-nature’ or the Taoist ‘sage’, one must act the idea of an ‘man-for-nature’; as an ‘example’ he/she must be the model which others will then follow and further simulate. And in modeling out one self, one is to act the lead; he/she must advance his/her self in order for others to follow him/her. In that way, he/she is seen in front, thus, vindicating the idea that others will see him/her as the figure to be tracked on, which means he/she, who is the ‘man-for-nature’, will then lead.
As to Lao Tzu, in order to eventually govern others, one must first exhibit the idea of being ‘one with the nature’. The individual then is to accord oneself to the nature, which means one should live with the course of nature; to allow the nature to do its thing. Such being ‘one’ with the nature pertains to idea of ‘returning to the root’, thus, going back to our basic grounds; to our simplest terms. for as we know nature as the primal actuality of things; including us.
As the one becomes one with the Nature, according to Lao Tzu, he/she must then secondly impose such Way of the Nature as the thing that rules over all that there is to the others in order for it to be observed, and thus followed. Unlike that of the hermit who is yes, knows the ruling of nature, thus adheres with it, but isolates his/her self away from that of the whole world. In the idea of the uncarved block, Lao Tzu, suggests that the block is not only to be carved; meaning the Way of Nature is not just to be lived by oneself, but it must also be put into use; which indicates for the man of Nature to lead and eventually become a ruler, not a worldly-separated hermit.
Aside from which, rulers must not interfere the people, because to interfere is to cancel out the naturalness of things, and ones things are not on their natural state, there will be unusual occurrences which could somehow formulate unpredicted yet corrupted effects. Such interference means an intrusion or a disturbance that signifies influence or force. In other words, interference here, as how Lao Tzu would say it, implies a coercive energy from one to another. If that’s the case, as Lao Tzu would say, people or the forced ones will result to resist and counter them. If there would be no force inflicted, there would be no opposition. As how Newton would say it in his assertion of the third law of motion: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. If there is interference from the government, there would also be a counter-interference from the state itself. That is why Lao Tzu suggested such government of no-action/interference, because in that way, there would be no counter-action that will happen; no opposition then will lead to no chaos -just harmony! As Lao Tzu would say, if one will try to cut wood as if he is a master carpenter, which he is not, he will just end up hurting his hand. The more laws and restrictions, or weapons, or rules there are, the more troubles will come.
But then again, we must remember that Lao Tzu doesn’t mean “no government”, but rather “government of non-interference”. Still, he recognizes the need for a governing system for a society to achieve harmony, but how can then it govern without interferring? Without interference then doesn’t mean a total absence of any outside intervention coming from the government, but rather he mean it as something that indicates non-exceeding to what is ought to be given by an individual. In other words, it is not going beyond what is due to be given. What is then the ideal nature of a government then, and what is to go beyond? The government, as for Lao Tzu, must enlighten up the people to become ignorant themselves by being also an ignorant. All of the people then do not go forth and seek knowledge to lead others, but rather they are to be the example of a man whose nature is not to impose their knowledge, but rather to be keen followers of the nature’s procedure in making the world go round.
SUMMARY:
The philosophy then, again, for Lao Tzu is a way one is ought to live life that is rooted in his obligation to the nature by (1) first, recognizing the idea that it is the ‘nature’ which is the most significant among all that there is. (2) Second, by being aware that since ‘nature’ is the most essential in the “all”, one must be indeed observe his responsibility to the nature to achieve what is naturally good. (3) Third, by being aware, one is then to be guided through the example of the sage; the ‘man-for-nature’. (4) Fourth, through such prior guidance, one then is to be refined; be educated and be well-improved in order to become a responsible man of nature. And (5) lastly, after such refinement, one is then to lead the whole people through his example in becoming also ‘men-for-nature’. Through here, as for Lao Tzu, everybody is deemed to become a man, in living his life, that is concerned primarily to what could be good for the nature, for that is the primal task of us people upon subsisting out in this life of ours.
III- Synthesis
Confucius and Lao Tzu, although have different roots of philosophy (whether that would be of man or nature), was still able to consider the idea that philosophy is a way man is ought to live.
For Confucius, such is rooted from one’s responsibility to the ‘man’. People then, as guided, in their way of living out their life must recognize their responsibilities and obligations to the society, and work to uphold the rules and jurisdiction of their society; which means harmonious operation of the society. His philosophy believes that respect for others is essential for it allows the attaining good things. That's why he taught mostly about the code of proper human conduct; which involves the cardinal virtues, expressions, roots, etc. If everyone is living out as a good citizen, as provided in the example of the ‘noble-man’ (Chun Tzu), the entirety will achieve peace, harmony, and happiness.
While for Lao Tzu, it is rooted in one’s concern for the Nature. One should try to live in harmony with the whole actuality of nature, rather than countering it and focusingto the limited ways of human beings. For him, instead of living out life by strongly-held rules and regulations, people should try to work with the natural way of the world. In his philosophy, he did not argue of what is humanly good or bad, or try to change things. He accepted things as they are naturally, and in this, as for him, life would be easier and favorable to the people. Thus, harmony in life will just then follow.
Nevertheless, as a whole, both of the idea given of what is philosophy rooted from, the idea that, as a way, it guides one to live a certain ideal character which allows one to attain harmony encapculates its very principle. The said philosophy as a whole has its goal; not like that of the Presocratic search for the origin of things, nor like that of any other else which focuses on justice, freedom, love, etc. The point is, the Ancient Chinese Philosophy, as expounded by both philosophers, is indeed a way an individual is ought to live out his convoluted yet short life.
References:
*(1938, Waley, A. “The Analects of Confucius”. USA. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. )
*(1948, Fung Yu-Lan. “A Short History of Chinese Philosophy”. New York, NY 10020.. Simon and Schuster Inc.)
No comments:
Post a Comment