The philosophy that is demonstrated in Ancient Chinese philosophy, as given in the way Lao Tzu perceives the basic philosophical problem is a man’s way of going back to the awareness of the ruling of nature as the one that will harmonized all that there is.
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 where 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 suggest or impose or simply, rule out 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. By nature, things will be ruled accordingly and be unified harmoniously.
No comments:
Post a Comment