The philosophy that is demonstrated in Ancient Chinese philosophy, as revealed in the assumptions of Lao Tzu for a solution to the basic philosophical problem, which is the lackness of natural harmony, is a man’s way of re-fabricating oneself to become the ‘example-man’ 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, re-fabricating or to re-fabricate. It means to make or construct something (or someone) again from its previous different yet pivotal parts (1). It indicates that such reconstruction is made up of distinctive yet connective components. Second, the ‘example-man’, or what Lao Tzu refers as the Taoist ‘sage’ (2). The ‘example-man’, although not like that of the usual sage who is a mere elder mentor that teaches values, etc. , but rather the model, or the exemplar of his/her fellow people in living the ideal life which is the life with the nature.
Now, in fabricating oneself to become the ‘example-man’, one should first be acquianted with 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 ‘example-man’ 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.
Nonetheless, all of which generally asserts that, after having in mind the idea that nature should rule out, which means things must be of natural causes, man in response should little by little develop and create the ‘example-man’ himself. By creating such himself, he/she must accord to the given principles of the Tao of being “empty”, “open”, “weak”, and “humble”. In that way, he/she will be able to grasp up the idea of nature whose will is to be done, and him, as the agent of it will become the ‘example-man’ of nature himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment