ACP - Final Synthesis Paper

ANCIENT CHINESE PHILOSOPHY

( as demonstrated by Confucius and Lao Tzu )

Introduction:

Philosophy in Ancient China, as demonstrated by Confucius and Lao Tzu, is an order which determines the way one is ought to live life. It is what the West would refer as the mandate of “mores” or morality; the one that establishes the standard customs that people accept and follow in dealing with their day-to-day existence. Though, one should be able to take into account, upon understanding Ancient Chinese Philosophy, the idea that the element of determining what is right and wrong is not what is emphasized in the demonstration of it, but rather what is ‘ordered’ and what is ‘not’. For what is generally used in such exposition is not the term “right” but rather the term “in accordance to the Way”, and not the term “wrong” but rather the term “lost/out of the Way”. Here, we can see an interpretation of philosophy as a kind of a ‘directive’ that motivates us, human beings, to live in a particular manner (the Way) and not in a particular standard/criteria of correctness. But in what “manner” (Way) is it that we are to live our life?

I- Confucius; Human

“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

A

In the way he perceived the basic problem of his times, Confucius asserted that philosophy, is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through recognizing the ‘human person’ as the most essential being among all that there is in 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 life, including humans themselves. As for him, such disorder constituted the wars, killings, injustices, and other unpleasant anthropological occurrences which are not ordinarily good for the humans themselves. That’s why he referred to it as a “disorder”; a disarray of what is ought to be 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 didn’t prevail, things went terrible for all.

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 disorientation. In response to that, Confucius opened the consciousness of the people that there could really be a solution; a key in the midst of the “inevitableness” of such mayhem that will bring us to harmony and peace.

Now, in order to formulate a solution to such problem, 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 the “actualities” of things; 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 worked out, according to Confucius, through the act of rectifying the said human-made designation. Such rectification, or perfection of these human-manufactured names, is accrued from the idea that man is the most significant among “all”; the central being which everything revolves around for. What would be then ‘perfect’ for the human beings will be the ‘perfect’ designation for the said actualities, for things are actually for humans themselves. Upon such realization of man as the core of all, the rectification of the names will be based to what is good for the ‘man’. For example, the term ‘ruler’ or ‘Chun Tzu’ (literally means the Noble Man): The ‘Chun Tzu’ during the Ancient times of China acted as some sort of a mighty, powerful, and influential ‘military general’. It is someone of authority above the general people. But is it really what a ‘Chun Tzu’ for the good of the people? A person who is hungry for self-empowerment? Now, since the remedy for such dilemma is to rectify the names in accordance to the good of humanity, if we are then to rectify such terms, which is ‘ruler’ / ‘Chun Tzu’, it will then be designate as a ‘human-for-humanity’ which is an advocator of the entire human good. We may understand it as the contemporary “people-person”, whose main concern is the sake of the general people. With such designation, instead of craving for self-power, he will desire for the power of the whole humanity itself.

Clearly, we can see that, Confucius indeed, in the midst of his perception to the given problems, was able to demonstrate an idea of philosophy as an order that determines that the way we, people, are ought to live life is through recognizing the ‘human person” as the most essential being a mongst all; whose general problem (which is disorientation) must be addressed, whose fault which created the problem (by wrongful designations of ‘things’), and whose good is actually the main foundation of the answer to its problem.

B

In the way he laid down the assumptions of the solution for what he perceived to be the basic problem, Confucius asserted that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through supposing that the ‘human person’ is someone who has other fellows, a past, an innate goodness, and a ‘potential’ to develop into a human-for-humanity (the real Chun Tzu).

Confucius came up with the assumption of (1) the Tao or Way. The Tao is (as Confucius would assert it) the Way of how things should be morally and socially. The moral aspect of the Tao is concerned on the idea that it offers a sense of direction to the people in determining what are they ought to do in the general situations of their life (like being in a family, or in a State, etc.). The social aspect of the Tao is concerned on the idea of it not being individualistic, that’s why it is referred ‘social’. In other words, it is not only directed to a particular person or individual to follow and to be addressed for, because it is for the sake of humanity in general. Here, we can see that what Confucius is trying to tell us is the idea that the human being is not alone, and indeed has ‘other fellows’ outside of his/her self that he/she must be morally responsible of.

(2) Second, Confucius also cropped up an assumption of the human tradition; it is the order of the ‘past’ for the present. 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 said by Confucius himself. Here, Confucius tells us that the human being is not only impinged with the idea of him/her having a fellow outside him/her, but is also faced with that of his/her past, as determined by the tradition which he/she belongs.

(3) Third, Confucius then came up with the assumption of the basic goodness of the human person. Such "basic-ness", or primitiveness (like that of the prime tradition) 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 the human being 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 (Human) is born with uprightness. If one loses it he will be lucky if he escapes with his life" (6:17). Such assertion somehow presupposes that the basic goodness of the human being is innate and that 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). In this point, Confucius offers a supposition that the human being has this natural and innate goodness in him/her.

(4) Aside from that of goodness, Confucius also came up with the assumption of the human being as someone who also carries with him/her his/her nature of educability. Evidently, we started our lives as curious beings 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). With such, 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. However, the question is: What is this ‘education’ that Confucius is trying to say? Is it like that of our institutionalized education in the modern times? This education is none other than the development of the human being in becoming a human-for-humanity, or Chun Tzu. Although it could somehow create a confusion, for the term ‘Chun Tzu’ is particularly referred by the Ancient Chinese to be the primal character of nobility and decency. But as for 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 human-for-humanity, 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/her own self interest. Rather, one must be human persons that aspire for the good of the human entirety. Here, Confucius tells us that the human being indeed has the potential to become a ‘human-for-humanity’ (Chun Tzu).

Hence, in the way he laid down the assumptions of the solution for what he perceived to be the basic problem, Confucius demonstrated philosophy as an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through supposing that the ‘human person’ is someone who has other fellows, a past, an innate goodness, and a ‘potential’ to develop into a human-for-humanity (the real Chun Tzu).

C

In the way he characterized the ideal human being, which is the ‘human-for-humanity’ (Chun Tzu), Confucius expounded the idea that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through animating benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom for the sake of ‘Humanity’ in general.

 Upon characterizing the ideal man, which he refers as the Chun Tzu, he mentioned that one must follow a certain idyllic disposition which is fabricated by means of virtues. These virtues, however, are not just any virtues, but rather are human virtues for the human in general: these are the virtues of human-heartedness (jen), righteousness (yi), propriety (li), and wisdom (chih).

First, the ideal human being possesses 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 benevolence one offers for the entire humanity outside him/her without worrying what will be left for him/her. In preferring the interest of the many that are external of his/her self, the person of jen is expresses such virtue 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". It is positive for it provokes action in accordance to the interest of the actor. The negative, on the other hand, is to "not to do what one doesn't want others to do to him". Respectively, it is negative for it encourages non-action in accordance to the displeasure of the actor. That is why jen 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.

Aside from jen, the ideal human person also holds the virtue of fairness; of righteousness or yi. Fairness, for the fact that the ideal person wants others to be treated in the same way he/she 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 person is indeed unselfish enough to think of his personal profit in order to overpower his self over others, which somehow vindicates the idea why the ideal person is referred as the "human-for-humanity", not “human-for-his/her-self”.

The ideal human person also retains the virtue of propriety or li. Li prefers to an idea of discipline that determines what is appropriate and what is not for the ideal human person. 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, for Confucius, the appropriate is what is already 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 capriciousness and instability. Such stability brought by the customary though implies consistency. This is for one, in order to be fixed must be steady and constant enough not to shift in and out.

Speaking of consistency, the last virtue, as indicated by Confucius is that of wisdom or Chih. Wisdom, as we usually refer it, is the knowledge that is perfected through the its application to human experience. However, for Confucius, it is a little different, because wisdom, as for it's Chinese character, means "to speak like an arrow, straight and true". Such "accuracy" (straight and true) of the words being spoken by the ideal human being is determined by its correspondence to that of the latter’s action. In short, what the ideal person says, is what he/she needs to do. If one would say this or know that, he/she must justify such through his action/deed towards the whole assembly of human beings.

Therefore as he characterized the ideal human being, which is the ‘human-for-humanity’, Confucius exhibited philosophy as an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through animating benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom for the sake of ‘Humanity’ in general.

D

As to the way Confucius laid out the means to become the ideal human being, which is the ‘human-for-humanity’, he stated that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through rectifying his/her own human mind, perfecting his/her knowledge, and stabilizing such through human action in accordance to what would be good for the human entirety.

Here, according to Confucius, after knowing the virtues, one must then refine his/her own self in accordance to it; the very cultivation of the own individual as the virtuous human-for-humanity. 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 dealings the ideal human being will encounter; from learning, to the application of the knowledge attained from learning. It must be 'healthy', ‘well-prepared’ and ‘competent’ enough to handle the great responsibility of becoming a ‘human-for-humanity’. If an individual has a "dirty mind", it will make him/her a filthy person. If a person has a virtuous mind, it will make him/her a person of values. Now, when the mind is already perfected, a person is now ready to learn and be able to perfect his/her knowledge.

Learning then is the next pace after having a competent mind. One can now be able to 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 be able to fill up one's own rectified cognizance with contents. But then again, it is not merely any ‘contents’, for one must secure that such knowledge that is acquired is well-reflected and critically-investigated whether such 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 inappropriately.

 Now after being able to rectify one's mind, learn things out, and perfect such learning, to be consistent then is the next characteristic one should be able to upheld to become a human-for-humanity. 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 contradiction, just pure confirmation to one's own cause and intention. From that of the mind, to gaining and correcting such knowledge, one must then reveal such perfected knowledge through one's own deeds.

In conclusion, as Confucius laid out the means to become the ideal human being, he was able to posit an idea of philosophy being an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through rectifying his/her own human mind, perfecting his/her knowledge, and stabilizing such through human action in accordance to what would be good for the human entirety.

E

In the way Confucius specified the solution for the basic philosophical problem, he claimed that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through promoting human harmony in his/her family and State through the virtues of the ‘human-for-humanity’. Here, Confucius suggested the notion of the ‘human-for-humanity’ being able to lead out the people in also becoming ‘humans-for-humanity’ themselves.

In doing so, he started from that of the family which is the basic unit of society. Since it is where the practice of virtue starts, it is thereby easy to mold. The family must then have the primal priority in pursuit to what is good for the human beings themselves. Thus, one must succumb and abide to what would gratify the family; 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 human-for-humanity, is well-appreciated and best boosted upon. Such assertion then advocates idea of the family as the primal priority of the individual in terms of rehearsing the virtues to become 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, 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 in accordance to the State’s interest, everybody is to be follow the virtues of humanity and not by the law or any types of coercion. There is no implementing of any individual preferences, even if it is justified by means of legal acceptance. Such virtues though 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.

Such then opened the possibilities for all the people to become examples themselves in becoming the agents for the human good. Here, everybody is to become a sage-emperor/empress; a philosopher-king/queen. Philosopher, because he/she upholds philosophy that is an order/mandate itself which verifies that one should live life for the sake of humanity as a whole. And a king/queen, in the sense that he/she 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 encourages the people to act and behave in accordance to the virtues for the good of all the humans; not only for ourselves nor merely for others, but for all of us as a whole.

SYNTHESIS:

In a nutshell, for Confucius, philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through intervening to the whole of Humanity for the latter’s sake. 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 regulations that are made by the people, though are still, for the establishment of harmony for the people themselves. The people then, in living out their lives, must: first (1) recognize that the human being is the most essential being to be concerned of in this world. Second (2), suppose that the ‘human being’ is someone who has other fellows, a past, an innate natural goodness, and a ‘potential’ to develop into a human-for-humanity. Third (3), animate benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom for the sake of ‘Humanity’ in general. Fourth (4), rectify his/her own human mind, perfect his/her knowledge, and stabilize such through action in accordance to what would be good for the human entirety. And lastly (5), promote human harmony in his/her family and State through the virtues of the ‘human-for-humanity’.

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 then is living out as an ideal human person, as provided in the example of the ‘human-for-humanity’ (Chun Tzu), the entirety of the human race will achieve peace, harmony, and happiness.

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

                                                                         

A

In the way Lao Tzu perceived the basic philosophical problem, he asserted that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through recognizing the “nature” as the most central thing a mongst all that there is in 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 all of the things’ natural course, that is of no 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 a mongst that operates. Though it might sound confusing 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? Yes, but actually the point that is being made here is that, there should be no other authority to be considered except that of nature’s; which means that the only authority then 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.

This is perhaps what Lao Tzu is trying to say in formulating his philosophy, and he started it all out 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 everything is not anymore in their usual, 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 as they appear now, but rather it is that of their primal actuality; what they were at the very first place before their being now.

Lao Tzu then is not just referring to the problem of the presence of war and suffering which is contrary to the usual peace and order in the society. What he is referring as the main problem is the absence and loss of nature of things, 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 being lost from that of its own nature of leading back the people to the way things are ought to be. ‘Leading them back’ in the sense of allowing the course of nature to occur in their very lives, and by precluding excessive human intrusion like too much taxation and interference, etc. . If everyone 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, according to Lao Tzu, well rest in harmony. Nonetheless, Lao Tzu doesn’t mean to neglect totally the human government. What he proposes is a government which is only concerned of what it is ought to be done by the people in 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 finitude 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 entirety 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, hence is prone to error, values. Man-made in the sense that it is only created by means of a specific human criterion, which is then prone to miscalculations, and worse, contradictions. Contradictory in the sense 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 and uncertain.

 Since it creates an avenue for oppositions to occur, there will be categorization of things. 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 acknowledgment 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 to do something to be categorized as bad if he/she doesn’t have any idea whether what he/she felt is also to be categorized as bad or not. 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 dubitable acknowledgment to things, so does desires. If one would have the ability to prefer one (specific) than everything (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 whole) 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 recognizes nature as the central thing, according to Lao Tzu, of all the things that there is 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.

In the way then Lao Tzu perceived the basic philosophical problem, he demonstrated an idea of philosophy as an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through recognizing the “nature” as the most central thing a mongst all that there is in life.

B

In the way he laid out the assumptions for a solution to what he perceived as the basic philosophical problem, Lao Tzu asserted that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through supposing that the “nature” is something that respects oppositions, values openness and emptiness, expresses weakness and humility, and thereby originates all things.

In being aware of the nature, one should know that the nature itself respects the opposition of things. 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 identity, no being; to become nothing. This is for the identity of the thing comes out, according to Lao Tzu, when it is faced with its non-identity (its opposite); you can know good, once you have the idea of what is not ‘it’, which is bad. These oppositions then, as for him, however don’t cause annihilation of things and their opposites. Instead, it causes for the opposite things themselves to be as they are. The idea then of these oppositions is not contradictory 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, of nature, or simply the natural procedures which allows the ‘good’ to be attained. Although the Confucian Tao (we have mentioned earlier) is kind of a bit different from that of what Lao Tzu refers as the Tao. If we are to compare, we can see the difference between the Confucian 'Tao' and that of Lao Tzu’s; 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.

Now, as demonstrated by Lao Tzu himself, Tao is primarily “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. Here we can see that nature, in its Way of things (Tao), values of emptiness.

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. Here, we can perceive the idea that nature, in its Way, also values openness.

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 understood as being incapable or frail. Weakness here is to be understood as 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 lack-ness 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, or the Way of ‘nature’, is the only one who/which must carry out the honor and dignity; that only the ‘nature’ is great. Such humility then implies a notion of not daring to be ahead of others, because only the ‘nature’ 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, clearly one can make a good ‘example’ from one’s self. Here, we can see that, clearly, the nature itself, expresses both weakness and humility. 

Tao then, as the Way of ‘nature’, is the name Lao Tzu infer to that of the process of that “is” which makes up everything that there is, and therefore persists in everything that there is which is the ‘nature’ itself. Nature then, is in short the origin of 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 is the process that makes up everything, all of the essences and expressions of the Tao (Emptiness, Openness; Weakness, and Humility) clearly validates the things as they are in their selves. 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 un-conceitedness in order to put emphasis and 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 process that makes up all the things.

As to the way then he laid out the assumptions for a solution to what he perceived as the basic philosophical problem, Lao Tzu asserted an idea of philosophy as an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through supposing that the “nature” is something that respects oppositions, values openness and emptiness, expresses weakness and humility, and thereby originates all things.

C

In the way Lao Tzu characterized the ideal human being, which is the “human-for-nature” (Taoist sage), he expounded that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through animating ‘ignorance’, asceticism, inactivity, naturalness, and humility for       the sake of ‘Nature’ itself.

After finally fabricating the characteristics and values of the ‘human-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 ‘human-for-nature’, or what Lao Tzu refers as the Taoist sage, that follows, observes and allows the Way of Nature (Tao). In other words, after being able to frame up the right formula to solve the subsisting problem and to finally attain harmony, the human beings must now live in accordance to it (formula) as the people 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 human being which are made in correspondence to the Tao itself, 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 ‘nature’, the stroller, which is the ‘example’ man, is ordered to clear up all his/her baggages of knowledge. He/she must abandon any forms of 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 himself/herself. It is because first, knowledge is just a worldly thing that is left behind upon death, and is therefore of no use once the one who has it is already dead; hence, is superfluous and is indeed an excess, which is then not ‘good’. As how Chuang Tzu would demonstrate it in his writings of “Duke Hwan and the Wheelwright”, 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. In other words, it doesn’t carry out its fullness and actuality, and will never do so and will end up passing way which is therefore not of ‘nature’s; for what is of ‘nature’s flows everywhere; even across death. And as we have mentioned, whatever that is not that of ‘nature’s is irrelevantly 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 ways. 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; which is the Way of ‘nature’. 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 what the Tao is saying. For the Tao affirms that it is not the self, but rather the entirety 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 a ‘human-for-nature’, for it leads one out of the Way of ‘nature’. Here, we can see that the ideal human being must animate ignorance.

While ‘no desires’ means to have no personal preferences; in other words to become  ascetic or to deny any self interest. Same as to having no knowledge, asceticism signifies to put oneself before the entirety; that the whole 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 denial to one’s own personal liking 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 the general good, one will be able to perceive what he/she is ought to prefer, which is that of the whole’s. It is, in desiring for the good of ‘all’, 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 (that in the matters of tastes/preferences, no one shall dispute). But the truth is, nobody can just remain silent, stay on their bed 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 personal 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. Here, the ideal human being, according to Lao Tzu must animate asceticism; to deny one’s own self-interests.

Clearly, the ‘human-for-nature’ 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 inaction. 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. Inaction 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 your 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 a ‘human-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 ideal human being, is the virtue of inactivity which allows the action to be done by the nature itself. 

Such ‘action through inaction’ will then give us the idea that one, as a ‘human-for-nature’ should be humble. Upon acknowledging the rule of nature, one is to lower oneself under the said rule. The ‘human-for-nature’ then indeed has the virtue of humility. 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 a ‘human-for-nature’, one should animate the virtue of humility, in order for the ‘nature’ to rule out on things.

In the way Lao Tzu characterized the ideal human being, which is the “human-for-nature” (Taoist sage), he expounded a notion of philosophy as an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through animating ‘ignorance’, asceticism, inactivity, naturalness, and humility for   the sake of ‘Nature’ itself.

D

In the method Lao Tzu laid out the steps to become the ideal human being, which is the ‘human-for-nature’, he affirmed that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through precluding his/her own knowledge and stabilizing such through inaction in accordance to what would be good for ‘nature’ in general.

In improving oneself to eventually become a ‘human-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 sense 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 sense experience 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. Volatile, for it is not certain, hence is not worthy to be adhered by one in living out his/her life. Dangerous, for with the unpredictability 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 misunderstanding and misapprehension. That’s why it is not and will never be welcome in the Way of ‘nature’. For in the nature’s Way, only the ‘nature’ knows; it is the only one whose assertions are true. By knowing the Tao or the Way of ‘nature’, which is a knowledge but technically not a sensorial one, one knows that only the ‘nature’ knows, and not him/her. That’s why he/she is to unlearn and preclude 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 a ‘human-for-nature’, aside from unlearning his/her self, he/she must also unlearn others through his/her example, and of course, not of force. In being a ‘human-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, the primal step to model out as a human-for-nature is to know the Way of ‘nature’ through unlearning. Through this, problems and conflicts will be resolved, and harmony will be attained.

After that of despising knowledge (or unlearning), in modeling out oneself as the ‘human-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 ‘human-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 appalling 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. Here, we can see that the next step in becoming a ‘human-for-nature’ is to follow the Way of ‘nature’ by allowing it to persist without interfering through action.

Truly, as to the way Lao Tzu laid out the steps to become the ideal human being, which is the ‘human-for-nature’, he affirmed an idea of philosophy as an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through precluding his/her own knowledge and stabilizing such through inaction in accordance to what would be good for ‘nature’ in general.

E

In the way Lao Tzu specified the solution for the basic philosophical problem, he demonstrated that philosophy is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through promoting the Way of ‘nature’ to the people through the virtues of naturalness and non-interference. Here Lao Tzu, after fabricating the idea of the human person eventually becoming and living as a ‘human-for-nature’ or the Taoist sage, suggested that the human person then must influence others for them to follow and further simulate the Way of ‘nature’ and become humans-for-nature themselves.

According to him, in order to eventually influence others to become agents of the natural course of things, that 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. Here he/she, does not only tell the others what to do to become ‘humans-for-nature’ themselves, but also embody the things which others should do. In short, he/she is not only teaching the Ways of the ‘human-for-nature’, but is also practicing such Ways for others to replicate.

As the one becomes one with ‘nature’, according to Lao Tzu, he/she must then secondly impose such Way of ‘nature’ as the thing that rules over all that there is to the others in order for it to be observed, and thus followed. The ‘human-for-nature’ then is not like that of the hermit who, 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 human-for-nature to lead and eventually become a ruler that promotes the Way of ‘nature’, and not to become a worldly-separated hermit.

In line to such promotion of the Way of ‘nature’, the ‘human-for-nature’ must not interfere the people’s way of living, 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; 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 interfering? 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, which is in this case, the human-for-nature. 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 overtake others, but rather they are to be the example of a human person 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.

Clearly, as to the way Lao Tzu specified the solution for the basic philosophical problem, he was able to determine an idea of philosophy as an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through promoting the Way of ‘nature’ to the people through the virtues of naturalness and non-interference.

SYNTHESIS:

Briefly philosophy then, for Lao Tzu, is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through not intervening to the course of Nature for the latter’s sake. The people then, in living out their lives, must: first (1) recognize the “nature” as the most central thing a mongst all that there is in life. Second (2), suppose that the “nature” is something that respects oppositions, values openness and emptiness, expresses weakness and humility, and thereby originates all things. Third (3), animate that the “nature” is something that respects oppositions, values openness and emptiness, expresses weakness and humility, and thereby originates all things. Fourth (4), preclude his/her own knowledge and stabilize such through inaction in accordance to what would be good for ‘nature’ in general. And lastly (5), promote the Way of ‘nature’ to the people through the virtues of naturalness and non-interference.

Lao Tzu’s idea of philosophy expounds an idea that one is ought to live out life in correspondence to that of the Way of ‘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. Also 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.

III- Synthesis; Human and Nature

To this point, what we have is two distinct ways of living out life; First way is in a human ‘way’, which is demonstrated by Confucius himself as he looked at the man as the most significant being a mongst all that there is and thereby must be the grounds of all actions in one’s life. Second is in a natural ‘way’, which is demonstrated by Lao Tzu himself as he looked at the nature (of things) as the central thing that must not be adulterated and thereby must be allowed to ‘occur’ as to the course of one’s life, making the non-interference (non-action) to such the grounds of living out one’s life.

Though it is evident that Confucius and Lao Tzu have different roots of determining how one is ought to live life (whether that would be of man or nature), it doesn’t mean that the two are contradictory and by no means can reach a point of being able to assert a unified way of how one should live life in respect to both the whole of ‘humanity’ and that of the course of ‘nature’. Let’s go back to what the philosophers were able to demonstrate as their idea of what philosophy is:

We have mentioned that philosophy for Confucius is “an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through intervening to the whole of Humanity for the latter’s sake”. The key here is the word “intervening”. Confucius, in general, affirms an idea of a necessity of human participation; that the human beings themselves must participate and intervene with the matters that are under the light of ‘humanity’ as a whole. From that of the respect one should embody to other people, to the proper treatment of each other and that of their traditions and virtues, and so on. Everybody then, according to Confucius is tasked to get involved to whatever is inside the bounds of the ‘human person’ in general.

However, Lao Tzu offers a different idea of philosophy. According to him, philosophy is nothing but “an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through not intervening to the course of Nature for the latter’s sake”. Here, the crucial term is that of “not intervening”, which is opposite to that of Confucius’. But before going to the opposition, we must look first to the idea of Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu, generally, verifies an idea of a needlessness of human participation; that the human beings themselves must not interfere with the matters concerning the ‘nature’ itself. There should be mere spontaneity and naturalness and no knowledge that will lead to further dangerous impositions. Every person then, as how Lao Tzu has said it, is tasked to not to get involved to whatever is within the bounds of ‘nature’.

But how can one upheld the idea of Confucius with that of Lao Tzu; I mean, how can one ‘intervene’ and at the same time ‘not intervene’? Here, we have to understand that since they have different subjects, it can be possible.

One then should just do and intervene to whatever concerns the ‘human person’ as a whole, and avoid and allow the things that concerns the course of ‘nature’. But is this a right answer to such problem of opposition? Is it possible to do so? I mean, what about the idea of ‘human nature’, how should one deal with it? Should one intervene to such? Or not? And in the case that it is not the right answer, is there any?

For the first question, it is not, for the human person and the nature itself are not two separated entities that one can just intervene to that of the one and avoid the other. For the last question, yes, there is, and that is to look at the ‘nature’ as to how the ‘human person’ should see it, and to look at the ‘human person’ as to how the ‘nature’, in return, should see it.

As to how we were able to demonstrate it, the human person has to understand the ‘nature’ something that is not outside him/her, but rather something that is already inside him/her. In other words, it is to see the ‘nature’ as something that is ‘human’. If he/she then is ought to respect other human beings like him/her, that is his/her nature; which is to respect and to be respected. If he/she then is ought to be righteous to others, that is also his/her nature; to be righteous and be righteous upon. In other words, what the whole of ‘humanity’ calls him/ger to do, is also what the ‘nature’ is calling him/her to do. It is not something that is imposed by any unnatural objects of authority, but rather it comes naturally to him/her; to treat others as ‘human beings’ themselves.

At the same time, the human person has to understand the idea of the ‘human person’ as something that is separated from that of nature, but rather something that is entrenched to it. In other words, it is to see the ‘human being’ as something that is natural. If he/she then is ought to not to interfere with the natural flow of things, that is his/her task as a human being; which is to not to interfere and to not to be interfered upon. If he/she then is ought not to exceed the nature of things, that is his/her objective as a human person; which is to not to exceed and to not to be exceeded. In other words, what the ‘course’ of nature asks for him/her to not to do, is also what the whole of ‘humanity’ is asking for him/her to not to do. It is not something that is isolated to him/her as a human person, but rather is something that is already attached to him/her as a human being.

As a whole, as to the assertions expounded by Confucianism (of Confucius) and Taoism (of Lao Tzu), what one is ought to follow as a way of living out his/her life is moderation; an adequate amount of intervention that should not exceed, hence preclude, the natural course of things. In general then, philosophy, as demonstrated by Confucius and Lao Tzu, is an order which determines that the way one is ought to live life is through intervening moderately to the whole of ‘humanity’ without precluding out the course of ‘nature’.

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.