DracoOccisor t1_ix769gm wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in The famous Butterfly Dream of Taoist Philosophy and how it recommends a radical openness to judging right from wrong by CaptainOfTheKeys
> Where would that put Hitler or Stalin? Certainly there must be a point of no return?
No. To Zhuangzi, right and wrong are problematic concepts that we can never be certain of. We create wrong by saying that something is right. The wrong thing never existed before we said that something was right. We created a philosophical problem where there was none originally.
> On a more modern stance, consumerism has driven unethical business practices. Perhaps that has helped the modern world advance in many ways… but does that mean a slave runner is off the hook in the long run? So they shouldn’t care about another living creature “for the greater good” since they feel right about who they are?
This is all in line with ethical thinking. Zhuangzi rejects ethical thinking. You’re assuming that some business practices are ethical and unethical and that slavery is wrong. Zhuangzi would say that’s not necessarily the case.
> Again where’s the line? We’ve seen plenty of grifters and nasty dictators (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Leopold II) pass away peacefully and with honors. Why would they care about the world if they didn’t before? If I commit atrocities and die thinking the world will love me for it.. then what else matters?
The point is not to care about the world. Daoism is a personal cultivation tool. It’s not world oriented, it’s self oriented. In its historical context, the Zhuangzi was radically anti-political.
> It’s a perfect world philosophy that I wish we could live in but realistically that’s just not the case.
You’re expecting the wrong thing. Zhuangist Daoism is specifically for a world that’s not ideal or perfect. It’s a way to deal with the horrors of a war-torn world in a healthy way. When Zhuangzi was writing, the world was in a far worse state than ours. He was trying to find a way out.
SoTastyWhales t1_ix7oqyy wrote
Really good write up, historical context is so important to understanding these ideas.
[deleted] t1_ix7bafn wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ix7bz6s wrote
[deleted]
NTGenericus t1_ix954fa wrote
The World is always going to be involved only with itself. The World (the ten-thousand things) can't see anything outside of itself, and probably never will. The Razor's Edge (1984) is an excellent film about exactly this. Worldly people see the movie as a string of tragedies, but what they're really seeing are the results of Worldly attachments. The one unattached person is the only person who becomes enlightened and makes it out. Imho, attempting to teach the attached about wu wei and the pathless path is pointless. The World is only ever going to see the world. In this case, wu wei is probably the way.
DracoOccisor t1_ix9nbll wrote
Zhuangzi doesn’t teach detachment. His recommended way of living looks like detachment, but it’s actually a radical reorientation of your relationship to your personal values and the world around you. That mode of living still allows for attachment. Zhuangzi still mourned the death of Huizi, after all. The detachment you seem to be talking about is Buddhist influence on later religious Daoism (道教 as opposed to 道家).
That being said, I am sympathetic to your point and I think you’re right. I’m only pointing out some blurring that you have between religious Daoism and philosophical Daoism, which are distinct branches of thought. It’s easy to fall into this trap if you follow online Daoist groups instead of studying Daoism academically.
NTGenericus t1_ixa00g5 wrote
You're absolutely right. I have consciously blended Daoism and Zen. I have never been a member of a Daoist group. And all I have ever done is read Laozi and Zhuangzi. However, I had quite the mystical experience one day that lasted for more than two years. That came directly from reading Laozi. But, the only explanation I could find for what happened to me came straight out of Zen. Very perceptive on your part. Not too long ago I shifted back toward Daoism, but only the Laozi/Zhuangzi version. I couldn't care less about Internal Alchemy and all that. I studied with a Daoist priest and after two days I left because it was nothing like what I was after. It was then that I started looking at Zen.
[deleted] t1_ix775a6 wrote
Interesting thoughts.
Not being argumentative but I just can’t get on board with these concepts. I do think there is a very solid baseline for right and wrong, mainly around intentful and direct treatment of another living being.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments