Will

I'm working on something for school about the importance of understanding context in evaluating any sort of event or situation. (i.e., there are not necessarily absolutely true or good things, it is all relative and contextual) I'm wondering if anyone has any specific passage recommendations (preferably from the Mair translation) from the Zhuangzi that speak to my thesis. I definitely remember a lot of discussion along those lines but it's been a couple years since I last did a full read-through.

Oh... I miss him too, even though I only knew him for a short time.

I am a little bit perplexed by the following passage (https://ctext.org/zhuangzi/heaven-and-earth): (obviously there's more to the passage context that I had to cut out) I really love the phrase "like the waves carried about by the wind," as it seems to perfectly describe the ideal Daoist (someone who is carried through life in a natural manner, "going with the flow," so to speak). But it seems to me that the passage takes a negative view of living "like the waves carried about by the wind." It appears to contrast that with living with "all the attributes of the Dao." Is there something I'm missing about the context? Help!!

It's pretty much impossible to go through life without holding at least some beliefs about topics like politics (or, even more often in my case, legal debates). These are situations where a lot of people disagree, however. And many of the people who disagree are all highly educated and are hard to dismiss as ill-informed or stupid. I'm not talking about random friends here; I'm talking about law professors, political philosophers, newspaper columnists, etc. Professor X might argue that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted in one manner, while Professor Y might argue that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted in another manner. Maybe I find X's argument more convincing, but on the other hand Professor Y is clearly very smart... Sometimes I simply escape this dilemma by concluding that Professor Y must not have researched the topic as fully as I have, or something like that. But still, there's doubt in the back of my mind: Do I really believe my own excuses for rejecting Professor Y's view? Make no mistake: I am a very careful person, and I won't take a view on an issue until I've researched it thoroughly. But even then, I inevitably question: How can it be that my view is valid if some very smart people take the contrary position? This line of thinking can quickly lead me towards truth relativism/nihilism and a lack of confidence in my own beliefs or arguments. Furthermore, even when I agree with certain commentators or philosophers on one matter, I often disagree with them on another -- which again leads me to question why my view differs from theirs. To put the point differently: So far as I know, there is no one -- not one person -- who holds political beliefs that are categorically identical to mine. I take little bits from various sources, but don't mirror any one source completely. That means that my beliefs are unique, which can cause me great stress as I realize my lack of humility in choosing to act on my own individual beliefs. If my view seems correct to me, how can it be that no one has ever come to the exact same conclusions as I am? Surely if I'm actually so clearly correct then lots of people would have held virtually identical belief systems in the past ... but they didn't, at least not entirely. Does anyone here, drawing on personal experience and most importantly Daoist principles, have any potential insights/ways to think about this dilemma?

@Song of the Dao, your interpretation seems very plausible (thanks for offering it!). Although, like you, I can't actually read Chinese, so @Taoist Texts's interpretation also remains plausible with respect to the original text. Either way, it is clear that the phrase involving wind and waves is intended to have a negative connotation -- something Zhuangzi thinks is un-Daoist, so to speak. --------------- Also, random question, but what happened to @Marblehead? Did they leave the forum?

@manitou, good advice. I've read the Zhuangzhi (Mair translation) but not the Tao Te Ching yet. Need to get around to that.

I guess one interesting point (bordering on a paradox) is this: Most of the reasons I gave for feeling insecure in whether my beliefs are correct can equally well be applied to conclude that I can't be sure any beliefs are incorrect, either. So it goes both ways.

What thoughts do people here have about how to deal with political discussions at high school and at home? (asking as a quasi-Daoist) This is something I've struggled with recently. Sometimes I stay silent due to fear of judgement. Other times I speak up but later regret it (not because I said anything particularly bad but because I inherently am averse to disagreement and like to be on good terms with everyone at my high school). I very much enjoy legal writing and studying the law, which often necessarily becomes at least somewhat political. On the other hand, my Daoist intuitions strongly tell me that I probably shouldn't be very involved in politics. Already, my political views are fairly "fluid," and I constantly question them. Daoism, as I understand it, teaches epistemic humility, and it can often be hard for me to see holding political beliefs as anything other than the very authoritarian, moralistic crusading Zhuangzi argued against (of course, if being Daoist counts as a political belief, then I guess Zhuangzi had one too...). Of course, one possible option would be to stop actively engaging in politics entirely, and only maintain the very minimal level of fake political concern necessary to look "normal" among peers. This, of course, would not be very fun or satisfying, at least at first, and would require some fundamental changes in how I live my life -- particularly because, as mentioned, I'm very interested in law, particularly the contentious area of constitutional law, and I plan to go to law school eventually. Ultimately, one major issue is that I keep running into the fundamental problem that I find it very difficult to pursue a certain cause if I am not convinced that I'm doing the right thing! Thus, I begin to feel like political beliefs or "taking a stand" are crucial to living a meaningful life. Furthermore, the pull of Confucian sincerity (discussed eloquently in Moeller/D'Ambrosio's Genuine Pretending interpretation of the Zhuangzi) can be difficult to escape. I feel like "faking it" won't cut it in terms of political beliefs. I want to be sincere. I know no one here has all the answers, but does anyone have any thoughts? To be clear, this is not a thread to discuss specific political beliefs or doctrines. It is about the very concept in general and its effects.

This is a good point. As you say, there may be a difference between genuine, open-minded exchanges and closed-minded polemics. I think for me the thing that can be trickiest is when I'm in a situation where my peers are almost exclusively (sometimes literally exclusively!) taking one political position on some issue. I tend to become very frustrated whenever that happens (no matter what the specific topic is), and I feel an urge to respond (somehow my nature is to feel frustrated when I feel like others are "piling on" some person or group and not giving their side fair consideration). But normally I stay silent because I don't want to be stigmatized for holding a different view.

Ah I just found an article that might be interesting: Authority without Authenticity: The Zhuangzi’s Genuine Pretending as Socio-Political Strategy by Paul D’Ambrosio and Hans-Georg Moeller https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/12/398/pdf No time to read now but I suspect it might have some interesting things to say.

Hmm... I wonder if a good Daoist case could be made for voting purely based on self-interest. Because most campaign issues won't really affect me, and because the candidates will probably all have approximately the same (very small) impact on my daily life, one could argue that you should just vote for a random candidate and not worry too much about it all. There is also the concept of third party candidates. I sort of feel like that might be the most Daoist option since it largely avoids the major party political mayhem and nonsense. However, there could be strategic voting concerns because as people above alluded to we should probably try to maintain freedom through our choices, and realistically a third party candidate in the US won't win and you may have enabled restrictions on freedom indirectly by "squandering" your vote.

Thanks so much @Taoist Texts and others who responded. You have really cleared things up for me.

To the best of my knowledge, Legge's translation of the Zhuangzi was first published in 1891, in this book (link below is to a publicly-available digital copy): https://books.google.com/books?id=jOdHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=Such+men+may+be+described+as+possessing+all+the+attributes&source=bl&ots=VQpUfJb56E&sig=QuzUOPo2JA5T0thgPOTKrn5XZps&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGs_D44e3eAhVK1oMKHXUHChkQ6AEwCXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Such men may be described as possessing all the attributes&f=false

Wait really? In what sense do you mean "disturbed"?

I've been assigned to write a research paper on "the construction of gender" for my English class. I was wondering if there was a way to tie in the Zhuangzi (and perhaps compare its more fluid (?) ideas about gender with the stricter Confucian social roles). Two questions: Does this seem like an argument that can be made, or is it too difficult to do a gender reading of the Zhuangzi? And, if it is possible, can you think of any chapters from the Zhuangzi that could support a gender argument (and any passages from Confucian texts that I could juxtapose)? Not asking you to write my paper for me haha, just curious since it's been almost a year since I read the Zhuangzi and I can't remember much! I know there are many more knowledgeable people here.

Hehe good point. Although I can't say I really disagree with the theory. It makes sense, particularly from the "Zhuangzi" point of view, which seems to be that virtually everything is "socially constructed" (even the idea of "social construction"!) @Marblehead, sorry to draw you into this haha, but just wondering if you can think of any passages or insights from Taoism (or other faiths, I suppose) about gender. Or have any other thoughts given what's been said so far in the thread.

I feel the same way. Unfortunately, this is what we have to write about, so I wanted to see if I could at least tie it in with something I'm passionate about.

This is a very interesting, provocative question I've been pondering intensely over the last few days. Is it really desirable to become enlightened? By enlightenment, I don't mean becoming a true sage or anything like that, but merely coming to realize basic Taoist "truths" (about how most dualities and desires are simply meaningless human inventions). Now, many people are very content with their lives when they are not enlightened. Perhaps they work for a charity or have ambitions to become a social activist. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing, and matters a lot. Contrast that with me, who's currently "enlightened" in the sense previously described, and is feeling like nothing has meaning. This does not make me feel very content. Of course, Zhuangzi felt very content, but it took a lot of practice and dedication for him to reach that point. Whereas for those who aren't enlightened, I get the sense that many of them are pretty content without having to put in that kind of dedication. In other words, isn't enlightenment the harder road to contentedness? Might I be better off trying to "forget" Taoism and postmodern philosophy and make myself like a "normal" person? Because what is really the benefit of all this uncertainty and nihilism? I suppose another question that ties in with this is, "Is happiness the only thing I should want?" I know I've discussed this here before, with no clear answer coming out of it. But, basically, if happiness is the only thing one can really strive for, what benefit have I gained by adding uncertainty and meaninglessness to my life? By contrast, if there is some "higher purpose" than my personal happiness, then perhaps the uncertainly associated with Taoism is okay. I'm not actually considering leaving Taoism; it's just that questions like this really bother me.

Wow, great discussion! I'd gotten a bit behind and was amazed to see there were about five more pages than where I'd left off. It's been interesting to read the references to Mahayana Buddhism (or at least some variation of it). I remember when I read about Buddhism in prior years (before my philosophical craze began!) I hadn't really understood the notion of there not being a "self," at least in the sense we normally think of it. But now this is a really striking idea to me because I now believe that determinism rules the world, i.e. that all our actions are predetermined (are theoretically predictable based on knowledge of all natural laws, etc.) This is not to say that we don't have free will, but rather that there's no "deeper self" with total autonomy -- we can make decisions, and must, but every decision is pre-determined. This seems at least a bit similar to some of the ideas expressed in this thread.

In some sense that would make sense. Indeed, the way I view the world has changed, but my actions haven't. In your opinion, what might this balancing entail? Being kind? Exercising?

Yeah, great job tying in The Matrix. Saw those films for the first time this summer and they quickly became some of my favorites. You definitely pinpointed something I've struggled with since watching them: Namely, would I really want to be "freed" by Morpheus? As one character (Cypher) says in the first film, "You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss." Since Cypher is not portrayed sympathetically, I desperately want to reject that statement. Yet, really, what reason do I have to reject it? Isn't Cypher right? What is there to be gained from causing yourself more suffering? I suppose, however, the ultimate answer to my question is something along these lines: Since anxiety hurts your happiness level, there is little good to be found in getting worked up about whether one should be happy or not in a certain situation. Some things don't have to have a reason. They just are. I suppose if one is getting legitimately angsty over how they should feel about enlightenment (i.e. the question of whether happiness, even ignorant happiness, is the ultimate good, or whether there is something else), then it's time to stop worrying. That's not completely satisfying, however, as I still have to make a choice, and when I stop worrying about it I am no closer to an answer. Perhaps an answer will come to me someday, however (wu wei?) I didn't really get my definition of enlightenment from anywhere, although I think Lost in Translation summed it up pretty well in his Matrix analogy, enlightenment being the discovery of the dystopian real world. While I'm not really into energy work at the moment, I would be curious what factors you think would lead to nihilistic/discontented feelings.

I can definitely understand what the OP is referring to here. Not necessarily here, but on some other forums, I've gotten in big political arguments. I feel so excited and passionate as I type, but then later I feel empty, doubtful of the rightness of my argument, and I wish I could take the words back and not argue with anyone. Like the OP in this thread, I feel ashamed that I've let my desire to be right take over, when, really, what does it matter whether I'm right or not? Perhaps this is just because of the way I've been conditioned, but I've always found harmony and friendship more desirable than argument (the exception being if the argument is light-hearted/playful, of course). For instance, there are some clubs I attend at my high school that do political discussion. My favorite is, not surprisingly, the most light-hearted one, where politics is simply used as a springboard to make jokes and engage in pretty light-hearted argument. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than some of the more dead-serious clubs where things are a little more tense.

@acdbox Glad I'm not the only one asking this question. It's been really bothering me for the last few months, usually at least once a day. Very tricky, as it leads inevitably to an endless loop of "Why?" questions. ("Why should I be good?" "Because it should make you happy to see others happy." "Why should I be happy when others are happy?" Etc...) Ultimately, I think that the Taoist has three reasons for being virtuous (other faiths are different of course - are you a Buddhist or a Taoist - or even something else?): 1. As @Marblehead noted, there are practical benefits to staying on people's good side. 2. Perhaps you just find joy in seeing other people be happy. When you think about it, there's no reason you shouldn't find joy in that, any less than you might find joy in movies, or music, or books, or chatting with friends, etc -- however difficult it can be for me to justify this sometimes, to legitimately, truly feel happy about others' joy. 3. If you get rid of most of your materialist desires as the Taoist sage did, then I'm not sure how many reasons you have left not to be virtuous (although this is debatable, since being virtuous generally requires involvement in the community which may not bring peace of mind as easily as the sage would like). If you think about it, probably most of our reasons not to be nice are things like, "I want to do _____ instead of this 'good' action." If you eliminate the want, which is often an attachment to a possession of some sort, then suddenly the obstacle disappears (although there is still not necessarily an actual affirmative reason to do good). In regard to @Earl Grey's point above: I get what he's saying, but, technically speaking, is there really any reason why an "evil" person can't have peace of mind? I think the only reason why people feel shame is because they have been imprinted with an image of what they are supposed to be like by society -- and they have done something the society considers opposite of that image. If one realized that, I think peace of mind might be attainable. However... I thought of another reason, related to Earl's peace of mind argument, why one might want to be good: Would a true Taoist really be sure that there was no right or wrong, or that there was no God? If they acknowledge that there is a possibility of God's existence, then there's a chance that by being at least somewhat virtuous they could avoid eternal damnation. This dynamic is really tricky to ponder and, IMO, shakes Taoism (and any other belief system) to its core. When I get the chance I'm planning to start a thread about some related issues that have been bugging me.

This is from pg. 182-183 of postmodernist philosopher Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, which I read over the summer. Here's a related passage from pg. 189: This is one of the most important questions that comes out of the postmodernist/Daoist realm of thinking. The question is, "Is it worth holding beliefs or having desires if you know that these desires are completely contingent on your circumstances, on your inherited genes, etc., and that there's nothing particularly 'special' about them?" I assume that many of you agree with Rorty's position -- that all that's necessary is becoming conscious of the contingency of your desires and beliefs, not giving them up. Is that the case? I have to say I find it a bit difficult to agree with it, although I want to. This line of thought could very easily lead to an attempt to essentially eliminate desire, which *I believe* is often found in Asian spiritual thought, although I'm not sure about Daoism.

I tend to think that those two sides may not be easily distinct. Yes, there are choices that we make that feel "autonomous." And they are, really, but not in the way that we think. I can make choices, but I is just a combination of beliefs, desires, and lessons imprinted by society, combined with my genes and perhaps a degree of random neuron firings in my brain. There is nothing fundamental that is completely autonomous. Everything has a cause, everything is influence by something else. Or at least that's what I believe at the present time! Anyway, this is why I've come to believe that there is no such thing as moral responsibility, at least in the strict sense -- a natural result from determinism. The really hard question for me is, once you realize that many of your passions and beliefs are really completely contingent, that many of your decisions are "made" before you consciously decide (see this crazy study), that many of your talents are simply products of genetic chance, etc ... do you keep moving on normally with your life? Or do you start to stop desiring things? Determinism is tricky to reckon with because it contains some paradoxes. The most frustrating is that: 1) Determinism postulates that the future is destined to occur in a certain way 2) You cannot know what that way is 3) You thinking about determinism was destined to happen (if you believe in determinism, of course) I'm not sure if that's a "paradox" in the traditional sense but it's still hard to really grasp. In other words, you might think, "Ah ha, I'm going to prove determinism wrong by exercising my free will to do something totally unexpected." Unfortunately, if determinism holds, then even that very thought was destined to occur, based on the prevailing laws of physics, your brain chemistry, etc. Yeah that was what I thought was possible. Liberalism isn't at odds with postmodernism per se, but postmodernism does tend to take a bleak view of politics in general.