Chuang Tzu and "the Good"?

[Protokletos]

In University we have been studying the perspective of "the good" from a number of different ancient philosophers; such as Socrates, Confucius etc... However, the teacher honestly just briefed over Chuang Tzu's conception of "the good." And I would really love for somebody to be able to either explain it to me, or point me to somewhere on the net where I could read about it? Thanks in advance for any help!

[Marblehead]

Well, I think it might be that your professor couldn't find any examples of Chuang Tzu's views concerning 'good'. And this is because he did not spend too much time on the subject of 'good vs bad (evil)'.

 

What I will present will be from Burton Watson's translation.

 

Men of ardor are regarded by the world as good, but their goodness doesn't succeed in keeping them alive. So I don't know whether their goodness is really good or not. Perhaps I think it's good - but not good enough to save their lives. Perhaps I think it's no good - but still good enough to save the lives of others. So I say, if your loyal advice isn't heeded, give way and do not wrangle. Tzu-hsu wrangled and lost his body. But if he hadn't wrangled, he wouldn't have made a name. Is there really such a thing as goodness or isn't there?

 

And here he mentions goodness and badness but never defines either:

 

Tzu-chang said, "In ancient times the tyrants Chieh and Chou enjoyed the honor of being Son of Heaven and possessed all the wealth of the empire. Yet now if you say to a mere slave or groom, `Your conduct is like that of a Chieh or Chou,' he will look shamefaced and in his heart will not acquiesce to such charges, for even a petty man despises the names of Chieh and Chou. Confucius and Mo Ti, on the other hand, were impoverished commoners. Yet now if you say to the highest minister of state, `Your conduct is like that of Confucius or Mo Ti,' he will flush and alter his expression and protest that he is not worthy of such praise, for a gentleman sincerely honors their names. Therefore, to wield the power of a Son of Heaven does not necessarily mean to be honored, and to be poor and a commoner does not necessarily mean to be despised. The difference between being honored and being despised lies in the goodness or badness of one's conduct."

 

That is as close as he came to defining 'good and bad'. In the first he leaves us with a question; in the second the concept is only an after-thought.

 

Good and bad can be defined only if this whatever is conpared to something else. This is dualistic thinking. I think that Chuang Tzu tried even harder than Lao Tzu to stay awary from dualistic thinking.

 

And let's face it. If we take a concept within a given context and define it as good we have set artificial limits on the concept. Change the context and the concept becomes bad. We have voided our initial definition.

 

As the saying goes: "To be beyond good and evil."

 

Peace & Love!