The position of Taoism concerning social responsibility

[wandelaar]

I'm not sure about the position of Taoism on social responsibility.  There are hermits and others that want to have nothing to do with society at large or politics. But in the Tao Te Ching we find recommendations directed to the emperor. Shouldn't a Taoist care about society at large?

[Lost in Translation]

Tao Te Ching chapter 60 is probably a good place to start looking for answers. 

[wandelaar]

Thanks! On looking up chapter 60 I unintentionally read chapter 57. I see some relevant points there also.

[Kar3n]

20 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I'm not sure about the position of Taoism on social responsibility.  There are hermits and others that want to have nothing to do with society at large or politics. But in the Tao Te Ching we find recommendations directed to the emperor. Shouldn't a Taoist care about society at large?

If we take the TTC's recommendations for the emperor and apply them to ourselves, we see that essentially we are or should be ruling ourselves rather than another.

The 3 treasures (Chapter 67) outlines for us how we (rulers of our own life) should conduct ourselves. Be compassionate. Be modest. Be humble. (these are my understanding of the treasures and yes, there are broader implications I am aware of)

 

The Taoist cares, but to be truly living the Way, s/he does not interfere with nature's course and conducts themselves not from an active moral perspective, but rather allowing all to rise and fall without interference as nature intends. Individuals are not personally responsible for the actions of other humans nor for the course that nature flows.

 

It gets tricky because not everyone (I would venture to say almost no one) lives completely according to the Tao and has the non-dual perspective that Lao Tzu did. We have been indoctrinated to believe in the concepts of good and evil. Would the subjective concepts of good (right) exist without the concept of evil (wrong) and vise versa? Would there be a need to intervene or act in a way that society dictates of a caring individual if we are tending to ourselves and how we interact according to the Tao?

[Lost in Translation]

3 hours ago, Kar3n said:

we are or should be ruling ourselves rather than another

 

3 hours ago, Kar3n said:

Be compassionate. Be modest. Be humble.

 

3 hours ago, Kar3n said:

Individuals are not personally responsible for the actions of other humans

 

3 hours ago, Kar3n said:

s/he does not interfere with nature's course and conducts themselves not from an active moral perspective, but rather allowing all to rise and fall without interference as nature intends.

 

My "Cliff's Notes" version of your above post.

 

 

 

On 4/13/2018 at 10:16 AM, wandelaar said:

the position of Taoism on social responsibility.

 

Social responsibility essentially means "the responsibility of an individual towards others".

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Kar3n said:

Would there be a need to intervene or act in a way that society dictates of a caring individual if we are tending to ourselves and how we interact according to the Tao?

The crux of the matter.

As I see it, the Taoist works on himself first, not out of selfish motive but rather because it is only through strength that one can effectively help others. Once that is achieved, the Taoist can help others as needed, as necessary, as desired - but not through a sense of obligation but rather through a sense of compassion. There is no "responsibility" at play. Instead it is "choice". And just as the Taoist acts through choice, he understands that others, too, act through choice. Thus he does not demand of others, but graciously accepts if sincerely given.

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Lost in Translation
removed trailing quote

[Kar3n]

The question that lingers is, are free will and the Way synonymous?

 

Every time I ponder this I come back to the uncarved block, its natural state and the part of us affects free will. Is it desire, it is conditioning, is it experience? In ways I think it is all of the above and many other things. I can only surmise that free will is just another hurdle along the Way that we all jump daily.

 

I am still thinking about it...

 

[wandelaar]

Free will? Free from what? Tao is supposed to form the foundation of everything that happens, so that includes the way your own mind works. So whatever you chose will be an expression of Tao. A choice made independent of the way your mind works (for instance by throwing some dice) wouldn't even be your choice! Whether your choices are "in accordance with Tao" in the sense of being in line with the ways followed by Lao tse and Chuang tse is quite another matter.

[Fa Xin]

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Free will? Free from what? Tao is supposed to form the foundation of everything that happens, so that includes the way your own mind works. So whatever you chose will be an expression of Tao. A choice made independent of the way your mind works (for instance by throwing some dice) wouldn't even be your choice! Whether your choices are "in accordance with Tao" in the sense of being in line with the ways followed by Lao tse and Chuang tse is quite another matter.

Ahhhh, therein lies the difficulty. 

 

Your post brings up a good point. LT and CT wrote from such a place (and in such a way) that it can be interpreted differently on many perspective levels. 

 

Does this mean that their writings are interpreted through the filter of our own egos? By the lens of our personal cameras?

 

thank goodness their books are *pointing* to the way, and not rules to be followed.... it’s a commentary, not a how-to. 

 

At least in my understanding of it. 😀

[wandelaar]

That is right, ancient Chinese philosophy is different from Greek or Roman philosophy. But I don't think we can (or should) bend or stretch the meaning of ancient philosophical Taoism in any direction we like. There were schools of thought in ancient China and there were subjects on which the philosophers of the different schools disagreed. So at least the philosophers themselves of the different schools were convinced they were pointing in different (school specific) directions. 

[Fa Xin]

3 hours ago, wandelaar said:

That is right, ancient Chinese philosophy is different from Greek or Roman philosophy. But I don't think we can (or should) bend or stretch the meaning of ancient philosophical Taoism in any direction we like. There were schools of thought in ancient China and there were subjects on which the philosophers of the different schools disagreed. So at least the philosophers themselves of the different schools were convinced they were pointing in different (school specific) directions. 

 

While I do acknowledge Daoism can be considered a "philosophy" and can point in a general direction - I tend to think that you'll have just as many different answers to your question as there are Daoists in the world.  The reason being is what I alluded to earlier - it's not a defined philosophy - not in any workable structure, at least.

 

A quick google search turned up these:

 

"Cultivate virtue in the town, and it will be lasting." - TTC ch.54

"Ruling a great country is like cooking a small fish." -TTC ch60

"When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." - TTC ch54

"Good leaders reach solutions, and then stop. They do not dare to rely on force." -TTC ch30

 

Not exactly a doctrine that leads to solid or conforming thought IMO...

 

Personally, I think Daoism is aimed at the "inner" world - more spiritual growth - and someone on the path leaves society to society.  I suppose that's why they say Daoism is only one half of the Chinese philosophical coin - the inner half - and Confucianism would be the "external" or "worldly" half.  But I really don't know anything... so don't quote me.

 

 

[wandelaar]

The results of your Google search are not in any way contradictory...

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

But I really don't know anything... so don't quote me.

 

Oh, but I will quote you any time I see fit.

 

And I think you are pretty correct regarding Philosophical Daoism speaking mostly to our inner (Spiritual) essence.  Sure, it speaks to the manifest world but primarily pointing to paths that bring inner peace to the individual.