Daoism Flashcards
(18 cards)
What is the Daodejing and how is it structured?
The Daodejing is a foundational Daoist text attributed to Laozi. It consists of 81 chapters split into the Dao Jing (37 chapters on the Way) and De Jing (44 chapters on virtue). It offers a poetic, cryptic guide to living in alignment with the Dao, focusing on non-action (wuwei), virtue (de), and spontaneity (ziran), often opposing Confucian ideals.
What is wuwei (無為) in the Daodejing, and how does it contrast with Confucianism?
Wuwei means “non-action,” but not passivity — it refers to effortless, spontaneous action in harmony with the Dao. Unlike Confucianism, which emphasizes moral cultivation and social order, Daoism warns that striving leads to disorder. Wuwei promotes fluid responsiveness over rigid effort.
How does the Daodejing critique moral and social norms?
The Daodejing sees moral systems (like benevolence and righteousness) as signs of societal decay. It argues that once the Dao is lost, artificial values emerge. It critiques Confucian virtues as contrived, suggesting that the attempt to be virtuous blocks real virtue from arising naturally.
What is ziran (自然), and why is it central to Daoist thought?
Ziran translates to “self-so” or “natural spontaneity.” It refers to the state of acting in accord with one’s true nature without external imposition. Ziran aligns closely with wuwei, encouraging a return to pre-social, undistorted being, free from the judgments and distinctions imposed by language or culture.
How does the Daodejing view language and distinctions such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’?
Language is seen as limiting and distorting. Naming creates binaries (good vs bad, beauty vs ugliness), which fragment the wholeness of the Dao. The text urges transcending such distinctions, suggesting that true understanding lies beyond words and categories
What is the Dao, according to the Daodejing?
The Dao is the ineffable origin of all things. It is eternal, ungraspable, and spontaneous. It produces all things by flowing through the natural cycles of reality. The Daodejing teaches that to live well is to align with the Dao, not to master or define it.
What role does gender play in the Daodejing’s philosophy?
The Daodejing often reverses gender norms, valuing the feminine (softness, yielding, receptivity) over the masculine (strength, dominance). It uses metaphors like the valley, mother, and infant to express Dao’s power — presenting weakness as strength and stillness as action.
Who was Zhuangzi and how is his text different from the Daodejing?
Zhuangzi was a Daoist philosopher (c. 369–286 BCE) known for his playful, skeptical, and imaginative writing style. His text, Zhuangzi, uses parables and paradoxes to explore the limits of knowledge and selfhood. Unlike the Daodejing’s aphorisms, Zhuangzi’s work engages with complexity, humor, and storytelling.
What is Zhuangzi’s view on knowledge and scepticism?
Zhuangzi is a soft sceptic. He questions the reliability of know-that (propositional knowledge), especially as conveyed through disputation or rigid logic. Instead, he values embodied, intuitive know-how — the kind of understanding that emerges from harmony with the Dao, not from argument.
What is the significance of the fish story in Zhuangzi’s scepticism?
In the parable, Zhuangzi claims fish are happy. Hui Shi challenges him — “You’re not a fish!” Zhuangzi replies: “You’re not me — how do you know I don’t know?” The story illustrates perspectivism and shows how knowledge is often immediate and intuitive, not logically deduced.
What is perspectivism in Zhuangzi’s thought?
Perspectivism means every viewpoint is partial, shaped by one’s experience and limitations. There’s no “objective” position — no view from nowhere. Zhuangzi urges us to shift perspectives, appreciate other standpoints, and realize that truth is multifaceted and context-bound.
How does Zhuangzi critique Confucian ethics and language?
Zhuangzi mocks the idea of “rectifying names,” central to Confucian thought, arguing that fixed meanings are impossible. Roles like “father” or “ruler” are understood differently across contexts. This critique extends to moral categories: people can’t agree on what’s good or bad because such values are subjective.
What is “forgetting” (zuowang 坐忘) and why is it important to Zhuangzi?
Forgetting is the act of letting go of socially constructed identity, fixed goals, and even self-consciousness. In one story, Yan Hui “forgets” Confucian virtues and rituals — a sign of deep spiritual progress. For Zhuangzi, to forget is to merge with the Dao and act effortlessly.
What does Zhuangzi mean by “free and easy wandering” (xiaoyao you 逍遙遊)?
This is the ideal way of being — moving through life without constraints, fixed goals, or attachments. It’s not aimlessness, but rather a profound freedom that comes from detachment and attunement to the Dao. It’s Zhuangzi’s response to the rigidity of Confucian social roles.
How does Zhuangzi approach social obligations and roles?
Zhuangzi doesn’t insist on withdrawing from society, like Laozi might. Instead, he acknowledges social roles are unavoidable but advises facing them with detachment, acting without becoming entangled. You can “play” a role without becoming it — much like an actor.
What is the meaning of the “useless tree” parable?
A tree that is gnarled and useless is spared from being cut down. This paradox shows that being useless, or non-conforming, may actually be a form of power. Zhuangzi suggests that avoiding utility in conventional terms leads to freedom and survival.
How does Zhuangzi use scepticism as a therapeutic method?
Zhuangzi’s scepticism isn’t just denial — it’s healing. By questioning fixed views and exposing the limits of reason, he helps us let go of harmful attachments and dogmas. His goal isn’t certainty, but freedom from illusion.
What are Lisa Raphals’ three interpretations of Zhuangzi’s scepticism?
(1) Method: Scepticism as a way to challenge dogma.
(2) Recommendation: Encouraging suspension of judgment.
(3) Thesis: Zhuangzi isn’t saying “nothing can be known,” but that certain types of knowledge (esp. discursive or argumentative) are unreliable.
