Here's a question that I have run up against in my writing. I am thinking about the Taoist rejection of general, deliberate, and conscious moral codes, as suggested, for example, in this passage in Chuang Tzu:
“Can a person really have no nature?” asked Hui Tzu of Chuang Tzu.
“Yes,” replied Chuang Tzu.“But if you have no nature, how can you be called human?”
Tao gives you shape and heaven gives you form, so why can’t you be called human?”
“But if you’re called human, how can you have no nature?”
“’Yes this’ and ‘No that’ – that’s what I call human nature,” replied Chuang Tzu. “Not mangling yourself with ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – that’s what I call no nature. Instead of struggling to improve on life, you simply abide in occurrence appearing of itself.” (p. 77)
This is obviously a rejection of the Mencian notion of a universal and innately good human nature. But it is also a rejection of moral learning, which is represented as "mangling ourselves with 'good' and 'bad'". Moral learning is problematic for Chuang Tzu because he worries that a general code of principles applicable to all will not suit or fit the circumstances of all individuals, thus obstructing them from their Integrity (te) in Way (tao). This does not mean that Chuang Tzu is amoral or immoral but, rather, that morality operates on a micro level, a radically individual level and cannot be expanded to larger classes or categories of individuals.
The danger here is obvious: without general moral principles, bad behavior cannot be limited and good behavior cannot be encouraged. Social oder will breakdown and raw power will dominate right.
But I think Taoists do not worry about this sort of Confucian nightmare (Lord of the Flies run amok). And they don't because they are, basically, optimistic about how humans will behave under conditions of maximum freedom. Taoism rejects killing and encourages a certain tolerance. If repressive political institutions and social practices were removed, and if people came to apprehend Way, there would naturally follow a peaceful, non-violent and non-exploitative state of affairs. Think about passage 80 of the Tao Te Ching:
Let nations grow smaller and smaller and people fewer and fewer,
let weapons become rare and superfluous,
let people feel death's gravity again
and never wander far from home.
Then boat and carriage will sit unused and shield and sword lie unnoticed.Let people knot ropes for notation again
and never need anything more,
let them find pleasure in their food and beauty in their clothes, peace in their homes and joy in their ancestral ways.
Then people in neighboring nations will look across to each other, their chickens and dogs calling back and forth,
and yet they'll grow old and die without bothering to exchange visits.
Although this needs to be further explicated, I will assert that this is, essentially, an optimistic view of a peaceful and sufficient social existence under conditions of minimal government. Not quite utopian, perhaps but certainly not bad.
And that raises the question. It seems to make sense to me, but I am not sure that others would agree. So, I put it to you, dear readers: are Taoists optimistic?
I have a slightly different interpretation of the same passage. In my view, Zhuangzi wants us to accept reality as it is, rather than dividing it into parts we like and we dislike.
More specifically, concerning human nature, there are two kinds of virtues. Some virtues are relative. These virtues are based on modifications of the self. For instance, I could become more courageous, smarter, stronger, etc. These virtues are relative because they are dualistic. Courage implies the existence of cowardice; intelligence, stupidity; strength, weakness. This is human nature as commonly understood.
But there is virtue which is absolute. This virtue is the eclipse of the self. When our view of the world is no longer obstructed by the self, then distinctions between self and others, good and bad, can no longer occur. We thus imitate dao. Dao does not make distinctions, and it makes no demand upon diverse creatures. When men become like dao, they become ever accepting, ever forgiving, ever tolerant. This is the true nature as understood by Zhuangzi.
The great image of the kun hexagram says "The situation of the earth is soft - the superior man uses thick virtue to support things." Dao is a very abstract concept, but in Daoist literature, we are often told to contemplate the sky, the earth, and other natural phenomena. The earth makes no distinction between good and bad. She supports all creatures. Without her, no creature would survive.
But I agree with you that Daoists have an optimistic view of people. Both Zhuangzi and Liezi are full of stories about individuals who were disillusioned with life, as commonly understood, but then found something better in dao and the true nature of humans. Laozi described someone with thick virtue as a baby. There is something fundamentally good about human nature, which became entangled in worldly conventions, but which can be found again, when we become tired of the human game.
By the way, your second quotation is my favourite passage from Laozi. It reminds me of many years ago when I became strongly disillusioned with centralised politics. I'm not so sure about neo-Federalism these days either, but I retain a preference for decentralised government and local autonomy.
Posted by: Zoomzan | September 26, 2007 at 02:58 PM
Optimism isn't defining might be, rather it's a smile that opens and enables possibility
considering that... then yes Taoist's are eternal optimists
To define it as captured by ancient written texts... limits the very definition to become not so.
peace
:)
Posted by: Casey Kochmer | September 27, 2007 at 02:24 PM
What is abstract about Tao? There is nothing less abstract....
And I don't think it is about optimism or pessimism - it is acceptance of what is in the moment. Some moments generate more optimism than others. ;^)
Posted by: donna | September 30, 2007 at 02:27 AM