Zhuangzi doesn't do debates

He sees right through the rhetorical posturing (Hinton translation):

Suppose you and I have an argument.  Suppose you win and I lose.  Does that mean you’re really right and I’m wrong?  Suppose I win and you lose.  Does that mean I’m really right and you’re wrong?  Is one of us right and the other wrong?  Are we both right and both wrong?  If we can’t figure it out ourselves, others must be totally in the dark, so who could we get to settle it?  We could get someone who agrees with you, but if they agree with you how could they decide who’s right and wrong?  We could get someone who agrees with me, but if they agree with me how could they decide?  We could get someone who disagrees with both of us, but if they disagree with both of us how could they decide?  We could get someone who agree with both of us, but if they agree with both of us how could they decide?  Not I nor you nor anyone else can know who is right and who wrong.  So what do we do?  Wait  for someone else to come along and decide?

What is meant by an “accord reaching to the very limits of heaven”?  I’d say: right isn’t merely right; so isn’t merely so. If right is truly right, then not-right is so far from being right that there’s no argument.  And if so is truly so, not-so is so far from being so that there’s no argument.  When voices in transformation wait for each other to decide, it’s like waiting for nothing.  “An according reaching to the very limits of heaven:” because it’s endless, we live clear through all the years.  Forget the years, forget Duty: move in the boundless, and the boundless becomes your home.

...既使我與若辯矣，若勝我，我不若勝，若果是也？我果非也邪？我勝若，若不吾勝，我果是也？而果非也邪？其或是也，其或非也邪？其俱是也，其俱非也邪？我與 若不能相知也，則人固受其黮闇。吾誰使正之？使同乎若者正之，既與若同矣，惡能正之！使同乎我者正之，既同乎我矣，惡能正之！使異乎我與若者正之，既異乎 我與若矣，惡能正之！使同乎我與若者正之，既同乎我與若矣，惡能正之！然則我與若與人俱不能相知也，而待彼也邪？何化聲之相待，若其不相待。和之以天倪，因之以曼衍，所以窮年也。¹謂和之以天倪？曰：是不是，然不然。是若果是也，則是之異乎不是也亦無辯；然若果然也，則然之異乎不然也亦無辯。²忘年忘義，振於無竟，故寓諸無竟

Comments

[villainx]

I need a translation for the translation.

[Ngok Ming Cheung]

Obama and his partisans will claim he won the debate while Romney and his partisans will claim otherwise. But is whomever won the debate is really on the side of truth and justice? That's debatable. Unless truth and untruth is so wide apart that it's self evident and nature and universe will attest to it. For example some claims the global warming as man-make, others will deny it. The rhetoric and sophistry aside nature will have her final say which will probably be too late for human race when it become self-evident.

[Bill Haines]

"He sees right through the rhetorical posturing..."

The long quote from the Zhuangzi strikes me as a spectacularly egregious and pernicious example of empty rhetorical posturing.