Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tao Te Ching and Objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hello.

I've been interested in objectivism for a while. It is really worth to explore.

And i have a question from religion part:

So far i have found only one book(text), which seems really practical and do not contradict itself and is really useful. It is Tao Te Ching.

What do you objectivists think about this text? Does it compatible with objectivism philosphy? I'm am not asking about religion taoism, but only about tao philosophy.

Thank You.

PS: i am not taoist, i'm christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only recently begun reading the Tao Te Ching myself (so far, I've only gotten through an introduction and the first three "poems," as they were), so I can't offer an extensive analysis. The one thing that caught my attention is when it discusses the act of non-action, meaning that one becomes so good at a skill that the skill essentially "performs itself," with no outside thought from the creator.

I can appreciate this as a metaphor for one's talent, as I've known people who seem to completely disappear into their work, and it flows from them as if no thought is being put into their actions. I've even felt this way myself.

But, the Tao Te Ching presents this not as a metaphor, but as a literal fact of reality - which given my own experience, I know is not true. No one is ever so taken over by their task that they no longer have to think. They've simply found a way to think in a lesser amount of time than the average person in that subject, due to constant practice.

Of course, this is my limited understanding, so I look forward to hearing the other responses to this question, as well as the possible expansion on (or even clarification of) anything I have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am by no means an expert, but here is what I learned in my three short years of researching Taoism in my own personal quest for knowledge. This is what I remember the most, but keep in mind that Taoism says a lot of, often contradictory, things because it is a loosely defined, mystical philosophy that developed into a religion through tacked on shamanism and centuries of folklore as it traveled across the East:

Taoism is split between philosophical and religious Taoism, with the latter being inundated with many minor gods/spirits, holidays, rituals and practices which vary from region to region in it's thousand year span. Mostly, Taoism was used as a form of social control. It teaches that to accept your lot in life is the pinnacle of wisdom, that peasants are made great by accepting to be ruled, and that leaders are humbled by being magnanimous.

Its metaphysics are based in the concept of duality--yin and yang--and that the only 'truth' arises in paradox between these two poles, very similar to Zen. The koans that deal with these often set up false dichotomies and do a lot of question-begging that eventually comes to the conclusion: "There's no way of knowing! It's a paradox, so let's just accept that!" Typical blankout.

Overall, it is a very loosely defined system of thought that changes according to the whim of, alternatingly, authority--either in the form of dictators or mystics--or the culture of the time. This is all accepted as part of the Way. The Way is Change, after-all. What is right and wrong are also meaningless. Good and evil are two equivalent forces locked in eternal conflict, one winning out at one period of time, the other later, neither permanent. The Tao says that it is the natural way of things for the universe to act in this way, and to be either one or the other for too long is to not be in harmony with the Way.

In summary, it is mostly a bunch of poetic mysticism based on ideas ascribed to for thousands of years in the East, that were explored and quickly refuted and swept aside by the Greeks in short order.

Edited by Lazariun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. My knowledge onTao Te Ching is limited (second hand, I never read it), but still, it amazes me that Plato and the guy who wrote this never knew of each other. Or have they? (specifically, were Socrates and Plato influenced by this stuff?)

I never explored the text further, because the stuff I read on it made me dismiss it. Way too "spiritual" for me, maaaan. Definitely not compatible with Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that's a good summary. I too read the Dao De Ching during a brief interest in Daoism (before I had heard of Objectivism or Rand). The only thing I would add is that the DDC also emphasizes that the Way is ineffable, which enables further blanking out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so i am not genius, like i believe some of you are :P but so far i did not find contradiction in TTC.

I read the translation from this website(i'm not affiliated with it):

http://www.daoisopen.com/BYNina.html

I found chapters "13- Anxiety and Dignity" and "60- Spirits, Demons and Supernatural Powers" very practical and useful.

Maybe it is mystical, but at least it do not teach destructive behaviour like in some mainstream religion books :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...