Chinese Volunteerism (Wu Wei and Lao Tzu)

[Josh F]

Though a much more ancient approach to philosophy, Taoism has a lot of relevant similarities to volunteerism including an anarchistic or minarchistic approach to government, and a respect for individualism and autonomy.  China and many other modern Asian countries draw their ethics from a type of collectivism called Confucianism, which holds individuals in service to the greater good, and sees autonomy as a disruptive element.  

 

Lao Tzu himself criticizes the roll of the state which he described poetically as , "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox,” and "to be feared more than the fiercest tigers.”  He proposes a concept called Wu Wei, which variably means non-action, non-intervention, without control, ungoverned, and more.  Wu being similar to the prefix "a" (as in atheist) or the prefix "non" or "in" (as in inaction or noncompliance). Wei is similarly variable, meaning anything from action to control to govern.  

 

Rothbard even suggested that Lao Tzu was the first libertarian, and compared the concept of Wu Wei to the idea of spontaneous order.  He also praised the later followers of Lao Tzu as similarly anarchistic.  

 

 

"The people are hungry: It is because those in authority eat up too much in taxes."

 

 

"As restrictions and prohibitions are multiplied in the Empire, the people grow poorer and poorer. When the people are subjected to overmuch government, the land is thrown into confusion."

 

"The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

 

"The wise man says: 'So long as I do nothing, the people will work out their own reformation. So long as I love calm, the people will right themselves. If only I keep from meddling, the people will grow rich.'"

 

This is the first post in a series I'd like to do here, reconciling other philosophies with the ethics of Objectivism and FreeDomain Radio.  Namely volunterism (anarchy) and peaceful parenting.  I find it interesting how many approaches, how many different ideologies and terminologies and vocabularies tend to coalesce on these fundamental ideas of human liberty.  My next one will be a bit more difficult, as I am going to try and reconcile Islam with Peaceful Parenting.  Anyone with any information, please share!"

[J. D. Stembal]

Like most Libertarians, where there is smaller government, there must be bigger religion. Daoism relies heavily on mysticism to explain the world. I would contend that this is in direct opposition to Objectivism. Perhaps there would be a way to update Daoism to the modern era and shed all the spiritual trappings, but as it stands, Daoism appeals mainly to the mystics, who do not follow reason, as a general rule.

 

I don't think wuwei can be modernized or universalized. You can't consciously practice it like a virtue, since by definition, you cannot overtly choose to follow it (free will). If you try to practice wuwei, it's not wuwei. Water flows downstream because it's water. People aren't like water. It sounds like a spiritual form of determinism.

[Josh F]

Well, Wu Wei is more of an ethical foundation not too dissimilar from the NAP.  The idea is that to will (impose, force, coerce) an action (behavior) goes against nature (reality).  In Taoism, the closer equivalent to virtue is "Te", which is the application of "Tao".  Tao loosely meaning philosophy, te meaning the application of philosophy, virtue.   The concept 'pu' not that dissimilar to the idea of tabula rasa, or uncorrupted in terms more familiar within this community.

 

The similarities are striking, considering how Taoism is an ancient philosophy from a distant culture written in a very different language coming from a very different school of philosophy. 

[Josh F]

(continued, previous post awaiting moderator approval)

 

Oh, and to go on with the similarities:  in Taoism there are three "treasures" or virtues.  The first is compassion (empathy), the second is moderation (delayed gratification), and the third is humility which I guess doesn't make the cross over, lol!

 

And yes, it is often mystical and goofy and a tad bit religious as well.  I don't recommend it as an end all alternative to any other philosophy, as explained my goal here is to reconcile other world views with our own in an effort to reduce otherness and create common ground.  

[luxfelix]

I like the premise of this thread as (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong  ) a way to show historical examples of philosophy/ethics/etc. generating outside of the "philosophy club" of the "West" in various cultures around the world (how it is truly universal).

 

(I'm referring to Stefan Molyneux's example in the "Truth About Slavery" video?)

 

I wonder if there's a Pre-Colombian UPB from the Americas...? 

[J. D. Stembal]

I like the three treasure you list, Josh. The reason being that these three virtues are sorely missing from our society in these corrupt times. People have the arrogance to think that democratically elected representatives know what is best. How is moderation possible to practice when the currency is controlled so heavily by the state? Compassion towards children is often characterized as a fatal weakness. ("You've gotta toughen those kids up!")

 

In these respects, Daoism should certainly be examined again from a voluntarist mindset.

[Josh F]

ooooh, that I do not know.  I don't even know how much information like that exists.  My goal isn't even to prove its universality just to draw some parallels to other philosophy.  I think that there appear to be many ways to skin the philosophical cat, each one sort of encased in its own grammar and vocabulary tailored towards the culture it comes from, molyneux recently did a video talking about Aristotle's connection with Ayn Rand.  His philosophy, not unlike Taoism, has its own kind of goofy terminology.  He talks a lot about essence and potentiality.  The early greek philosophers a lot of time focused on the essence or form of objects.  Plato saying universals exist in this heavenly realm or the world of the forms, and Aristotle said that universals existed within objects (essence).  Later philosophers vary, some suggesting universality is a concept and exists within our mind, like pattern recognition. Anyways, some of his stuff read like alien code or something: ""Disposition" means arrangement (taxis) of that which has parts, either in space (topos) or in potentiality (dunamis) or in form (eidos). It must be a kind of position (thesis) , as indeed is clear from the word, "disposition" (diathesis)."

[luxfelix]

Ah, that's right.

 

So, as it is the beginning of wisdom to call things by their proper name (-Confucius), there's also a consistency of behavior/meaning with regards to ethics/philosophy/etc. that transcends language/culture/allegory; 2 + 2 = 4 == two plus two equals four == dos más dos son cuatro (etc.).

 

If you're reading a text or conversing with someone from a different culture, than this will be helpful to keep in mind; at least etymology from Greek and Latin origins helped(?) cultures of the "Philosophy Club" recognize common meanings between different words, it just takes a little more effort to translate more distant cultures and compare behaviors to discover that they do have parallels.

[Josh F]

Indeed, well put.  And I think also, and maybe this isn't very philosophical, but there is a sort of historic emergence of terminology.  If we were to translate those pre-columbian native tribes into modern language I think we'd find their vocabulary very small and mystical.  Language, not unlike technology, develops and changes.  Now in the Objectivist or Aristotelian sense, it is discovering the truth or better approximating reality.  In other philosophical traditions, the vocabulary isn't approximating reality but instead changing to best cope with ever increasing complexity.  Either way, I've always found varying philosophies meaningful and useful, even some of these ancient ones.  The philosopher Heidegger was always trying to find the origins of words.  I similarly met this profoundly brilliant homeless guy once, and he had the same fascination.  If you told him "sun" for example, he would go on this like rampage listing backwards in time all the terminology that brought the word sun.  I'm making these up but something like "sun, sol in spanish, suna in greek, sunnia in egyptian" (not real terms!) it was wild!  

[Josh F]

Oh, and we can talk about Confucius a bit more.  I think he ironically has one big similarity, though almost opposing, with this community.  He is one of the few philosophers who connect the state with the family, though he advocates for abusive and stern families in order to produce a similarly stern and rigid society.  Here we promote being nice to your children and treating them with respect, the idea being that the abuses of society are a function of the family.  Or as Stef puts it so eloquently, "If you try to change society without examining the family it is like trying to move a shadow without moving the statue"  (paraphrase)

[luxfelix]

On language: I do enjoy etymology as a kind of "human history/migration of thought". Through the Language Glass by Guy Deutscher was an interesting read which asks questions, such as, if-and-how language (and thinking patterns...) affects our perceptions (and he references studies and experiments conducted with these questions in mind). (Side note: I attended a session by the language creator for the Game of Thrones series, and the way he described how he came up with the Dothraki language was, more-or-less, this process in reverse.)

 

On Confucius: I can see that. His premises for calling things by their proper names (a.k.a. accurate names) and focusing on the family may fit nicely with this community; However, his use of families to support the state (as one large family?) sends off sophist alarm bells. 

 

So, in addition to drawing parallels, is this thread also about finding the nuggets of golden truth in the surrounding dirt of fallacies, or perhaps more appropriate, discovering philosophical Rosetta Stones with archaeological case studies? 

[Josh F]

haha yeah a philosophical Rosetta Stone, probably some caveman told some another caveman some silly joke, he misunderstood it, and here we are

[kerou]

I enjoy Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. While not philosophical, it puts a lot of philosophical concepts of volunteerism and individualism into poetic forms (such as comparing the human spirit to water or social interactions to cooking a fish, etc). Lao Tzu was a man frustrated by the politicians of his time. So much so that he gave up on his own society and lived as a hermit for the rest of his days.

Also, Daoism is the exact opposite of what Lao Tzu wanted his teachings to be. A deity was mentioned once in the entire Tao Te Ching and it was in comparison to the virtue of Dao (adaptability). Lao Tzu did not claim any divinity or higher knowledge. He was just an old guy with a lot of wisdom. The mysticism of modern Daoism was added in later and infused with a bunch of spiritualism and deities that Lao Tzu never talked about.

Being Chinese myself, I've always had an interest in the Lao Tzu/Confusious dynamic of ancient China.

[LovePrevails]

thanks!

 

See also: http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/salt/salt08.htm