Ah, Kant and Jung were what originally got me into philosophy, iirc. It's been forever since I read them though.



>designed my curriculum around those pursuits - philosophy, comparative religion and anthropology being central to it

A class after my own heart. It sounds like we share many of the same interests. Comparative religion has been an interest of mine for some time.

>At the end of that, I thought that (and I still think that) Buddhism has the best overall product offering, so to speak.

There are definitely elements of Buddhism that speak to me, zen specifically, and I've fluctuated between that and Taoism over the years on which one I lean more towards. In general I find I like the sense of forward momentum of the Tao, but in many ways they kinda seem like different takes on the same concept. Not to be reductive, but to quote Dracula, "perhaps the same could be said of all religions."

> It means 'saving insight' - basically, enlightenment, in that Eastern sense. And though it's something I never have and probably never will attain, I believe there is abundant textual evidence that it is real.

My understanding is that the concept of Gnosis is essentially the same concept of The Way, just filtered through an early Western/Christian lens. Iirc, each of us contains a spark of the divine that we must come to know and embody, which sounds a lot like the Tao/Enlightenment to me, so it sounds like we agree there.

Very good, I can see we have much in common.

My understanding is that the concept of Gnosis is essentially the same concept of The Way, just filtered through an early Western/Christian lens. — MrLiminal

Well, yes and no. Gnosticism in the historical context was a tendency within axial religions, which manifested in early Christianity as the 'grnostic sects', usually considered heretical. But in a more general sense, 'gnosis' is indeed esoteric spiritual knowledge or insight.

(By the way, take at look at the Help article, How to Quote, for some tips and tricks around quoting on the Forum.)

For a specific verse, here is one from Wayne Dyer's translation:

“It is through selfless action I will experience my own fulfillment." — MrLiminal

There is an important concept in Taoism - "wu wei." It means action without action. Acting from your inner nature, your Te, without reflection or intention. That's what is meant by "selfless." It doesn't mean supporting other people's interests at the expense of your own. Here are some examples from Gia-Fu Feng's translation.

From Verse 15:

Who can wait quietly while the mud settles?
Who can remain still until the moment of action?
Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment.
Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change. — Tao Te Ching - Excerpt from Verse 15

Verse 37:

Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.
If kings and lords observed this,
The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
If they still desired to act,
They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
Without form there is no desire.
Without desire there is tranquility.
And in this way all things would be at peace. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 37

Verse 42:

The softest thing in the universe
Overcomes the hardest thing in the universe.
That without substance can enter where there is no room.
Hence I know the value of non-action.

Teaching without words and work without doing
Are understood by very few. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 42

I'm very interested in non-dualism, but I've found the versions derived from Hindu and Buddhist sources rather more intelligible than the Tao, as the Tao is so quintessentially Chinese in character... But I always had the feeling that to really penetrate 'the Way' would take much deeper engagement with Chinese language and culture than I was equipped for. — Wayfarer

This surprises me. I experience what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu wrote as simple and down to earth. I call it meat and potatoes philosophy. That's why it appeals so much to me as an engineer. It's not clear to me why I would have a harder time understanding an ancient Chinese text than I would an ancient Greek one - or Japanese or Hindu. Modern Chinese and Japanese philosophers study Aristotle and Plato.

It helps to compare these statements with the words from Confucius and the role of Mohists as sources of legislation. The statements were made in a particular context.

That is not to say that an appeal to a universal truth is to be disregarded.

It helps to compare these statements with the words from Confucius and the role of Mohists as sources of legislation. The statements were made in a particular context. — Paine

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Did you have something from Confucius or Mozi in mind? It is my understanding that the Tao Te Ching was written in direct opposition to the Confucian and Mohist way of seeing things.

That is not to say that an appeal to a universal truth is to be disregarded. — Paine

I don't see Taoist principles as universal truths. I think they are just one good way of looking at things. There are others.

There was that opposition. And it carried on over a number of centuries in the form of different narratives. I will try to round up examples that you are asking for. It is an old data set. It won't happen tomorrow.

One interesting aspect of Chuang Tzu's depiction of Confucius is that it represents him learning stuff.

One interesting aspect of Chuang Tzu's depiction of Confucius is that it represents him learning stuff. — Paine

It's true and confusing. Sometimes Chuang Tzu depicts him as someone who doesn't understand and sometimes he treats him as a sage.

Personal predilection. The first non-dualism I encountered was Advaita. I felt I couldn’t form as clear an idea of the subtleties of Tao although it has my utmost respect.I did actually pass Sanskrit 101 although I can’t read a word now.

The customary explanation is that Confucius (Kung Futzu) represents social propriety and custom while the ‘true man of the Way’ is basically unbound by such niceties.

Don't forget that the Tao follows something else: it follows what is natural. It follows "the way that things are":

Earth follows heaven. Heaven follows the Tao. Tao follows what is natural. — Tao Te Ching

Don't follow the Tao. Follow what the Tao follows: follow "the way that things are".

That account does not include the talk about a natural world where the evils of the present world are not necessary.

It was a single sentence. I’m sure there were many things it doesn’t include.

The customary explanation is that Confucius (Kung Futzu) represents social propriety and custom while the ‘true man of the Way’ is basically unbound by such niceties. — Wayfarer

The literature includes many examples of previous social orders that were deemed superior to a present state of affairs. The Daoist writings include such narratives.

Regardless the general point holds - that Confucian values were sometimes parodied in Taoist literature as representing social custom rather that the original Way.

Confucian values, particularly those emphasizing ritual (li), hierarchy, and moral propriety, were often parodied or critiqued in Taoist literature as representing an overly rigid adherence to social customs rather than a genuine alignment with the Dao (the Way). Taoist texts like the Zhuangzi frequently critique Confucianism for prioritizing artificial constructs and conventions over natural spontaneity (ziran), which is central to Taoist philosophy.

For instance, the Zhuangzi includes numerous anecdotes and dialogues that mock Confucian moralism, presenting Confucians as being overly preoccupied with external forms and neglectful of the deeper, effortless flow of the Way. The critique, however, was not a crude rejection of Confucian values but a deeper commentary on the limits of human contrivance and the importance of returning to simplicity and harmony with nature, the ‘uncarved block’.

This tension reflects the philosophical divergence between Confucianism’s focus on cultivating virtue through societal roles and rituals and Taoism’s emphasis on non-action (wu wei) and living in accordance with the natural order. — Class Lecture Notes

Maybe my favorite moment in the Tao Te Ching is the beginning of Verse 37 (Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English translation):

Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone. — Lao Tzu

I was a huge fan of the Kung Fu movie and tv show and Ursula K Le Guin's Earthsea books for many years. Then, for reasons I don't remember, I thought I should take a look at the Tao Te Ching. I was stunned and thrilled to see where so much of Kung Fu and Earthsea came from. Some of it is quoted in Kung Fu, particularly by Masters Po and Kwan.

Turns out Le Guin wrote her own version of the TTC. Not a translation, because she didn't know Chinese. But she owned many translations, and wrote what it meant to her.

I was a huge fan of the Kung Fu movie and tv show — Patterner

I was also a fan of the TV show. I don't remember the movie.

I think it was made for tv, and you might be thinking it was an episode or two. Awesome scene, where he meets Po for the first time:
https://youtu.be/tuoyeNqRI8A

My understanding of the Tao is that we are all a part of a greater whole, and to whatever end there is a purpose in life, it's to find what your purpose is and be the best at it as your authentic, genuine self. — MrLiminal

The first translation of the Tao Te Ching I ever saw was Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English. I read it very heavily, memorizing a quarter of it, before ever looking at another translation. So that's the translation I get my thoughts from. The following is rather wordy. :rofl: :rofl: I don't post things of such length. But this is what I wrote when I had a geocities page many years ago. Geocities hasn't even been around in many years. I haven't looked at this in years, but I still agree with my younger self. Still, it's a lot, so nobody feel bad about not getting through it. :rofl:


Taoism speaks of the way of the universe, the way of nature. It speaks of what it considers the best way to live. That is, living without anger, hatred, frustration, and all the other negative emotions. Living as the universe exists, without effort or worry.

And how is that accomplished? In Taoism, it all comes down to this: Give up desire..

If people lack knowledge and desire, then intellectuals will not try to interfere. If nothing is done, then all will be well. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 3

Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment. Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 15

Without desire there is tranquility. And in this way all things would be at peace. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 37

That’s all you need to know. Such a simple thing, really. Give up desire, and you will be content. And in your contentment, you will be able to find happiness.
I could stop now. And if you followed that advice, all would become clear to you. But I'll explain the nuts and bolts of it all.

In the Tao, everything acts only within its nature. The sun burns, the hawk hunts, the water runs, the tree grows. Water does not desire to run uphill. It does not attempt to act in a manner inconsistent with its nature, the Tao. The hawk does not desire to burrow into the ground as the mole does. It does not attempt to fight the Tao.

And despite the fact that things act only according to their nature, every single thing that is necessary for the continued existence of the universe is accomplished. My very favorite passage from the Tao Te Ching:
Tao abides in non-action, yet nothing is left undone.
Things run perfectly without thinking and planning, without fighting against the universe.

The problem is that we are no longer part of the Tao. We have lost our Way. We don't see the glorious harmony of it all, the perfection of the universe's intricacies. And we don't even know that we are lost! We have separated ourselves from everything, and then go back and try to possess it all. That damned desire!

We desire things that the universe does not naturally give us. If the earth was made entirely of gold, we would not desire gold. We don't desire what we have, or can have whenever we want. We only desire what is not readily available to us.

Therefore, when you act to attain what you desire, you are fighting the Tao. You are fighting the natural order of the universe. That's worth repeating: You are fighting the natural order of the universe! Doesn't that seem like a strange, arrogant, and impossible thing to do?

The problem is that desire simply can't be satisfied. On the practical side, it just doesn’t work. Yes, many individual desires can be achieved. But as soon as you get one thing that you desire, another pops up. Then another, and another..... Eventually, you will desire something that you can't have. Maybe you don’t have enough money. Maybe not enough time. Eventually, you will be frustrated. You may envy those who have what you cannot. You may hate them, steal from them, or kill them to take what they have.

On the spiritual side, desire is all consuming. Even if you could eventually get any particular thing that you set your sights on, there is simply no end to the wanting. Desire itself cannot be satisfied. It’s an all-or-nothing type of thing. If you have it, there is no end. No point where you say, "Ah, I now have everything I desire. I can relax now and enjoy all that I have." Give it up completely, or be prepared to spend your entire life trying, and often failing, to get one thing after another after another.(

So give up desire, and give up the negative results. The constant wanting, frustration, and anger. Accept what the Tao provides you, desire nothing that is not provided, and you will live in peace and happiness. Do only what is necessary to live, to eat, to breath, to be. If the Tao does not provide it to you, you don't need it.

This might seem somehow wrong. After all, doesn’t giving up desire mean giving up caring and being happy with something? Not really. Someone could taste chocolate for the first time in their life at the age of 40, and absolutely love it. But never having tried it before, their enjoyment of it clearly had nothing to do with desire for it. We will like and dislike things even if we are free of desire. Our preferences will still be there. The thing is, if you're not spending so much time and energy trying to satisfy desires, and being frustrated and angry over those desires that you can't manage to fulfill, you will realize that there are a thousand things every day that will make you happy. Pay attention to the moment. Notice the beauty and happiness that is around all the time. That old “stop and smell the roses” idea. Just because I enjoyed something, say a particular meal, doesn’t mean I have to drive myself crazy wanting to have it the next day. If I have it again, I’m happy again. But I can still be happy with other meals that come my way. Here’s a great story to illustrate my point. It's said to be a Zen story. But the connection between Taoism and Zen is obvious. I got this from a comic book called The Hands of Shang-Chi: Master of Kung Fu. The writer, Doug Moench, said it was his favorite.

A man was being chased by a ravenous tiger. He came to the edge of a cliff and began to climb down a hanging vine. Then he looked and saw a second, equally ravenous tiger waiting at the bottom. At that moment, a mouse began to gnaw at the vine. Something caught the man’s eye - a luscious, red strawberry growing just within his reach. He plucked it and ate it and exclaimed, “How delicious this is!” — Old Zen Story

This is obviously an extreme example of giving up desire; giving up the desire to continue living another five minutes. But when he realized that he could not change his fate, he let go of the desire to do so, and took the pleasure that was available to him. He was not thinking, "I want a strawberry before I die." He just happened to find one, and ate it. Just because he was not going to experience pleasure beyond the next five minutes, doesn’t mean that he couldn’t experience it within the next five minutes. Holding on to his desire to live would have precluded his ability to be happy in the last moments of his life. Remember the story when something infinitely less important than your imminent demise is bothering you, and realize that it’s probably not that important anyway. And if it can’t be changed, it doesn’t matter how important it is. Let it go.

The natural consequence of having no desire is something called wu-wei. This is usually translated as things like "non-action", "non-contrived", "non-ado", etc. The best explanation of the term that I've seen is from The Tao of Zen, by Ray Grigg. He says:

When non-doing appears as inaction it is peaceful, silent, and still; when it appears as action it is thoughtless, reflexive, and intuitive. — Ray Grigg

When we desire, our actions are planned and schemed. They are for a reason, with a goal in mind. Our energy is wasted trying to change circumstances, fighting the natural order of the universe. But when we practice wu-wei, our actions are unmotivated and instinctual. They are natural reactions to the moment.

Wu-wei is not gained through any desire, effort, or plan. You do not say, "I will achieve wu-wei in the following manner..." It is simply the way things without desire act. If you desire nothing, your actions will not be the result of any intent to satisfy a desire. Instead, your actions will simply be in accordance with what is happening around you. Because of our self-preservation instinct, the man in the story above did what he could to survive. His actions were the response to the moment; needs and instinct were driving him. (Of course, most of us desire to live, and his actions might be seen as attempts to achieve this desire. But animals that never think "I want to live" behave the same way. Without any conscious desire to live, the man would have instinctively acted the same way.) When he knew that his life was over, when there was no spontaneous/instinctual act left to perform (and, if desire to live did, indeed, play a role in his previous actions, he realized that no possible action could achieve this desire, and so stopped acting on it), he ate the strawberry. This was not a planned action based on any desire. It was a spontaneous action, made possible by the situation he was in.

And here are a bunch of quotes. They deal with the concept of giving up desire, accepting what comes to you through the Tao, and not fighting against it. These are all from non-Taoist sources, which are, nevertheless, clearly expressing this ideal.

It is from understanding that power comes; and the power in the ceremony was in understanding what it meant; for nothing can live well except in a manner that is suited to the way the sacred Power of the World lives and moves. — Black Elk

I will tell you something about the Sahara. This desert is very simple to survive in. You must only admit there is something on Earth larger than you...the wind...the dryness...the distance...the Sahara. You accept that, and everything is fine. The desert will provide. Inshallah. If you do not, the desert will break you. Admit your weakness to the Sahara’s face, and all is fine. — Nouhou Agah, in the March 1999 National Geographic, page 24,

The Man from Mars sat down when Jill left. He did not pick up the picture book but simply waited in a fashion which may be described as ‘patient’ only because human language does not embrace Martian attitudes. He held still with quiet happiness because his brother had said that he would return. He was prepared to wait, without moving, without doing anything, for several years. — Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

The Hopis had held a rain dance Sunday, calling on the clouds - their ancestors - to restore the water blessing to the land. Perhaps the kachinas had listened to their Hopi children. Perhaps not. It was not a Navajo concept, this idea of adjusting nature to human needs. The Navajo adjusted himself to remain in harmony with the universe. When nature withheld the rain, the Navajo sought the pattern of this phenomenon - as he sought the pattern of all things - to find its beauty and live in harmony with it. — Tony Hillerman, Listening Woman

Harvest what you grow
There’ll be so much to show
And you will have everything you need
(Like you need anything else) — Rabbit, in Sing A Song With Pooh Bear

Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? — Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 6: 25-30

A condition of complete simplicity (Costing nothing less than everything) — T.S. Eliot: The state of being a Christian

You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometime,
you just might find
you get what you need. — The Rolling Stones

Chapter 10 of The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint Exupery, is a lesson in Taoism. He is obviously familiar with the Tao Te Ching. Very nice work.

That note is a reasonable generality of the different views.

There is comparison of different jobs in the literature. It is easier to understand the work of the butcher than that of a leader. The difference being asked for is not easy.

@MrLiminal

Taoism speaks of the way of the universe, the way of nature. It speaks of what it considers the best way to live. That is, living without anger, hatred, frustration, and all the other negative emotions. Living as the universe exists, without effort or worry...

...That’s all you need to know. Such a simple thing, really. Give up desire, and you will be content. And in your contentment, you will be able to find happiness.
I could stop now. And if you followed that advice, all would become clear to you. But I'll explain the nuts and bolts of it all... — Patterner

This is a good description of Lao Tzu's and Chuang Tzu's vision of the Taoist path, as you note, the right way to live our lives, but I came to Taoism from a different direction. I tend to see things from an intellectual perspective and the part that first interested me was Taoist metaphysics. The description of the nature of reality in the Tao Te Ching recognizes that the reality we live in is fundamentally an interaction between an unformed, unnamed, unconceptualized reality and human thought and action. This is from Gia-Fu Feng's translation of Verse 1.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery. — Tao Te Ching Verse 1

As I understand this, the Tao is one, undivided, uncategorized, unnamed. The act of naming is what brings the multiplicity of the world we experience, what is called the 10,000 things, into existence. I see naming as a fundamentally human activity, although others disagree with this. This is Verse 40.

Returning is the motion of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.
The ten thousand things are born of being.
Being is born of not being. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 40

As I see this, the Tao is non-being - it doesn't exist, it isn't a thing. The 10,000 things are being, the multiplicity of the world we live in.

@MrLiminal, @Patterner
Another aspect of the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu is a radical approach to morality. This is from Brook Ziporyn's translation of Chapter 8 of the Chuang Tzu.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu - Chapter 8

"Intrinsic virtuosities" is how Ziporyn translates "Te," as in Tao Te Ching. This approach conflicts with the principles of Confucius, which focus on following rigid social roles and behaviors.

The problem is that desire simply can't be satisfied. On the practical side, it just doesn’t work. Yes, many individual desires can be achieved. But as soon as you get one thing that you desire, another pops up. — Patterner

Also what Arthur Schopenhauer says, but when he says it, he's a miserable pessimist. When a Taoist master says it, it is Eastern wisdom.

Also what Arthur Schopenhauer says, but when he says it, he's a miserable pessimist. When a Taoist master says it, it is Eastern wisdom. — Wayfarer

It seems to me that on the topic of the impossibility of permanently satisfying desire, there is an important parallel with the philosophy of Epicurus. This is because Epicurus established a distinction between what he called "mobile pleasures" and "static pleasures". The former are fleeting, and associated with pain. The latter are permanent, in a sense, but have a duration in time. An example of a mobile pleasure would be eating something tasty. An example of a permanent pleasure would be to not feel hungry. And in Epicureanism as a philosophy, existence is the greatest permanent pleasure of all, because it is the one that has the longest duration of all of the permanent pleasures. What to make of the sorrow that contemporary existentialists speak about? That is where I always turn to the same verse of the Tao Te Ching, the final Verse of Chapter 25:

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 25

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name.
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Being great, it flows.
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns.

Therefore, "Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.


(translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English) — Tao Te Ching

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name.
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great. — Tao Te Ching

In my humble opinion (I could be wrong), this is what Hesiod called Xaos, and what Heidegger called "Being".

Being great, it flows.
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns. — Tao Te Ching

This, in my humble opinion, is the idea of the Ying and the Yang in motion, and what Hegel called "Absolute Spirit".

Therefore, "Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them. — Tao Te Ching

In this part, Laozi (Lao Tzu) is trying to extract a moral lesson from his experience of the Tao. He says that the king is one of the four great powers of the universe. Yet, in the following verse (the final verse of Chapter 25), the king is not mentioned:

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural. — Tao Te Ching

The king is not mentioned. If the king is one of the four great powers of the universe, why isn't he mentioned in the final Verse? Because (this is my interpretation) the king is Man. And there are five elements here. I will count them: one (the king / Man), two (Earth), three (Heaven), four (Tao), five (what is natural / Nature).

This, in my humble opinion, is connected to the theory of the Five Elements as found in Wuxing (Chinese philosophy).

That, Wuxing (Chinese philosophy) is, in my humble opinion, connected to the ancient Greek theory of the four (actually five) elements: Earth, Air, Fire, Water (and the Fifth Element, the fifth essence, the quintessence, is the Aether).

The Five Elements in Wuxing are: Fire, Water, Wood, Metal, and Earth.
The Five Elements in Western Culture are: Fire, Water, Aether, Air, and Earth.

We can represent the elements in common as a mathematical set, and the elements that differ as another mathematical set:

The Elements that Wuxing and Western Culture have in common = {Fire, Water, Earth}
The Elements that Wuxing and Western Culture do not have in common: {Wood, Metal, Aether, Air}

The first set has three elements.
The second set has four elements.
And I have written both sets.

It seems to me that on the topic of the impossibility of permanently satisfying desire, there is an important parallel with the philosophy of Epicurus. This is because Epicurus established a distinction between what he called "mobile pleasures" and "static pleasures". — Arcane Sandwich

No doubt. There are very many resonances between Tao, early Buddhism and Stoicism, albeit Taoism and Buddhism both had beliefs in immortality in various forms, which the Stoics did not.

No doubt. There are very many resonances between Tao, early Buddhism and Stoicism, albeit Taoism and Buddhism both had beliefs in immortality in various forms, which the Stoics did not. — Wayfarer

Why did you mention the Stoics there, and why did you not mention Epicurus? He was not a Stoic. Epicurean philosophy (Epicurean-ism) is not the same as the Philosophy of the Stoa (Stoicism).

Epicurus was a materialist. The Stoics, on the other hand, were objective idealists. I suppose you could say that Epicurus was an objective materialist, which would mean that he and the Stoics have something in common. But that commonality, in this case, would be their "objectness" (thing-ness) or "objectivity". Think of it in their original Hegelian sense, as the difference between Gegenständlichkeit and Objektivität. They have different etymologies, the former is from Common German (Gegenständlichkeit), while the latter is from Medieval Latin (Objektivität). The moral here, is that Hegel thinks that Objektivität is Ethically superior to Gegenständlichkeit, because it is older. It is more ancient. Yet, he himself (Hegel) was a Romanticist, he as an individual was in Love with Gegenständlichkeit, not with Objektivität. This caused him great suffering, so he studied the earliest philosophers. He studied Taoism, and Buddhism, and Legalism, among other Philosophies East of Europe. He then focused his gaze West of Asia. And he said: First there was Being. It is pure. It was first thought by Parmenides. At the same time, there is Nothing. It was first thought by Lao Tzu. The movement from Being to Nothing and from Nothing to Being is Becoming. And Becoming itself is the Absolute Spirit itself, before its March Through History truly begins.

But there is reason to believe that Hegel was simply wrong, on many intellectual fronts. He did not understand Lao Tzu. Not like someone from the 21st Century can understand him.

(Note: I have edited this comment for the sake of clarity -Arcane Sandwich)

Why did you mention the Stoics there, and why did you not mention Epicurus? He was not a Stoic. — Arcane Sandwich

I beg your pardon, it was a mistake. Interesting further points there on Hegel, with whom I am not well acquainted.

I beg your pardon, it was a mistake. Interesting further points there on Hegel, with whom I am not well acquainted. — Wayfarer

Well, not to brag, but in one of my novels, I have invented a fictional character who I call "The Antarctic Hegel". As in, this is a character who is considered by his peers to be "the Hegel of Antarctica". He has not had much success as a professional philosopher so far, but he has not given up hope: perhaps, in the next century, he will be honored, half-jokingly, in the minds of many as "Antarctica's Greatest Philosopher."

But let us focus our attention on the Tao once again. The Tao itself (this is my interpretation, I could be wrong) does not follow itself. Not if we trust the words of Lao Tzu in Verse 25 of the Tao Te Ching. As I hope to have explained, Tao does not follow Tao. Tao does not follow itself. Tao follows something else: Tao follows Nature.

One should follow Nature, not the Tao, because of the following:

1) Suppose that one follows the Tao.
2) And suppose that the Tao follows Nature.
3) It follows from this, that one follows Nature.
4) If so, the Tao is not Nature: Tao merely follows Nature, without being Nature.

That is my thought on Tao. It could have mistakes, my thought. And I'm certain that it does.

You certainly sound a highly imaginative and interesting writer! I am not qualified to comment on the intricacies of Taoist principles, as I mentioned at the outset, although I've always admired it.