• Gnomon
    3.9k
    AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM

    My personal non-religious philosophical worldview has some aspects in common with ancient Chinese Taoism : the Way of Nature. But I just came across another name for a similar concept. In Philosophy Now magazine (12/24 ; 01/25) the cover title is The Return of God. It presents articles on various attitudes toward the god concept; including Atheism and Agnosticism.

    But one label, Axiarchism, I had never heard of. The Latin (axio + arche) means Value/Principle & Ruling/Primary. The article says It's “a novel view that pictures the creative power . . . . as a non-personal force that creates the best world . . . but not for us.” {my bold} Also, “Axiarchists argue that only a non-causal force or principle can ultimately explain why things exist”. As an abstract, impersonal, natural, acausal creative principle it seems quite similar to Lao Tse's Tao. Yet, in terms of the value-based “path” or “flow” of the universe, it may be analogous to an algorithm-crunching computer program. And as a general creative causal natural force, it sounds somewhat like my own notion of EnFormAction*1. The article goes on to say : “this view resonates most of all with the Chinese philosophical religion of Daoism”. Or, the Axiarche might be like Hindu Brahman, simply non-specific impersonal ultimate Reality.

    The key difference from traditional Creator/creation models, is that this one may help to explain the Problem of Evil : why bad things happen to good people. Since the Programmer is not a humanoid person, its “values” may be more logical/mathematical than emotional/sentimental. However, this computer-like model doesn't directly explain the Ontological question of “why things exist”. From our human perspective, it just means “it is what it is”. Since a non-humanoid natural Principle is not likely to be responsive to prayers, the Axiarch doesn't sound very comforting as a religious deity to worship. So, the value of this god-concept might only be appreciated by rational philosophers. As to the question, why create a world at all?, this rule-based postulate would not be expected to answer “why” questions, except perhaps to assume that creating viable worlds is the job description of a cosmic Principle, Programmer, or Axiarch.

    Monotheist religions typically assume that our natural world was designed specifically as a habitat for god-worshiping homo sapiens. But if so, the Problem of Evil*2 arises, and Theodicies postulated to explain why a benevolent deity would allow so much pain & suffering of innocent sentient beings. Yet one version of Axiarchism says : “our world is the best, not according to human values, but in terms of its natural values of order, diversity, unity and so on”. Regarding the lack of perfection in our human situation, “our world is somewhere in between ; not too simple to lose diversity, and not too complex to lose order”. In which case, our dynamic system of Evolution must find the balance-point, equilibrium, between opposing values of diversity/fecundity and order/stability. Perhaps the program of evolution is designed to find the best path between extremes of hot/cold ; diversity/unity ; order/ disorder. Hence, like the weather, it seems fickle.

    Regarding the causal powers & creativity of the hypothetical Axiarch, the article just takes them for granted. But Quantum Physics was forced accept that some natural events are “acausal”: no known cause. Or maybe the Cause is like gravity : universal instead of particular. Gravity is not Ethical or Moral, it applies to all things equally. So Jon Mayer's song “Gravity is working against me” seems to imagine Nature as a war between opposing forces : hot/cold, good/bad, up/down. But perhaps Axiarchism would say there's only one force, and your needs & wishes may just be on the wrong path. When you disobey the law of gravity, you fall down, and it hurts when you hit bottom. So, a modern Taoist might say : "get with the program".

    The article says, “for daoists, the way of nature determines whether a human action or behavior is good. But they have no reason, other than moral intuition, to see the way of nature as good”. “The suffering caused by evolution or natural disasters is instead part of the way nature proceeds”. “According to the holistic picture, and using the measure of cosmic harmony, many instances of pain and suffering are good for us”. “Evil and suffering seem problematic when we consider humans as metaphysically special”. Hence, this worldview may be compatible with Atheism, except that it envisions a rational/logical progression of evolution : sensible & predictable instead of absurd & capricious. Humans are indeed “special” in the sense that they categorize events from a selfish perspective. Perhaps a more universal point of view, like Taoism, would make the world seem less like a home made for humans, and more like a place we are visiting, and just passing through.

    Since Axiarchism is new to me, I may have misunderstood its meaning. And my understanding of Taoism is superficial. So don't take my word for it. Read the article for yourself, or search the annals of philosophy for more information on this modern take on The Way of Nature*3. :smile:

    *1. EnFormAction :
    A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's WILL) of the axiomatic eternal First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite pool of possibility : Potential.
    AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.

    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    *2. The problem of evil is a philosophical question that asks how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. It is often considered the most powerful argument against the existence of such a God.
    ___Google A.I. overview

    *3. What is the natural way in Daoism?
    The basic idea of the Daoists was to enable people to realize that, since human life is really only a small part of a larger process of nature, the only human actions which ultimately make sense are those which are in accord with the flow of Nature — the Dao or the Way.
    https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1000bce_daoism.htm
  • Joshs
    6k


    The Latin (axio + arche) means Value/Principle & Ruling/Primary. The article says It's “a novel view that pictures the creative power . . . . as a non-personal force that creates the best world . . . but not for us.” {my bold} Also, “Axiarchists argue that only a non-causal force or principle can ultimately explain why things exist”. As an abstract, impersonal, natural, acausal creative principle it seems quite similar to Lao Tse's Tao. Yet, in terms of the value-based “path” or “flow” of the universe, it may be analogous to an algorithm-crunching computer program.Gnomon

    For an alternate atheistic take on Taoism , especially the thinking of Zhuangzi, I highly recommend the recently published book by Brook Ziporyn, one of the top translators of ancient Chinese texts. It is called ‘Experiments in Mystical Atheism: Godless Epiphanies from Daoism to Spinoza and Beyond‘.

    If there is any tradition that is really marked by its consistent and thoroughgoing atheism in the sense that matters, it is the Chinese philosophical tradition. This is true of all three of the main classical traditions, Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. The clearest and most paradigmatic anti-God resource in the Chinese tradition is the conception of Dao, as the term comes to be developed in what are later known as “philosophical Daoist” texts such as the Laozi (Daodejing) and the Zhuangzi. For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea. Indeed, classical Daoist thought can very well be described as one long polemic against the idea of purpose—the idea of conscious design, of intentional valuation as a source of existence, of deliberate creation, of control, of God.

  • Hanover
    13.2k
    The basic idea of the Daoists was to enable people to realize that, since human life is really only a small part of a larger process of nature, the only human actions which ultimately make sense are those which are in accord with the flow of NatureGnomon

    I don't understand this. The naturalistic fallacy (which this position seems to celebrate) holds it's a fallacy to equate is with ought, as in, it must be the way things ought to be because that's the way things are. In order to avoid the truism that everything is moral because everything is as it is, you must position something outside of nature, which I assume are humans. That is, unless you grant that a human can act unnaturally, you can't designate his behavior as immoral because it is by definition in accordance with nature. If we go down that road, then we've granted special status to humans and we've apparently given them free will. If we're now going to judge people based upon how they otherwise interrupt nature, then I wonder why have humans at all. Wouldn't the world be better off without the potentially disrupting influence? But then if you say that humans are obligated to facilitate the flow of nature, that creates the odd suggestion that nature is behaving more naturally when unnatural humans are there to assist.

    My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such.Hanover

    Like all religions, taoism has an ethical system, without being reducible to it. It also has a metaphysics. If one wishes to know what the Ultimate is (be it the Chinese Tao, or the Christian God), that doesn't seem (to my mind) to be within the province of ethics. It seems to belong instead to the province of cosmology. And behind the anthropomorphic or naturalistic figures (i.e., Zeus in Greek mythology, Nature in Taoism) there are philosophical concepts at work. These concepts are best understood from the point of view of scientific anthropology, rather than normative ethics (I.e., the ten commandments).

    There is also the question regarding mysticism and the Imago Dei. That doesn't necessarily say anything to me in terms of Ethics. It seems more like a genuine religious experience instead, and there is no prose-like language that can accurately express "what those experiences feel like" in terms of "qualia". Hence, poetry.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiarchism :sparkle:

    ... reminds me of @Philosophim's old thread

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

    A couple of thoughts:

    Given that the universe, or nature, has a causal aspect does not entail that the whole universe, or nature, is the effect of a (prior) cause. (pace Aristotle et al). Likewise, just because physical laws, for instance, are computable does not entail that the universe, or nature, is a "computer" or output of some (metaphysical? e.g. @Gnomon's quasi-creationism?) "program". Same goes for "meaning, purpose, value": there is an aspect of the universe, or nature, that instantiates "... value" doesn't entail that the whole universe, or nature, has "... value" as so-called axiarchism posits. This sort of invalid reductionism is a consequence of an (unwittingly) assumed compositional fallacy.

    From the dao (Laozi-Zhuangzi) to logos (Heraclitus) to swirling atoms in void (Democritus-Epicurus-Lucretius) to natura naturans (Spinoza) to the absurd (Zapffe-Camus) to the real (Nishida-Nishitani / C. Rosset) ... to the (modern) pandeus¹ is, so far, the least irrational as well as most scientific evidence-compatible (or soundest) speculative path I have found to reflectively explore nature (i.e. surface of the real with which (we) natural beings are inescapably entangled – ergo embodied – and that fundamentally encompasses – enables-constrains – whatever is knowable (by us) including reason itself). YMMV

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism [1] :fire:

    For an alternate atheistic take on Taoism , especially the thinking of Zhuangzi, I highly recommend the recently published book by Brook Ziporyn, one of the top translators of ancient Chinese texts. It is called ‘Experiments in Mystical Atheism: Godless Epiphanies from Daoism to Spinoza and Beyond‘.Joshs
    Much thanks for this and the podcast interview (I'll listen later)! :up:
  • Wayfarer
    23.6k
    Does atheism entail that the category of 'the sacred' is meaningless? Does it entail that the 'mokṣa' of Hinduism or the 'Nirvāṇa' of Buddhism have no transcendent referent?

    Taking Buddhism as an example (Buddhism is non-theistic as a matter of principle as it recognises no creator-god.) One of the attributes of the Buddha (or Buddhas) is nevertheless described as 'lokuttara' (Sanskrit). The translation is usually given as 'world-transcending' but it is, not to beat around the bush, supernatural, to all intents and purposes. The Buddha (or Buddhas) are said to understand the root of the impersonal causal chain which gives rise to material embodiment (i.e. being born) and to be able to bring a complete end to that process (although later Buddhism maintains that Buddhas and bodhisattvas (wisdom-beings) are able to re-enter the world voluntarily out of compassion.)

    Hinduism likewise posits human existence as an instance of an endless process of birth and death from which liberation is sought through the extinction of avidya (ignorance). Hinduism is poly- rather than non-theistic, although the impersonal Brahman of nondualist Vedanta could hardly be equated with the personalist deity of the Bible.

    Traditional Taoism included the belief that practitioners can aspire to physical immortality through specific practices. This belief is rooted in Daoist cosmology and the goal of aligning with the Dao. In early Taoist traditions, physical immortality was often pursued through alchemy. External alchemy (waidan) involved creating elixirs using substances like mercury and lead, though these could be dangerous. Later traditions emphasized internal alchemy (neidan), which focused on refining the body and spirit through meditation, breath control, visualization, and energy cultivation.

    The cultivation of qi (vital energy) is central to these practices, supported by techniques such as controlled breathing, diet, sexual cultivation, and exercises like Tai Chi or Qigong. These methods aim to preserve life force and harmonize the body with natural rhythms. For some, physical immortality is understood literally, while for others it symbolizes spiritual transcendence, where the spirit becomes an xian—a transcendent or immortal being—achieving liberation from the cycle of life and death.

    Again, non-theistic. But is it atheist, in the contemporary sense? That's the question I want to pose.

    Does Zipporyn attract an audience because he is 'anti-God'? There's a large pool to be tapped.
  • Moliere
    5.1k
    From the dao (Laozi-Zhuangzi) to logos (Heraclitus) to swirling atoms in void (Democritus-Epicurus-Lucretius) to natura naturans (Spinoza) to the absurd (Zapffe-Camus) to the real (Nishida-Nishitani / C. Rosset) ... to the (modern) pandeus¹ is, so far, the least irrational as well as most scientific evidence-compatible (or soundest) speculative path I have found to reflectively explore nature (i.e. surface of the real with which (we) natural beings are inescapably entangled – ergo embodied – and that fundamentally encompasses – enables-constrains – whatever is knowable (by us) including reason itself). YMMV180 Proof

    I haven't walked as many paths, but it sounds like we're feeling the same.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    Though these questions aren't addressed to me...
    Does atheism entail that the category of 'the sacred' is meaningless?Wayfarer
    I don't think so. For us, 'this world, this life' (i.e. nature red in tooth & claw) is "sacred" insofar as existing is tragicomic – the power to de/create "meaningful" lives (relationships).

    Does it entail that the 'mokṣa' of Hinduism or the 'Nirvāṇa' of Buddhism have no transcendent referent?
    Atheism, as I understand it, denotes (at minimum) lack of belief in any literal "transcendent referents" such as supernatural entities (or ideas) like god/s, angels/demons, miracles, curses, spells, heaven/hell, reincarnation, nirvana, etc.

    :cool:
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out.Hanover

    There are plenty of philosophies out there I don't value, understand, or care about enough to try to understand. But you don't see me spouting off about them like a snide smarty-pants. Oh... wait. I do spout off about them like a snide smarty pants... Carry on.
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea.

    I have Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) and I like it. I certainly don't put myself up against him as an expert, but I understand the place of god in Taoism differently. Taoism isn't atheistic in the sense we normally mean it. It doesn't deny god's existence, it just (mostly) doesn't address it. It's non-theistic not anti-theistic. This is Verse 4 of Gia-Fu Feng's translation of the Tao Te Ching.

    The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
    Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!
    Blunt the sharpness,
    Untangle the knot,
    Soften the glare,
    Merge with dust.
    Oh, hidden deep but ever present!
    I do not know from whence it comes.
    It is the forefather of the gods.
    Tao Te Ching - Verse 4

    The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao.T Clark
    :100:
  • Wayfarer
    23.6k
    Humans are indeed “special” in the sense that they categorize events from a selfish perspective.Gnomon

    According to Buddhist lore, human birth is precious and rare, precisely because humans alone can hear and potentially understand the teaching as to the way to escape the endless cycle of birth and death. (Are Humans Special? David Loy.)
  • Moliere
    5.1k
    You reminded me of The Egalitarian Dharma of Unchiyama Gudo, or Zen Anarchism

    But one label, Axiarchism, I had never heard of. The Latin (axio + arche) means Value/Principle & Ruling/Primary. The article says It's “a novel view that pictures the creative power . . . . as a non-personal force that creates the best world . . . but not for us.” {my bold} Also, “Axiarchists argue that only a non-causal force or principle can ultimately explain why things exist”. As an abstract, impersonal, natural, acausal creative principle it seems quite similar to Lao Tse's Tao. Yet, in terms of the value-based “path” or “flow” of the universe, it may be analogous to an algorithm-crunching computer program. And as a general creative causal natural force, it sounds somewhat like my own notion of EnFormAction*1. The article goes on to say : “this view resonates most of all with the Chinese philosophical religion of Daoism”. Or, the Axiarche might be like Hindu Brahman, simply non-specific impersonal ultimate Reality.

    The key difference from traditional Creator/creation models, is that this one may help to explain the Problem of Evil : why bad things happen to good people.
    Gnomon

    Except with different emphases.

    Tho if we call something Axiarchism, and somehow are able to differentiate it from other political choices while maintaining a claim on Value/Principle as the rule --

    Surely you see where that's going.
  • Wayfarer
    23.6k
    God is just one of the 10,000 thingsT Clark

    One doesn’t have to subscribe to any religious belief to see the falsehood of this, whether you believe in God or not. As a matter of definition, God is not a thing or a phenomenon. In terms of philosophy of religion, the ‘uncreated’ is a term that may be used, and the uncreated is not one or any number of things.
  • Joshs
    6k


    For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea.

    I have Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) and I like it. I certainly don't put myself up against him as an expert, but I understand the place of god in Taoism differently. Taoism isn't atheistic in the sense we normally mean it. It doesn't deny god's existence, it just (mostly) doesn't address it. It's non-theistic not anti-theistic.
    T Clark

    Ziporyn’s claim is that what monotheisms and the atheisms of the ‘three horsemen’ (Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris) have in common is belief in a single purpose behind existence. For theists that purpose is God and the laws of morality he intends, and for Dawkins et al it is the sole authority of reason. Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality.

    Objectivity in the metaphysical sense is an unwarranted absolutizing or sedimentation of half of a two-step process. The philosophical worldview of objectivism is read off from an aspect of this process and made into a doctrine about metaphysics, when in fact it’s just one of many tools in the hands of a hungry animal. So even though it may be the case that, to the extent that we are admitting reasoning at all, the monotheist God can be disproved, there will always be Tertullian, that fascinatingly volatile and wickedly histrionic Church Father, who blurted out the unsurpassable final word on this issue way back in the early third century: I believe because it is absurd, said Tertullian. And no amount of reasoning will be of any use in convincing someone who has declined to accept the ultimate authority of reason.

    It is no use saying, “Look, Tertullian, you’re already using reason, you tacitly admit it, so how can you exempt this one issue from application of the same standard you use when you cross the street?” Why must he have only one standard? Should he do it because it’s reasonable? But he’s already shown he’s willing to eschew reason when he feels like it. If we think of beliefs as tools, this sort of move becomes unremarkable: why should I have only one tool that I use on every kind of material? A hammer
    for pounding nails, a nail-clipper for clipping nails—for not all nails are the same.

    We call all things “things,” but not all things are the same or require the same type of treatment. The illegitimate step lies in assuming that there must be a single standard applied at all times, for all types of situations, regarding every type of subject matter. Why assume that there is any unity of this kind applying to the world, that all existence must form one single system with a single set of laws and rules applying to all of it? That too is part of the circular assumption of the sole universal authority of Reason—an assumption that, I would argue, ironically has deep roots precisely in the idea of God.
  • Wayfarer
    23.6k
    Got no time for Ziporyn sorry.
  • punos
    681
    The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao.T Clark

    God and gods are not the same thing. Native American tribes have a concept of the "Great Spirit", while Christians have the concept of the "Spirit of God" or the "Holy Spirit". The words "spirit" and "tao" can mean the same thing. They both signify "way", as in "the spirit of violence" or "the tao of violence", which means "the way of violence", Spirit, Logos, and Tao are all ways of saying "The Way".

    When one speaks of God, it refers to "The Way", whereas when one speaks of "god", it refers to "a way", as in "the god of violence". All ways partake in the way of The Way, or all gods have their place within the God Way. The gods emanate from God as the 10,000 things, and inherit a portion of The Way.

    Psalm 82:6 - "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'"

    The first gods were the pure whole numbers which emanated from zero (the Source). The very first numbers to emanate were the twin 1s (-1, +1), represented by Janus, who is the namesake for January, the first month of the year.

    The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
    Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!
    Tao Te Ching - Verse 4

    Some people just don't like the use of the word "God" or "gods", or even "spirit" because of certain associations, but it's just a name. A cigar by any other name is still a cigar, yet a cigar is still just a name.
  • Amity
    5.6k
    My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out.Hanover

    I'm not someone who follows 10 commandments, and none of them are all that simple. Strict Rules or Guidelines are not in prose and can be pretty dogmatic. You really want things to be set in stone?
    Some do, and it is in this lack of flexibility and movement that we find some cannot deal with changing
    world realities. There is a wish to return to traditional moralities, as laid down by Man. Or dictators.

    From the Tao follows Nature thread. Following Bahm's translation of the TTC and his part in developing the Humanist Manifesto:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963041

    Be creedless; that is, be intelligent enough to make adaptations without dependence upon some formula.
    Be self-reliant; that is, be not dependent upon supernatural agency for intellectual support or moral guidance.
    Be critical; that is, question assumptions and seek certitude scientifically.
    Be tolerant; that is, be open-minded and hold conclusions tentatively.
    Be active; that is, live today and grow by exercising his capacities.
    Be efficient; that is, accomplish the most with the least effort.
    Be versatile; that is, vary his interests to attain a variety of interesting thoughts.
    Be cooperative; that is, find some of his satisfactions in social activities.
    Be appreciative; that is, make the present enjoyable by his attitude.
    Be idealistic; that is, create and live by ideals which he finds inspiring.
    Wiki - Archie J. Bahm
  • Amity
    5.6k
    My personal non-religious philosophical worldview has some aspects in common with ancient Chinese Taoism : the Way of Nature. But I just came across another name for a similar concept. In Philosophy Now magazine (12/24 ; 01/25) the cover title is The Return of God. It presents articles on various attitudes toward the god concept; including Atheism and Agnosticism.Gnomon

    Thank you. I'll take a look. :sparkle:
    https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/The_Best_Possible_World_But_Not_For_Us
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    One doesn’t have to subscribe to any religious belief to see the falsehood of this, whether you believe in God or not. As a matter of definition, God is not a thing or a phenomenon. In terms of philosophy of religion, the ‘uncreated’ is a term that may be used, and the uncreated is not one or any number of things.Wayfarer

    I've made a statement about my thinking on the metaphysics of god in Taoism. It's not false, the metaphysics I'm describing is just different from yours.
  • Amity
    5.6k
    From the article's Conclusion:

    Natural axiarchism offers a way to avoid human-centred morality. The axiarchic creative principle seems nothing like human beings, and does not even care about their lives and values.

    And from the cosmic perspective, everything is the best
    . From our limited perspective, however, things can be good or evil. Specifically, human acts are good when getting closer to the creative principle, but evil when far from it.
    The Best Possible World, But Not For Us, Issue 165, Philosophy Now

    Definition from Wiki:

    Axiarchism (from Greek axia {ἀξία, a-ksi-a} 'value' and arche {ἀρχή < (verb) ἄρχω} 'rule') is a metaphysical position that everything that exists, including the universe itself, exists for a good purpose. The word was coined by Canadian philosopher John Leslie.[1][2]Wiki - Axiarchism

    The article links it to Taoism:

    Just so, instead of being human-targeted as many theistic ethical systems are, natural axiarchism chooses the way of nature as its ideal.
    This view resonates most of all with the Chinese philosophical religion of Daoism. ‘The Dao’ means ‘the way of nature’, and in Daoism human values are totally grounded in natural forces and processes.
    Daoism advocates following a simple orderly life, living in unity with society, and respecting and preserving the diversity of life forms. Living in harmony with nature is Daoism’s fundamental principle. In this way, natural axiarchism can be seen as a metaphysical grounding for Daoist morality.
    Philosophy Now

    There is an assumption that the universe exists for a good purpose. Of what use is an 'axiarchic creative principle' if it doesn't care about human live and values. Arguably, part of Nature. Also, that there is only form of Daoism and way of thinking about it.

    The thread title: AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM

    The article and the OP don't really focus on the 21st century or its diversity. Such as:

    In the early years of the religion’s formation, Daoism quickly integrated several aspects of Chinese cosmology that were not obviously an initial part of the religion. The most prominent of these were the concepts of yin and yang. Daoism’s ability to syncretize with its surrounding context continued throughout the tradition’s history. When Buddhism entered China, Daoism absorbed many elements still seen today, elements such as the presence of altars to the bodhisattva Guanyin in many Daoist temples.

    Since Daoism did not travel in the same manner as, and lacked the popularity of, Buddhism, its numbers in America have grown relatively slowly. Today, it is estimated there are around 30,000 Daoist practitioners living in the United States. Now that American Daoists are becoming a larger part of the religious landscape, this openness to change is shaping the religion in distinct ways and presenting unique issues. [...]

    Currently, American Daoism in the 21st century is undergoing a phase of self-definition as it grapples with issues of interfaith interaction, decentralization, and the contrasting practices of converts and immigrants. Some scholars have suggested that a specific form of “American Daoism” will not form; rather, the great diversity of practice within America will result in “American Daoisms.”

    From: https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/pluralism/files/american_daoism_in_the_21st_century_1.pdf
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    Ziporyn’s claim is that what monotheisms and the atheisms of the ‘three horsemen’ (Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris) have in common is belief in a single purpose behind existence. For theists that purpose is God and the laws of morality he intends, and for Dawkins et al it is the sole authority of reason. Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality.Joshs

    I like your quote from Ziporyn very much. It's a drum I beat every chance I get - metaphysics isn't true or false, it's useful or not. It's a tool. We can carry a bunch of different ones in our toolbox and bring them out as we need them.
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    God and gods are not the same thing.punos

    I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the god of monotheistic religions is fundamentally different from the gods of multi-theistic ones? I don't see that. My, perhaps idiosyncratic, understanding is that, in Taoism, the Tao comes before God or the gods, whichever you like.

    The first gods were the pure whole numbers which emanated from zero (the Source). The very first numbers to emanate were the twin 1s (-1, +1), represented by Janus, who is the namesake for January, the first month of the year.punos

    I didn't understand your mathematical interpretation of ultimate reality the last time we discussed it and I don't understand it now.
  • Amity
    5.6k


    We call all things “things,” but not all things are the same or require the same type of treatment.

    The illegitimate step lies in assuming that there must be a single standard applied at all times, for all types of situations, regarding every type of subject matter.

    Why assume that there is any unity of this kind applying to the world, that all existence must form one single system with a single set of laws and rules applying to all of it? That too is part of the circular assumption of the sole universal authority of Reason—an assumption that, I would argue, ironically has deep roots precisely in the idea of God.

    Exactly this. Assumptions galore. And circularity. As is the Way of Nature. No morals included.
    Apart from those of human beings. Who argue over them...intelligently, or otherwise.

    ***
    I agree with this:

    Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality.Joshs

    However, some translations of the TTC appear to suggest that there is a goal, with aims. An example:

    Nature is ultimate, the principle of initiating is ultimate, and the principle of perfecting is ultimate. And the intelligent person is also ultimate. Four kinds of ultimate, then, exist, and the intelligent man is one of them.
    Man devotes himself to satisfying his desires, fulfilling his purposes, realizing his ideals, or achieving his goals. But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.
    TTC trans. by Archie J. Bahm
  • punos
    681
    Are you saying that the god of monotheistic religions is fundamentally different from the gods of multi-theistic ones? I don't see that. My, perhaps idiosyncratic, understanding is that, in Taoism, the Tao comes before God or the gods, whichever you like.T Clark

    Well, what would you say is the difference between a God and a god? (Uppercase 'G' vs. lowercase 'g')

    In Greek mythology, all the gods emerged from the primordial Chaos, personified as a female entity, just like the Taoists personified the Tao as the mother of all things and a void or chasm. In Greek mythology, there is no God, just gods. A monotheistic God is a unity, while the gods are a multiplicity.

    You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence.

    My way of looking at it is that all the historical attempts to describe this "thing" at the base of reality are partial explanations. Each culture or religion contains a piece of the ultimate puzzle to some degree, and the art is in recognizing which pieces go together and how. Different cultures had different lenses through which they attempted to see and describe it.

    I didn't understand your mathematical interpretation of ultimate reality the last time we discussed it and I don't understand it now.T Clark

    If you could understand Pythagoras, then you could understand what i'm trying to say. I can never really say it; i can only point at it, but everyone keeps looking at my finger instead of what i'm actually pointing at.

    quote-its-like-a-finger-pointing-away-to-the-moon-dont-concentrate-on-the-finger-or-you-will-bruce-lee-48-81-01.jpg
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    Again, non-theistic. But is it atheist, in the contemporary sense? That's the question I want to pose.Wayfarer
    I suppose the ancient oriental philosophies & religions were originally Naturalist, in the sense that most aboriginal (uncivilized) societies lived like animals at the mercy of their natural environment : Animism. But eventually, they became civilized, and developed technologies to give them power over nature. So, they pridefully began to make a conscious distinction between human Culture and non-human Nature. Hence, humans began to "transcend" their animal dependency, and to think of themselves as little gods. No longer needing to follow the Way (Tao) of Nature.

    But, since even civilized people remained subject to the positive & negative vagaries of general & inanimate natural forces (e.g. disasters), they needed some help that was not available from other humans. So they imagined metaphorical beings who were like humans, only more powerful in their control of natural forces : Nature Gods. Those "other" entities transcended humanity in a manner similar to the human domination over animals. And deserved to be worshiped and entreated. Thus, evolved Religionism from ancient roots in Naturalism.

    A further development from the religious impulse, to understand and gain control over Nature, was Philosophy (physics & metaphysics), which eventually evolved into modern Science. And that technological power over Nature made us less dependent on gods, and even on impersonal Nature-in-general. Maybe Lao Tse viewed the emerging Science of China as a departure from long traditions of humanity's obedience to the Omnipotence of Nature. So, like most religious leaders, he warned against human hubris, and advised a return to the old reverence for Nature, but more in positive attitude than in groveling practice. Similarly, Axiarchism emphasizes general internal natural values over specific overt rituals & practices & gods.

    This Zen-like philosophical reformation was neither Theistic nor Atheistic, but perhaps closer to the Agnosticism of the Buddha. Ironically, Lao Tse's "washed" followers eventually "returned like pigs to wallow in the mire", and converted his generalized philosophical personal worldview into a religion of particular prayers & practices for the masses, even to the point of deifying the Teacher himself. :halo:
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    Well, what would you say is the difference between a God and a god?punos

    Whether or not you capitalize "god" depends on whether you consider it a name or a description.

    You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence.punos

    I don't understand.

    Each culture or religion contains a piece of the ultimate puzzle to some degree, and the art is in recognizing which pieces go together and how.punos

    I don't see that there is an ultimate puzzle. Each understanding of ultimate reality stands on it's own. It can be interesting and enlightening to compare different religions and philosophies, but that doesn't mean something is missing.

  • Fooloso4
    6.2k
    From the Philosophy Now "Best Possibe World" article:

    Natural axiarchism offers a way to avoid human-centred morality. The axiarchic creative principle seems nothing like human beings, and does not even care about their lives and values. And from the cosmic perspective, everything is the best.

    I don't think we can avoid a human-centered morality, even if we avoid putting what is good for humans at the center. It is human beings who judge questions of morality. The "cosmic perspective" seems to be a fiction. What can or do we know of the cosmic perspective? We might imagine what that might be like, but to do so is to do it from a human perspective. To say that everything is for the best is a human judgment.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.