Daoism's of Laozi and Zhuangzi - Essay Example

Comparing and Contrasting the Daoism’s of Laozi and Zhuangzi Chinese philosophy has for a long time had an enviable heritage. However, it has been restricted, at least by outsiders, to the study of only well-known works by famous philosophers, most notably Confucius. It is not foreigners only who seem to pay the most attention to Confucius. Even the Chinese themselves do. For instance, the government of the Peoples Republic has established culture centers abroad and christened them ‘Confucius Institutes’. However, the rapid growth of the Chinese economy among other factors has ensured that China is always under the microscope. One of the things outsiders are most interested in is the philosophies. Thus, names like Laozi and Zhuangzi are now better known than before. This paper shall focus on the philosophies of these two, hitherto, less known philosophers. In the paper I shall explain their philosophies, draw comparisons and contrasts, and then endeavor to point out the superior philosophy among the two. Laozi was born and died during the reign of the Zhou dynasty. He was a firm believer in Taoism. He was a philosopher in then ancient China. His best work was the Tao Te Ching. This has led to him variously to be anointed as the founder of Taoism (pronounced as Daoism). There are many controversies regarding his main work referred to above. There are those who believe that the Tao Te Ching was a compilation of several Tao sayings by several other people over time (Ivanhoe & Norden 113). There is also a side that believes that this was entirely the work of Laozi. This is a situation very much like what Shakespeare faces today. However, there is no contention that he was incredibly gifted. To show how influential he might have been during his time, there are works that seem to suggest that Confucius consulted Laozi on matters of morals. There are even myths regarding his birth. Zhuangzi on the other hand, also referred to as Master Zhuang was born in 369 BCE and died aged 83 years old. He is said to have been greatly influenced by the Daoism espoused by Laozi. Therefore they shared several philosophical viewpoints but inevitably there were differences too. His main work was also named after him (Ivanhoe & Norden 135). Unlike Laozi, less is known about Zhuang. Conversely however, when the researcher starts to find material relating to these two philosophers, Zhuangzi’s philosophies are more readily available. They are also better explained than those of Laozi. The main reason why this is the case is because many people see Zhuangzi as the inheritor of Laozi’s crown. He took the idea of Daoism and tried to make it his own. This is also the case because Zhuangzi explained issues in greater detail using the whole repertoire of enrichments available in Chinese language, proverbs, and fables, among others. He was also linguistically superior. So what are the similarities between the two? Both of them greatly contributed to the school of Daoism. It is also important to note that both of them believed that it was important for the society to go back to what it was originally. In Laozi’s case, this meant abandoning the knowledge that had been acquired over the years. In the case of Zhuangzi it meant that people had to ‘reject social progresses’. Both of them also encouraged the disengaging from newer trends because of the fact that the more the trends, the more the desires acquired in the process. They both believed that the ideal life to lead was the life of the philosophers. Zhuangzi took this up to the point of recommending a total pullout from modern social trends. This would in turn lead to the better cultivation of traditional skills and values which were more sustainable and enduring over the course of time. Another issue that seized them both has to do with nature and our place in it. This has been a staple for many philosophers over the years. Laozi just like Zhuangzi advocated that nature retaliates. Therefore, it had to be treated in a more ‘humane’ manner for it to also be of use to the people who depended on it. Remember this was a society that depended much on the land. If there was a drought several were sure to die and so the fair treatment of nature as a whole was seen as the best way to reward it for all it brought forth. Both of them also explore the idea of freedom at length in their self-titled works. Laozi believed that the best way to gain ones freedom was to be natural and free from social conventions (Ivanhoe & Norden 123). This is important or else the people would be tied to beliefs and practices that were destructive and foreign. Zhuangzi on the other hand also firmly believed in the idea of freedom. He dreamt a now very famous dream in which he had been transformed into a butterfly. Without going any further, it is common knowledge that the butterflies symbolize freedom. They are free to fly wherever they want. There are differences between them. If the fact that they shared a philosophy meant that they could not disagree fundamentally, then the different times in which they both lived did. Both writers explore at length the idea of the ideal life. They both seem to agree that the ideal life should be as free from desires as possible (Ivanhoe & Norden 129). Desires they believed fuel greed and so are not good for society. However, the real difference between them arises with respect to how those desires should be suppressed. Zhuangzi suggests closing oneself to the outside world entirely. Laozi on the other hand suggests reducing ones desires and living the agrarian way. Laozi’s position here is more practical. The other area where the two hold contrasting positions has to do with values. Laozi holds that heaven unlike earth is less giving. Laozi tries to urge the reader to recognize the value in being lowly. He talks about the utility of an emptied mug. Through taking the lowly positions, he believes, we are better prepared for glory. Zhuangzi on the other hand believes being tough is the way to go. He views nature as an environment in which people cannot afford to be reserved as others progress. The final issue has to do with their positions on politics and governance. Here too, their philosophies in other areas seem to inform their stands. Laozi for instance believes in tactically taking the lowly positions while Zhuangzi believes in wresting control and directing proceedings. Zhuangzi; therefore, suggests that the best leader is the one who is flexible. He seems to think that the leader has to at times accept mistakes on their part. On the other hand, Laozi hand believes deeply in strategizing (Ivanhoe & Norden 56). Strategy is indeed key in all human endeavors, but more so in governance. Both positions seem consistent with modern governance too. Inevitably, the question of whose Daoism is superior is going to arise. After all both have written on similar topics and can therefore be compared. In my opinion, there is no clear winner as far as this Daoism contest is concerned. This is because both philosophers’ issues can be corroborated by any person at different stages. For instance, Laozi takes full credit for founding the school of Daoism. Zhuangzi on the other hand is accredited with better communicating the views espoused by Laozi under Daoism. As far as leadership is concerned for instance, Zhuangzi feels that taking control but allowing significant freedoms is the best way. This happens in many successful countries today, even more coincidentally China itself. There is also the idea of letting freedom reign with few controls as Laozi suggests. This is a model that has also been adopted by the United States with great success. In conclusion, the differences between Laozi and Zhuangzi fall so much on belief. However, it is also important to note that they also agree on many of the issues. The differences might have been motivated by the times both were living in. In both cases however, the fundamental beliefs of Taoism are unchallenged. There is recognition on the part of both philosophers that there is a need to hold on to tradition as much as possible (Ivanhoe & Norden 80). This shall help prevent society from harmful foreign influences. Their emphasis on the need to respect nature also should be mentioned. In fact, Laozi mentions in his self-titled book that nature should be left to ‘follow its course’. This is a clear indication of the need to respect nature. Generally, just like there are differences even in the case of identical twins, there are also differences between the two. However, in the end it is mostly the case that the two complement each other. Works Cited Ivanhoe, Philip & Norden, Bryan. Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. New York: Hackett, 2006. Print. Read More