Christine Tan

Nihilism comes from the Latin nihil, meaning “nothing.” It is the belief that nothing inherently governs existence: no values, principles, or ultimate meaning. Many philosophers treat this as an existential crisis: If there is no meaning to our lives and actions, why bother? This work challenges the assumption that nihilism is terrifying. I adopt a broader, more neutral framing: life lacks inherent meaning, but this lack is not necessarily tragic. Drawing on the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi, I develop an alternative view of nihilism that contrasts with the Anglo‐European “death of God” narrative and the moral chaos it supposedly unleashes. For Zhuangzi, nothingness is not a threat. He does not mourn the loss of meaning, nor does he attempt to overcome it by creating new values. Instead, Zhuangzi challenges the ultimacy of meaning, highlights its contingency, and offers a distinctive way of inhabiting purposelessness—opening new possibilities for ethical and political thought across traditions.

This article offers a philosophical critique of meritocratic ideology via the Zhuangzi, focussing on the ‘Robber Zhi’ chapter as a philosophical intervention against the Confucian justification of hierarchy and inequality. To show this, I first demonstrate the meritocratic tendencies of Confucian philosophy through two key components: (1) just hierarchy, and (2) equality of opportunity, then I look at the chapter’s arguments against these concepts, showing that: (1) moral striving alienates individuals from their well-being by demanding sacrifices for abstract ideals; (2) values lack stable standards and are inseparable from social circumstances; (3) hierarchies are not reliable reflections of moral worth but products of arbitrary social dynamics; and (4) individual agency is a myth, as all actions are co-produced by contingent conditions. Finally, I show how Zhuangzi, through Robber Zi and elsewhere in the text, forms a radical critique of meritocracy that destabilizes its epistemic, moral, and political foundations.

Chan Buddhism as we know it today can perhaps be traceable to what is known as the Hongzhou school, founded by Mazu Daoyi. Although it was Huineng who represented an important turn in the development of Chan with his iconoclastic approach to enlightenment as sudden rather than gradual, it was in Huineng’s successor, Mazu, where we saw its complete radicalization. Specifically, Mazu introduced a radicalized approach of collapsing substance (體 ti) and function (用 yong), as well as principle (理 li) and phenomena (事 shi), into a complete overlap. As a result of this radicalization, the Hongzhou lineage received some strong criticisms, the most important of which was possibly by Guifeng Zongmi, of the Heze lineage. Zongmi criticized Mazu for his supposed antinomianism, claiming that Mazu’s approach completely stunts moral and religious cultivation. Due to their commitment to “suchness” rather than deliberate theory, however, Hongzhou never bothered to answer Zongmi’s critique. As such, it is the goal of this article to utilize Guo Xiang’s philosophy as a tool to understand the implicit Hongzhou response to Zongmi. As I shall demonstrate, his philosophical enterprise shares the same ontology of absolute oblivion which Hongzhou was also predicated upon and is, therefore, a possible alternative to understanding what could have been the Hongzhou response to the alleged antinomianism.

This article aims to investigate Guo Xiang’s notion of zide (self-realisation) through the framework of his non-linear and non-binary model, which was the result of his successful amalgamation of Confucian and Daoist ideals at a chaotic but also syncretic time in the historical development of Chinese Philosophy. A Neo-Daoist, Guo Xiang tried to distance himself from primitive escapism, but this has led scholars to misunderstand him as a fatalist. Looking at his ontological construction of what consists as zide, however, reveals a profound image of the autonomous self who is, simultaneously and on equal levels, both self-sufficiently independent and in possession of a unified sense of oneness with the universe. This conception of self-realisation thus goes beyond a binary self that is constantly torn between the causal empirical reality and autonomous self-determination.

This work is a thought experiment in re-interpreting the virtue of li or ritual/propriety for the contemporary, multi-cultural, world. Using Zhuangzi, the Lunyu, and Zhongyong as my primary points of departure, I re-interpret the Confucian ideas of hierarchy in terms of the Daoist conception of harmony. Many scholars today argue that Confucianism has a relational ontology, yet at the same time, we find that Confucian values can and do lead to rigid and harmful traditions that have historically oppressed marginalized groups like women. As such, I re-imagine what li might look like if we take relational ontology seriously, Drawing from Zhuangzi, I argue that Confucian harmony and order do not necessarily arise out of hierarchy, and that harmony, the most primary goal of li and of the Confucian project, can be best attained through propriety that is influenced by Daoism and feminist values such as equality.

Chan Buddhism as we know it today can perhaps be traceable to what is known as the Hongzhou school, founded by Mazu Daoyi. Although it was Huineng who represented an important turn in the development of Chan with his iconoclastic approach to enlightenment as sudden rather than gradual, it was in Huineng’s successor, Mazu, where we saw its complete radicalization. Specifically, Mazu introduced a radicalized approach of collapsing substance (體 ti) and function (用 yong), as well as principle (理 li) and phenomena (事 shi), into a complete overlap. As a result of this radicalization, the Hongzhou lineage received some strong criticisms, the most important of which was possibly by Guifeng Zongmi, of the Heze lineage. Zongmi criticized Mazu for his supposed antinomianism, claiming that Mazu’s approach completely stunts moral and religious cultivation. Due to their commitment to “suchness” rather than deliberate theory, however, Hongzhou never bothered to answer Zongmi’s critique. As such, it is the goal of this article to utilize Guo Xiang’s philosophy as a tool to understand the implicit Hongzhou response to Zongmi. As I shall demonstrate, his philosophical enterprise shares the same ontology of absolute oblivion which Hongzhou was also predicated upon and is, therefore, a possible alternative to understanding what could have been the Hongzhou response to the alleged antinomianism.

In his seminal essay “Two Concepts of Liberty,” Isaiah Berlin categorized freedom into positive or negative liberty: “freedom to” or “freedom from.” He provided a powerful critique against the metaphysical nature of positive liberty, arguing that it is oppressive, in contrast to the conception of negative freedom, defined as lack of interference. Meanwhile, conversations around the concept of freedom in Daoist philosophy often hover around categorizing it as either positive liberty in its spiritual form—what Berlin calls the “retreat to the inner citadel”—or a type of negative liberty, being free from society’s interference. In this work, I argue that it may instead be more fruitful to explore the Chinese commentarial tradition for two reasons: (1) the problem of Berlin’s liberalist framework is problematic due to its inherently Anglo-European context, and concurrently, (2) there have been rich discussions of the sociopolitical aspects of the _Zhuangzi_ 莊子, especially by its leading Chinese commentator G uo Xiang 郭象, which have not been accounted for. Drawing from G uo Xiang, I render a reading of the concept of “free and easy wandering” (_xiaoyao_ 逍遙) in the _Zhuangzi_ as it directly relates to self-realization (_zide_ 自得) and having no heart-mind (_wuxin_ 無心), which makes for a more holistic understanding of freedom as self-determination. In particular, I argue that freedom in the philosophy of the _Zhuangzi_ can be more aptly understood as “freedom in,” which is more viable and just than both “freedom to” and “freedom from.”

The Butterfly Dream is probably one of the most well-known anecdotes in philosophical literature, and as such, it has both enjoyed and suffered from several interpretations and misinterpretations. There are much more interpretations of the Butterfly Dream than this study can gloss over, but for the sake of brevity: I divide the two approaches according to how they view the characters in the plot. Specifically speaking, the first group, which for convenience I will call the egoistic thesis, views the plot in such a way that Zhuangzi is Chuang Chou, and that the butterfly is an imagined representation of the mind, while the second group, which for convenience I will call the monistic thesis, holds that Zhuangzi is different from Chuang Chou as well as the butterfly, hence supposing that the butterfly dream is an entirely distinct reality. Albeit seemingly crude, this provides a simple yet insightful view of the premises that prevent one approach from compromising with the other, as well as the crossing over of one interpretation into another which belong to the same approach. Moreover, this approach will allow me to better fulfill the overarching aim of this study, which is to contextualize a specific rendition of the monistic thesis against the backdrop of the philosophy of the Inner Chapters and its notion of Dao as a whole such that the Zhuangzi will emerge more aptly as a perspectivist. In other words, the Butterfly Dream points to what Hans-Georg Moeller terms as “a structure of presence” which, if viewed against the context of Zhuangzi’s philosophy, shows the paradox of the absolute unity but also the absolute singularity of all things.

The aim of this article is to show the Confucian virtue of li as the highest embodiment of the Jun zi as found in the Lun yu. While ren remains the most primary and most important of the virtues, it is an inner goodness which can only find its expression or manifestation in the virtue of li, while such manifestation is made possible only through an external ontological ideal that is the virtue of yi. As such, the interplay of ren and yi, which finds its harmony in li, is made possible only through the embodiment of li as a dynamic moral principle given substance by ren and given form by li, and perfected by the Jun zi.