Stephen C. Walker

This entry examines a set of ancient Chinese texts – with their associated literary and ideological tendencies – that had come to be seen as distinctive by the early Han period. This set constitutes one of the standard referents of “Daoism,” a word whose difficulties command attention in their own right. The ancient writers we could label “Daoists” were united by no single text, founder, agenda, or concept; grouped together, they show tendencies towards dissidence, paradox, and humor that distinguish them from moralistic and technocratic rivals. These writers engaged a variety of themes and practices familiar from the early Chinese religious environment; alongside the eccentricities of Daoist writers themselves, the distinctiveness of this environment makes it challenging to put them in philosophical dialogue with other religious traditions. Buddhist uses of the Daoist heritage illustrate its potential relevance to a range of other religious perspectives.

This essay examines the questions raised about debate in _Zhuāngzǐ_ 莊子 2, the practical advice this chapter offers us for dealing with debates when they arise, and some of the questions that will predictably occur about how and why to apply that advice. On the present interpretation, _Zhuāngzǐ_ 2 argues that joining any side in a verbal conflict promotes continued conflict, and that only appreciating and working along with each speaker’s distinct point of view affords us access to what is “really” or “conclusively” (_guǒ_ 果) the case. In contentious situations, the text advises that we pay close attention to speakers and their ways of life—rather than to what they are supposedly speaking about—and that we abandon any immediate goal beyond preserving our own health. Along the way, it foregrounds pleasure and comfort rather than rightness as what we are most attuned to when we listen and respond to one another’s words.

Abstract:This article aims to help Anglophone scholars recover a neglected Zhuangist dialogue for philosophical engagement. The discussion between "Knowlittle" and "Great Unbiased Harmony" in Zhuangzi 25 preserves an extensive, relatively technical analysis of "dao" and its infinite referent that throws interesting light on many other treatments of this topic in the surrounding literature. Apparently taking exception to the practice of using "dao" as a label for something different in kind from ordinary things, whoever wrote this dialogue maintains that dao includes those things—and hence is just as available for understanding and description as they are. While its place in the historical development of "Daoist" conversations remains an open question for future research, this dialogue's fascinating claims and arguments in and of themselves reward attention.