First let us understand what Anthropocentrism is before
proceeding to answering the question. Anthropocentricism is a popular trend in
the Modern Western realm in philosophy wherein it highlights the importance of
the role of man and man being the center of everything in contrast to the
Medieval trend of theocentrism which highlights God as the center of
everything. Man is elevated into a status that wherein what exist beyond him
owes its existence to man himself being the center and that is how Descartes moved
in his philosophy so as with the rest of the Modern thinkers who highlighted
man’s capability of knowing, establishing first man’s capacity into knowledge
so that he can prove anything else that exists outside from him.
But here in the question is a negation of such hold which
means to say that anti-anthropocentrism is wherein man is not the center unlike
what is mentioned above. Later on we shall delve on why is this the case with
the Laozi and the Zhuangzi.
Both texts are respected as to be under the header
Taoism. Wherein Taoism according Fung Yu-Lan has three phases, that of Yang Chu
being the egoist, next Lao Tzu the mystic and Chuang Tzu with the equilibrium
of reason and emotion in man. It goes to show that in the representation of the
three different phases of Taoism, to who is prior and posterior to Lao Tzu they
sound anthropocentric it is because both are highlighting man in his ‘selfish’
nature according to Yang Chu and to that of Chuang Tzu of man’s reason and
emotion in attaining harmony. But even though that they lay stress on man it
still speaks of the Tao or the Way and wherein these two Taoist thinkers
explicated through highlighting man in his different dimensions makes the Way
come to be.
But what we should lay focus here is on Laozi and
Zhuangzi. Laozi is a popular text that directly relates to the Dao De Jing in
relation that the Laozi is the name of thinker as we all popularly know as to
be Lao Tzu. The Dao De Jing speaks of the Way in a very mystical sense, but the
text is not solely on the Way as directly explicating the Way, but it also
mentions about sages and rulers and their nature of function but their function
must be in accordance to what is conceived to be as the Way. Even though there
is a mention of men but still it is just a necessary topic to undertake in
order to buttress the main gist of the thought and that is the Way. Lao Tzu
mentions this in the Dao regarding the Way
“The
way that can be spoken of
Is
not the constant way;
The
name that can be named
Is
not the constant name.
The
nameless was the beginning of heaven and earth;
The
named was the mother of the myriad creatures.
Hence
always rid yourself to have desires in order to observe its secrets;
But
always allow yourself to have desires in order to observe its manifestations.
These
two are the same
But
diverge in name as they issue forth.
Being
the same they are called mysteries,
Mystery
upon mystery –
The gateway of manifold secrets.”[1]
The
way then as mentioned is above conjures a mystical template as how it is
even presented, and as we all have to continue reading the Dao, it repeatedly
mentions of the Way all throughout. The
same still goes for the Zhuangzi
“Heaven turns circles, yes!
Earth sits firm, yes!
Sun and Moon vie for a place, yes!
Whose is the bow that shoots them?
Whose is the net that holds them?
Who is it sits with nothing to do and gives them the push that sends them away?”[2]
Earth sits firm, yes!
Sun and Moon vie for a place, yes!
Whose is the bow that shoots them?
Whose is the net that holds them?
Who is it sits with nothing to do and gives them the push that sends them away?”[2]
Although I quoted only two samples in all and one in each
text but these are already enough to show the kind of template both texts are
having.
To make my stand, yes, both are anti-anthropocentric it
is because man is just a part in the picture of Tao. Even though the texts made
mention of man, but it just to illustrate how the Tao is and not only in man
but in reflection to all phenomena around. Simply the discourse is about nature
and man is part of nature, and man is also a reflection of nature and man does
not tke hold of nature but nature takes hold of man, therefore man is under
Tao, and all the more makes the whole argument sounds anti-anthropocentric.
To the Taoist, they pay respect to the abstract, to how
all flows in some manner and by in the understanding of it can one gain
enlightenment or simply wisdom. The way how the texts present themselves show
us different linguistic attempts to describe Tao, and in all those attempts,
they did not explicate in such a rigorous manner of essays but in short simple
phrases and even stories to find out how the Way moves and even language itself
is insufficient to encapsulate it in plain words, the Taoists have to be poetic
to conjure the understanding of the Tao.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhat I learned about Yang Tzu, as explained by Sir Villaver, was the subtle difference between egoism and individualism. The non-Taoist thinkers, particularly Mencius, perceived Yang Tzu to be a selfish egoist who did not bother to get involved or contribute to society if it cost him 'even a single hair'. But, if one would do a more detailed and contextualized reading of Yang Tzu, it will be revealed that he was not a egoistic, selfish, 'I-don't-care' misanthrope but a peace loving introvert/individualist who just wanted to avoid the trivial stress that social life brings, or the endless bickering within the political environment during ancient China's Warring States period, more precisely.
So while everyone else thought that Yang Tzu was a self-interested rebel and egoist, the truth is he was just an individualist who wanted to preserve 'what Heaven has given him', that is, to live out his life in longevity. The subtle difference between an egoist and individualist is that an egoist does not necessarily have to be someone who dislikes crowds and socializing, he/she can be an extrovert, but the defining brand of an egoist is that he/she is mainly 'overly' concerned only for him/herself that he/she might even use people just to satisfy an end and does not have genuine concern for everyone else, while an individualist is someone who just cannot endure crowds for long periods of time and socializing in general. Individualists are people who work better in smaller groups or quiet and less distracting environments.
I'm even thinking that Yang Tzu's 'individualist' philosophy might be understood subsequently in light with Susan Cain's book, Quiet.
Actually, this is one paper that Sir Villaver require us to make in our graduate class on Lao Tzu, and I say yes to your agreement with Sir's understanding. He who owns history decides history and by that the enemies of Yangism were in the seemingly upper hand in labeling Yangism as egotistical in flavor due to how it also appears to be such and seemingly useless during a period like the Warring States period wherein we need order than a philosophy of egoism or self-centeredness that would later on cater anarchism.
ReplyDeleteBut, for me, I love to interpret things according to the flavor I like, but let us just dismiss that rivalry in schools thingy and focus on how to re-interpret Yangism as a social philosophy, and that is to initiate the cultivation of the individual that then all would do the same of which were everybody is of like mind in their personal encounter and practice of Tao within them, then everybody would achieve harmony. Harmony is one of the main concerns of Yang Tzu, and not only harmony of one's self but also to that of society and thus All Under Heaven comes.