There are a lot of questionable aspects in Taoism, but there are also profound insights. Those provide a perspective that we cannot find in Western thinkers, with the exception of Spinoza (1632-1677) and Schopenhauer (1788-1860).
What can we learn from Taoism that Western philosophers have not already addressed? Did Socrates (469-399 BC), Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) not develop ideas that render it unnecessary for us to study Lao-Tzu?
No, they did not. The pitiful state of the world in some areas bears witness to the deficiencies of the dominant philosophies. Twenty-six centuries after Lao-Tzu, the world is still suffering from aggression and abuse, making it more urgent than ever to study his ideas and put them into practice.
Before going further, I must state that I prefer to use the old spelling for the names of the Taoist masters: Lao-Tzu (instead of the modern Laozi), Yang-Tzu (instead of Yang Zi), and Chuang-Tzu (instead of Zhuangzi).
I prefer the old spelling because my study of Taoism rests, for the most part, on texts from previous centuries. I have read those texts many times and learned key passages by heart. I do not want to see my love for the old texts diluted by changes in the spelling.
Lao-Tzu compared to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
Lao-Tzu lived in the 6th century BC, about one hundred and fifty years earlier than Socrates. According to tradition, Lao-Tzu refrained from writing down his insights, just as Socrates had refrained from writing his.
We know lots of details about Socrates because Plato wrote extensively about him. Similarly, we know of Lao-Tzu’s ideas because his disciples compiled them into the Tao Te Ching, a brief book broken down in eighty-one sections or chapters.
Lao-Tzu gained insights that had completely escaped Greek philosophers. For instance, Aristotle identified the principles of causality and logic, and applied them to the study of nature. The problem is that Aristotelian logic is rather rigid and has led to a linear view of human action and history.
In contrast, Lao-Tzu realized that many problems in life are better addressed by doing nothing or by simply avoiding them. While Aristotle was asking people to assess problems and take action to solve them, Lao-Tzu questioned whether it is worth it to take action in the first place.
Today, most of the world has adopted the Aristotelian ideals that call for problem assessment and action. That explains why there are thousands of programs to steer society in direction A or B or C or whatever. Those programs rest upon the belief that it is better to do something than nothing.
Lao-Tzu was a hardcore realist, not a naive escapist. He was perfectly aware of the human tendency to take action to change the world allegedly for the better, but at the same time, he had witnessed the disastrous effects of pushing people in the wrong direction.
As a result, the Taoist ethical values are different from those proposed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece. In the Tao Te Ching, emphasis is placed on simplicity, humility, compassion and alignment with nature. In contrast, Aristotle’s works emphasised rationality, justice and self-discipline.
Lao-Tzu and the principles of Taoism
Which philosophy is right, the Western tradition or Taoism? I regard them as complementary, and this is why I recommend studying Taoism. The insights gained by Lao-Tzu, Yang-Tzu, and Chuang-Tzu can help us make better decisions and avoid a great deal of unnecessary problems.
The three key Taoist philosophers present variations of the same themes, but from slightly different angles. Their extant works form the body of Taoist thought that has been put to the test of time and emerged a winner almost on every occasion.
Lao-Tzu (sixth century BC) established the principles of non-action, flexibility and harmony. In the fourth century BC, Yang-Tzu expanded those principles in the area of individual action. Finally, in the third century BC, Chuang-Tzu applied Taoist principles to interpersonal and societal relations.
Amongst all teachings emanating from Lao-Tzu, there is one idea that I consider a pillar of Taoism. It is the idea that intelligence, astuteness, shrewdness or perspicacity are vastly more powerful than brute force.
Chapter 33 of the Tao Te Ching implies that individuals who master themselves are “truly strong,” while those who use brute force operate on a lower level. This principle is repeated many times in the Tao Te Ching, expressing a deep dislike for all forms of abuse and aggressiveness.
Lao-Tzu against excess and exaggeration
For Lao-Tzu, aggression is a sign of stupidity that is bound to end up badly. Similarly, the Tao Te Ching condemns all sorts of excess and exaggeration.
Chapter 24 praises people who walk lightly (“who stand on tip-toe”) and condemns those who rush ahead forcefully. Their energy will soon be exhausted and their progress will stall.
Lao-Tzu’s prescriptions for calmness and prudence stand in sharp contrast to the Aristotelian call for building higher, going farther, running faster and determinedly pushing the envelope.
I have witnessed too often the catastrophic results of naive linear thinking. It can prove dangerous to take the teachings of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle literally and without nuances.
The damage caused by linear thinking may be compounded, I fear, if we take the ideas of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche or Karl Marx literally. Taoism provides a framework of reflection and behaviour that can help us avoid projects that look solid at first sight, but are likely to fall apart over time due to their weak foundations.
If you are interested in putting effective insights into practice, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”