Taoism is ancient in its method, but modern in its mentality. It correctly assumes that happiness can only be achieved if we make good decisions. Let me underline that it calls for “good decisions,” not “perfect decisions.” Either in terms of accuracy or timing, “good” will do from the Tao Te Ching’s standpoint.
I categorize the Taoist method (making good decisions) as ancient because it is the same method that Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) had recommended although, in their writings, the definitions of “good” were slightly different.
As for the Taoist mentality, its modernity is truly striking. In terms of critical thinking and personal development, Lao-Tzu was aeons ahead of Plato (427-347 BC), Augustine (354-430), and Tomas of Aquinas (1225-1274).
Even existentialist authors such as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960) failed to provide advice as nuanced and effective as the Tao Te Ching. In our century, large numbers of people continue to study Lao-Tzu’s wisdom; in contrast, how many are still reading Sartre and Camus?
It is no wonder that, after studying the Tao Te Ching, some people will find other philosophy books devoid of interest. The directness of the Tao Te Ching has seldom been equalled. One does not need to read long to gain insights that are, at the same time, profound and immediately applicable.
Even the habit of opening the Tao Te Ching at random and reading a few lines might be more illuminating than taking a full course on the philosophies of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
In the next paragraphs, I am going to summarise the aspects that render the Tao Te Ching modern, even if Lao-Tzu wrote it twenty-seven centuries ago.
Modernity of the Tao Te Ching message
In Chapter 8 of the Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tzu enunciates the first version of the water metaphor. The second version comes in Chapter 78. None of them should be understood as a call for renouncing one’s values, selling out, making random decisions, or shifting one’s allegiance for reasons of convenience.
Both versions of the water metaphor are remarkably modern because they delineate a peaceful, but individualistic morality. The first water metaphor calls for peacefulness and the second one for softness and adaptability.
On the one hand, Chapter 8 of the Tao Te Ching encourages us to cooperate peacefully with other people (“we should strive to imitate water because it benefits everyone and everything”).
On the other hand, Chapter 78 calls for adopting the virtues of softness and flexibility, just like water, because “the soft will triumph over the hard and the rigid.”
I regard the metaphor’s last part (“the soft will triumph”) as the most modern and significant. If Lao-Tzu had omitted his forecast of victory for the soft, his water metaphor would have failed as badly as Niccolo Machiavelli’s ethics of convenience.
Lao-Tzu’s ethical innovation is subtle but earth-shattering. If he had limited himself to preaching brotherly love (“imitate water because it benefits everybody”), his teachings would be, in this aspect, indistinguishable from Christianity.
Conversely, if they had been preaching spineless behaviour (“softness and flexibility”), he would have anticipated the very worst of Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas, that is, the willingness to lie and prevaricate when it serves one’s short-term purposes.
I am glad to say that Lao-Tzu did neither one nor the other. Neither did he preach all-encompassing brotherly love, nor did he try to legitimate deceit. Understanding this aspect is crucial, I believe, to practising Taoism beneficially.
The Tao Te Ching calls for peaceful collaboration and polite manners (“softness and flexibility”) as strategies for achieving one’s purposes: primarily, a happy life, and secondarily, health, personal safety, protection of one’s family and friends, etc.
Lao-Tzu’s two water metaphors refer to lifestyle elements, but the underlying purpose is individuality. That’s why Chapter 78 of the Tao Te Ching ends with the prediction that “the soft will triumph over the hard and rigid.”
Modernity of the Taoist mentality
Happiness, in the Aristotelian and Taoist sense, is the direct effect of successful living. Aristotle’s “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics” had emphasised achievement, while the Taoists emphasize self-reliance, but in the end, it comes to the same.
Aristotle’s ethical and aesthetics (literary theory) works had emphasised the triumph of virtue over evil, and Lao-Tzu’s Tao Te Ching is speaking about the triumph of the soft over rigidity and inflexibility.
I consider the Tao Te Ching remarkably modern because it combines individual self-development with social cooperation and peacefulness. In history, we only witness such a mentality taking prevalence in the nineteenth century and afterwards.
The modernity of the Taoist mentality is confirmed by other chapters of the Tao Te Ching. For instance, Chapter 64 calls for adopting a proactive attitude in fixing problems. In this area, Lao-Tzu is anticipating the interest in self-improvement, which has become prevalent in our century.
Today more than ever, we can look at the Taoist model of a self-reliant individual, as it is presented in Chuang-Tzu stories, and adopt his mentality. Privacy instead of bragging, humility instead of public displays of wealth, steadiness and constancy instead of randomness.
Modernity of the Taoist lifestyle
Taoist stories frequently present their hero as an individual who has chosen to build his prosperity in private. Even if he works in agriculture, as an artisan or teacher, he still remains his own master, collaborating with other people as needed, but keeping his independence.
Lao-Tzu’s Tao Te Ching gives us a modern prescription for successful living. In later centuries, many philosophers, with or without knowledge of Taoism, have endorsed a similar way of life.
Amongst the ancient Stoics, Epictetus (50-135 AD) viewed the virtue of humility as crucial to leading a peaceful life, and I can say the same about Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) despite his supreme role in the political structure of Rome.
Nonetheless, the conception of humility in Taoism is more modern because it is instrumental, not a pure abstraction. Lao-Tzu, Yang-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu had recommended humility as a solid strategy for conflict avoidance, not as a moral mandate in itself.
Similarly, the Taoist love of nature, which is equated with the Tao, does not arise as a gratuitous moral mandate. For Lao-Tzu, the alignment of one’s actions with nature is a prerequisite of good health, prosperity and harmony. If we adopt the Taoist lifestyle, says the Tao Te Ching, we should do better in life.
In Christianity, especially from the standpoint of St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226), the love for nature, which is presented as a religious virtue, somewhat loses its modernity because it is often exercised as self-sacrifice.
Sr. Francis was not the only Christian leader to call for a life aligned with nature. I can also point to personalities outside the Catholic Church, for instance Quakers such as John Woolman (1720-1772), who equally favoured a simple, natural lifestyle.
Despite the similarities, Taoism’s unique appreciation of the individual, as shaper of his own life and happiness, gives it an air of modernity that other philosophies find difficult to equal.
While they endorse peacefulness and benevolence, I miss an understanding of self-reliance and individuality. Chapter 64 of the Tao Te Ching praises the lifestyle of people who let things take their course, but take steps each day to pursue their goals. What thinkers, outside Taoism, have found this almost poetic harmony between individuality and collaboration?
If you are interested in putting effective insights into daily practice, I recommend my book titled “Rational living, rational working.”