I am fond of comparing the differences between Taoism and Confucianism to the differences between cats and dogs. I love dogs and cats, but I recognize their distinct traits. They respond to situations according to the nature of their species, and come what may, they will keep doing so no matter what.
Taoists are like cats because of their marked individuality and distrust of uniformity. They will only pursue goals that are important to them, irrespective of everybody else’s opinions. In every situation, they trust their own perceptions and judgement more than they trust the narratives prevailing in society.
Confucians resemble dogs because of their faithfulness in good and bad times. They are steady and trustworthy. We can predict their actions accurately because they love routines. Day in and day out, they make decisions according to solid values.
Is my comparison superficial and dilettantish? I do not think so because Taoists and Confucians represent two key drivers of human action, namely, the love for personal freedom and the love for orderliness.
Taoism, Confucianism, and ancient Greece
I regard it as irrelevant that Lao-Tzu and Confucius shaped their ideas roughly in the same place and at the same time: in China, in the 6th century BC. Why? Because their doctrines are based on human nature, that is, on universal patterns of action.
If Lao-Tzu and Confucius had lived a century earlier or a century later, or if they had not lived at all, the outcome would have been the same; their ideas would have been developed by someone else and possibly baptised differently, but coming to the same conclusions.
Similarly, I must reject the attempts to compare Confucius (551-479 BC) and Lao-Tzu to the Ancient Greek philosophers. Indeed, the societal ideals of Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) partially coincide with those of Confucius, but a closer analysis shows that Confucius never gave much thought to governance institutions and their interplay.
Socrates (470-399 BC) shared some ideas proposed by Lao-Tzu, Yang-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu, but their commonalities don’t go far. Socrates’ love for critical thinking lacked the doctrinal consistency of Taoism.
Yang-Tzu would have condemned Socrates’ acceptance of the death sentence. If Yang-Tzu had faced the same situation, he would have escaped and gone into exile. Plato’s “Apology” gives the impression that Socrates could have escaped, but in the end, he decided to stay put and commit suicide.
Unlike Socrates, Yang-Tzu wouldn’t have hesitated to bribe his guards and break out of jail. If given the chance, Lao-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu would have run away without waiting to hear the death sentence from the court.
Taoism, Confucianism, and social harmony
Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching enunciates the principle that sets apart Taoism from the philosophies of Confucius, Socrates and other thinkers. “Human beings,” says Lao-Tzu, “follow the earth, the earth follows heaven and heaven follows the Tao, but the Tao only follows itself.”
Lao-Tzu employs the term “Tao” as a synonym for natural law. Taoists seek to align all their thoughts and actions with the Tao, irrespective of what everybody else is doing; conceivably, a Taoist would still choose to follow the Tao even if everybody else does otherwise.
In contrast, Confucians emphasise social orderliness and harmony. They favour the respect of traditions and the love for one’s ancestors. Confucians tend to do well in predictable, stable environments, where they know exactly what to say and what to do.
When external conditions change drastically, Confucians may struggle to adapt. They assume that, in society, values are shaped and transmitted for the common good, but what if some people hold strongly divergent visions of the common good?
In his “Analects,” Confucius encourages us to preach ethics by behaving virtuously and by correcting other people’s errors. It assumes that commanding posts will be filled by people who know better and who can keep their subordinates on the correct path.
At the same time, the “Analects” show little appreciation for critical thinking, debates and personal initiative. Its assumption of top-down knowledge transfer overlooks the fact that, in the absence of lively debates, it’s hard to innovate and improve the world.
Taoism, Confucianism, and innovation
Confucianism regards society as a cumulus of layers, where prior knowledge is slowly complemented by a new layer. One is supposed to have absorbed all prior layers before coming up with any proposal for improvement.
Taoists dismiss the concept of societal or knowledge layers. Instead of slowly reshaping our ancestral values and traditions, Taoists have no problem throwing them all away from one day to the next.
Chapter 48 of the Tao Te Ching enunciates the non-action principle or “Wu Wei,” which is unique to Taoism. It calls for following the Tao by aligning our actions with it and by saying no to anything that contradicts it. Such a mentality of scarring, rapid change is unknown in Confucianism.
When Confucius’ “Analects” advise us to learn and practise what we have learned, it means absorbing existing knowledge and putting it into practice without creating disruptions. It’s not suggesting that we take elements from the past and create fresh ideas that might upset the apple cart.
According to tradition, Confucius once met Lao-Tzu. They talked and Confucius listened attentively, but couldn’t grasp the insights presented by Lao-Tzu. Confucius ended up comparing Lao-Tzu to a dragon that rides the wind.
I doubt that, if Confucius had ever heard about Taoism, he would have found it hard to understand. He would have surely disagreed with Lao-Tzu in many areas, but there was no reason for him to declare Taoism incomprehensible.
Nor was there any reason for Confucius to call Lao-Tzu a dragon that rides the wind. If he did so, Lao-Tzu would have shrugged his shoulders and continued on his way. Like the proverbial duck, he would have shrugged the insults off his feathers, and kept trudging ahead.
If you want to apply effective ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”