The Greatest Daoist Philosopher: Zhuangzi

Professor Bryan W. Van Norden (Vassar College) discusses relativism, skepticism, and mysticism as understood by the ancient Daoist philosopher, Zhuangzi. Hosted by Prof Helen De Cruz and Prof Pauline C. Lee of Saint Louis University (SLU), this public Zoom lecture was given on 5 February 2021.
Previous Lecture in this Series: "The Confucian Mengzi and His Context" • The Confucian Mengzi a...
Following Lecture in this Series: "China before Buddhism" • China before Buddhism

[@Hogarti1]

Thanks to Professor Norden for this most enlightening lecture. I am going to listen to it at least one more time. This video format is great to slow learners like me!

[@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy]

Thank you for your kind words!

[@JanaiaC]

40:49 -“you’re not a crafty person”. You’re a craftsman of words.

[@MrNapudo]

Priceless video and lecture, thank you.

[@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy]

Thank you for your kind words!

[@katsujinkin60]

Thank you so much for this great lecture. I found it clear and insightful. I have been fascinated by Daoist Philosophy for many years, and this talk has inspired me to look deeper into the subject. Thanks to all involved.

[@beatleswithaz6246]

Amazing lecture. I was always puzzled by the apparent skepticism in the Zhuangzi, and how that fits in with the possibility and rightness of following the Dao, but this brings it all together.

[@aaronball4829]

I really enjoyed these! Thanks

[@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy]

Glad you are enjoying the lectures!

[@linfenghuang2115]

Mind-blowing.

[@aaronball4829]

Thanks!

[@I3loom]

39:20 awwww shit, you know my boy Dukwon?! In all seriousness, great lecture. Insightful and erudite.

[@ivostanoev1108]

Great lecture! Thank you, professor.

[@luisfbjunqueira5837]

Many thanks!

[@karlnordenstorm8816]

Starts 2:30

[@danchapelle4677]

very good and helpful lecture

[@BjarneLinetsky]

15:00 "the pathways of right and wrong are snarled" Tao Te Ching - without wrong there would be no right. Chuang talked about using no-finger to point to finger.

[@neilsims6819]

What context makes the claim "all truths are indexical" true? From what perspective is perspectivalism true? Why not simply assume that these claims only make sense when one accepts Confucian or Mohist framework of norms and reason, and Zhuangzi as criticizing that starting framework, rather than endorsing another?

[@roman343]

I think the punchline of this joke ends with by standing above the River Hao

[@bowlineobama]

If you do something long enough you will eventually be skillful in it. That's no brainer.

[@Melki]

Thank you for the lecture, I was curious about Zhuangzi and this gives me a lot of fascinating insights, I'm happy to have watched the presentation Professor. My contention is in the last part where he equates words with traps/tools, maybe I'm being fanatic for Christianity but words could be defined as something more than just a tool. Why didn't God identify Himself as the letter? Why have He favored the "Word"? I think the Word is about relationships between letters. If you see programming then you'd see words determine the nature of the program therefore the Word is not just words, the Word is meaning. Pictures are meaningful because of the word. Animals that can't talk carry words within their minds. How objects of existence relate with each other and how they'd change after interactions are words. Scientific formulas are words. What I'm trying to say is the problem is not in putting too much weight in semantics, the problem is getting the semantics wrong. (And I think Zhuangzi's reserve about interpretations is all in the principal of not getting it wrong)

[@Rossion64]

I think what Zhuang Zi was saying is that the primacy should be on experience, the mind which encounters the "All this " and which is also within the "all this". It's the pure experience of being, which words and theories restrict in many ways. If experience is restricted, or clouded over, it is also in some sense wrong, or at least, incomplete. You relate it there to your own belief. The Logos that you mention as the manifestation of God is more than just "word", it's also "logic, rationale, underlying course/direction" (and Way!). I'm sure you could integrate it into that. In mine, I relate it to the opening lines of the Mandukya Upanishad "All this without (the universe) is Brahman. This self within is Brahman".

[@Melki]

@@Rossion64 Thank you, its better if I could see the actual text of what Zhuang zi was saying about the word as a mere tool. I do think though the inadequacy of thinking is not putting enough emphasis on the sanctity of the "word". Dr. Jordan Peterson talked about being precise in your speech... that's very very good and people should prioritize this idea. The journey towards improvement is the journey to find the word. How could you find the word if you don't put it as the target?

[@Rossion64]

@@Melki Zhuang Zi doesn't say words are useless, only that they are tools, that they are limited (they can also be outdated, or inappropriate depending on the situation) . A good analogy would be an old Chan Buddhist teaching: a master says to the student "look!"( at the Moon) as he points upwards However, the student looks rather at the tip of the masters finger. The master then says "it's like this with words. The moon is what words point to. You can either follow the words pointing and understand what is indicated, or you can get bogged down and fixate on the terms".

[@Melki]

@@Rossion64 That's where my objection is, people consider "word" to be something that's useful like other things are useful. They are missing out, the world is missing out big time.

[@Rossion64]

@@Melki they are manifestations of thinking and thinking is a manifestation of nature, but they are also potentiality hurtful, as we know. They can cause divisions and suffering, and whereas the words in themselves are sounds, or the resprestations of sounds in written word, the effects they can cause are full of being. Therefore, one should have the basic morality in mind when speaking on serious things "at the very least, try not to harm'. The three 'commandments' of Zoroastrianism are "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds"

[@lamegalectora]

Absolutely brilliant lecture, thank you. Note: Bull fighting is a brutal act and should not be allowed, particularly as a way of entertainment although of course there is not a single good reason to torture anybody. And by the way, this is a good example of an absolute ethical truth, I would say. (the man on the picture 49:33 is not a picador, he is a rejoneador)

[@cb2ization]

there was a time I did not see bullfighting as a cruel act...then I woke up and saw how animal beings are " sentient " ...

[@cb2ization]

are some Daoist plant base /vegetarian ...?

[@BjarneLinetsky]

There is a line of inquiry among scholars as to whether Laozi preceded Chuangzi or vice versa..I am sure that the philosophical concept of Tao was not original to Lao or Chuang. Taoism can be thought of as an evolutionary extension of shamanism...

[@kulwinderkaurrandhawa8416]

Raining, Sunday, another excuse to rest , let them make the country great again, me jus like living whether it's great or not so great it's late since papa told me, "Life is for living, live boy live, let the tree be shaken, let the apples fall".

[@bryancheng6311]

yeah

[@EsatBargan]

Anderson Jessica Clark John Thomas Carol

[@blackfeatherstill348]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[@davidmccormick3742]

It’s either “ Before Christ” or “After Christ!” I don’t know what “a common era” is! So I’m leaving!” Regards Dave McC

[@ZARK0_]

Bye

[@Dev-gm1mc]

But you're the one who's calling me