The social ideal of primitivism
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- Columbia University - Asia for Educators - Defining "Daoism": A Complex History
- Minnesota Library Publishing Project - World Religions: the Spirit Searching - Daoism
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Laozi
- Khan Academy - Daoism
- OpenStax - Introduction to Philosophy - Daoism
- Western Kentucky University - TopSCHOLAR - The Creation of Daoism
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Daoist Philosophy
- The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Daoism and Daoist Art
- National Geographic - Taoism
- Asia Society - Daoism
- Humanities LibreTexts - Daoism
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Taoism
- World History Encyclopedia - Taoism
- Pinyin romanization:
- Daoism
- Key People:
- Zhuang Zhou
- Laozi
- Liezi
- Zhao Youqin
- Kou Qianzhi
- On the Web:
- Columbia University - Asia for Educators - Defining "Daoism": A Complex History (Oct. 28, 2024)
Any willful human intervention is believed to be able to ruin the harmony of the natural transformation process. The spontaneous rhythm of the primitive agrarian community and its un-self-conscious symbiosis with nature’s cycles is thus the Taoist ideal of society. Hence the ideal is a form of primitivism.
In the ideal society there are no books; the Laozi (Tao-te Ching) itself would not have been written but for the entreaty of Yin Xi, the guardian of the pass, who asked the “Old Master” to write down his thoughts. In the Golden Age, past or future, knotted cords are the only form of records. The people of this age are “dull and unwitting, they have no desire; this is called uncarved simplicity. In uncarved simplicity the people attain their true nature.”
Zhuang Zhou liked to oppose the heaven-made and the man-made; that is, nature and society. He wanted humans to renounce all artificial “cunning contrivances” that facilitate their work but lead to “cunning hearts” and agitated souls in which the Tao will not dwell. Man should equally renounce all concepts of measure, law, and virtue. “Fashion pecks and bushels for people to measure by and they will steal by peck and bushel.” He blamed not only the culture heroes and inventors praised by the Confucians but also the sages who shaped the rites and rules of society.
That the unwrought substance was blighted in order to fashion implements—this was the crime of the artisan. That the Way (Tao) and its Virtue (te) were destroyed in order to create benevolence and righteousness—this was the fault of the sage.
Even “coveting knowledge” is condemned because it engenders competition and “fight to the death over profit.”
