Taoism and Nietzsche

Renee Dale

Although one might not expect it, the ancient Chinese philosophy Taoism (6th century B.C.), and the philosopher Nietzsche (1844-1900), did share some key tenets. These are their basic analysis of the origins of good, how the masses ought to be governed, the acquisition of knowledge, the superiority of the philosopher, and that morality is subjective. However, they also have some large differences, including their views on action, and the common view of the individual. Nietzsche placed strong emphasis on his master and slave class distinction, and based his entire psychological analysis of mankind off of it. The master is the man of action, who has the ability to get whatever he wants; the slave is powerless, and, labeling his enemy as evil, comforts himself that he will get his revenge in the afterlife. Taoism taught wu-wei that is, action through inaction. The ideal is to become one with nature, with the cosmos; to have a conscious will would be unnatural. Therefore the Taoist cannot have any desires or conscious actions. What Nietzsche considers to be characteristic of his new philosopher, his revolutionary free spirit, is actually quite similar to the Taoism and that is the idea that good and evil came about necessarily, because of the other. Good necessitates evil, and vice versa. As Laozi, the author of the Tao Te Ching and the creator of the philosophy, said, All in the world recognize the beautiful as beautiful. Herein lies ugliness. All recognize the good as good. Herein lies evil.1 If you define something as good, you must also define its opposite. In fact, good can only be understood in terms of evil. Laozi doesnt care who defines good and bad; he thinks the very definition is unnatural, and therefore against the Tao (the natural way). Since any word used to describe an action is somewhat subjective, as not everyone is going to agree on whether it is good or bad, Laozi says, they are just words: they are not sufficient See the origin and keep the non-differentiated state.2 Using words which differentiate between two things which do not actually exist except as words merely causes them to exist. He suggests that, for example, creating competition in wealth causes some to become rich, and others to become thieves. Calling something truth and another thing false makes some honest and others liars. If there were no such distinction, then we would be what we were. The Tao follows the way things are.3 Thus it follows that any moral system is manmade, as is the case with any definition; and therefore it will be faulty, as opinions will necessarily differ. This will cause unneeded dissention. It would make no sense to act to destroy the evil nor to promote the good, as one makes the other come about; rather, the Taoist sage will practice wu-wei and let things be as they are. The follower of the Tao does not work for anything tangible; in accomplishing good, he would be creating evil, necessarily. By creating a class of rulers, you create a class of the ruled; and so by calling something good, you must make something else bad.

Nietzsche has the same basic view of good and evil, that they are the antitheses of each other and necessitate each other. The value of those good and honored things consists precisely in the fact that they are related to those bad, seemingly opposite things even identical perhaps.4 However, he by no means came to the same conclusions regarding his ideal man and his action, or lack thereof. Nietzsche said that the masters, taking power by their pure ability and talents, defined good by having what it took to get what they wanted. Bad was anything incompetent and weak. Good and evil came about when the masses, the slaves, labeled their masters as evil in their resentment and then themselves as the good. According to the slave morality the evil person evokes fear; according to the master morality, it is exactly the good person who evokes fear and wants to evoke it, while the bad person is felt to be despicable.5 Nietzsche believed that, because the master was relatively good, he therefore ought to do whatever he liked, simply because he could. The masters were men of action, whereas the slaves were merely reactionaries, weaklings who were incapable of doing anything for themselves. Taoisms argument against Nietzsches man of action has already been seen; if good necessitates evil, then working towards good will mean that someone else will have to work the antithesis as well. I do not force my way and the people transform themselves.6 This would directly conflict with Nietzsches masters taking whatever they wanted. However, this suggests some sort of respect or care for the people, which Nietzsche obviously didnt believe in. However, Laozi says, Be unconcerned and you will have the world.7 He is suggesting that it is by not antagonizing the people that the masters could get all the power they wanted. Nietzsches disagreement with Taoism is with their idea of nature and the natural way. He agrees with Taoism on morality: Every moral code is a tyranny against nature and reason.8 This is exactly like Laozis belief that any moral code is artificial and bound to cause only dissention. He also believed that the masters acted in accordance with nature. He says that the slaves wanted to believe that the strong man is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb,9 as if the bird of prey could be a lamb, or a strong man act contrary to his nature. The masters were masters by their very nature; they could no more help it than can an animal stop hunting its prey. He points out many times that a great many logics and moral codes are reasoned with a predetermined end in sight. Much spirit had to be suppressed and spoiled in the process For thousands of years European thinkers thought only in order to prove something.10 This is not dissimilar from the Taoist idea of acting without predetermined end, without desire; that is, to follow the natural way. Nietzsches argument against the Taoist natural way would be that living according to nature would really mean to live according to life which is, of course, redundant. Besides, he says, Doesnt life mean wanting to be Different?11 Living

according to nature would take all the individuality out of man. He also asks, what is the law of nature? Is it tyranny or equality? Herein, however, he just so happens to agree with Taoism it by no means states that men are naturally equal, nor does it disclude individuality. The language of the Tao Te Ching on how the ruler ought to rule the common people clearly implies some distinctions between the ruler and the common classes. In fact, Laozi even says, Heaven and Earth are not humane, and regard the people as straw dogs.12 However, the characteristics of the follower of the Tao and Nietzsches master are still quite different in many respects. The Taoist sage is humble and without contrivance: it is in absence that there is usefulness.13 Like the traditional Chinese image of a useful vessel that can be filled, it is the simple, honest, and ignorant that follow the Tao; those without prejudices, agendas, or selfish intentions. This concept is central to the Taoist philosophy the concept of letting things be, taking things as they come; half action, half inaction. Excess is unknown in nature . Doubtless this would go against everything Nietzsche stood for, so to speak; Taoism did not teach the acquisition of knowledge. Indeed, Laozi believed that the more you sought after something, the less you would know about it. The more you go in search of an answer the less you will understand. Perhaps another argument that Nietzsche would bring up against the Tao as a truly natural philosophy is that it might not be natural at all. A living being wants above all else to release its strength.14 Would it really be natural not to have any desires at all? If our reason and consciousness are what makes us unique and human, wouldnt Taoism be denying that? Then knowledge would be somewhat necessary. However, if one had no desires, and especially no preconceptions, like the agendas that Nietzsche speaks of the philosophers having when setting out to rationalize, then maybe it is the most natural acquisition of knowledge after all. Despite the object of the sage being oneness with nature, there is still individuality within Taoism. We are each unique, and therefore valuable. 15 The self is also present in Taoism: If I have no self, how could I experience misfortune?16 Humility is an important aspect in Taoism, and thus any sort of experience would be a surprise, as Laozi says; both good things and bad things would come as a shock to the true follower of the way. The sage would value suffering just as highly as happiness. Suffering allows the intellectual to more fully come to consciousness and knowledge of the self. This is important to both Taoism and Nietzsche. Solitude is very important to the Taoist. The Taoist values nature, and the grand scenes of mountains and seas would inspire him to become more one with nature. Even Nietzsche had some belief that the individual might seek out solitude self-directed spirituality, a will to solitude, even greater powers of reason.17 These things would be sought out by the masters on

account of their independence and great strength of individuality; but the slaves would fear such things and call them evil. Nietzsche holds a similar view to that of Taoism in regards the government. He believed that the masters, being more capable in their own right, were the rulers of the masses. They put laws in place, of their own invention, to keep those they ruled in control. Otherwise they did as they liked in respect to the slaves; they were the raped, the oppressed, the suffering, the shackled, the weary18. Taoism holds the follower of the Tao distinct from the masses in that the common people are to be treated as somewhat lesser men, incapable of understanding higher concepts. No such treatment would be accorded them, however, as Nietzsches masters would treat their subjects. Taoism taught that if you try to control the masses, they will rebel, of necessity. Everyone wants everything his own way. To create a hierarchy is to create ambition and jealousy. It creates competition and disharmony. Throughout many of his books, Nietzsche wonders about the fall of the Roman Empire, and the French Revolution. He wonders how the petty and powerless slaves managed to overcome the masters. Laozi would say it is because of the hierarchy and the disharmony caused thereby. A more subtle approach would have worked better, and that is what Taoism advocates. If you know how to manage the people, then they wont revolt against you. Govern as you would cook small fish. 19 The reference is to rural Chinese culture, and it means, dont stir them or they will break apart. Let them be, and they will follow your rule absolutely. Taoism doesnt proclaim the equality of man, or the raising up of the populace; it rather advises a sneaky approach to manipulating, so to speak, the common man to obedience and submission. Thus the Taoist concept of mountain representing long life and water representing persistence and tranquility, and the idea of retreating in solitude to achieve oneness with them, would not be all that alien to Nietzsches masters; although the humility and passive attitudes that the Taoist sage would demonstrate would be. The two philosophies hold much the same in regards to the origins of good; that is, they both agree in that good necessitates evil. But what they do with that knowledge differs greatly. Nietzsche believes one ought to use ones will to acquire power . Taoism advises oneness with nature, and a taking of power by letting things go their natural course. Power is the primary end for Nietzsche, and but a secondary end in Taoism, oneness with nature being the first; and their means for getting these ends are drastically different. Both of their arguments for their philosophies can contradict each other, which for me only proves the truth of the statement, Truth seems contradictory.20

References. 1. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 2. Translated by Cha rles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005. 2. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 19. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005. 3. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 25. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005 4. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. p. 6. Translated by Marion Faber. Oxford University Press, pub. 1998 5. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. p. 156. Translated by Marion Faber. Oxford University Press, pub. 1998 6. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 57. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005 7. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. p. 76. Translated by Marion Faber. Oxford University Press, pub. 1998 8. Friedrich Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals. p. 134. Basic Writings of Existentialism. Gordon Marino. Modern Library Classics, pub. 2004. 9. http://www.personaltao.com/tao/YinYang.htm

10. "The Writings of Chuang-tzu", Book XXIII, Part III, Section I. Translation by James Legge. http://www.taopage.org/abstract2.html 11. Friedrich Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy. p. 17. Translated by Shaun Whiteside. Penguin Books, pub. 1993 12. Friedrich Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy. p. 26. Translated by Shaun Whiteside. Penguin Books, pub. 1993 13. Friedrich Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy. p. 26. Translated by Shaun Whiteside. Penguin Books, pub. 1993 14. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 12. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005 15. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 57. Translated b y Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005 16. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 57. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005 17. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. p. 77. Translated by Marion Faber. Oxford University Press, pub. 1998

18. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. p. 10. Translated by Marion Faber. Oxford University Press, pub. 1998 19. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 5. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005 20. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 11. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005. 21. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 47. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005 22. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 70. Translated by Peter A. Merel. www.zenguide.com 23. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 13. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005. 24. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. p. 88. Translated by Marion Faber. Oxford University Press, pub. 1998 25. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 60.

26. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching. Chapter 78. Translated by Charles Muller. Barnes and Noble Classics, pub. 2005.