The Tao Te Ching, By Lao Tzu

While Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli are both pieces of work that serve as ground rules or guidelines for a ruler on how to rule a country, the two authors’ prepositions vary tremendously. One author takes on a susceptible viewpoint, while another takes on a much more conservative outlook. There are many factors as to why they differ so much. Even though Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both provide intricate structures as to how rulers should run their state, there are extreme differences between the two.

His opening paragraph describes the universe to be “made up of all things, and one God who pervades all things” or more simply everything is connected together and monitored by god. Everything in the world in our world works together to form a well-functioning society and that’s what he appears to be pertaining to. However, he adds to that by giving key things people must do in order to form a great society. Things like “[l]ov[ing] mankind”, “follow[ing] god”, and “remember[ing] laws rule all”, are a few simple things we must teach one another to create a better atmosphere for people to live in. Whoever goes against these is “fighting against the nature of the world” and harms everyone around them by in a sense not being a team player.

Refraining from absolute negativity about Lao-Tzu’s work, the Tao does have many redeemable qualities. The emphasis Lao-Tzu places on the attainment of individual happiness is extremely honorable, however this doesn’t detract from the ineffectiveness Lao-Tzu encounters, as he is unable to come to well-grounded conclusion on the means for effective leadership. His advice to politicians is to only interfere when it is an absolute necessity; yet he takes this to a radical extreme advising leaders to pretty much do nothing. His ideas are taken to an extent where if human nature falters, which it

In “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” Lao-Tzu illustrates the optimal way in which a ruler should lead their country in conformity with the Tao. Lao-Tzu points out that a nation’s government should put in place the slightest governance in the lives of its people, because the good in people will come naturally when the people disregard their efforts to seek these ethics. Finally, Lao-Tzu also encourages that a leader be modest and tolerant by truly taking interest in the civilians needs and concentrating on his home land instead of seeking issues with other worldly places.

The Dial was an American journal, first edited by Margaret Fuller and Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1840. In its first edition, the magazine came out as the chief publication of the Transcendentalists. It continued its evolution from being a political magazine in 1880 to an impressive source of modern literature in English from

Actions dictate the experiences in humans' lives, and Confucius and Laozi disagreed in their view of whether individuals should take action to achieve the Way. Confucius believed it was necessary and prevalent in society to act, since he lived during the period of the Warring States. He wanted to fix the leaders' problems, and he felt he could only achieve this through action, he who behaves with honor, and being sent on a mission to the four corners of the world does not bring disgrace to his lord, deserves to be called a gentleman. He felt a person had the best chance at acquiring the Way by being a gentleman. Laozi, however, trusted in nonaction, in things taking their pre-established course in life, with Daoism. He felt that it is better to live your life closer to the stillness of the Way, when not acting then there is nothing not done // . Only by shutting off from the world

In “The Daodejing,” Laozi, similar to many prominent Chinese philosophers before and after his time, discusses his unique perspective of the “Way.” There is much controversy, however, regarding whether Laozi was the actual author of this text or was even a real person, and “his” work is thought to have been a composite. (For the purpose of clarity, throughout this paper, the author(s) of “The Daodejing” will be mentioned as Laozi.) Laozi’s vision of the “Way” is exceptionally challenging to define using words because of its metaphysical nature. Although this term is somewhat difficult to envision, it is what mankind should aspire and take action to be aligned with. According to Laozi, in “readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy,” the “Way” (or dao) is the “source, sustenance, and ideal state of all things in the world” (Laozi 158). It can be best thought of as the underlying guiding force of all events that occur in the universe, and mankind is closer to the “Way” when they realize that all things are interconnected and have an effect on one another. As might be expected, this vague definition isn’t a foolproof depiction of the eighty-one chapters in the “Daodejing,” but one is able to grasp a basic understanding of Laozi’s ineffable doctrine. Although numerous chapters are meaningful and could provide substantial analysis, this paper will focus in on Chapter Twelve. Ultimately, this chapter adequately and efficaciously compresses the teachings of “The Daodejing” into

‘The way’ is cluttered with constant imagery of contradictory views which are both compelling and insightful, through which we are taken on a journey, our final destination being the true meaning of life. In a world where we are all yearning for the meaning for life, true harmony and real balance it is no surprise that the Tao Te Ching is a very haunting piece of literature that holds the reader in an almost trans like state of mind as it attempts to portray the way to accomplish the above.

We have covered the general accounts of human nature found in Confucianism and Taoism in light of the historical backdrop of the Period of Warring States. Use your responses to the following general questions below as an opportunity to refer either to the Smith text and accompanying assigned scriptures(s), Smith video(s) on China, Confucianism, and Taoism, or any additional material covered in class. Look ahead to the next question on the chun tzu in order to plan on avoiding repetition of answers verbatim within each essay if there are areas of potential overlap.

The notion of human nature has always been historically debated. Explores, philosophers, and writers have always come to argue on what is considered to be barbarism, savagery, and civilized. These constructed categories have put a label on people who do not share the same ideas as one another. These different views of human nature have come to propel change and have come to revolutionized human history. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Michel de Montaigne, and Thomas Hobbes all differ on their ideas of human nature, but they also share common ground. For some of these men the practices of different cultures are categorized as savagery, and for others it has been viewed as noble savagery. Their ideas however have allowed society to view different perspectives of human nature. These perspectives have classified human nature as a way of life, or as an obstacle to what is consider to be the good life. Their ethnographic resources provide a glimpse to all the different cultures and their value to society and history.

Confucianism and Daoism are two influential schools of thoughts that have existed in ancient China around the 6th century BCE. The former, led by the politician and philosopher Confucius, proposed that humans live in society according to a set of predefined rules and that they transform society through political action. Whereas the latter, led by the philosopher Lao-Tzu, promoted the idea of inaction; people should go with the flow instead of taking action to control their lives and dominate their surroundings. Although, at first glance Daoism and Confucianism seem to be two opposing philosophies, a more in depth analysis of two of their key ideas –filial piety and education—reveals that they do share some similarities.

He’s implying that take care of the world that god has gave us don’t take it for granted, don’t destroy it embrace it. He wants us to move pass anger and enjoy life while we can. He also adds that Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in “lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies”. I believe he was trying to say to the world “start doing good”, “stop disobeying the laws of god and change the ways you been living”. Start being open minded and listen to others opinion and let others who believe in different things than you let them express their opinion on the world and you don’t have to except it, but you still can be okay with there

I feel that the document is bias in the fact that he feels humanism and sophistication is in conflict with nature and brings about the evils of the world (68). However, it is hard to say it because it happened at the time period when there were prevailing circumstances. It also states that the rule of natural order is replaced by institutional causing unhappiness and striving, when Tao neglected and not followed (68). Lao Tzu questions the definitions of bad and good, or who is decides what the two (68). In my opinion, the point of view of the document is that the writer seems to finds it difficult to follow Tao as oppose to humanism in the society. It demonstrates a worldly possessions that it usually requires show and while this happens,

Human nature is an enigma that many people have debated for centuries with some being more idealistic while others are very cynical. Many political philosophers have discussed these in their books as human nature is central to the development of a ideal republic that can properly rule. Thomas Hobbes in his book, Levithan, and John Locke in his second treatise in his book, Two Treatises on Government, both talk extensively about human nature.The pair take two different approaches to explaining human nature.The pair take two different approaches to explaining human nature. Hobbes argues that human nature turns the state of nature into a perpetual state of war in which people only focus on self-preservation as a result of the fact that humans are only driven by their appetites and aversions. Locke, on the other hand, believes that humans nature does not involve constant conflict as in nature, man has access to universal which as long as he uses it, he can solve any issue with the correct reparations and restraint yet they still enter into a contract to escape the inconveniences of self-love, money and waste that affect nature. Despite the fact that the two take very different stances on human nature, the true essence of human nature is a balanced mix of the two beliefs in which humans can access reason yet too often their passions override their ability to access reason and thus makes the state of nature unlivable. Similarly, humans are capable of self-governance only in small

This expression can have many benefits. However, if taken literally, can be a detriment to society. What Lao-tzu meant when he said this was that when a government tries to “change the world” they would inevitably drive their constituents to an overly powerful government. When one “stays in the circle of Tao” they are able to let things happen naturally, and the world continues on in a way not affected by human error. However, in order to stay in the circle, one must “practice” being a trustworthy and compassionate person. The people and the government must work hard to build a relationship together that allows for all to be successful.