Talk:Wu wei

Taoism section note

The sourced Taoism section I've started includes passages taken from the Guanzi and Neiye pages.FourLights (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Coming to this article for the first time, I am greatly puzzled. I know of wu wei from its Taoist usage, and this usage dominates much of the article. Yet the main sections on this and Confucianism take the view that Confucius got there first. No sources in support of this understanding are cited. Since all the early sources appeared in the historical record at much the same time, and there is a long history of Confucian suppression of Daoism, why does the article take this unverified view? It makes no sense to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The argument is from Creel, after coming back to the article I wrote it with more uncertain tone and added a little NPOV.FourLights (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

David H. Li reference in Modern section

At the end of the Modern section, the bit about David H. Li feels like it doesn’t quite belong in this spot as it discusses ”Tao” rather than “Wu Wei”. That said, it does have some relevance in terms of describing the difficulties involved with translation, but I’m not sure it’s in the right place. Perhaps there is a more appropriate placement?

The difficulty in translation is fascinating—would it be appropriate to create its own section? Either in this article on Wu Wei or perhaps in the article on Tao?

The section could be expanded by suggesting that multiple translations can sometimes be helpful, and as an example discussing the first verse of Lao-Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, which reads, “The Tao that can Tao is not Tao” and then offering various translations, such as: The name that can be named is not the Name The path that can be walked is not the Path The word that can be spoken is not the Word

This verse, in addition to providing a prime example of nuances in translation, speaks directly to what Li is quoted as saying. As soon as one has named (or even conceptualized) “Tao”, that name (or concept) is not actually Tao; rather, the name is a symbol (and the concept a convention, both) used to point at—to represent—Tao. The word and the concept are not in and of themselves the Tao they represent. Likewise in Li’s example, Tao is more aptly translated as “direction” rather than “way” as it leaves the possibility of flowing with the Tao open to many paths instead of only one “way” which, once expressed, is not the Way but rather one possible way of flowing in the Direction that is the Tao. 2604:2D80:6E04:8100:4150:664E:58A0:EA09 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't comment on the Modern section. I put together most of the article but I probably merely consigned some of the material there. Alan Watts isn't exactly a Sinologist but he could be taken as a modern commentator. I can't affirm that he necessarily belongs here if people want it removed. If I get to writing more I wouldn't be focused on Watts, I would be utilizing Edward Slingerland's Effortless Action. I'm not sure the material you are talking about is there anymore unless I dig it up, and for the most part I don't know what you are talking about, as I merely imported what I was already familiar with. I'm not a Wu Wei scholar yet, I write the Legalism page.FourLights (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Warrantless confucianization

The article states that Wu wei comes "from confucianism" and seems part to be of some kind of shady effort to remove it from its actually Daoist roots. Basically all other wiki languages specify this is a Taoist concept. According to received Chinese tradition Laozi is older than Confucius. Thus, the Tao Te Ching of Laozi is older than the confucian Analects. this may be historically doubtful but all chronology of this period is speculative. As a student and scholar of the topic I strongly vote to remove the gratuitous, unsourced references that the term of wu wei "comes" from Confucianism and it only "went on" to become important in Taoism, when both logic and tradition dictate otherwise. The term is known through Taoism first not "confucianism". Furthermore, if there is any academic work that advances the opposite, it is surely a minority view and should be contrasted with the more widespread Taoist interpretation. The article itself has a whole section dedicated to Taoist philosophy in the "definition" while nothing is given to the Confucian supposed (fictive) "invention". --190.195.146.6 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that Wu Wei is often time associated with the Taoist philosophy. Nevertheless, the reference of "Wu Wei" in statecrafts was also found in Confucius texts the Analects, quoted below:

Wei Ling Gong:

The Master said, "May not Shun be instanced as having governed efficiently without exertion? What did he do? He did nothing but gravely and reverently occupy his royal seat." 《论语·卫灵公》中记载，孔子曰：“无为而治者，其舜也与？夫何为哉？恭己正南面而已矣。 TheIntrospectorsfacts (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Early certainty is mental defect on my part. Although I am not at this time getting around to expanding the article I've added some nuance of uncertaintly and less assertion regarding the speculative nature of the Confucian derivation and threw in Roger T Ames statement as early NPOV. To give more Daoism would require additional writing and sourcing. If I write more I would reference more Edward Slingerland - Effortless Action. Unfortuanately I am not yet a wu wei scholar, I merely added what I was familiar with, and for the most part that was Creel since I use him as an early (1970/1974) but critical base source for the Legalism article.FourLights (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

As to the origins of the Laozi, it's essentially a later relativist variation on the earlier language discussions the Mohists, per the language relativism of the later the school of names. The Mohists sought objective language standards, the school of names and subsequent Daoists make relativist arguments. Hence all the discussion of "Knowing the beautiful by the ugly" etc etc. Laozi can no more precede Confucius than Mozi can, because there wouldn't be anything to talk about. Mozi is a reaction to Confucius, and Laozi is a reaction to Mozi. The Zhuangzi even says as much.FourLights (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The earliest reference to Laozi is in the Lushi Chunqui. If if I can find the reference again I'll throw it into the Laozi article together with a mention of the Han Feizi's posthumous Laozi commentary.FourLights (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Typo?

"... it is the not the way to rule." Hmmm... 198.90.81.190 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It may well be a typo, but it is in a direct quote and the quote isn't visible in the citation tag, so it's unclear whether the editor who added it made a typo or the person being quoted made a grammatical error. So I marked it with the [sic?] template. Thanks for spotting it. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I am capable of typos.FourLights (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

reduction

I would intend to ultimately reduce the details of this article, in particular in relation to Legalism, but it's details would essentially be consolidated for the Legalism page first. One can request a priority for this article as desired. Then there are other practical commentaries that could be added. In terms of other materials, I have less thought of at the moment.FourLights (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I put an earlier origin for it as an idea in the classic of poetry, I'm sure that will make everyone happy, let me know if you'd like me to prioritize anything over my own normal activities, or put more effort into dating the Laozi or something like that, which I had already put in the Laozi page, it's not like I didn't already talk about that to some extent. There is always work to be done.FourLights (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Although I am an active worker, which can include the considerably more intensive work of reorganizing and simplifying this page, I should at least be able to put together a brief section on the classic of poetry before that is done; I am not actually sure I would have much commentary for it as this time. Otherwise, I should also put together a section on the Laozi and Zhuangzi.FourLights (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you'd like help particularly with the Zhuangzi part, that's definitely an article where I feel like I can almost approach your level of diligent research. :) Remsense诉 14:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I will prioritize that, but it will mean less work on reducing the rest.FourLights (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, take your time! Just poke me when you get around to it, I've got plenty of plates in the air myself. Remsense诉 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be busy with work the next couple days, but I will still write this. How quickly I would find additional source commentaries on the wuwei of the Zhuangzi is another question.FourLights (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You're just looking for sources about the treatment of wu wei in the Zhuangzi? I can put together a list for you if you'd like/ Remsense诉 19:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be helpful, since that is what you requested a project on to start.FourLights (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Edward Stringerland has some material on a parable from the Zhuangzi I can use to write about Wu Wei. It will be very difficult.FourLights (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

laozi dating

I'll try to locate commentary on the content of the excavated Laozi for prominent discussion, but it won't actually effect the other texts since they don't appear to make use of it.FourLights (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on research, although the Han Feizi does not appear to make much usage of it, Han Fei may still have been aware of the Laozi, and the Laozi suitably be put before it. When I can rewrite more, I will keep that in mind.FourLights (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)