In this post, I will make use of Prof. Hans-Georg Moeller’s animation of key stories in the Zhuangzi, and their corresponding original texts, to make some commentaries of this extremely popular (at least in the West) Daoist thinker’s thought.

Texts and Translations: (From ctext.org, translations have been adapted by me).

齧缺問乎王倪曰：「子知物之所同是乎？」曰：「吾惡乎知之！」「子知子之所不知邪？」曰：「吾惡乎知之！」「然則物無知邪？」曰：「吾惡乎知之！雖然，嘗試言之。庸詎知吾所謂知之非不知邪？庸詎知吾所謂不知之非知邪？且吾嘗試問乎女：民溼寢則腰疾偏死，鰌然乎哉？木處則惴慄恂懼，猨猴然乎哉？三者孰知正處？民食芻豢，麋鹿食薦，蝍且甘帶，鴟鴉耆鼠，四者孰知正味？猨，猵狙以為雌，麋與鹿交，鰌與魚游。毛嬙、麗姬，人之所美也，魚見之深入，鳥見之高飛，麋鹿見之決驟。四者孰知天下之正色哉？自我觀之，仁義之端，是非之塗，樊然殽亂，吾惡能知其辯！」齧缺曰：「子不知利害，則至人固不知利害乎？」王倪曰：「至人神矣：大澤焚而不能熱，河、漢沍而不能寒，疾雷破山、風振海而不能驚。若然者，乘雲氣，騎日月，而遊乎四海之外。死生无變於己，而況利害之端乎！」（《齊物論》內篇)

Nie Que asked Wang Ni, saying, ‘Do you know, Sir, what all creatures agree in approving and affirming?’ ‘How should I know it?’ was the reply. ‘Do you know what it is that you do not know?’ asked the other again, and he got the same reply. He asked a third time, ‘Then there is no way to know anything?’ and Wang Ni answered as before, (adding however), ‘Notwithstanding, I will try and explain my meaning. How do you know that when I say “I know it,” I really (am showing that) I do not know it, and that when I say “I do not know it,” I really am showing that I do know it.’ And let me ask you some questions: ‘If a man sleep in a damp place, he will have a pain in his loins, and half his body will be as if it were dead; but will it be so with an eel? If he be living in a tree, he will be frightened and all in a tremble; but will it be so with a monkey? And does any one of the three know his right place ? Men eat animals that have been fed on grain and grass; deer feed on the thick-set grass; centipedes enjoy small snakes; owls and crows delight in mice; but does any one of the four know the right taste? The dog-headed monkey finds its mate in the female gibbon; the elk and the axis deer cohabit; and the eel enjoys itself with other fishes. Mao Qiang and Li Ji were accounted by men to be most beautiful, but when fishes saw them, they dived deep in the water from them; when birds, they flew from them aloft; and when deer saw them, they separated and fled away. But did any of these four know which in the world is the right female attraction? As I look at the matter, the first principles of humaneness and righteousness and the paths of approval and disapproval are inextricably mixed and confused together – how is it possible that I should know how to discriminate among them?’ Nie Que said (further), ‘Since you, Sir, do not know what is advantageous and what is hurtful, is the Perfect man also in the same way without the knowledge of them?’ Wang Ni replied, ‘The Perfect man is spirit-like. Great lakes might be boiling about him, and he would not feel their heat; the He and the Han rivers might be frozen up, and he would not feel the cold; the hurrying thunderbolts might split the mountains, and the wind shake the ocean, without being able to make him afraid. Being such, he mounts on the clouds of the air, rides on the sun and moon, and rambles at ease beyond the four seas. Neither death nor life makes any change in him, and how much less should the considerations of advantage and injury do so!’

Commentary by Bin Song:

Aristotle in the Politics argues that relying upon languages and discourses to debate ethical matters in a polis is what distinguishes humans from non-human beings, and hence, Aristotle defines humans as “a political animal.” Similarly, Confucius in the Analects (the chapter of Wei Zi) refuses to live among birds and beasts as a detached hermit because Confucius thinks “being social” so as to help better the living conditions of human fellows in society is what “being a human” or “being humane” means essentially.

However, Zhuangzi holds a different view: everyone’s view of “humaneness” and “righteousness” is relative to their own perspective, and hence, being dedicated to moral debate is like arguing which one among men, deers, centipedes, owls and crows “know the right taste.” It can only bring “mixture and confusion,” and hence, Zhuangzi would never do that. Instead, what Zhuangzi longs for is to become a Perfect man who leaves every being alone while himself enjoying the utter freedom from debate, controversy and other complicated human artifices.

Quite obviously, the doubt towards the distinction between humans and the non-human nature is quite consistent in Laozi and Zhuangzi. Because of this, the text of Zhuangzi has its good reasons to be categorized as belonging to the same Daoist lineage in classical Chinese thought.

My questions: is there really no way to reach a consensus among all human beings about what is morally right or wrong? If this is the case, how can we have a United Nations and how can we have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Preaching moral dogmatics is mostly repulsive in modern context; however, does this mean that there are no morals at all? Even if reaching such a consensus may be indeed very hard, does the difficulty mean that we would give up the efforts once for all? Isn’t a case we can make that we humans can at least temporarily and pragmatically reach a certain consensus about what should be done in a specific context, while keeping it in mind that we can always change and refine the consensus when situations more evolve?

When claiming every moral judgment is relative to one’s perspective, isn’t Zhuangzi also making a non-relativist moral claim, viz., an absolutist one that every one is entitled to their own moral judgment?

Regarding the point made by the video, I question whether the withdrawal from debating and advocating a certain kind of morals is really therapeutic. When one is chronically abused in their family, when one young girl is sexually molested, or when one veteran suffers from traumas out of a war, does the sheer refusal to talk about morals really heal their wounds?