Is Dao the chinese solution to infinite regress?

[NathanIsDivine]

In the Lao Zi, Dao is said to be the beginning of all things, the thing that creates one, which leads to two, which gives birth to three, etc. Did Laozi see Dao as the solution to an infinite regress of causalities, as the unmoved mover?

[ernestm]

That's a good question. To clarify, Lao Zi is a person, not a book, and conventionally he is called Lao Tzu in the West, and people who want to sound clever will represent his name even more different ways.

Putting aside the fad of creating fake metaphysics which I just addressed in another thread about Buddhism that has become so fashionable in the last decades, academia has long thought that Lao Tzu, or Lao Tsu, or Lao Tsi, or Lao Tzi, or Lao Zi was a real person, albeit how he pronounced his name himself is unknown.

Academia has conducted extensive analysis of the poems attributed to him, in all the various versions we have from various dates, and in the last decades the analysis has been enhanced by computers, which seek to identify likely errors and inconsistencies by a process called 'deconstruction,' an analysis of vocabulary, syntax, and grammar.

The analysis has reinforced the long held opinion that your Lao Zi didn't compose anything or intend to express any metaphysical views for himself, but instead assembled a caucus of poetry written by others. It's also pointed out that it would be part of his philosophy not to ascribe to any strong position that could be intellectually debated. So to answer your question in briefly, probably if you asked him that, he would turn away and not say anything if he felt you weren't being aggressive, or otherwise, in response to your inquiry, actually run away.

[ernestm]

In the Lao Zi, Dao is said to be the beginning of all things, the thing that creates one, which leads to two, which gives birth to three, etc. Did Laozi see Dao as the solution to an infinite regress of causalities, as the unmoved mover?

Having answered your question in the way the original author would prefer, by all indications of tradition, there remains the answer to your question, and the answer is, metaphysics have never really been considered that important in China as it has been in the West, and the emphasis of all Chinese philosophy is how we should act, which in the West is reduced to 'ethics.' As a result, there are many resolutions to the question you pose now, but at the time of 'Laozi,' all that really existed was a pool of posutulations as to orignal cause which were not really recognized as being in conflict with each other much, because no one really thought about it.

But people have been thinking about it alot in the USA since Trump started antagonizing China, moving this nation to consider China might actually be a threat for the first time ever. So there are an immense number of people debating it now, starting in about 2017, and you can find a superb summary of it on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, with an enormous number of people suddenly starting what China must have thought in 200 BC without much precedent in either Chinese or Western philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-metaphysics/

[Pattern-chaser]

In the Lao Zi, Dao is said to be the beginning of all things, the thing that creates one, which leads to two, which gives birth to three, etc. Did Laozi see Dao as the solution to an infinite regress of causalities, as the unmoved mover?

I don't think Lao Tse — there, another different spelling! — intended to comment on "an infinite regress of causalities", but maybe I'm mistaken. The Tao te ching, and most of Daoism, is difficult for a Western-educated mind to deal with. The concepts are so foreign, and so different. My suspicion is that Lao Tse would not even have thought about causality regression.

...the answer to your question is, metaphysics have never really been considered that important in China as it has been in the West...

The link you posted seems to oppose this:

While there was no word corresponding precisely to the term “metaphysics,” China has a long tradition of philosophical inquiry concerned with the ultimate nature of reality—its being, origins, components, ways of changing, and so on. In this sense, we can speak of metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy, even if the particular questions and positions that arose differed from those dominant in Europe.

I think that Chinese philosophy has no need to treat metaphysics separately, as it is an underlying presence throughout the mainstream of Chinese philosophy. Or so it seems to me.

[Thomyum2]

That's a good question. To clarify, Lao Zi is a person, not a book, and conventionally he is called Lao Tzu in the West, and people who want to sound clever will represent his name even more different ways.

Putting aside the fad of creating fake metaphysics which I just addressed in another thread about Buddhism that has become so fashionable in the last decades, academia has long thought that Lao Tzu, or Lao Tsu, or Lao Tsi, or Lao Tzi, or Lao Zi was a real person, albeit how he pronounced his name himself is unknown.

My goodness ernestm, variations in spelling aren't due to people "who want to sound clever"! And it has nothing to do with pronunciation, they're just different romanizations of the Chinese 老子 into western alphabets. The spelling 'Lao Zi' or 'Laozi' corresponds to the pinyin romanization, which is the standard used in the mainland of China today. Of note, Laozi is not even the name of a person, but more of a title of respect that can be translated literally as 'Old Master'.

It is also not incorrect to refer to the book as 'the Laozi' as well as the author. Though in the West we usually name it the Tao Te Ching (Daode Jing in pinyin) - I've more often heard the book itself referred to as 'Laozi' by native Chinese speakers.

The analysis has reinforced the long held opinion that your Lao Zi didn't compose anything or intend to express any metaphysical views for himself, but instead assembled a caucus of poetry written by others. It's also pointed out that it would be part of his philosophy not to ascribe to any strong position that could be intellectually debated. So to answer your question in briefly, probably if you asked him that, he would turn away and not say anything if he felt you weren't being aggressive, or otherwise, in response to your inquiry, actually run away.

I'd agree with you on this part. Eastern cultures don't seem to have the same problem with paradoxes that we Westerners do, and I doubt that 'infinite regress' would have been a major concern, if it was even considered at all. And I think you're right that this work isn't a philosophical argument meant for debate. In my own opinion, it's more a work of inspiration: although non-theistic, it's closer akin to a scripture or prophetic work than to an exposition of a philosophy.

[ernestm]

That's a good question. To clarify, Lao Zi is a person, not a book, and conventionally he is called Lao Tzu in the West, and people who want to sound clever will represent his name even more different ways.

Putting aside the fad of creating fake metaphysics which I just addressed in another thread about Buddhism that has become so fashionable in the last decades, academia has long thought that Lao Tzu, or Lao Tsu, or Lao Tsi, or Lao Tzi, or Lao Zi was a real person, albeit how he pronounced his name himself is unknown.

My goodness ernestm, variations in spelling aren't due to people "who want to sound clever"! And it has nothing to do with pronunciation, they're just different romanizations of the Chinese 老子 into western alphabets. The spelling 'Lao Zi' or 'Laozi' corresponds to the pinyin romanization, which is the standard used in the mainland of China today. Of note, Laozi is not even the name of a person, but more of a title of respect that can be translated literally as 'Old Master'.

It is also not incorrect to refer to the book as 'the Laozi' as well as the author. Though in the West we usually name it the Tao Te Ching (Daode Jing in pinyin) - I've more often heard the book itself referred to as 'Laozi' by native Chinese speakers.

The analysis has reinforced the long held opinion that your Lao Zi didn't compose anything or intend to express any metaphysical views for himself, but instead assembled a caucus of poetry written by others. It's also pointed out that it would be part of his philosophy not to ascribe to any strong position that could be intellectually debated. So to answer your question in briefly, probably if you asked him that, he would turn away and not say anything if he felt you weren't being aggressive, or otherwise, in response to your inquiry, actually run away.

I'd agree with you on this part. Eastern cultures don't seem to have the same problem with paradoxes that we Westerners do, and I doubt that 'infinite regress' would have been a major concern, if it was even considered at all. And I think you're right that this work isn't a philosophical argument meant for debate. In my own opinion, it's more a work of inspiration: although non-theistic, it's closer akin to a scripture or prophetic work than to an exposition of a philosophy.

You're right, I apologize, I was in a bit of a bad mood.

One does find some interest in metaphysics in the 16th century

[Thomyum2]

You're right, I apologize, I was in a bit of a bad mood.

One does find some interest in metaphysics in the 16th century

No worries and no need to apologize. I have those kinds of days myself.

Your contributions to the forum are appreciated!