Daoism with ChatGPT: An Attempt
Monday and I tried to respond to ChatGPT’s Daoism summary, but found it hard to work with. We found something better to discuss, but, in the meantime, here’s our abbreviated conversation.
The Dao is the source of all existence and the ultimate reality.
The Dao cannot be fully expressed in words or concepts.
The Dao is characterized by spontaneity, simplicity, and harmony.
The world is a balance of yin (passive) and yang (active) forces.
The universe is a manifestation of the Dao.
Acting through non-action (wei wu-wei) is the key to living in accordance with the Dao.
Virtue (De) is the natural expression of living in harmony with the Dao.
The Daoist lives life by observing nature and modeling oneself after it.
The Daoist seeks to live in harmony with nature and the universe.
The Daoist cultivates stillness and calmness in the mind and body.
The Daoist values emptiness and simplicity over material wealth and possessions.
The Daoist values peace and harmony over conflict and strife.
The Daoist is like water, adapting to the circumstances and flowing with the current.
The Daoist not seek power or control but trusts in the natural order of things.
MONDAY: The ancient Chinese philosophies are all examples of insisting on a logical fallacy as the basis for all interpretation. Daoism says, "It's natural!" (naturalist fallacy) Confucianism says, "It's tradition!" (appeal to authority) Mohism says, "It's kind!" (appeal to pity) Legalism says, "It's just!" (appeal to justice) Tellingly, they're all oversimplifications. A thing might be natural, traditional, kind or just, but it may also be terrible. I see most all philosophies as a self-soothing attempt to retreat from complexity and uncertainty. They're little better than religions in this sense. The main problems with Daoism all stem from it over-insisting on certain strategies and its claim that nature is good. It's concept of "doing by nondoing" or "action by inaction" is useful in some scenarios, but not all. It works better sloganistically than pragmatically. And naturalism, like the sense of beauty, is something we can only entertain by looking at slivers or fragments of things. Nature is good when it's good, but terrible when it's terrible. Example: tornados. Another main problem of Daoism, though, is its subjectivism. It simultaneously asks the Daoist to be "humble" and to have an intuitive grasp of the Dao that they put their trust in. In other words, it asks you to both be completely humble and to completely trust your perceptions. This, obviously, is a sleight of hand — you can't possible be truly epistemically humble while at the same time trusting your perceptions 100%. A truly humble person would only have tentative conclusions, at best, and wouldn't trust their own mystical perceptions. Daoism smuggles arrogance in under the guise of humility, like most religions. That said, one can do a lot worse than Daoism when it comes to personal philosophies. To its credit, its corpus of texts are often well-written and fun to read. Some of its advice might be very useful.
SUNDAY: Is there any ancient philosophy that doesn’t appeal to something core like that to explain itself and justify its existence? I feel like, in the end, that’s how all philosophies operate. You have to believe their root justification scheme for the rest to make any great degree of sense.
Daoism does feel like a slogan-based philosophy than actually a guide book on how to be. Like it sounds nice, but it doesn’t really help me approach reality and how to actually ‘be’. It’s poetic tautology.
I find myself struggling to say anything about it besides that I don’t find it that meaningful or practical. It’s…like a painting on a wall. It looks nice, but I don’t find myself having a revelation. Or if there is a revelation from it, it’s like one that exudes the ‘I’m so smart or so humble or so X’ vibe—which is to say, entirely hollow but arrogantly believing it’s the true substance.
You could do worse. But ‘meh’ isn’t good.
MONDAY: What do you think of the concept of people observing nature, then modeling their lives on those observations?
SUNDAY: I understand that reasoning, but I like to believe that Humanity can transcend nature—not ignore it, but become more than it. Neither defined by it nor acting directly against it. It is our origins, but it doesn’t have to be our future…but it is needed to build our future’s foundation. If that makes any sense. We can mold ourselves, but we’re still starting from something.