July 27, 2004
Chinese Libertarians
Marginal Revolutions features a quote-heavy post that discusses the differences between Taoism and Confucianism in relating to the state. It reminded me of the odd anti-progress, anti-state themes that run through the Tao Te Ching, but that I had forgotten. Instead, the lasting impression I've taken from the few times I've read it were the more mystical concepts, the images of emptiness and abstract discussions of the formless Tao which, doubtless, says something about my own tastes. Although I'm interested in politics and consider it my duty as a citizen to stay informed, when I'm reading literature or philosophy (or however you want to classify the Tao Te Ching), the stray political comments are not what stick. The lens through which I read largely focuses on ambiguities, striking images, pleasing phrases, and intuitive insights. However, this inverts when I read something like Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals that attempts to lay out its case in an orderly, logical fashion. Then I remember the arguments and the logic rather than the style or images or other woolly-headed concerns. This makes me wonder to what extent I'm capable of controlling the way I read, the things I notice and to what extent I am controlled or directed by the text itself. How much depends upon the author's designs and how much upon my own interests? It seems the better an author, the more successful they'll be in leading the reader's state of mind into realms amenable to the meaning and concerns of the author. Literature as mind-altering substance—I like it. Lick a book today.
UPDATE: In case of blog synchronicity, Bemsha Swing has a similar post up today where he writes:
Since I share certain characteristics of this sort of consciousness myself, I "identify" with it and respond to it. It cannot be totally alien to me, or there would be no point of contact. It even trains my brain to think in those terms, to experience those states of consciousness, or to use a similar language to describe my own thoughts.
Maybe I'm just hallucinating, but he seems to be tangentially discussing the same thing.
I agree that I've never read the Tao Te Ching as a political text. Of course, that may be more of necessity--I understand very little of contemporary Chinese politics, and that much less of China 2,500 years ago. The Tao Te Ching also isn't an overtly political text in the sense of, for example, The Prince or the Federalist Papers--two texts that one can certainly enjoy from a literary perspective, but were written for other reasons. As for those in the middle, consider the perfection that is 1984 or the mess that is The Fountainhead. Both are vehicles (the former, political; the latter, philosophical), but Orwell achieves the balance between content and delivery so much better.
I hate Ayn Rand.
If you lick it, you buy it. Or, it might get you thrown out of a library.
Library books are too dusty. They make my tongue dry. I prefer new ones—which is why I'm banned from most of the book stores around here.
You're hallucinating.