The Dao and Postmodernism (Part 1)

Postmodernism, relativism, and anti-dogmatism are not only modern phenomena

This is the first part of a two-part post. In the first part, I will focus on the historical element, using the seminal Daoist text the Zhaungzhi to illustrate that the widespread notion that modern ways of thinking are becoming progressively less dogmatic does not hold up to evidence. In the second part, I will go further, suggesting that some pre-modern “religious” texts, such as the Zhaungzhi, are arguably less dogmatic than modern forms of postmodernism and relativism.

When I teach ethics, I often start class by asking the students if they think there is a universal moral right and wrong. Usually, around 70 percent of students resist any claims to universal morality. They argue that this would problematically take one person or culture’s perspective as authoritative and silence all other perspectives. These students’ arguments reflect relativism, in that they hold truth to be perspective and context dependent, and postmodernism, in that they hold a skepticism of grand, overarching stories, narratives, or principles that span across all times and spaces. This aspiration to acknowledge and rationally think through the various perspectives on truth rather than simply adopt one perspective as the “correct” one could be, and often has been, seen as a kind of historical “enlightenment.” One might think that people have finally begun to wake up from the habit of simply entrenching themselves in one particular religious perspective and adopting its beliefs unreflectively and dogmatically. At least, this is how the historical story of the rise of relativistic and postmodern perspectives has often gone.

Many see the roots of postmodernism and relativism growing out of the European Enlightenment, where philosophers chose to leave behind Christian theological assumptions and rationally investigate truth. Influential philosophers from the European Enlightenment, such as Francis Bacon, Immanuel Kant, and Georg Friedrich Hegel, all praise 19th-century Europe as a unique time in history where humans have risen out of the illusion of religious or ideological dogma and can finally use reason to think through the many different perspectives that exist on truth rather than dogmatically adopt one. Later philosophers such as Nietzsche and Kierkegaard extend this further still, arguing that the modern human is more “interesting” and has a more robust “inner life” because of this existential imperative to think through the truth for themselves rather than submit to authority. This teleological conception of history, in which we progressively rise out of dogmatic entrenchment, continues to influence modern thinkers. For example, Ken Wilber and other “integral philosophers” map psychological and spiritual stages of development onto a chronological cultural evolution. In this way, Wilber and other similar thinkers suggest that earlier cultures thought in more exclusive and simple “tribal” and “mythic” ways, while modern cultures think in more inclusive and complex “rational,” “postmodern,” and “integral” ways. Finally, such a perspective is quite common in many common narratives in our culture, such as the belief that modern science is the best tool for discovering truth because we have finally been “freed” of dogmatic beliefs of the past and can explore rationally and freely.

I do not find that this progressive historical narrative stands up to the evidence. If we look at some of the most sophisticated thinkers, mystics, and contemplatives of traditions thousands of years old, we find many figures addressing the same existential, philosophical, and ethical problems that arise from an acknowledgment of the near-infinite amount of possible perspectives one could take on truth. So I can justify my point well, I will choose one such figure to delve into, the famous Daoist philosopher and contemplative, Zhuang Zhou. (My reading is indebted to Brook Ziporyn’s paper on the Zhuangzi, which I highly recommend; you can find it here: https://www.hackettpublishing.com/zhuangziphil)

Zhuang Zhou often explores philosophical problems through storytelling. In one particular story, Sir Swimmy Faceformed begins to wonder about this problem of multiple perspectives and what it means for truth. If every moment of an individual’s life is a different perspective, then, “Who or what is here?” Sir Swimmy wonders. What is the singular being underlying all these varying perspectives? Sir Shoestrap does Sir Swimmy the kindness of enlightening him with a metaphor. Sir Shoestrap explains how the wind makes different noises depending on the different environments it blows through. Whether the environment speeds up or slows down the wind, whether it traps the wind or repels it, the positioning of the individual hearing the wind, for example, are all conditions that affect what sound the wind makes. “One leads with a yeeeee! And another with a yuuuuuu!” Sir Shoestrap explains. What if we were to investigate the singular source of every noise the wind makes? Sir Shoestrap notes a problem with this question; we gain our conception of the wind itself only once we make contact with one of the particular sounds the wind makes. So, we only ask the question “What is the origin of the wind?” when we have experienced one of the particular sounds of wind. Further, air only becomes the wind by taking a particular form based on the environment in which it moves. We cannot get “outside” these particular instances of the wind blowing and say what the wind itself is outside of the particular sounds it makes and the particular environments in which it blows.

The same could be said for Sir Swimmy Faceformed’s question about identity. Sir Swimmy has a logical problem on his hands because he must ask the question about the singular being underlying all the different perspectives from within one of those particular perspectives. For example, maybe a philosophy book Sir Swimmy read inspired this question. The question of what is independent of perspective was produced by and has meaning within this particular philosophical perspective. If Sir Swimmy had not read the philosophy book and not adopted this particular philosophical perspective, he would not have asked the question at all. This conundrum applies anytime we are looking for the ultimate, perspective-independent truth. Whether it be the truth of nature, the truth of the self, the truth of morality, or the truth of God, these questions about a perspective-independent truth always arise and make sense within one particular perspective we have learned to adopt.

Let’s look at one more example to illustrate how this could apply to a question someone might ask today. Let’s say we are wondering whether God exists. To ask and investigate this question, we must have learned about a religious or philosophical tradition that provides a concept of God and provides a method for investigating truth. For example, if we were inspired to ask this question after learning about Christianity, we may think of God as a singular, perfect being that created the world. We may also think that the tools of scholastic logic (Aristotelian-inspired logic that most Christian theologians rely on when making arguments) are the proper way to think through whether He exists. Thus, the meaning of “God” in our question and the tools we use to answer that question both have validity and meaning within the Christian perspective. It does not then make sense to say we can use these meanings and tools to answer the question of whether God exists independent of any particular perspective. Of course, we may think Christianity is wrong because science can explain the creation of the world through the Big Bang, and its empirical methods are superior to scholastic logic. But this counterargument also comes from within one particular perspective, namely the modern scientific perspective. Sir Swimmy Faceformed would inform us that we simply inhabited another conditioned perspective, another particular “sound of the wind,” and decided to take the rules that govern that perspective as authoritative. According to Zhuang Zhou, we cannot gain a perspective-independent grasp of truth because both the content of whatever question we are asking and the tools we use to answer that question will only make sense within the internal logic of a particular perspective.

In the second chapter of the Zhuangzi, written in the 4th century BC, Zhuang Zhou has systematically argued against the very possibility of the dogmatic assertion of one perspective or narrative. This is not unique to Daoism. Ibn Arabi, an Islamic mystic from the 12th century AD, and Nagarjuna, a Buddhist monastic and scholar from the 2nd century AD, both have their way of acknowledging the multiplicity of perspectives and the problems with dogmatically assenting to one such perspective. If we study past figures with care and respect rather than adopting caricatures of their thought based on our preconceived notions of “religion,” we find that there is no evidence that our modern secular and scientific traditions are less dogmatic than the traditions of the past. Of course, if we look at any tradition, we find that most members simply dogmatically assent to the particular beliefs that tradition tells them are true. However, if we are honest with ourselves, we will likely see that this is the case with our own scientific and secular traditions as well. The number of people who claim scientific materialism or ethical individualism as the truth without thinking through the internal consistency of those views or how they stand up to opposing views is not small. Liberation from dogmatic thinking is not a historical process, it is a personal process. Particular traditions are not the enemies of inner freedom; the temptations of existential security, the social perks of assenting to the dominant perspective, and the ease of unreflectingly following authority are.

Some of you familiar with Daoism may be wondering: what about the Dao? Doesn’t Daoism articulate some kind of ultimate truth with the concept of the Dao? Yes, they do! This is what the next post will be about. Next week, we will delve into how Zhuang Zhou answers this problem of multiple perspectives with the notion of the Dao.

If you found this reflection valuable, please consider subscribing. All posts are free, but please consider paying to support the newsletter! (and an overworked, underpaid adjunct professor)

Please feel free to leave a comment if you have clarification questions, feedback, critiques, or anything to add. Philosophy is all about dialogue! I will do my best to respond to all questions and concerns.