Daoism as the Root of Chinese Philosophy

The Hegemony of the 新儒家 xīn rú jiā, New Confucianism

Throughout much of the twentieth century, the intellectual landscape of Chinese philosophy was dominated by the emergence and consolidation of the 新儒家 Xīn rú jiā, New Confucianism. Initially driven by figures such as 熊十力 Xióng Shílì and later systematized by 牟宗三 Móu Zōngsān and 唐君毅 Táng Jūnyì, this movement presented itself as a necessary response to the crisis of cultural identity triggered by the encounter with Western modernity.

The defining milestone of this hegemony was the 1958 为世界说明中国文化宣言 Wèi shì jiè shuō míng zhōng guó wén huà xuān yán, "Manifesto to the Scholars of the World on Chinese Culture." In this document, New Confucianism positioned itself as the guardian of the national essence (国粹, guócuì), centering the entire vitality of Chinese thought on morality. Through this lens, the Chinese tradition was reduced to a quest for moral subjectivity, wherein Confucianism constituted the main trunk, while Daoism and Buddhism were viewed as complementary resources or, at worst, philosophies of withdrawal and passivity.

 

The Historiographical Turn: The Claim for Plurality

Toward the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, this hegemony began to be questioned. The need for a historiographical revision emerged from two fronts. On the one hand, the archaeological contribution of the discovery of manuscripts such as those from 郭店 Guōdiàn revealed that the distinction between schools during the Warring States period was far more fluid than later Confucian orthodoxy was willing to admit. On the other hand, philosophers like 陈鼓应 Chén Gǔyìng began to argue that Confucianism's fixation on social morality had obscured the ontological depth of Daoism, which offers a much broader foundation for understanding the relationship between human beings, technology, and nature.

This revision does not merely seek to substitute one school for another, but rather to restore the original plurality of Chinese thought, recognizing that the trunk of its culture is, in fact, a structure far more complex and ancient than the twentieth-century narrative allowed us to see. If Confucianism taught us how to live in society, Daoism taught us what life itself is. It is time to ask ourselves whether we have been confusing the rules of the game with the board on which it is played.

The Priority of 道 dào over 礼 lǐ

Traditional historiography, influenced by the Confucian canon, has often presented 礼 lǐ, ritual, as the supreme organizing principle of Chinese civilization. However, the proposition of New Daoism maintains that ritual, by its very nature, is a derivative and contingent category, whereas 道 dào represents the absolute and pre-existing source.

In Warring States thought, 道 dào is not limited to a code of conduct; rather, it constitutes the very structure of reality. While ritual is a human construct designed to regulate social hierarchies and familial bonds, 道 dào encompasses the totality of existence: the visible and the invisible, the human and the non-human. Ritual is specific to human culture and varies across time and space. In contrast, 道 dào is a principle that manifests of itself, 自然 zìrán, a naturalness that governs both the movement of celestial bodies and the flow of biological life.

陈鼓应 Chén Gǔyìng argues that an exclusive focus on 礼 lǐ tends to reduce the human being to a social function—son, subject, or father. Conversely, 道 dào reclaims the subjectivity (主体性 zhǔtǐxìng) and spontaneity (自然 zìrán) of the subject, allowing existence to unfold beyond the limits imposed by external structures. Even the quintessential Confucian virtue, 仁 rén, humaneness, lacks substance if it is not supported by the breadth of 道 dào. For 陈 Chén, human benevolence is a limited manifestation of nature's vast, indiscriminate generosity.

Modern exegesis of the 郭店 Guōdiàn texts demonstrates that philosophers of this period did not perceive a total rupture between the two concepts, but rather a necessary subordination. 礼 lǐ must be the external expression of an internal harmony that can only be attained through the understanding of 道 dào.

陈 Chén's thesis is that the "trunk" is 道 dào because it is the only concept capable of integrating metaphysics, aesthetics, and politics into a coherent whole. 礼 lǐ is the tool, but 道 dào is the foundation. As Chapter 38 of the 老子 Lǎozǐ states:

The Contribution of 陈鼓应 Chén Gǔyìng: The Convergence of Philology and Existentialism

The originality of the contemporary philosopher 陈鼓应 Chén Gǔyìng's (born 1935) proposition lies in his capacity to traverse two seemingly disconnected worlds: the meticulous textual analysis of characters in Warring States period manuscripts and the existential anxiety of European modernity. His method can be defined as an "open hermeneutics" that searches the past for tools to liberate the contemporary subject.

For 陈 Chén, philology is not an end in itself, but a means to strip away the layers of moralistic interpretation that Imperial Confucianism deposited onto Daoist texts. He utilizes the bamboo slips discovered at 郭店 Guōdiàn to demonstrate that original Daoism was not a philosophy of escapism or passivity, but rather a proposition of profound political and human density. By analyzing character variants within the 老子 Lǎozǐ from this archaeological site, he recovers a line of thought that predates the crystallization of schools and possesses a unique ontological freshness.

陈 Chén's methodological contribution transforms the reading of the classics into a philosophy of life. In his hands, the Warring States period ceases to be a distant historical epoch and becomes a mirror for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: an era marked by the collapse of old values where the individual must find their own 道 dào amidst the chaos. This synthesis allows his work to be read with equal benefit by a specialist in linguistics seeking the precision of a textual gloss and by a student of philosophy searching for answers to the meaninglessness of modern alienation.

Daoism as the Foundation of a Possible Plurality

The historiographical revision driven by 陈鼓应 Chén Gǔyìng does not merely seek to invert a hierarchy in order to replace Confucianism with Daoism. Its true value lies in restoring the original plurality of Chinese thought, reminding us that prior to the crystallization of imperial orthodoxies, a vibrant dialogue existed in which 道 dào operated as the fertile soil from which the diverse branches of ethics and politics grew.

By positioning naturalness and spontaneity as the roots of culture, 陈 Chén's proposition offers a vital alternative to the rigidity of normative structures. Recognizing Daoism as the "trunk" allows for a less dogmatic and more adaptable cultural identity, capable of engaging in dialogue not only with European modernity but also with the global challenges of technology and the ecological crisis.

References

Allan, S., & Williams, C. (Eds.). (2000). The Guodian Laozi: Proceedings of the international conference, Dartmouth College, May 1998. Society for the Study of Early China.

Chen, G. (1983). Laozi zhùshì jí píngjiè [Commentary and critical introduction to the Laozi]. Zhonghua Shuju.

Chen, G. (2010). Zhuāngzi jīnzhù jīnyì [Modern commentary and translation of the Zhuangzi]. Zhonghua Shuju.

Chen, G. (2017). Lǎo Zhuāng xīn lùn [New discussions on Laozi and Zhuangzi] (Rev. ed.). Commercial Press.

Chen, G. (2020). Rediscovering the roots of Chinese thought: Laozi’s philosophy (P. J. D’Ambrosio, Ed.). University of Washington Press.

Costantini, F. (2018). El Dao de la sabiduría: Un estudio sobre el Laozi y el Zhuangzi. Kairós.

Graham, A. C. (1989). Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical argument in ancient China. Open Court.

Henricks, Robert G. (2000). Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching: A translation of the startling new discovery at Guodian. Columbia University Press.

Makeham, J. (Ed.). (2003). New Confucianism: A critical examination. Palgrave Macmillan.