John Grieve: Taoism And Confucianism: Part I    
 Taoism And Confucianism: Part I1 comment
3 Mar 2008 @ 12:47, by John Grieve

Taoism and Confucianism

Confucianism and Taoism are seemingly opposite but also complementary ways of approaching life and solving its problems. They are world-views which originated in China but that are both universal. Confucianism is named after the Chinese Sage Confucius (Kung Fu Tse) who incidentally was not a Confucianist, and developed a moral and ethical philosophy, six centuries before Christ. Taoism is the nature mysticism local to China and is far more aimed at individual development and enlightenment than social. Both are universal in that Confucianism is a way of doing things which comes naturally to civilized, organised, bureaucratised and conformist (official) societies world-wide, while Taoism is part of the perennial philosophy and is the personal ideology of the individual, the lover, the eccentric, the spiritual searcher after truth, the rebel and the seeker of simple solutions to life’s problems and union with Nature.

In this paper I will briefly outline a few problems of a simple kind and present Confucianist and Taoist treatments of their solutions.

Problem 1: Opening a vacuum-held jar lid.
The Confucianist approach to getting a top off from a jar, held tight by a vacuum, is primarily to apply brute force externally to the lid and force it off. This is done with either the hands or a mechanical device, a lever. With small jars this is a practical technique but with larger and larger jars and lids, it becomes exceedingly difficult and tedious.

The Taoist technique is to release the vacuum. This addresses the essence, not the externals of the problem – because inside, the lid is held on by the power of vacuum in the top of the jar. The vacuum is released by inserting a wedge – sort of object, it could be a spoon or other strong object, between the side edge of the lid and the jar top. Applying a small amount of pressure causes the two to separate allowing air into the top of the jar. The lid then unscrews with the minimum of effort.

Comparing the two techniques, it is clear that the Confucianist method uses a cumbersome, mechanical approach which does not address the essence of the problem. With large jars it would be completely inappropriate and impractical. On the other hand the Taoist method is quick, simple, costs nothing and is exactly the same whether you are dealing with a tiny jar or a large one. The Taoist technique is geared to the inner essence of the problem which the Confucianist method ignores, looking only at external superficial appearances in trying to deal with the problem.

The second problem 2: Calculating the number of games played in a knock-out tournament.
This simple mathematical problem is given by Edward de Bono in his book on lateral thinking as an illustration not of Confucianism and Taoism but of his technique at lateral thinking. A teacher wants to keep a class busy for half-an-hour with a simple, mechanical but tedious sequence of calculations that lead to the desired answer. However, one bright student, using ‘lateral thinking’ solves the problem in a matter of seconds. What is the problem? Imagine a football or chess tournament which has 16 teams or players in it. How many individual games need to be played before a winner emerges? The Confucianist technique is to calculate the number of games piecemeal. First there are 8 pairs of teams, then when the winners go through this becomes 4 pairs, then 2 pairs and finally one pair in the final. The total number of games then becomes (for a tournament comprising 16 teams), 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 15. So the answer is 15.

The lateral thinker or Taoist uses a different approach. Instead of concentrating on games won he or she looks at the opposite, that is games lost. With clear intuition he realises that in the tournament all teams or players will lose a game except the final winner. So the number of games lost is the same as the number of games won, except it is much easier to calculate. If there are 16 teams in the tournament then 15 losses occur = 16 – 1. Both techniques arrive at the same answer but one is much more simple and quick than the other. The Taoist technique takes seconds and it doesn’t matter whether there are 16 teams in the tournament or 256. The method is essentially the same. If there were 256 teams in the tournament the number of games played (lost) would be 256 – 1 = 255. Using the Confucianist technique to calculate the numbers at each stage of the tournament piecemeal would take hours in this case.

So in this example, we see slightly different aspects of the difference between the two techniques. The Confucianist method is slow, laborious and we suspect, primarily designed, in this case, to keep a class busy and out of mischief for half an hour. The Taoist method goes straight to the heart of the problem and instead of being misled by society’s obsession with ‘winning’ it solves the riddle by looking at the key to the problem which is that the number of games lost is equal to the number of games played. All that can be said in favour of the Confucianist approach is that it is useful to society and in generating the result generates additional statistics and data about the different stages of the tournament and finally suggests a mathematical relationship between the sums at the powers of 2 (8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 2^4 – 1).

[< Back] [John Grieve]


1 comment

29 Apr 2017 @ 08:08 by playstation plus code generator @ : psn codes
I am happy to get free playstation plus codes online by through playstation plus code generator.  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
26 Feb 2017 @ 20:56: Trump versus the Media
26 Jan 2017 @ 18:53: Women's Marches the beginning of the Fightback
7 Jan 2017 @ 20:11: Now's the End Times
15 Nov 2016 @ 22:48: Theory of Civilization-- Part 3
15 Nov 2016 @ 22:20: Theory of Civilization-- Part 2
15 Nov 2016 @ 21:52: Theory of Civilization-- Part 1
14 Nov 2016 @ 22:11: Global march of the right in the context of the dynamics of civilization
12 May 2016 @ 21:47: SuperCivilization, The Second Axial Age and not-so-enlightened Despots Cont.
12 May 2016 @ 21:20: SuperCivilization, The Second Axial Age and not-so-enlightened Despots
28 Feb 2016 @ 18:55: Economic Evolution

[< Back] [John Grieve] [PermaLink]?