Abstract
The notion of dao 道 in the Daodejing 道德經 typically receives either a metaphysical interpretation or a practical one. In this essay, I survey a series of recent interpretations and show that given the gap between the two dimensions, the extant interpretations typically have the problem of attributing ambiguity to the central notion of dao, whether explicitly or implicitly. In light of this, I venture a novel reading according to which the text is interpreted also in practical terms, more specifically in methodological terms, but thoroughly. This requires me to offer a new account for the creative or generative role of dao, now construed as a method. I argue that this reading is at least equally plausible as the ones in circulation by spelling out its central constituents and pointing out its theoretical virtues. In conclusion, I point out certain implications for research, both exegetical and comparative, if we come to accept this novel reading.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ames, Roger, and David Hall. 2003. Dao De Jing: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Banka, Rafał. 2018. “Rules of Composition: A Mereological Examination of the Dao-You Relation.” Philosophy East and West 68.4: 1025–1041.
Burik, Steven. 2018. “Logos and Dao Revisited: A Non-Metaphysical Interpretation.” Philosophy East and West 68.1: 23–41.
Chai, David. 2014. “Meontological Generativity: A Daoist Reading of the Thing.” Philosophy East and West 64.2: 303–318.
Cheung, Leo K. C. 2017. “The Metaphysics and Unnamability of the Dao in the Daodejing and Wittgenstein.” Philosophy East and West 67.2: 352–379.
Graham, Angus. 1989. Disputers of the Tao. La Salle: Open Court Publishing.
Hansen, Chad. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hong, Hao. 2019. “The Metaphysics of Dao in Wang Bi’s Interpretation of Laozi.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 18.2: 219–240.
McDonough, Richard. 2017. “The Dao that Cannot Be Named.” Philosophy East and West 67.3: 738–762.
Moeller, Hans-Georg. 2006. The Philosophy of the Daodejing. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schwartz, Benjamin. 1985. The World of Thought in Ancient China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stanchina, Gabriella. 2020. “Naming the Unnamable: A Comparison between Wang Bi’s Commentary on the Laozi and Derrida’s Khōra.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 19.3: 409–426.
Wang, Qingjie. 2016. “Thing-ing and No-Thing in Heidegger, Kant, and Laozi.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 15.2: 159–174.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Roger Ames and Michael Beaney for helpful discussions and also two anonymous referees of this journal for insightful comments that have greatly improved the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, X. Understanding Dao in Methodological Terms. Dao 21, 197–211 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-022-09825-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-022-09825-z