Lao-tzu famously said in the Tao Te Ching, "A man of the highest virtue does not keep to virtue and that is why he has virtue" (ch. 38). This seems self-contradictory. So what is he trying to convey?
Frankly, I have no idea, therefore, I am waiting the coming answers.
Emad
"paradox of virtue": a phenomenon that a conscious pursuit of a virtue can lead to a diminishing of a virtue....
Non-striving is commonly misunderstood as motionlessness, stagnation, or complete inactivity. Nothing could be more misleading. "It is the Tao of Heaven to benefit and not to injure, it is the Tao (or way) of the sage to do and not to strive." (Tao The King, 81 G. de Purucker paraphrase.) What Lao-tzu implied was not to run around tearing our hair out over being and doing. Simply be and do. Be spontaneous, act as one's own master, be in command of one's self. By running around with overconcern we waste energy and slow our progress. The spontaneous way of being, working with the natural flow of energy, is called Wu Wei. It is at once working in harmony with nature and working in harmony with our true selves. Wu Wei results in virtue:
It is the Way of Tao not to act from any personal motive; to conduct affairs without feeling the trouble of them; to taste without being aware of the flavor; to account the great as small and the small as great; to repay injury with kindness.
Virtue is thus action that is based on an understanding of Tao or of universal principles transformed into action. Teh, or virtue, is principled action. If we agree that the Tao implies an understanding that all of creation is a unity, then to act against others is in effect to act against ourselves. We cannot help being virtuous if we act in accord with the Way.
Ref: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/39-89-90/rel-cary.htm
I think he says "virtue" is something genuine , so you need not pretend it Is there because it always there :) . Please tell me what how you interpret it ...
This is an interesting question. The man of highest virtue is the perfect example of the virtues in perpetual action. S/he does not need to keep the virtue because s/he is a pinnacle or holder of virtue which is has been the only mastered episode of his life.
Diligent exhibitors of virtue are themselves the virtues, having it in their possession while standing as the advocates of it.
Lao-tzu sayings are great.
Wonderful question. It appears very contradictory but not. Probably y/our understanding level need to refine.
"A man of the highest virtue does not keep to virtue and that is why he has virtue. A man of the lowest virtue never strays from virtue and that is why he is without virtue."- means, "The former never acts yet leaves nothing undone. The latter acts but there are things left undone".
Many friends already gave wonderful answers.
Read the following Chapter-38-Commentary
(https://www.centertao.org/essays/tao-te-ching/dc-lau/chapter-38-commentary/)
The conscious search for virtue, paradoxically, diminishes this virtue. Virtue is achieved by other facts, behavior and values put into practice by humanity, by spiritual growth; and not in the pursuit of popularity or recognition of others.
regards
Jose Luis
La búsqueda consciente de la virtud, en forma paradójica, disminuye dicha virtud. La virtud se alcanza por otros hechos, conducta y valores puestos en práctica por humanidad, por crecimiento espiritual; y no en la búsqueda de popularidad o reconocimiento de los demás.
Saludos
José Luis
There are some excellent answers already given. I would just like to say that in several Eastern religions (e.g. Buddhist sorts and some others) there TYPICALLY are MANY, MANY statements where there seems to be contradiction (one can find entire sets of these). It really, in part, amounts to an exercise is learning to see words just as tools and never referring to any constant or definite thing (the meaning is not THEREIN, but may be understood WITH THEM). Another E.G.:
"When all the world sees beauty as beauty, that in itself is ugliness"
IMPORTANTLY: A similar attitude holds true ubiquitously for CONCEPTS: In fact it has been said, “The secret of Buddhism is to remove all ideas, all concepts, in order for the truth to have a chance to penetrate, to reveal itself.” This is not to say we should not use concepts, because we should communicate; it means, though, that they refer to nothing that is for-sure or constant -- and this is clear, at least of those worthy of any consideration or discussion at all.
Relatedly: the Buddha: "When in the seen will be only what is seen, in the heard only what is heard, in the sensed only what is sensed, in the known only what is known, you will not be by that; when you are not by that, you will not be therein; when you are not therein, you will be neither here, nor there, nor in between. This is the end of dukkha [(suffering)]."
[ By the way, this is NOT associated with empty-mindedness , but FREE mindedness (having some free capacity **) -- it can argued that a great deal of this is nibbana (nirvana) itself ***. ALSO, this is associated with a great understanding of causality (conditionality) -- which ultimately turns out to be understanding of true sequences, and that is all. ]
** FOOTNOTE: Good understanding (consolidation and integration) IS associated with having more free capacity in working memory (better "chunks" and related procedures) -- thus this view is not only compatible with science, but may be considered the essence of good science itself (which is also, in essence, just clear, reliable communication (aka inter-rater reliability, in practical terms)). If attention (or "deliberateness" (broad sense)) is consciousness (as is well-argued), then working memory IS consciousness. [ And all that "is anything" may become conscious; otherwise, is: to be known "by THAT" (opposite of the goal expressed by the Buddha, above, and associated with suffering/dissatisfaction). ]
*** FOOTNOTE: This does not conflict with any of the contents of the web page cited below; if it seems to, THINK better (harder?).
For more about "the" central paradox (and Buddhism as optimism FOR science), see: http://mynichecomp.com/paradox.html -- and to get a comprehensive summary of ALL of the words of the historical Buddha (Pali Canon), see the main site (all from a naturalistic, realistic (real-world), and rational perspective).
Perhaps an analogy will help. I am reminded of Pascal’s Wager. Someone who believes in God merely for the sake of the payoff is somehow missing the point of believing in God, e.g. a leap of faith that involves participating in some sort of spiritual communion or loving relationship with God.
Similarly, a man who self-consciously keeps to virtuous behavior for extraneous reasons is somehow missing a key element of virtue. Virtue should flow naturally (from e.g. fellow-feeling or or a disposition for benelovence, as Hume might say) without concern for being in keeping with social proprieties, enhancing reputation, or seeking commendation.
A good discussion may be found here:
Hektor K. T. Yan, "A Paradox of Virtue: The Daodejing on Virtue and Moral Philosophy", Philosophy East and West, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr., 2009), pp. 173-187
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40213566
Lao Tse and some of his paradoxes (which all people in a higher stage of life can reconstruct, I think) are examples for a good kind of scepticism and to become thoughtful in a good manner, good spiritual work especially for old people who can look back on their life and recognize there were many problematic situations but also some good situations, but seldom a situation or real happiness (because the feeling to be happy tends to be prolonged, but happiness becomes tedious and boring if you enjoy it for a longer time, so you need stronger stimuli to hold your happiness and this ends in high dependence of drugs and other stimuli) so Lao Tse illuminated with wisdom the paradoxes of life, for instance the difference between having and being, or the mentioned example with virtue.
Pascal's Wager is a well-dicussed example for rational reasons of the advantage of believing - not in God, of course, but believe on something, it could be also a myth or the universe in progress. So, many conditions which implies the pay-off matrix are not discussed by Pascal, he was a pious Jansenist, in full dependence of God's mercy. Most people which mentioned Pascal's Wager think it is a proof for the existence of God - far from it! :But it promotes the healthy idea that believing in a higher power has some advantages.
Lao Tzu's words may appear to be contradictory on the surface of things, but great truths are often paradoxical. There is however great wisdom in what he was trying to convey, and I think I can explain it.
The highest virtue is not virtue, therefore really is virtue. This strikes very deeply at the core of our moral and ethical conduct, because the essential message here is this: if you want to be genuinely virtuous, the one way you will not attain it is by trying to be. You see, we are always trying to be better in various ways, trying to one-up ourselves and others. One of the ways in which people do this is by being "virtuous"--but such virtue is always exceedingly self-conscious of itself. We are virtuous because we are trying to be, perhaps to raise our opinion of ourselves, or to raise our opinion of ourselves in the eyes of others. We try to cut off the unpleasant portion of our being, and really make a good show of being the "right" or "virtuous" kind of person.
The problem with this is that if we are really honest with ourselves, we find it is one-sided and phony. Evil, as Carl Jung put it, makes possible the recognition of good. In the same way, true virtue cannot be arrived at by cutting off a portion of ones being, or by trying only to think thoughts that we think are good thoughts to think, or indeed by only conducting ourselves in a way that we have learned is virtuous. This is a concealed way to pat oneself on the back, gain recognition in the eyes of others and simply does not ring true at the level of deep feeling--and we know it. This is the "not keeping to virtue" of which Lao Tzu speaks, for keeping to virtue is forced, not genuine, natural or spontaneous, and as such it is so self-conscious that it sabotages itself. It is not real virtue, but a bad cover-up job, an imitation.
The highest virtue is not trying to be virtuous, therefore it really is virtuous because it is not so caught up in making sure it sticks to some kind of philosophy or preaching. Real virtue is natural, genuine and in a certain sense, spontaneous. It is not a way of being that always has one eye on other people, and it is not concerned with appearances or self-image. Real virtue is not conscious of itself as virtue, therefore really is virtuous. We find this in moments where we stop trying to be good, and find that the real virtuous things we do often occur without us trying to make them do so. Real virtue springs forth from a level of deep feeling and it cannot be imitated by following a set of rules. At best one will be a very clever hypocrite--trying to imitate a good life by wearing its clothes.
The highest virtue is not conscious of itself as virtue, and therefore really is virtue. Lower virtue is so self-conscious that it is no longer virtuous.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics