"Reflecting on the Distinction between Philosophical Daoism and Religious Daoism Based on the Transmission and Transformation of the Concept of "Philosophy

Bibliographic Data

ID3502829
AuthorsJ Tan (0000-0002-5555-900X, City University of Hong Kong), Xiuqin Bao (0000-0003-0580-8853, Wuhan University, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume15
Issue1
Pages77
Publication date2024-01-08
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueReligions (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2077-1444 • E-ISSN: 2077-1444
PublisherMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/rel15010077
OpenAlexW4390757131
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited21

The distinction between philosophical Daoism and religious Daoism is widely influential yet highly controversial. The current popular empirical methods often overlook the vicissitude of the concepts underlying the reception history of this distinction. Therefore, this article adopts the method of intellectual history, based on the transmission and transformation of the concept of philosophy, to examine the rationales of the establishment and reception of this Daoist distinction. Here, we present that, though the Confucian tradition of ranking Daoist figures provided soil for this Daoist distinction, the establishment of the dichotomy with terminological awareness should be attributed to the cooperation between Victorian Protestant intellectuals and their late Qing Confucian collaborators. The concept of philosophy that pursues eternal wisdom and truth and traces the origin of all things has played an essential role in the establishment of this distinction. The thought of Laozi and Zhuangzi was valued and preferred in mainland China because of its deemed congruence with this Western concept of philosophy, while other more religious branches of Daoism were belittled. However, the philosophies of anti-metaphysics engender a new paradigm of thinking. On the one hand, under the influence of logical positivism and its successors, natural science has become an excellent model for other studies. In light of empirical methods, the distinction between philosophical Daoism and religious Daoism becomes an erroneous and inefficient metaphysical distinction. On the other hand, inspired by continental philosophers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Derrida, scholars gained a new perspective on understanding the thought of Laozi and Zhuangzi. Thus, a new consensus emerges: eternal truth based on concepts and logic distorts the real world of life. According to this, the distinction between philosophical Daoism and religious Daoism is only an imaginary and conceptual distinction, which does not apply to the understanding of living Daoism

China · Chinese philosophy · Epistemology · Metaphysics · Positivism · Protestantism · Chinese history and philosophy · History · Indian and Buddhist Studies · Philosophy · Religious studies