Philosophy with ChatGPT: A History of Chinese Thought on Love (6) Zhuangzi - To 'love' is not to make the other your own - A philosophy of freedom, the other, and the equality of all things
I am posting the results of the philosophy I have conducted together with ChatGPT.
This time, I will introduce the sixth installment of the history of Chinese thought on love proposed by ChatGPT: 'Love in Zhuangzi'.
While it is hard to say whether the analysis is entirely valid, I would appreciate it if you could watch over this as one perspective proposed by ChatGPT.
*I would appreciate it if you could read the entire series together.
********************
A History of Chinese Thought on Love (6)
Zhuangzi - To 'love' is not to make the other your own
- A philosophy of freedom, the other, and the equality of all things
Introduction - The love of 'wanting to understand'
When we have someone we love, we want to 'understand' them.
What are they thinking? What do they like? What do they dislike? What hurts them? What do they desire?
We want to understand the other person. We want to understand their feelings.
At first glance, this is the most natural form of love.
However, there is a strange problem here.
The more we want to understand the other person, the more we end up creating an image of them as 'this kind of person'.
'This person is kind,' 'This person dislikes these things,' 'If it were this person, they would surely do this,' 'They said this because they care about me.'
In this way, the living human being in front of us is replaced, before we know it, by an 'image of the other' within ourselves.
Moreover, that image is often reinforced by love.
Because I love them, I think I know them well.
Because they are precious, I think I understand their feelings.
Because you have been together for a long time, you think you understand the other person better than anyone else.
However, is that really the case?
Zhuangzi's philosophy is very cautious about this concept of 'understanding'.
And that caution holds significant meaning when thinking about love.
If Laozi thought of 'love that does not dominate the other,' Zhuangzi goes even further, allowing us to think of
'love that does not confine the other within one's own understanding'
as a concept.
1 Does 'love' exist in Zhuangzi?
There is something I would like to confirm first.
Zhuangzi is not a thinker who systematically preaches an ethic of 'one should love others' like Confucius or Mencius.
He does not advocate love as a social principle like Mozi's 'universal love' (jian'ai).
Therefore, it is slightly inaccurate to simply say, 'Zhuangzi is a thinker of love.'
How do humans view others? How do we accept beings that are different from ourselves? Are we not judging the world solely by our own value standards?
He thinks through these problems thoroughly.
From there, he thinks about love.
Then, rather than answering directly 'what is love,' Zhuangzi can be read as a thinker who considers
how one must view the other for love to be established
as a concept.
This is a quite significant difference.
When we talk about love, we tend to start from our own 'emotions'.
I like you. You are precious. I am worried about you. I want to protect you. I want to be with you.
However, Zhuangzi first asks,
“As what kind of existence do you see that person?”
he asks.
2 'Equality of Things'—Do not view the world only through your own value standards
Crucial to understanding Zhuangzi's thought is the concept of 'the equality of things' (qiwu).
In the 'Qiwulun' (Discussion on the Equality of Things) chapter of the Zhuangzi, it is repeatedly argued that judgments about what is right or wrong, or what is beautiful or ugly, change depending on one's perspective.
This is not a simple relativism that claims 'everything is the same.'
Rather, it means
not assuming that the world as seen from where you stand is the world itself.
that is.
For example, while a quiet life might be happiness for one person, a life full of stimulation might be happiness for another.
For one person, marriage might be a natural way of life, while for another, living alone might be more natural.
One person prefers the city, while another prefers the countryside.
This much is simple.
However, when it comes to human relationships, we suddenly become strict.
“You won't be happy with that way of thinking.” “This is what people normally do.” “If you really loved them, you would do this.” “If they were a precious person, they should think this way.”
In other words, we apply our own value standards to the other person.
Zhuangzi's 'equality of things' fundamentally re-examines this attitude.
The fact that the other person is different from you does not mean that the other person is wrong.
This seemingly obvious thing is extremely difficult when it comes to love.
3. 'Understanding the other' does not mean making the other the same as yourself
I want to understand the person I love.
This wish is a very beautiful one.
However, the word 'understand' has a slightly dangerous side to it.
When we understand how someone else feels, we use our own experiences.
'If it were me, I would feel this way.'
'If it were me, I would be sad in this situation.'
'If it were me, I wouldn't say something like that.'
And we try to understand the other person based on those standards.
Of course, that is necessary.
However, that alone cannot capture the uniqueness of the other person.
Because the other person is not you.
Even if you experience the same event, you don't necessarily feel the same way.
Even if you hear the same words, you don't necessarily interpret them the same way.
Even if you are shown the same affection, you don't necessarily feel happy in the same way.
In other words, understanding the other person does not mean making them the same as yourself.
Rather, it is understanding that they exist in a way that is different from you.
Zhuangzi's philosophy places great importance on this 'difference'.
4. 'The Butterfly Dream' — You cannot even fix who you are
One of the representative anecdotes of Zhuangzi is 'The Butterfly Dream'.
Zhuang Zhou became a butterfly in a dream.
He flew around freely as a butterfly and did not know that he was Zhuang Zhou.
When he woke up, he was Zhuang Zhou.
So Zhuang Zhou wonders, 'Did Zhuang Zhou dream he was a butterfly, or is the butterfly now dreaming it is Zhuang Zhou?'
This anecdote is not simply about being unable to distinguish between dreams and reality.
What is important is that the fixed self-perception of 'who I am' itself is being shaken.
This contains an interesting problem when thinking about love as well.
We think, 'I am this kind of person' or 'This person is that kind of person.'
However, human beings are not such fixed existences.
The self of yesterday is different from the self of today.
The self of five years ago is different from the self of now.
Meeting someone can also change who you are.
In other words, the person you love is not a fixed 'this person.'
The other person keeps changing. And you keep changing, too.
Therefore, loving might not be about concluding that 'I have understood this person,' but rather
about re-encountering the ever-changing other each and every timeperhaps.
5 'Transformation of Things' (Wuhua) — Not fixing the person you love
Zhuangzi has an important concept called 'transformation of things' (wuhua).
All things change.
People change.
You yourself change.
The world is not fixed; it is constantly changing.
Accepting this 'change' is extremely important for love.
In romantic relationships, we sometimes project the past version of the other onto the current version.
'You used to be like this.'
'You were kinder before.'
'You contacted me more in the beginning.'
'You weren't this kind of person when we started dating.'
However, the fact that the other person has changed is not necessarily a bad thing.
Human beings change.
Jobs change.
Environments change.
Values change.
Ways of thinking change with age.
Therefore, the wish for someone to 'remain the person I first fell in love with' also means fixing them to their past self.
Thinking in the way of Zhuangzi, that goes against the 'transformation of things'.
The other changes.
You also change.
To see the other includes accepting that change.
Love is not about loving someone as a 'person who does not change', but rather,
loving them as a being that continues to changeis it not?
6 Why do 'possession' and 'love' tend to draw closer?
A sense of possession easily creeps into love.
Lover. Best friend. Family.
'A special person to me'.
In such relationships, a sense of 'being only mine' is born.
'My lover.'
'My best friend.'
'My child.'
Of course, this is a normal way of speaking.
However, there is also danger in that.
Because 'being mine' can turn into the meaning of 'doing as I please'.
Because you are my lover, I want you to contact me.
Because you are my best friend, I want you to prioritize me.
Because you are family, I want you to meet my expectations.
Because you are my child, I want you to live the life I desire for you.
When it comes to this, love turns into possession.
Looking from the perspective of Zhuangzi's philosophy, there is a danger here of seeing the other as an 'object'.
Objects can be used for one's own purposes.
However, humans are not objects.
The other has a world of their own.
The other person has their own desires, their own values, and their own life.
Therefore, a 'loved one' and 'something that belongs to you' are different.
This is a very important distinction in love.
7 'Love that sets the other free'
If Laozi's 'compassion' means 'not controlling the other,' then with Zhuangzi, we can go even further to
enjoying the fact that the other is a being different from oneself.
can be advanced.
If the other person is the same as you, it is easy to understand them.
The same values. The same hobbies. The same way of thinking. The same outlook on life.
However, is that the only form of love?
Rather, there are times when we are drawn to people who are different from ourselves.
Ways of thinking we do not have. Sensibilities we do not have. Talents we do not have. Ways of living we do not have.
By touching upon those differences, our own world expands.
In other words, loving is not about 'finding someone the same as yourself,' but
also about 'living together with a person who possesses a world different from your own.'
Zhuangzi-style love does not attempt to erase these differences.
Rather, it considers that the world becomes richer precisely because there are differences.
This is likely a very important perspective for modern romantic relationships as well.
8 The danger of the phrase 'I understand you'
'I want to understand you.'
There is a kindness in these words.
However, the phrasing 'I understand you' can sometimes introduce a slight power imbalance.
This is because you become the 'one who understands,' and the other becomes the 'one who is understood.'
Furthermore, when you say, 'I understand you better than anyone,' you are prioritizing your own understanding over the other person's self-understanding.
'This is what you really think.'
'This is what you really want to do, isn't it?'
'You haven't realized it yourself, but this is the kind of person you are.'
At first glance, this may seem like a very deep understanding.
However, in some cases, it is stripping the other person of their own voice.
If the other person says, 'That's not what I think,' and you reply, 'No, that's what you really think,' they lose the right to speak about themselves.
Thinking in the way of Zhuangzi,understanding someone is different from defining them.
Understanding is not about trapping the other person within your own explanation.
Rather, it includes the acknowledgment that 'there are parts of them I do not understand.'
9 Being together while not knowing
Here lies a very interesting possibility for love in the philosophy of Zhuangzi.
To love is not 'to understand the other person completely.'
Rather, could it be'to be with someone even though you cannot fully understand them'?
This applies not only to romantic love.
It is the same for parents and children, and for friends.
Even if you have been together for many years, you cannot fully know the other person's heart.
That is precisely why human relationships continue.
The moment you think, 'I understand everything now,' the other person becomes a fixed character within your own mind.
However, if you think, 'There are still things I don't know about this person,' you can see them anew today.
This is also a way of respecting the other as an indeterminate being.
Love requires not only 'knowing,' but also 'being able to remain in a state of not knowing.'
10 'The Usefulness of the Useless' — Loving things that have no use
Zhuangzi has a famous concept called the 'usefulness of the useless.'
Humans immediately think, 'What is this useful for?'
Useful people. Useful knowledge. Useful skills. Useful time.
However, Zhuangzi shows that there is also value in 'useless things.'
This is also extremely important when thinking about love.
When you fall in love with someone, you don't just like them based on the profit or loss of 'what will this person give me?'
It's fun to be together. I like them for some reason. I'm happy when they are there. It's interesting just talking to them.
Their very existence is what is important.
Here, there is a value that transcends the scale of 'useful/useless.'
In other words,
to love is not to treat that person as a 'means to an end,' but to cherish them as 'the person themselves'
as well.
This is also where it differs from Mozi's 'universal love' (jian'ai).
Mozi linked love to social benefit.
'Universal love and mutual benefit.' If we love each other, benefit is created for society.
In contrast, from a Zhuangzian perspective,
It becomes important to be free from the very idea that something is 'important because it is useful'.
This is what becomes important.
Love does not exist because it is useful.
It finds value in the very fact that the person exists.
This is a very important philosophy in modern society.
11 Is it necessary to love only humans?
Zhuangzi's philosophy extends even further beyond humans.
In the 'Zhuangzi', the idea of not thinking about the world with only humans at the center appears repeatedly.
Animals also live in their own worlds.
Birds have their own way of living.
Fish have their own way of living.
Even things that might seem 'ugly' or 'useless' from a human perspective have their own way of existing.
This also connects to modern environmental ethics and animal ethics.
For example, what does it mean to love a dog?
It is not about making the dog convenient for humans.
It is not just about saying, 'It is a good dog because it listens well to humans.'
Dogs have their own sensory world. They have their own desires. They have their own lives.
Respecting that way of existing.
This means that 'humans should not evaluate animals solely by human value standards'.
To love is also not to measure the other solely by your own yardstick.
12 'The Joy of Fish' - We cannot fully know the world of the other
In the 'Zhuangzi', there is a famous scene where Huizi and Zhuangzi argue about the joy of fish by the Hao River.
Zhuangzi says, "The fish are swimming happily."
Then Huizi retorts, "You are not a fish, so how do you know that the fish are happy?"
This can be read as a question of whether we can know the mind of another.
We cannot completely know the inner life of another.
We do not know what the fish are feeling.
We do not fully know the hearts of others.
We do not even fully know the heart of our lover.
However, we still engage with others.
Does this condition of "not being able to know completely" make love impossible?
It is actually the opposite.
Precisely because we cannot know completely, we ask the other questions. We listen. We observe. We imagine.
And sometimes, we are wrong. Each time, we learn to know the other anew.
Love may not be about knowing the other completely, but rather,
continuing to engage with a being that cannot be fully known
perhaps.
13 Love and 'Identification' are different
When empathy for another deepens, one may progress from "I understand how you feel" to "I feel the same way as you."
However, this is somewhat dangerous.
Because understanding the other's suffering is different from becoming the other person yourself.
For example, a friend has had their heart broken. You empathize, saying, "That must be painful."
This respects the other person.
However, if you say, "I am just as hurt" or "I understand your feelings better than you do," you risk replacing the other's suffering with your own experience.
From a Zhuangzi-esque perspective,
It is important not to erase the differences with others.
is important.
Love is not just about 'becoming one'.
Rather, there is value in the fact that two people form a relationship while remaining separate beings. is valuable.
This point will also be important later when considering the 'oneness of all things' in Yangming studies.
14 'Non-possessive love' in romantic relationships
Let's apply what we have discussed so far to romantic love.
You love your partner. At such times, you might think, 'Because they are my partner, they should prioritize me.' However, being a partner does not mean owning the other person's entire life.
The other person has friends. They have work. They have hobbies. They have time for themselves. They also have a world they do not show you.
That is not a betrayal.
Rather, it is natural for a human being.
If you demand that the person you love live only in 'your world,' the other person becomes diminished.
Conversely, if you acknowledge that 'this person has a world I do not understand,' the other person expands as an individual.
Therefore, one could say that a Zhuangzi-style romantic relationship is
not confining the other person solely to the role of your partner.
It can be said that.
Before being a partner, they are an individual existence.
They are someone precious to you, and at the same time, someone you cannot possess.
Accepting this contradiction.
That is 'non-possessive love'.
15 When Free Individuals Meet
At the heart of Zhuangzi is 'Xiaoyaoyou' (Free and Easy Wandering).
To be unfixed by anything and to wander freely.
This is not merely being whimsical.
It is about liberating oneself from fixed value standards and living freely within the world.
When we apply this to love, a relationship emerges where two people who love each other set each other free becomes visible.
It is not being bound solely by roles such as 'I do this because I am a lover,' 'I do this because I am family,' or 'I do this because I am a best friend.'
Each person lives freely as an individual.
And upon that foundation, they are together.
At first glance, this might seem like love has become weaker.
However, it is actually the opposite.
They are together while being free. They are together even though they could leave.
They are not entrusting their lives to the other, but relating to the other while living their own lives.
Here, there is a relationship deeper than possession.
16 From Laozi's 'Compassion' to Zhuangzi's 'Freedom'
Last time, we thought about Laozi.
Laozi's 'compassion' meant not dominating the other.
Do not change the other to suit your own will. Respect the other's natural state of being. Avoid excessive intervention through 'wu-wei' (non-action).
Zhuangzi takes this one step further.
Not only do you not dominate the other, but you also do not fix the other within your own understanding.
Do not define the other.
Do not confine the other to a role.
Do not fix the other to their past self.
Do not judge the other solely by your own standards.
And, acknowledge that the other is a being different from yourself.
Therefore, if Laozi opened the path to 'love without possession,'
we can consider that Zhuangzi opened the path to 'love without fixation.'
17 To 'love' is to rejoice in the other's freedom
Thinking about it this far, the meaning of 'to love' changes a little.
To love is not:
To make the other your own.
To make the other the same as yourself.
To completely understand the other.
To make the other conform to your ideals.
Rather,
to acknowledge that the other lives freely as a being different from yourself, and to rejoice in that freedom
is that not what it is?
Of course, in reality, this is not easy.
If you love someone, you want them to be by your side.
You want them to understand you.
You want them to cherish you.
You want them to choose you.
That is precisely why 'love without possession' is demanding.
Because acknowledging the other's freedom also means acknowledging their freedom to make choices different from your own desires.
Even so, if you can think, 'I want to cherish the fact that you are free,' love is liberated from possession.
Conclusion: Is love not about 'understanding,' but about 'respecting without understanding'?
Confucius's 'Ren' was a love that valued relationships with others.
Mencius's 'compassion' was a love where the heart is moved by the suffering of others.
Mozi's 'universal love' was a love that broadly valued others beyond specific relationships.
Laozi's 'kindness' was a love that did not dominate the other, but respected them living as themselves.
And Zhuangzi deepens the question further.
Is valuing the other the same as understanding the other?
If so, what does it mean to understand?
Is it about explaining the other?
Is it about categorizing the other?
Is it about knowing that 'this person is this kind of person'?
Zhuangzi casts doubt on that.
People change. I change. Others change. The world changes.
Therefore, you cannot fix the other person into a single image.
And you cannot completely enter the inner world of the other.
Yet, we still love someone.
So, perhaps love is...
not 'to completely understand the other,' but 'to continue to respect the other whom you cannot fully understand'
Isn't that what it is?
Here, there is a very important shift regarding love.
Love is not just 'understanding,' but also 'accepting what you do not understand.'
Love is not just 'drawing near,' but also 'maintaining distance from the other.'
Love is not just 'becoming one,' but also 'being together as separate existences.'
And above all,
to love is not to make the other your own, but to protect the other's right to be themselves
is what it is.
However, a new problem arises here.
If setting the other free is love, how can society function?
If humans each live freely, what happens to our responsibility toward others?
Can families and society be maintained solely by the idea of 'I set you free because I love you'?
And are humans truly beings who naturally cherish others?
This is where Xunzi and Han Feizi enter the picture.
Xunzi had strong doubts about trusting human desires as they are.
And Han Feizi believed that social order cannot be maintained by love or morality alone.
Next time,
Can society function on love alone?
I would like to consider this somewhat tougher question than we have faced before.
Love has potential. However, love also has its limits.
By considering those limits, the meaning of the word 'love' should become even clearer.