Philosophy

Zhuangzi

The story that Zhuangzi offers on pages 216-217 is the basis for this discussion. In this excerpt, Zhuangzi sets up a conversation between Gaptooth and Royal Relativity. I think that the names used within this story may have been deliberate. While I'm not exactly sure about "Gaptooth", Royal Relativity stuck with me throughout the passage; most likely because I thought that the underlining pertained to the idea of relativity.

This story seems to be asking, or rather, dealing with the issue of how we come to understand or know right and wrong. I think that the way Zhuangzi would respond to what is right and what is wrong would beÐ'...it depends. It seems like Zhuangzi is saying that what is right is relative to the individual or being. The same thing would then apply to what is wrong. If this is what Zhuangzi is saying then I think it would be safe to assume that Zhuangzi doesn't believe in the idea that there are universal laws or rules, but rather rules that apply to specifics.

I wonder, however, if my previous statement is true because if nobody knows what is right then how can two of the same species come to any conclusion, no matter the outcome. If beings are relative to their worlds, then at what point can we begin to categorize. It would seem that if nobody could decipher between right and wrong, whether from the same species or not, then nothing would be the same, everything would be different. This, I think, is especially true when you think about how agreement isn't thought of as truth but as a mere chance. This passage seems to sayÐ'... What Is to MeÐ'...Is what Is.