Daoist Philosophy and the Cult of Relativism.

In certain circles, those identifying themselves as relativists are hugely drawn to Eastern philosophies such as Daoism and Zen and I think there can be much confusion between them. Nowhere is the popular Taiji (or Yin - Yang) symbol more misused than in the hands of those relativists and nihilists who are drawn to Eastern alternatives to Western spirituality.

Invariably these secular mystics focus in on one specific aspect of the most popular rendition of the Taiji symbol, that of the presence of the spot of Yin within the Yang half and the spot of Yang within the Yin. This, they think, means essentially that nothing is real, for each state contains within it an aspect of its opposite thereby canceling out the validity of either state as anything absolute. In truth this reveals a coffee table book understanding of Taiji philosophy.

It is true that Daoist philosophy along with Confucian philosophy (the Taiji symbol belongs no more to one than the other) does make certain observations of the phenomenal world inasmuch as day is seen to transform into night and from there back to day again. Seasons come and go in a continuous fluctuating cycle of change. Virtue might be said to be found in moderation - balanced between extreme behaviours. But none of this calls into question the validity of those extremes. Nor does it obliterate the reality of night and day, or that of winter and summer.

Something that the modern relativist thinkers don't get about Daoism is that it is a prescribed way - the fist classic writing is called the Classic of the Way of Virtue, acknowledging that there is a right way to live one's life and that there is such a thing as virtue.

There is a world of difference between recognising that virtue might be found within the delicate balancing of opposing stimuli and stating that neither vice nor virtue exist at all. There is also a vast difference between recognising the existence of subjectivity and relativity in the world and declaring that great self-contradictory battle-cry of the relativist, that everything is relative. Further, while the truth may at times reveal paradoxes, not every paradox is true. Paradox itself is not a virtue, sometimes it can simply be a meaningless and unhelpful intellectual conceit.

It is true to say that Daoism reveres what Aristotle and Confucius might have described as the Golden Mean - the desirable middle between two extremes, but in order to be able to recognise this state of balance, one must first acknowledge the reality of the two opposing forces being balanced and to do this one must be able to recognise the truth of absolute or objective existence. Any attempt to compromise between two subjectively shifting states would arrive at nothing other than confusion. But then every angle this new popular relativist philosophy takes makes no sense when simply taken to its natural and very real conclusion.

Crucially it is also necessary to re-iterate that for the balance to be seen as virtuous it is necessary to acknowledge that certain behaviours are considered to be more desirable or virtuous than others, thereby creating a scale with right action at one end and wrong action at the other.

Finally, relativism and situationism are not the same. Whatever subjective or extenuating conditions you place on a thing and however many shades or degrees you designate along the way, (and here it may be worth pointing out that the Taiji symbol depicts clear halves of back and white rather than being a circle of mid-grey) for those conditions to relate to anything at all you must begin by discerning the reality of this and that.

I'll finish with a quote from an Incredible String Band Song:

"I mixed stones and water just to see what it would do
and the water it got stony and the stones got watery too.
So I mixed my feet with water just to see what could be seen
and the water it got dirty, and the feet they got quite clean."