Talk:Zhuangzi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Split ZhuangZi the person and Zhuangzi the book

The content of Zhaungzi the book are open to any interpretation and controversial.

Do take note Zhuangzi book are 2000 years old, the language are cryptic and the idea can be much ahead of the age. When old interpretation in the pass century are outdated, and people still refer to the old interpretation than reading the ORIGINAL idea, it is misleading.

 I suggest separate the man from the book, so anyone can put their idea,controversial, interpretation of the Zhuangzi book content over there. And make an ambiguity link to Zhuangzi.

--Littlemoo (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birth & death dates

The Hundred Schools of Thought entry references Zhuang Zi and gives his lifespan as 369 - 286 BC. Is there a reason his birth and death are not given here, in his own entry? Disputed? --Ds13 06:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space in names

I am still wondering how the name of ancient Chinese masters should be written. Here we have three possibile forms: Zhuang Zi, Zhuang zi, and Zhuangzi. Imo, we could use first for the man and third for the book, in italic. So "Zhuang Zi wrote the Zhuangzi"

The same for many other ones: Mo Zi, Lao Zi, Xun Zi, Sun Zi, Lie Zi, and so on... gbog 17:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Zhuang zi" is just weird English capitalization. You might as well write it you're nZhuang-zi.

I agree that Zhuangzi is to be used as book title.

For people's name, I'd go either way, but leaning toward Zhuangzi.

--Menchi 08:57, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I, too, support a change to Zhuangzi. --Benna 06:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't wise. "Zhuang" and "Zi" are separate Chinese characters. When translating names, It is customary to write separate characters in separate English words, since part of an oriental name is likely to contain a surname ("Zhuang" in this case).

The standard scholarly transliteration is now 'Zhuangzi'; this should be used. The book title is Zhuangzi. Also, it is not customary in transliterating names (according to the scheme now dominant: Hanyu Pinyin) to write characters separately; rather one separates and capitalises words, so 'Mao Zedong' and 'Beijing' but not 'Mao Ze Dong' and 'Bei Jing'. --霊村 06:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issues

Is Watson's translation still subject to copyright? I thought it was; perhaps the quote is illegal? Watson's translations of Zhuangzi are copyrighted by Columbia University Press.

Can we add the category:Eck Masters (see ECK_master#Historical_figures_as_ECK_masters) or is the Eckankar religous group too obscure and idiosyncratic? Andries 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rm References

The list of references removed is actually pretty good. Several of those books are among the most respected scholarly works about Zhuangzi around.

Were they too peripheral to the Zhuangzi itself? Why were they removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiawen (talk • contribs) 06:37, 14 October 2005

They weren't referred to in the article, so weren't references. Wikipedi isn't a set of reading lists; many topics could build up bibliographies of hundreds, if not thousands, of good, scholarly, authoritative books and papers. I sympathise with your concern, butthe normal response is that, if a source has something important enough to go into the article, the material should be added; if it needn't be added, then we don't need to add the source. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My and Mel's edits

Mel, you removed some material that I added and changed some of the language needlessly. Mention of The Matrix helps show how much influence the Zhuangzi has had in Western philosophy, and while it could be argued that that movie's solipsism was derived from other sources, I think it's clear that Zhuangzi's influence was huge.

The grammatical and typographical edits you made were also not necessary. Adding a serial comma, changing a period (aka full stop) to a semicolon and the other changes seem intended to introduce British English, not to actually correct any errors. "Do translation" is perfectly acceptable American English; "make [a] translation" is generally not.

I also don't really see the point of removing the link to Chinese language; the first link (at the beginning of the article) is easy to lose sight of, and it seems perfectly natural to me to link again to the language when discussing how Zhuangzi uses the language.

Please don't make such changes without consulation.

Thank you, though, for removing the "may may" redundancy.

Jiawen 23:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Influencing The Matrix is, first, your surmise, uncited original research; secondly, it says nothing about Western philosophy (which has no relation to the film).

There are quite a few other people who think The Matrix was influenced by Zhuangzi:

The fact that people see an influence show that there is an influence on Western philosophy. Establishing whether or not the Wachowskis were influenced is difficult, but I think it's manifestly clear that they were influenced by Zhuangzi, at least in an indirect way.

Your contention that the Matrix has nothing to do with Western philosophy also sounds very NPOV to me. You may write it off as silly or whatever (and I'd probably agree with you), but the fact is, it's one of the most influential pieces of philosophy in the past couple decades, and it's most definitely Western.

Also, having a section on Zhuangzi's influence is a good thing. As it stands, it's part of "beliefs", which is not really an appropriate heading. Why not have a section on Zhuangzi's later influence?

The punctuation is in line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and normal English usage, not British English.

Serial commas are always arguable, but I disagree with your use of the semicolon. The two sentences are not connected.

Wikipedia is about making such changes without consultation, espcially things like punctuation or uncited material. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Typos, yes; legitimate information, no. It'd be better to ask, especially since I'm one of the people who has contributed most to this article. Otherwise, we could get into an edit war. See dispute resolution.

Jiawen 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your claims about the Matrix and philosophy are simply false. The Matrix is a moderately entertaining film that uses some ideas that have been discussed in philosophy for decades; philosophy may have had an influence on the film (probably indirectly), not vice versa. The film is certainly not philosophy except in the loosest, most vacuous sense of the word.

Where did I say that The Matrix had an effect on philosophy? My original statement was that Zhuangzi's philosophy had an effect on The Matrix.

And again, The Matrix is seen by many people as a deeply philosophical film. I agree that it's not actually that deep, and certainly not very academically rigorous. But it is an example of modern Western philosophy, and it's a good example of Zhuangzi's influence on modern, Western beliefs.

Simply stating again that a popular film is philosophy isn't enough. It's unclear what you mean by "philosophy", but at the very best you're committing the fallacy of equivocation, using "philosophy" to mean one thing when talking about Zhuangzi, and another when talking about the film. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several meanings to the word "philosophy". I am here using it in its broad sense of "thinking about the meaning of life, the question of knowledge and the nature of reality". I am specifically not using it in its sense of "scholarly, rigorous Western-style logical derivation of truth and meaning". If that's the sense we're using, the Zhuangzi itself isn't philosophy!

Serial commas aren't arguable; they're specifically given as Wikipedia style in the MoS.

I'll concede the serial comma point.

The idea that the two sentences are connected is odd; could you explain how?

Huh? The two sentences ("However, some sinologists have tried" and "a very popular translation is the one by Burton Watson") are not connected, at least not enough to be linked by a semicolon. That was my whole point.

Your final comment comes perilously close to claiming ownership of the article. I'd back off from that idea; it's strictly against Wikipedia policy. If you start trying to edit-war over the violation of policies and guidelines such as MoS punctuation, NPoV and uncited claims, etc., I'll take steps to have the article protected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That is unnecessarily antagonistic. I did not suggest ownership. What I said was that I've contributed a lot to this article, and that, as per the dispute guidelines, it would've been good if you'd asked me first before reverting my edits. Why not ask "Where's your evidence for Zhuangzi's influence on the Matrix?" instead of just immediately reverting it?

If you think it's not possible for us to reach agreement, maybe we should ask for arbitration. I've submitted a request to the Mediation Cabal.

Jiawen 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My impression was that the unnecessary antagonism was introduced by you from the beginning, but let that pass. Mediation seems somewhat over the top for a two-day disagreement over a minor part of an article. An RfC on the article would be more appropriate. I'll do that now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the RfC. Oh, wait, I finally found it.

You state that you think the antagonism was introduced by me; I need to defend myself here. You reverted my edits -- most of which were perfectly good and really pretty much unarguable (sectional division, link to solipsism, word choice, etc.) -- without any explanation, indeed dismissively labeling them "tidying". When I tried to engage in discussion about the issue, you almost immediately resorted to the threat of locking the article. Instead of engaging my points, you have used threats and belittling, and you have carefully avoided many of my actual points. I haven't seen any constructive response to my point about the semicolon, nor about the idea of adding a section for "Influence on later philosophy", nor to my list of people who see influences of the Zhuangzi in The Matrix.

You have consistently used antagonistic language: "vacuous" -- although applied to The Matrix, this could equally well be applied to the Zhuangzi itself, as I mentioned above -- you seem only to allow a definition of "philosophy" that does not admit the very subject matter we are discussing; "moderately entertaining" -- damning by droll praise; ignoring my points rather than conceding them; suggesting that I'm trying to assert ownership when I did no such thing; not providing a link to the RfC (not everyone knows where this is!). A lot of your actions show me that you're not very interested in resolving this amicably.

The fact that you put in an RfC, though, is a bright spot. (I edited it slightly to better reflect the overall discussion.) And, thoroughly flustered though I am, I'd still like to reach consensus with you. What would you think about taking Sethie's point and saying that many people have drawn parallels between Zhuangzi and The Matrix, and leaving it at that?

Jiawen 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sectional division: see Wikipedia:Use subheadings sparingly
The solipsism link was part of the opinion concerning the Matrix, so went with it. Incidentally, what solipsistic elements?
Standard English is to make, not to do translations.
If the sentence "A very popular translation is the one by Burton Watson." isn't related to the sentence "However, some sinologists have tried.", why does it follow it? without the semi-colon the text is staccato and disjointed.
There is nothing anatagonistic about the use of the word "vacuous" when applied to a popular usage of the word "philosophy" (not to the Matrix, and not to Zhuangzi), any more than there is in your usage of "silly" when applied to the film. If either of us had used those words of the other, things would have been different. It's better not to look for offence where none exists.
Of course things turn on the correct use of "philosophy" — and it could at least equally well be said that you're insisting on a use of "philosophy" that suits what you want to say.
How is faint praise of a film antagonistic? Again, don't look for offence so assiduously.
Which of your points have I ignored? Do you really think that not conceding your points is in itself antagonistic?
The RfC isn't for people reading this page, but to attract new editors, which is why I didn't think to provide a link; sorry.
Many people have drawn parallels between a host of films and various philosophies and religions, usually dubiously, often absurdly. Your examples are blogs and on-line forums, which don't meet Wikipedia standards for citations. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the way it stands now, Zhuangzi's influence on later thought is part of "Zhuangzi's Thought". The text's influence on later thought does, in fact, belong in a separate section.
Specifically, the butterfly story -- just what I originally noted.
This is wrong. No one I know says "make translations", and I am a professional interpreter. Perhaps this is standard British English?
They are part of the same broad thought (translations of the Zhuangzi), and therefore they belong in the paragraph together, but they are not logically connected enough to be joined by a semicolon. The first sentence is about the difficulty of doing translation work re: the Zhuangzi; the second is about which translations have been popular. Again, the first sentence is about difficulty, while the second is about popularity. Because they are not so tightly connected, they should not be joined by a semicolon. They are two separate thoughts, and should be given periods.
"Vacuous" is a demeaning word. I hope you don't seriously deny this. If you think that The Matrix is not academically rigorous, is not serious, doesn't really try to answer any questions or answer them -- then say so. Avoid using value-laden labels like "vacuous" when discussing another person's points.
The fact is, for most people, "philosophy" means just what I said: "thinking about the meaning of life, the question of knowledge and the nature of reality". Again, if you mean strict logical argument from first principles, Zhuangzi does not match this definition. I could make the argument that the popular use of a word is its meaning, but I'm not sure that I agree with that, at least where academic discussion and documentation (i.e., Wikipedia) is concerned. However, I doubt that the word "philosophy" is in fact used as you mean it throughout Wikipedia, and in the interest of consistency, it may be best to use it that way. To be honest, though, I would welcome a more strict usage of the word. We just have to find a different thing to call the Zhuangzi, then. And, whatever that new label is, it will apply equally to The Matrix.
So, then, let's find a different word. I think that the common usage is closer to what I said than to the meaning you seem to be using, but I do welcome academically rigorous use of words. However, as I said, that new label, whatever it is, will apply equally well to the Zhuangzi and The Matrix.
It was very droll and perhaps sarcastic.
You have now responded to most of them. Previously, though, you had not.
As for conceding points, see Wikiquette: "Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste."
Thank you for saying that.
One of the references is from "Susan Napier, a professor of Japanese literature and culture at the University of Texas". Not a dubious commentor. And again: My point was that philosophy -- of whatever sort -- has been influenced by Zhuangzi. According to most people's definitions, The Matrix is philosophy, and it is most definitely very popular, even if you disagree that it's philosophy. Showing the Zhuangzi's influence on The Matrix shows how much influence the book has had in Western thought. I showed popular influence, rather than academic influence, but it was influence all the same.

What do you think of taking Sethie's suggestion and saying that people have drawn parallels between Zhuangzi and The Matrix?

Jiawen 06:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, any more than Copernicus is part of Plato's thought, though he was certainly influenced by Plato.
You'll have to explain (though a story within the film is pretty minor to make much of, especially in an article about Zhuangzi).
Well, I've never heard or read "do translations", and I've also been involved in translations, as well as using and working with translations and translators in my main professional career. I'll try Googling the teo phrases if I get a moment.

Actually I'm not going to bother with this point-by-point stuff. I've just seen your comments about "vacuous", and you seem determined to take offence at something that's clearly not offensive — to the extent that you're still insisting that I used the word of the film when a glance further up the page will show that I didn't (just to do the work for you: "film is certainly not philosophy except in the loosest, most vacuous sense of the word."). Note, though, that this isn't a philosophical version of 1066 and All That; we're not supposed to be explaining what most people already understand, but informing them, going beyond what they understand. If most people think of philosophy in a vague, loose way, then we need clearly to explain how it's used in this and other philosophy articles, not pander to their prejudices. And I still very strongly disagree that "According to most people's definitions, The Matrix is philosophy"; I don't know anyone, in or out of philosophy, on or out of the academic world, who thinks that. Some of them think (wrongly, in my view) that it's philosophically interesting, or involves deep philosophical ideas, but that's very different matter. As I've already said, I think that the claim that people have drawn parallels between Zhuangzi and the Matrix is weak, trivial, and at best unhelpful (at worst, misleading). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Came here via RfC.

If you find a source that shows the connection, by all means add it in. Otherwise, it is your thoughts about the movie, which would be great on a blog, but not so here.

I mean, there are SO MANY philosophies that can be connected to the Matrix.....looking over the sources you cited, the best I think you could get away with is that some people have drawn parrelss between Zhuangzi and the Matrix.Sethie 22:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A second comment via RfC: While the matrix clearly has spiritualist roots (at least the original movie; the later episodes got a bit sophomoric, IMO), I don't think it can be traced to any specific faith or philosophical perspective. there are elements in it that could be ascribed to zhuangzi, yes, but they could also be ascribed to hindu mythological structures, or some forms of buddhism, or (perhaps most accuratelty) certain shamanic practices. the central theme - of an illusory world in which we are held in unknowing bondage - is common to all forms of mysticism, and the specifics are not all that consistent with taoist thought or practice (awakening through the artificial means of taking a pill; a population of entities that inhabit various planes of existence; the excessive emphasis on violence... what would zhuangzi think?). at best you could say that the movie demonstrates an increasing awareness of some generic mysticisms in popular thought, and that this extends itself to scientific and philosophical thinking (because scientists and philosophers probably do love these kinds of movies); but without some strong and convincing evidence that the screenwriters (or the original author of the stories the Matrix came from, whatever they were) were intentionally drawing on Z to design the story universe, I don't think the argument can be effectively made. Ted 09:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree pretty much with Ted above -- it is as easy to argue that The Matrix was influenced by Ken Wilber as much as Zhuangzi. Heck, they even had Wilber do a commentary track. At the moment it's original research. However, there probably ARE scholarly articles you can cite to create the connection if you want to do the homework: "Zhuangzi's influence can be felt even in Western pop culture, (reference scholarly Zhuangzi/Matrix connection here)" and link out. I don't think you're WRONG, and I think Western pop culture contains an interesting amount of "trickledown," I just think you need a source to make the tie work in a Wikipedia article. --MattShepherd 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the contention that the Matrix was influenced by Zhuangzi constitutes original research. Unless Jaiwen can come up with a good citation (i.e., not a blog), it should not be mentioned in the article. Sunray 07:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dao versus Tao

It seems like Tao is the common form on the wikipedia. I'm going to disambiguate Dao in a second, then come back and change Dao to Tao in a while unless some watcher objects -- Kendrick7 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I object. The standard transliteration scheme for scholarly writing is now Hanyu Pinyin, which transliterates '道' as 'Dao'. I agree that 'Tao' (which conforms to a previous scheme) is more commonly seen; however, in an effort to unify usage across Wikipedia, I recommend conformance to the scheme dominant in scholarly work. --霊村 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN refs

Thank you for this useful page. However, some of the ISBNs are not valid and so are not retrieved by book searching sites. I realise that ISBNs have changed format, so they may all have to be revisted.

I believe I have fixed all problematic ISBNs. If not, please advise. Keesiewonder 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hakym Bey

Hakym Bey also spoke well bout Zhuangzi´s anarchism as a cultural resistance against maoism. I just couldnt find the article again but i believe he refered to Zhuangzi as Chuang Tzu. Can anyone help finding this article? --189.33.226.167 (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here you are: Aimless Wandering: Chuang Tzu's Chaos Linguistics (1993) (as Hakim Bey; Xexoxial Editions (La Farge, Wisconsin)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 01:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inner Chapters Author

This articles mentions the Inner Chapters are believed to have been written by a single author. However, the introduction to my translation (by Kristofer Schipper) of the book mentions that style differences are too big to have been written by a single author. I've tagged the sentence mentioning that they were written by a single author as requiring a citation. Clearly, this is not unanimously agreed upon. DDSaeger (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)