A being known as 'the sage' is often mentioned in the writings of Chinese Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi. The sage is represented as a divine ideal — a being who expresses the ultimate wisdom, yet physically, is a human being. According to Zhuangzi, the perspective of a sage is embodied by a divine acceptance in the inherent subjectivity if all things; or in other words, rejecting to choose a single perspective and in doing so allowing all perspectives to coexist in their own 'rightness'. This must include the 'rightness' of the subjectivity the sage himself perceives, being human. This leaves the emotions and senses of the sage as a subdivision of his subjectivity, and compatible with his encompassing perspective by being part of it.
The perspective …show more content…
Yet Zhuangzi can speak of the usefulness of such uselessness, for the tree would never be cut down, and be safe from harm (1:15).
The sage adopts the viewpoint from where he can see each individual viewpoint but does not seek whether or not one is more correct than the other. Instead, he would “entrust it to the everyday function [of each being].” (2:29), not looking for some deeper meaning. By accepting the way things are by not giving them any definition, the sage is able to achieve harmony by not agreeing to any particular thing. …show more content…
Zhuangzi's answer is that the sage is free in the sense that he does not let his likes or dislikes, ergo his emotional bias, to “damage” him internally and cloud his judgement. The sage lives without imputing whatever subjective rightness he thinks a thing should have, and instead affirms that each thing is 'right' of itself (5:23). In this sense, the sage will not let emotions affect his perspective because they coexist along with his own subjectivity, which is also a thing that possesses its own 'rightness'. Therefore, emotions are compatible with a sage's perspective, but only as a subdivision of his personal judgement — which holds no greater significance than the judgement of
The perspective …show more content…
Yet Zhuangzi can speak of the usefulness of such uselessness, for the tree would never be cut down, and be safe from harm (1:15).
The sage adopts the viewpoint from where he can see each individual viewpoint but does not seek whether or not one is more correct than the other. Instead, he would “entrust it to the everyday function [of each being].” (2:29), not looking for some deeper meaning. By accepting the way things are by not giving them any definition, the sage is able to achieve harmony by not agreeing to any particular thing. …show more content…
Zhuangzi's answer is that the sage is free in the sense that he does not let his likes or dislikes, ergo his emotional bias, to “damage” him internally and cloud his judgement. The sage lives without imputing whatever subjective rightness he thinks a thing should have, and instead affirms that each thing is 'right' of itself (5:23). In this sense, the sage will not let emotions affect his perspective because they coexist along with his own subjectivity, which is also a thing that possesses its own 'rightness'. Therefore, emotions are compatible with a sage's perspective, but only as a subdivision of his personal judgement — which holds no greater significance than the judgement of