Within eastern philosophy there is a dichotomy between accepting the natural ways of the world and rejecting it. The ancient religion of daoism was deeply connected with accepting the natural world, while its rival religion confucianism was about trying to be the most disciplined and organized person that you can be. Ultimately confucianists struggled against nature to succeed in life and fully embraced complex society while daoism would discourage such things. Daoism’s stress in letting nature take its course can be seen through the idea of legitimate action through inaction because oftentimes doing nothing is the way to allow the natural world to work. The idea of simply doing nothing was seen as lazy and weak willed in confucianism however because confucianism stressed the necessity of being a hard-working member of society. The same general concept can also be found within western philosophical tradition with ideas in favor of the natural way like social darwinism and ideas that ultimately rejected it like equality of outcome. Social darwinism shows a certain relinquishment of social improvement or change to nature because it encourages the government allowing people to succeed and fail in society based on their own merits. There is the flaw within social darwinism that doesn’t acknowledge that this system can create inequality of opportunity, but the philosophy is still focusing on laying what’s naturally meant to happen happen through social inaction. Equality of outcome is quite different however in that it rejects natural hierarchies in nature that arise due to natural talents or attributes that one would have or the continuance of familial wealth through inheritance. Equality of outcome ultimately wishes to create fairness throughout all of society by trying to limit the rewards that people reap from those talents and birthrights because they didn’t personally earn them. Finally the idea of the natural world and a human constructed one rejecting it can also be found within legal philosophy. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke focused on their works on the state of the world before governments and human organization. Locke believed that before government people were working in their own self-interest but they also had natural rights to life, liberty and property. Hobbes believed that the world was a wicked and oppressive place until government because humans are inherently cowardly and weak, leading him to support controlling monarchical governance to keep the people in line. Both philosophical views were based on whether the ways of the natural world and humans within nature were legitimate. I personally agree with the natural world having more value in most situations when it comes to philosophy, but both positions are entirely valid, even at the heights that human civilization has reached now we can still find wisdom from the natural world or can leave it in the past.
2 thoughts on “Nature vs Society”
I remember in middle school we had a whole unit that was specifically for Confucianism and Daoism. Its interesting to think that humans were weak and had no purpose without a strong government. Much of our society relies on being autonomous but its interesting to think about what happens when there is only autonomy and no sense of society.
I find it interesting how you make the comparison between Daoism and social Darwinism two philosophies that on the surface seem to have little in common to me, but I see how they both place the natural order of things above man-made constructed orders and hierarchies. However I would say that Locke’s philosophy while against equality of outcome is very far from these two as he sees the natural rights of individuals to come first in any system while both Daoism and social Darwinism see the natural order or process to take precedent and our often far more collectivist in their approach.
I remember in middle school we had a whole unit that was specifically for Confucianism and Daoism. Its interesting to think that humans were weak and had no purpose without a strong government. Much of our society relies on being autonomous but its interesting to think about what happens when there is only autonomy and no sense of society.
I find it interesting how you make the comparison between Daoism and social Darwinism two philosophies that on the surface seem to have little in common to me, but I see how they both place the natural order of things above man-made constructed orders and hierarchies. However I would say that Locke’s philosophy while against equality of outcome is very far from these two as he sees the natural rights of individuals to come first in any system while both Daoism and social Darwinism see the natural order or process to take precedent and our often far more collectivist in their approach.