This chapter of The Book of Lieh Tzu, presented here in my version as “My Travels with Lieh Tzu”, played a significant role in Chinese thought by challenging the authoritarian nature of Confucian doctrine. Exploring the broader spectrum of how events unfold and operate in real time has been a profound question throughout the centuries. Chuang Tzu emerged as a key figure in questioning what it truly means to “make judgments on the status of things”. This reflects a commentary on a commentary, analyzing what might have been intended in the original text and how it influenced popular culture. More importantly, how can we apply this analogy to analyze situations and make decisions in real time today?
The key to this idea, introduced early in the chapter, is the relativity of making judgments. Everything can be seen as bigger than some things and smaller than others, similar to certain things when considering resemblances, and different when focusing on contrasts, good by some standards and bad by others. I’m trying not to overthink this, but Chuang Tzu essentially argues against analytical thought—it’s pointless to consider alternatives since neither will be completely right or wrong. People tend to defend their views by focusing on extremes instead of the middle ground, where everything can be taken into account and more fully understood.
After I wrote the entry below, I had to reread it several times to grasp its full meaning. It made me see where opinions that may appear to be contrary to popular opinion, may serve to be in reality correct. Over the years I have become a huge fan of Chuang Tzu, probably because we both have such a good time challenging authority. It is that over time all things in nature appear as the last line in Chuang Tzu’s Argument in making our own judgment that “In the end if all things remain equal, or in balance as such, then who can there be to judge right and wrong? And can right and wrong truly exist?” It was as though Chuang Tzu was always making fun of the doctrinaire finality of the Confucians by saying that their judgment of things… isn’t necessarily so.
This was where the Legalists, aligned with the authoritarian side of Confucianism, seemingly had the final say by establishing the examination system, which required individuals to pass in order to advance in government positions. But questions of judgment would always remain just as they do today. Why Chuang, Lieh Tzu, and Taoism, along with Buddhism, became essential to the balance in Chinese culture and society. Some might add that the Legalists exploited Confucius’s teachings and virtues in history purely for their own advantage… who can say?
My travels with Lieh Tzu / Interpolations along the Way
Chapter Five – The Questions of T’ang
72. Chuang Tzu’s Argument
Who can think things out in analytical terms, and why should they when there can 
be no judgment? No determination as to what can be right or wrong in our thoughts, actions, or deeds. If alternatives are non‑existent to time and space, what could be the difference? If as the Tao says, nothing is either noble or base (good or bad) and all things say they are noble and another base, then where is judgment?
As conventional wisdom or what may be considered common sense expands, then neither good or bad can stand alone and cannot depend upon themselves. If you try to judge by degree or get the upper hand, then arguing from one position or the other can lead only to seeing 
one place in relation to another. If judgments are rendered from a position where something is big in relation to smaller things, then all things become big. If you argue that they are small, then all things become small. If you can argue that heaven and earth may be treated as a tiny grain of sand, then all things remain perfect and can be seen as such.
If you make judgments based on the function of something, then if you judge them from those which they have then all things have them. If you judge them from what they lack, then all things lack them. If you know that east and west are opposites, yet cannot do without each other, then is not their functions predetermined?
Faces of terra cotta warriors in Xian
What can all this mean? Can any judgment be made by what is considered rational? Who can know? Who can say?
Just as in arguing tastes. If you argue that to people who consider them to be good, then all things are good. If you argue for those who disapprove or disagree and say they are bad, then they must be bad. If you know of two people who believe the opposite has occurred, one believes he is right and the other wrong, standards of taste will be seen in proportion.
In the end if all things remain equal, or in balance as such, then who can there be to judge right and wrong? And can right and wrong truly exist? 4/14/95
Number seventy-two of one hundred fifty-eight entries.
Leave a Reply