Daoism, Novelty, and Usefulness: A Philosophical Exploration of Creativity

Abstract

This paper elucidates a Daoist perspective of creativity by focusing on novelty and usefulness. Drawing on the thought of Zhuangzi, it is noted that he advocates original and unorthodox views by challenging social norms and traditional practices. He also questions the prevailing notions and assumptions concerning the usefulness and uselessness of things and people. To liberate humans from conventional commitment and judgment, Zhuangzi recommends two Daoist concepts. The first is "fasting of the heart-mind" (xin zhai) where a person empties oneself of preconceived ideas and practices. The second Daoist notion is "wandering" (you) where one responds to people, things, and situations in an open-minded, appreciative, playful, and spontaneous manner. There are three major implications arising from a Zhuangzian conception of creativity: it contributes to an existing literature gap on the philosophy of creativity, extends the research on Eastern formulations of creativity that hitherto have centered on Confucianism, and challenges and reconstructs the prevalent understandings and presuppositions concerning creativity and related terms.

Future-readiness and its educational implications: A Daoist interpretation

“…In particular, he sheds light on the question of the extent to which our past and present knowledge help us to be future-ready; his ideas also provide a theoretical basis for future-readiness. At the outset, it should be noted that Zhuangzi was not the product of one person as it was written by a group of unknown writers over a long period (Graham, 1986; Tan, 2023b, 2023c). Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that Zhuangzi provides a coherent and valuable source on the philosophies of Zhuangzi (Xu, 2011).…”

A Daoist understanding of mindful leadership

“…It is important to clarify that Laozi did not found Daoism, and that the term ‘Daoism’ only came into being several centuries after Daodejing was written (Puett and Gross-Loh, 2016). Furthermore, the identity of Laozi has been contested, including questions on whether such a person actually existed and whether there is more than one author of Daodejing (Ames and Hall, 2003; Tan, 2022a). In view of the controversy regarding Laozi, this paper shall use ‘Laozi’ to denote the author(s) of Daodejing.…”