Confucianism seems to be more popular, but what are your takes? Resolves to market %
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ0 | |
| 2 | Ṁ0 | |
| 3 | Ṁ0 |
From a Daoist perspective, the answer is, "No," because the Dao reconciles all binaries, showing them for the conceptual illusion that they are. If there is no objective, abiding conception of "better," then nothing can be "better" in any meaningful sense.
From a Confucian perspective, the answer still ought to be, "No." As time progressed, Confucian thought found itself in need of borrowing from Daoist thought. The classic Chinese saying, "弟子不必不如師" notwithstanding, within a Confucian context, the teacher is an honored figure. How can a sincere Confucian disparage one from whom they have learned as an inferior? That's not to say that the student is necessarily worse either, of course, but the question is merely, "Is Confucianism a better system than Taoism," not, "Which is better, Confucianism or Taoism?"
From a broader Chinese cultural perspective, one could still argue, "No." The synthetic tendency in Chinese thought means these schools are not necessarily in competition with one another. Rather, each has its role to fill. A scholarly official can demonstrate Confucian virtue while serving the state, and still ponder the mysteries of the Dao after he has retired to his home. Is a saw better than a hammer? No, they're different tools with a different usage, rendering a comparison inappropriate. What matters is how a tool is used, and it seems that both "tools" in question were used well in proportion to their scope and character.
From a more global cultural perspective, perhaps we should also say, "No." Confucianism has waned in influence in many ways, arguably even within China, but also outside of its borders, and it's had much less influence on cultures outside of the region directly around China. By contrast, Buddhism has been spreading its influence lately, and many of those strains of Buddhism bear the historic influence of Daoism. Just as the people might say, "We did it!" when acting under the influence of the Sage, never realizing they were guided, so too do those influenced by Daoist thought not necessarily realize it.
From a literary perspective, I'm still inclined to suggest the answer is, "No." The works of Daoism are filled with interesting perspectives framed in metaphoric terms which allow them to transcend time to some extent. Even today, the imagery brought to bear to hint at the mysteries of the Dao-- the metaphor of the centipede, the skull responding to a man's pity, Carpenter Shih's dream, the turtle dragging its tail in the mud, or even Zhuangzi joking around with Huizi on a bridge while looking at fish to name a few -- can prove of interest, while stories of Mencius discoursing with kings, or Confucius tersely answering questions will be of much more limited literary effectiveness even as they do touch on potentially important themes.
Of course, I don't disparage Confucianism at all. I merely suggesting that there is no clear standard by which it ought to be deemed "better" than Daoism.