Daoism Explained: From the Dream of the Butterfly to the Fishnet Allegory: Ideas Explained, Book 1

A book that purports to bring Daoism into conversation with the Western philosophical tradition certainly seems up my alley, so I was excited to read this book, and wanted to like it. Unfortunately, though, it just isn’t that good. There are three main reasons: (1) quirky and distracting English prose, (2) tedious explanations of relatively straightforward concepts, and (3) bizarre assertions made with little attempt to justify or explain them.As an example of #1: Moeller *loves* to hyphenate words that are not hyphenated in standard English. “In a similar way, Herbert A. Giles’s Zhuangzi has to think back and re-member his dream in order to have the re-flection which leads him to re-cognize what is true and what only seems to be.” (p.45). What is the purpose of this? I initially thought he might be drawing our attention to the component parts of compound words to make a philosophical point, but this thesis falls apart quickly as the examples of his quirky hyphenation multiply. Take “re-recognize”: who is it that needs to be reminded that “recognize” really means to cognize something a second time? I think we all get that. The compound word has not taken on some meaning over time which has significantly departed from the meaning you get by analyzing it into its component parts. And take “re-flection.” What, if anything, is *this* supposed to achieve for the reader? I’m pretty sure that the quirky hyphenation applies to words with prefixes other than “re,” but that is the only example I have offhand to provide. Additionally, there are some straight-up mistakes in the book, evidence of a lack of a good editor (e.g., using the word “dependant” when the word “dependent” was intended).As an example of #2, Moeller takes about 5-6 pages to explain how the Dao is like the hub of a wheel on a rolling cart or chariot: it’s empty (remember that the axle fits into the hub), it’s central (all the spokes fit into it), and it’s “still” (the spokes revolve around it, but the hub itself has no motion beside a spinning motion, and no motion at all at the empty “center”). This is pretty straightforward, and the drawn-out explanation he gives of this analogy or image of the Dao is not only enough to make your eyes glaze over, but also shockingly short on actual citations from Daoist texts to demonstrate that this “hub of the wheel” metaphor is as influential within Daoism as he makes it out to be. I certainly find it odd that he devotes more space to this image than to the image of water, which is extremely prominent in Daoism.A few examples of #3, both of which occur in the context of his discussion of Zhuangzi’s “dreaming butterfly” passage:“When one first reads Giles’s version, it surely sounds very Chinese—if only because of the Chinese names and the quite ‘Oriental’ butterfly.” (p.44)Huh? What is “Oriental” about a butterfly? This is hardly a universal association. I associate butterflies with my backyard, not with Asia. Weird assertions like this take the reader out of the text. Maybe they don’t have many butterflies in Germany where the author is from (no idea), but this is hardly a relatable reaction to Zhuangzi’s text, even for all Westerners.“It is an ironic fact, I believe, that in the history of Western philosophy, there are few texts that treat so exclusively and comprehensively the issue of human subjectivity!” (p.46)This claim is so bizarre on so many levels:(1) How can Zhuangzhi’s brief paragraph on the dreaming butterfly be said to “comprehensively” treat any topic whatsoever?(2) Western philosophy has, in the last decade alone, produced bookshelves worth of books on philosophy of mind and consciousness which treat “subjectivity” as a key defining factor of consciousness. Subjectivity and related issues in philosophy of mind form a strand running through western philosophy from Plato onwards. so Moeller’s assertion here is so false as to be simply weird.(3) Even if Moeller’s statement were true, it’s not clear what would be “ironic” about it.To give the most charitable interpretation that I can here, perhaps by calling it “ironic,” Moeller is implicitly acknowledging the vast amount of ink spilt in western philosophy over this issue, and saying that, ironically, Zhuangzi treats it more “comprehensively” in his brief paragraph than western philosophy does in many tomes. However, if this was his meaning, it should have been asserted explicitly and not left implicit, to avoid confusion; and it would still be a ridiculously false assertion to say that Zhuangzi’s simple gesturing at an idea is more “comprehensive” than others’ analytical treatment of the issue.Overall, I just did not like this book at all. Moeller over-explains some things, and under-explains others. His textual arguments are sometimes convincing, or at least based on a very close reading of a text; while other times, his arguments are based on thin textual evidence, and/or are quite unconvincing.I am hoping someone will make a better attempt to do the same thing as Moeller has attempted here, because a dialogue between western philosophy and Daoism is clearly a fascinating topic. I just don’t think Moeller has got it right.

This is truly one of the finest books on Daoism. Professor Moeller's ability to illuminate many difficult daoist concepts in a clear and concise manner is very rare. Please take the time to read excerpts from the book. The excerpt: The Wheel - An image of Dao is a brilliant examination of Chapter 11 of the Tao Te Ching. Also, the chapters "The State", and "Presence and Nonpresence" (usually translated as being and non-being) are excellent. "Daoism Explained" is not a rehash of ideas taken from previous books on the subject. It is a unique and intelligent examination of Daoism.

My title says it all. Moeller gets at the philosophical core of Daoism and offers a comprehensive and, for me, truly eye-opening analysis of the tradition and some of its major statements, enigmas, and figures.

Prof Moeller understands Daoism .His clear concepts are fundamental to understand Chinese philosophy for Western people.Looking forward to reading more of his book.Harmony

Found Jesus.

It is a very accurate, readable book, and does great service in clarifying concepts previously and otherwise mis-interpreted.

This is a great book for readers of Daoist works- mainly the Daodejing (Laozi), Liezi, and Zhuangzi. It covers the fundamentals of Daoism succinctly without glossing over important concepts. After reading this book anyone should be able to read the aforementioned works with a greater degree of comprehension. As the previous reviewer stated, this is indeed one of the best books on Daoism. However, it also contains one of the most backwards economic theories ever put on paper. Fortunately, the author limits his hopelessly surreal ideas of the latter topic to only the last few pages. In his attempt to explain society as a self-perpetuating force that runs itself without human action, he makes statements that are so blatantly silly that it almost seems as if he added them in just to see if readers were really paying attention. In his own words, "the functioning of the modern economy has to be explained largely in terms of the flow of money and stocks- and no longer as a causal result of human enterprise." So somehow if human enterprise were to suddenly cease, the flow of money and stocks will just keep going- right? This notion seems too ridiculous to entertain, but the author continues by stating that "mass communication has quite obviously detached itself from actual human performances and 'autonomized' itself as a self-generating 'hypertext.'" It's quite interesting to know that this author feels as if mass communication on planet Earth will continue unabated if all the humans got on spaceships and left. The whole idea that economies and politics and mass communication don't need people sounds like something that would happen if robots took over the planet Terminator-style. If that's what the author is referring to, then I suppose I am wrong. But if the author thinks the "Dao" will handle monetary exchanges just fine without us around, then he needs to put the bong down for a while. In all, this book is great and would have fully earned its five stars if it weren't for this little delusional twist at the end.

Amazing book.

Good book. Thank you

finding the book very interesting and easy to read

Very clear and easy to follow introduction to Daoism, recommended. I certainly feel much better informed and able to understand the essential principles (even if the text is at times a tad too repetitive for my taste).