ON FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY: Matthew Howe
to violate the injunction toward common and ordinary things, as well as the injunction against argument. In addition, we may allow that the unity of all things grants him access to the fish’s consciousness in a holistic way. This interpretation would be consistent with v, in which Zhuangzi claims that Hui Shi does know that Zhuangzi knows; a claim which goes against the inescapable perspective limitations of the Relativist Problem by offering the Tao-Perspective as a solution. How this solution works is expanded on below. Another aspect of the Relativist Problem which is demonstrative of Zhuangzi’s philosophy as a whole is the subtle way in which Hui Shi’s position is frustrated. It may be true that one knower must be identical to a subject in order to know the latter’s inner mental states. It would follow from this that Zhuangzi does not know fish happiness. But it is impossible for Hui Shi to assert that Zhuangzi does not know fish happiness because it equally follows from this epistemic barrier to other minds that Hui Shi does not know whether Zhuangzi knows. This is a highly condensed and effective expression of the inability to make a statement from the perspective of, as it were, nowhere, or the objective perspective. If we take the Happy Fish Paradox as a demonstration of Zhuangzi’s philosophy, as I am arguing we should, then this does not need to be interpreted as Zhuangzi winning the debate or Hui Shi losing; the answer to that would depend on what philosophical dogma is brought to the analysis. Rather, this is an instance of a skilled dialectician falling into the sort of perspective-related difficulties cautioned against throughout the “Qi Wu Lun”14. This is not to say that the idea Hui Shi is trying to communication is wrong but that the perspective from which there is a “fact” of the matter is not available to him, or at least, not expressible by him. This “perspective from nowhere” is, I propose, the Tao-Perspective, an integral aspect of Zhuangzi’s philosophy and also well demonstrated in the Happy Fish Paradox. It is demonstrated by Hui Shi in his fumbled attempt to grasp it, and by Zhuangzi in his possession of it in knowing both Hui Shi’s inner states and the fish’s. The Tao-Perspective is evasive, but when it is said that “this (subjective) and that (objective) are both without their correlates, that’s the very ‘Axis of Tao’” (Qi Wu Lun, section 5), or that “the true Sage brings all the contraries together and rests in the natural Balance of Heaven” (Qi Wu Lun, section 7), I believe a non-perspective is being advocated. What precisely this is I cannot describe, for reasons demonstrated by Hui Shi, but there are parts of the “Autumn Floods” that advocate negation of self15, which seems to be a 14
“If then all things are One, what room is there for speech? On the other hand, since I can say the word ‘one’ how can speech not exist? … And thus, among distinctions made, there are distinctions that cannot be made; among things expounded, there are things that cannot be expounded.” Qi Wu Lun, section 10. 15
“ ‘I’ve heard say, ‘The man of Tao has no (concern) reputation; the truly virtuous has no (concern for) possessions; the truly great man ignores self.’ This is the height of self-discipline.’ … “From the point of view of Tao,” replied the Spirit of the Ocean, “there are no such distinctions
78