Nothingness of Dao in the Daodejing: A Mereological Interpretation

Rafal Banka

doi:10.4312/as.2025.13.3.137-151

Authors

Rafal BANKA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2025.13.3.137-151

Keywords:

nothingness, mereology, Daoist metaphysics, Chinese metaphysics

Abstract

This article is based on my mereological reconstruction of the Daoist metaphysical system, as presented in the Daodejing. I conceptualize the Dao and you relationship as a relationship between Unrestricted Composition (for any entities, there is a composition that they make) and Restricted Composition (what is an entity is determined by finite composition rules) respectively. This conceptualization, among other things, makes it possible to address the way in which Dao is described as wu—nothingness or non-being. In this article, I will show that Dao as the ultimate reality in Daoist metaphysics is not an ontological nothingness and discuss how this “nothingness characteristic” can be mereologically reconstructed and explained. I will discuss the interpretation of Dao in terms of Mereological Nihilism (according to which there are only mereological simples that do not have parts and are not parts of any complex entities), Unrestricted Composition, and consider an option in which mereology is confined exclusively to relationships between parts. I will also discuss how the nothingness aspect of Dao can be viewed from a stuff ontology perspective, which questions the ontological standing of parts.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Banka, Rafal. 2018. “Rules of Composition: A Mereological Examination of the Dao-You Relation.” Philosophy East and West 68 (4): 1025–41.

Banka, Rafal. 2022. “Dao as You? Dropping Proper Parthood in a Mereological Reconstruction of Daoist Metaphysics.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 49: 97–105.

Banka, Rafal. 2023. “Dao as a Unified Composition or Plurality: A Nihilism Perspective.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 22: 381–95.

Chan, Wing-Tsit, trans. 1969. The Lao Tzu. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hansen, Chad. 1983. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Hansen, Chad. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. A Philosophical Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, David K. 1991. Parts of Classes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Markosian, Ned. 2008. “Restricted Composition.” In Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by Theodore Sider, John Hawthorne, and Dean Zimmerman, 341–63. Malden, MA: Balckwell Publishing.

Steen, Mark. 2022. “The Metaphysics of Mass Expressions.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, and Uri Nodelman, Fall 2022 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/metaphysics-massexpress/.

Stróżewski, Władysław. 2003. Ontologia. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Aureus, Wydawnictwo Znak.

van Inwagen, Peter. 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca: Cornell UP.

Varzi, Achille. 2007. “Spatial Reasoning and Ontology: Parts, Wholes, and Locations.” In Handbook of Spatial Logics, edited by M. Aiello, I. Pratt-Hartmann, and J. van Benthem, 945–1038. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Varzi, Achille. 2019. “Mereology.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2019 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/mereology/.

Zhao, Xinkan. 2022. “Understanding Dao in Methodological Terms.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 21 (2): 197–211.