Messenger 1

Samuel Messenger

Prof. Michael Boldizar and Prof. Anthony Kosar

BHP 150: Great Ideas II

3 October 2022

West vs. East: The Philosophical Conversation Between Plato and Lao-Tzu

Among many others, two great and ancient philosophies presented in Lee A. Jacobus’ A

World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers stand out: those of legendary Western

philosopher Plato in “The Allegory of the Cave,” and those of the legendary Eastern philosopher

Lao-Tzu in “Thoughts from the Tao-Te Ching.” Both texts discussed in this paper are translations

of the original texts, with “Thoughts from the Tao-Te Ching” being a sampling of the original,

Tao-Te Ching.

Even so, it’s easy to see why the pair are widely recognized as works of prominent

literary significance. The two arguably represent the greatest enduring philosophies of their

cultures and can easily be interpreted in a variety of ways due to their indirect methods of

argument. They also have many shared and contrasting themes. Therefore, one could argue that

“Thoughts from the Tao-Te Ching” is a “footnote” to “The Allegory of the Cave.” More fairly,

one could argue that the two have a conversation with each other, since both are respected works

in their own rights and can be viewed on equal footing. Lao-Tzu and Plato both held the pursuit

of wisdom in high regard, though they disagreed on how to best pursue it based on different

ways of understanding the world. Both believed that leaders should be hesitant to rule and more

enlightened than their people, though they disagreed upon the leader’s exact relationship with his

people. Both encouraged a minimalist approach to leadership, but to a different degree. And both

texts are translations — and thus, inexact. All of these details make “Thoughts from the Tao-Te
 Messenger 2

Ching” stand as a highly complex commentary on “The Allegory of the Cave,” and vice versa,

reflecting the texts’ separate cultural origins.

Clearly, Plato and Lao-Tzu both held the pursuit of wisdom in high regard. In “The

Allegory of the Cave,” Plato explicitly wrote that “the virtue of wisdom more than anything else

contains a divine element which always remains” (716). And Lao-Tzu’s “Thoughts from the

Tao-Te Ching” was meant to show how “a country [should be] governed wisely” (Jacobus sec.

80) and in harmony with the Tao — a word explained in Jacobus’ introduction to roughly mean

“the way to enlightenment,” “the method,” or “the ultimate reality of existence” (p. 58). Both

valued the pursuit, but where Plato and Lao-Tzu’s philosophies differ is in how such

enlightenment is achieved.

This is because they have different ideas about how the world should best be understood.

According to Plato, relying on the immaterial/intellectual allows for the greatest understanding

of the world. In his metaphor, “the prison house is the world of sight… the journey upwards [is]

the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world…. In the world of knowledge the idea of good

appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and… is… inferred to be the universal author

of all things beautiful and right” (715). In other words, the pursuit of enlightenment (“the idea of

good”) is the pursuit of knowledge. Only through intellect can an individual understand the

world and know how to wisely govern. Wisdom is discovered by non-physical means. In sharp

contrast, according to Lao-Tzu, relying on the material/sensory allows for the greatest

understanding of the world: “The Master sees things as they are, without trying to control

them… He dwells in reality, and lets all illusions go” (Jacobus sec. 29 and 38). In other words,

the pursuit of enlightenment is about finding balance between forces (53), seeing things as they

are, and embracing other aspects of the Tao such as letting things be without trying to control
 Messenger 3

them (57). Wisdom is discovered by physical means. Already, the two texts agreed and disagreed

on different aspects of the pursuit of wisdom and strongly disagreed on how best to understand

the world. This is likely because their authors were from two distinct cultures. How might the

complex interactions between the texts be further explored?

Well, both at least agreed on what type of person should rule. According to Plato, “…the

State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly

governed, and the state in which they are most eager, the worst” (718). And according to

Lao-Tzu, “When the will to power is in charge, the higher the ideals, the lower the results”

(Jacobus 58). Plato and Lao-Tzu said that a good ruler is not marked by a desire to rule but by a

reluctance to rule. Furthermore, they both believed that a good ruler should be more enlightened

than his people, which is unsurprising, considering how in favor of wisdom the two philosophers

were. Unfortunately, that’s where their agreement ends.

Plato and Lao-Tzu seem to disagree on what a ruler’s relationship with the people should

be. Plato, in discussing “The Allegory of the Cave,” wrote that philosophers, having achieved

wisdom, “must go down to the general underground abode, and get in the habit of seeing in the

dark…. [The philosophers] will know what the several images are, and what they represent…”

(718). In other words, having been above the people and now willingly descending to their level,

the philosophers will be able to lead the people well. Living among them, the philosophers will

be able to rule from the people’s perspective while still knowing the deeper truths about the

world. Lao-Tzu also emphasized the importance of the leader lowering himself for the people,

though it’s unclear whether this is for humility or perspective. Confusingly, he argued for the

leader’s position above the people as well: “If you want to govern the people, you must place

yourself below them…. The Master is above the people, and no one feels oppressed. She goes
 Messenger 4

ahead of the people and no one feels manipulated. The whole world is grateful to her” (Jacobus

66). This more nuanced, paradoxical interpretation of the ideal leader’s relationship with the

people may have been a reflection of some layer of complexity not present in the consciousness

of Plato’s society and culture.

One final theme presents itself in Plato and Lao-Tzu’s writings: minimalism in

leadership. Again, at first, the two texts seem to be of the same mind. Plato ambitiously

envisioned a “state in which the rulers are… reluctant to govern…” (718). They only choose to

rule “as a stern necessity” and because they are given “a better life than that of a ruler” (719). So

they often choose to wisely rule with discretion. And Lao Tzu warned that “When the

government is too intrusive, people lose their spirit. Act for the people’s benefit. Trust them;

leave them alone” (Jacobus 70). This text said what not to do and what to do in order to fully

communicate the idea to the reader. However, Lao-Tzu went even further into this minimalist

leadership mentality than Plato, and this is where they differ — the degree to which they commit

to minimalism in leadership.

While Plato merely scratches the surface, minimalist leadership is one of Lao-Tzu’s main

themes, so he repeatedly mentions it, even using a metaphor to explain the concept. He claims

that “governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking”

(Jacobus 67). By this he means that a good ruler lets things exist as they are rather than trying to

change them, causing them to potentially become worse. So, the idea of minimalism in

leadership adds yet another layer of complexity to the literary interaction between “The Allegory

of the Cave” and “Thoughts from the Tao-Te Ching.”

Briefly, a third voice must be taken into account; one that majorly affects how both texts

are viewed today: the translator(s). While Jacobus’ job as the editor of these two texts is to
 Messenger 5

present them in a way that is most true to their original forms, by accident or on purpose, Jacobus

(and/or his associates) is likely to have altered the texts from their original meanings. This is

inherent to the nature of translation. The result is that the two texts may seem more alike than

they actually are or more relevant to certain modern societies than they actually are. For

example, Jacobus (and/or his associates) translated the first stanza of section 46 as the following:

“When a country is in harmony with the Tao, the factories make trucks and tractors. When a

country goes counter to the Tao, warheads are stockpiled outside the city.” Obviously, modern

factories, trucks, tractors, and warheads did not exist in Lao-Tzu’s time. Perhaps these words

were substituted for archaic equivalents. Regardless, it’s important to address the fact that this

and other similar — albeit more subtle — translation choices affect how Plato and Lao-Tzu’s

original works were viewed for the purposes of this paper.

The relationship between Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave” and Lao-Tzu’s “Thoughts

from the Tao-Te Ching” is quite complex. Lao-Tzu supports some of Plato’s ideas, elaborates on

some, and refutes others. Because both were leading philosophers in their communities, and

neither presented hard evidence for their claims, it is hard to say for sure which one is right.

Perhaps, in the context of their differing societies which held differing beliefs, both were right.

To choose one as the more accurate vision of today’s reality would be ignorant of the purpose of

both works: to guide the people of their respective cultures, not those of our modern culture. So

while Plato and Lao-Tzu’s conclusions about leadership can be utilized today as support for

arguments about leadership, no one philosophy is totally “right.”

Word Count: 1584

 Messenger 6

Works Cited

Jacobus, Lee A., and Lao-Tzu. “Thoughts from the Tao-Te Ching.” A World of Ideas: Essential

Readings for College Writers, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, MA, 2020, pp. 58–72.

– – – and Plato. “The Allegory of the Cave.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College

Writers, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, MA, 2020, pp. 710–721.