Talk:Laozi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laozi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

China: History Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Top-importance).

Biography: Science and Academia / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Ethics / Eastern / Ancient High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Ethics
	Eastern philosophy
	Ancient philosophy

Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Laozi was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 4, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
January 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 10, 2019	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Laozi and the Daodejing

Something that's my understanding from everything I've read on this topic is that Laozi's basic identity is the author of the Daodejing. I've seen Foucault's "author-function" thrown around a lot in literary critical studies of the Zhuangzi and other various early Masters Texts, but not specifically the Daodejing. But it's clear, even without being able to use that terminology directly, that the relationship is closer to Daodejing.was_written_by(Laozi) than Laozi.authored(Daodejing): the author is an attribute of the text.

When the Daodejing was compiled, what its sources and purposes were, when and how it reached the version that Wang Bi annotated, and how many people were involved in that process are all important and relevant questions, but if we're going to attribute authorship to the Daodejing (and, empirically, it was written down), then the author is this idea of "Laozi", whatever that means.

I think what I'm trying to say, while in between finding and reading sources on this, is that the idea of "Laozi" is not meaningfully seperable from authorship of the Daodejing. If we want to say he was a single person who may have lived around a certain time period, ok, but we can't say that he didn't write the Daodejing. Either a person we understand as being called "Laozi" wrote it, or a person or group of people adopted or invented the idea "Laozi" to be its author. If we're talking about someone who didn't write the Daodejing, that's another person. Folly Mox (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been my understanding also, cf. Homer, Moses Remsense聊 22:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Actually, our articles on Zhuangzi and Confucius should eventually be treated this way: the figures serve as a figurehead of authorship for their attributed texts, as much as they do as a pseudo-historical figure—i.e. there's many simultaneously valid identities at play here. The wonderful [SEP entry https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/] on Confucius begins to approach how we should be treating these figures. Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New Testament of the Bible is a good analogy. Jesus didn't write it; his followers did. There was a founder of the ideology, and followers who wrote the book. It would be frankly absurd to suggest that there was no founder and they all simultaneously came up with a radical new ideology. Just doesn't make sense. Octaazacubane (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Octaazacubane, there's considerably more historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth than anyone named Laozi, and Jesus isn't primarily known as the author of the Bible (maybe in some Christian sects; I'm not sure). Meanwhile the textual culture of early China was very into multiple authorship, and combining previous quotes / text without attribution or any indication the text is not original. Denecke 2011 (cited in the article) has a pretty interesting theory about the development of the Dao De Jing. Folly Mox (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]