Confucius vs Lao Zi

Why do historians think that Confucius was an actual historical person, whereas his alleged contemporary and acquaintance Lao Zi (supposed founder of Taoism) was likely a myth?

I don't think there is any hard evidence as to who Lao may have been.

Laozi (/ˈlaʊdzə/, Chinese: 老子), also romanized as Lao Tzu and various other ways, was a semi-legendary ancient Chinese philosopher, author of the Tao Te Ching, the foundational text of Taoism along with the Zhuangzi. Laozi is a Chinese honorific, typically translated as "the Old Master". Modern scholarship generally regards his biographical details as invented, and his opus a collaboration. Traditional accounts say he was born as Li Er in the state of Chu in the 6th century BC during China's Spring and Autumn period, served as the royal archivist for the Zhou court at Wangcheng (in modern Luoyang), met and impressed Confucius on one occasion, and composed the Tao Te Ching in a single session before retiring into the western wilderness.

Click to expand...

The Tao Te Ching[note 1] (traditional Chinese: 道德經; simplified Chinese: 道德经) is a Chinese classic text and foundational work of Taoism traditionally credited to the sage Laozi,[7][8] though the text's authorship, date of composition and date of compilation are debated.[9] The oldest excavated portion dates to the late 4th century BCE,[10] but modern scholarship dates other parts of the text as having been written—or at least compiled—later than the earliest portions of the Zhuangzi.[11]

The Tao Te Ching is central to both philosophical and religious conceptions of Taoism, and has had great influence beyond Taoism as such on Chinese philosophy and religious practice throughout history. Terminology originating in the Tao Te Ching has been reinterpreted and elaborated upon by Legalist thinkers, Confucianists, and particularly Chinese Buddhists, which had been introduced to China significantly after the initial solidification of Taoist thought. It is comparatively well known in the West, and one of the most translated texts in world literature.[10]

Click to expand...

Confuses was a moralist . He is credited with instituting a meritocracy in the China of his day, examinations for public office for example. He left a footprint. I'd compare him to a Greek philosopher.

Kong Qiu (孔丘), was a Chinese philosopher of the Spring and Autumn period who is traditionally considered the paragon of Chinese sages, as well as the first teacher in China to advocate for mass education. Much of the shared cultural heritage of the Sinosphere originates in the philosophy and teachings of Confucius.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius#cite_note-1">[1]</a> His philosophical teachings, called Confucianism, emphasized personal and governmental morality, harmonious social relationships, righteousness,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius#cite_note-:0-2">[2]</a> kindness, sincerity, and a ruler's responsibilities to lead by virtue.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius#cite_note-3">[3]</a>

Click to expand...

Confucius has the weight and reach, but Lao Zi has a mean left hook and better footwork.

I predict Lao Zi on points, unless Confucius gets an early KO.

I've seen the Wikipedia articles, but I'm curious as to why the evidence for the historicity of Confucius is considered more solid than the evidence for the existence of Lao Zi, considering that the two men are supposed to have been contemporaries who met each other.

He left a fo0tprint as did the Greek philosophers. I read a book on Confucius. I read the Tao Te Ching the and the I Ching back in the day.

Why are Plato and Aristotle credible historical figures?

Who Buddha was is not known there are anecdotal stories.

fta said:

Why do historians think that Confucius was an actual historical person, whereas his alleged contemporary and acquaintance Lao Zi (supposed founder of Taoism) was likely a myth?

Click to expand...

Which historians do you mean? I've heard cases made both for and against the historicity of both figures, though it is certainly true that the corpus of historical references to Confucius are more extensive and less contradictory.

'Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know'.

steve_bank said:

'Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know'.

Click to expand...

Is that a confession?

bilby said:

Confucius has the weight and reach, but Lao Zi has a mean left hook and better footwork.

Click to expand...

Rodin would kick both of their asses.

Politesse said:

steve_bank said:

'Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know'.

Click to expand...

Is that a confession?

Click to expand...

Way back when I was drifting through different things as wee many in the day I interpreted Lao in the context of who the early Taoists were.

If you think you are able to articulate the spiritual experience logically and verbally then you are not having the true experience. Similar to Zen. The sought for state of being can not be reached through logic and reason.

From the intro to Whilhelm's trasation of the I Chiing if you do not understand Chinese culture and symbolism then the I Ching is cryptc and mysterious. Same with Tao Te Ching.

For example references to heavan and Earth. Heaven refers to the aristocracy above and Earth the people below, the oeasants. The I Ching represents a psycology.

I assume someone who teaches anthropology grasps cultural metaphor and symbilism.

What impressed me with Joseph Campbell's Power Of Myth series was he had a deep undestding of cultural ucntext and meaning of religious teachongs and rituals. Understadig religious ex[erince not just academic facts about religion.

The early Taoists were lookng for imortality, as we void say on te forum woo. One Taoist lked to get drunk, lay on the bottom of a pand with a stonee on his chest, breathng through a tube.

That wouldd have been an hisrical Lao, IMO.

Confusous was more analagous to a prominent Greek philopsher.

I don't care if he's Lao Zi or Laozi or Lao Tzu or real or not. Dude wrote some heavy lines. You can live by them:

Making your way in the world (today)
Takes everything you've got
Taking a break from all (your) worries
(Sure) would help a lot
Wouldn't you like to get away?
(Sometimes) you want to go
Where everybody knows your name
And they're (always) glad you came
I'll be there for you
(When the rain starts to pour)
I'll be there for you
(Like) I've been there before.

I have friends who have memorized that.

ideologyhunter said:

I have friends who have memorized that.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it cheers them up.

steve_bank said:

One Taoist lked to get drunk, lay on the bottom of a pand with a stonee on his chest, breathng through a tube.

Click to expand...

Shallow pond or super strong lungs. I learned that breathing through a tube is only viable for a depth of a foot or two, back when it seemed like a little length of hose should let me breathe underwater. Of course it just tried to drown me by sucking all the air out of my lungs at about 6’ down.

Elixir said:

steve_bank said:

One Taoist lked to get drunk, lay on the bottom of a pand with a stonee on his chest, breathng through a tube.

Click to expand...

Shallow pond or super strong lungs. I learned that breathing through a tube is only viable for a depth of a foot or two, back when it seemed like a little length of hose should let me breathe underwater. Of course it just tried to drown me by sucking all the air out of my lungs at about 6’ down.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you let the pressure get to you.

bilby said:

Sounds like you let the pressure get to you

Click to expand...

So Tsu me.

Elixir said:

bilby said:

Sounds like you let the pressure get to you

Click to expand...

So Tsu me.

Click to expand...

Now I don't blame him 'cause he run and hid,
But the meanest thing that his daddy ever did,
Was before he left, he went and named him Tsu.

Politesse said:

fta said:

Why do historians think that Confucius was an actual historical person, whereas his alleged contemporary and acquaintance Lao Zi (supposed founder of Taoism) was likely a myth?

Click to expand...

Which historians do you mean? I've heard cases made both for and against the historicity of both figures, though it is certainly true that the corpus of historical references to Confucius are more extensive and less contradictory.

Click to expand...

Well, the aforementioned Wikipedia is as a good a place to start as any. It questions the historicity of Laozi, but not of Confucius.

fta said:

Politesse said:

fta said:

Why do historians think that Confucius was an actual historical person, whereas his alleged contemporary and acquaintance Lao Zi (supposed founder of Taoism) was likely a myth?

Click to expand...

Which historians do you mean? I've heard cases made both for and against the historicity of both figures, though it is certainly true that the corpus of historical references to Confucius are more extensive and less contradictory.

Click to expand...

Well, the aforementioned Wikipedia is as a good a place to start as any. It questions the historicity of Laozi, but not of Confucius.

Click to expand...

It is not something you can answer for yourself from a web page. Read books on Confucius and Lao by historians. Historians do not always agree, it can take reading multiple books to build an image.

Therr are probably PDFs of older books.

A preponderance of independent accounts leads to a conclusion of a real historical Confusions. What he actually did and what he authored is open to debate. How much attached to his name did he write and how much is interpretation.

steve_bank said:

He left a fo0tprint as did the Greek philosophers. I read a book on Confucius. I read the Tao Te Ching the and the I Ching back in the day.

Why are Plato and Aristotle credible historical figures?

Who Buddha was is not known there are anecdotal stories.

Click to expand...

Isn't Buddha the one the Roman Catholics accidentally thought was a Christian and made a saint?