What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tao of Philosophy: The Edited Transcripts
Featuring the edited transcripts of eight lectures delivered by Alan Watts from 1960 to 1973. The Tao of Philosophy offers a rich introduction to the wit and wisdom of one of the foremost philosophers of the twentieth century.
128 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
37 people are currently reading
1310 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
October 21, 2025
To było bardzo ciekawe doswiadczenie. Wiele fragmentów zdecydowanie ze mną rezonowało i odnajdowałam wiele zdań, które z pewnością będę głębiej analizować.
Generalnie - wiwat pozytywna bezcelowość, wiwat zabawa egzystencją i porzucenie ogromnej powagi, którą sami sobie narzucamy.
Generalnie - wiwat pozytywna bezcelowość, wiwat zabawa egzystencją i porzucenie ogromnej powagi, którą sami sobie narzucamy.
May 28, 2017
Sometimes he has some points but then he goes on and rumbles because he loves his voice.
May 14, 2020
It’s very commonly said that the root of most human unhappiness is the sense that one’s life has no meaning. This is, I suppose most frequently said in circles interested in psychotherapy because the feeling of meaninglessness is often equated with the existence of neurosis. And so many activities into which one is encouraged to enter, philosophies one is encouraged to believe and religions one is encouraged to join, are commended on the basis of the fact that they give life a meaning. And, I think it’s very fascinating to think out what this idea itself means, or what it – is intended when it is said that life has to have a purpose. I remember so well as a child listening to sermons in church in which the preacher would constantly refer to God’s purpose “for you and for me.” And, I could never make out what it was because when questioned about this, the reverend gentleman seemed to be evasive: “What is the purpose of God for the world?” We used to sing a hymn too: “God is working His purpose out as the year succeeds the year,” and the nearest clue one got to it was in the (sort of) refrain of the hymn: “Nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be, when the earth shall be filled with the glory of God, as the waters cover the sea.” And of course, that raises the question, “What is the glory of God?”
Well, now, it’s pretty obvious, I think, that when we talk about life having or not having a meaning, we are not using quite the ordinary sense of the word “meaning” as the attribute of a sign. We are not saying – are we? – that we expect this natural universe to behave as if it were a collection of words, signifying something other than themselves. It isn’t a point of view which would reduce our lives in the world merely to the status of signs. And, it’s obviously in some different sense than that, that Goethe wrote his famous lines at the end of Faust: “Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis” – forgive my pronunciation of German. “All that is mortal, or all that is perishable, is but a symbol.” And so, a symbol of what? What do we want to feel, what would satisfy us as being the meaning behind this world? It’s so often, you know, that we don’t follow our ideas and our desires through. Most of the things that we want very fervently are things that we have only half-glimpsed. Our ideals are very often suggestions – hints – and we don’t know really exactly what we mean when we think about it. But there is this obscure sense in which we feel that life ought to have significance, and be a symbol in at least that sense if not just so arid a symbol as a mere sign.
Or it also may mean that life is meaningful. An individual feels that his life amounts to something when he belongs and fits in with the execution of some group enterprise; he feels he belongs in a plan. And this too seems to give people a sense of great satisfaction, but we have to pursue that question further too. Why is it that a plan – why is it that fellowship with other people gives the sense of meaning? Does it come down perhaps to another sense of meaning that life is felt to be meaningful when one is fully satisfying one’s biological urges, including the sense of hunger, the sense of love, the sense of self-expression in activity, and so on? But then again, we have to push that inquiry further. What do our biological urges really point towards? Are they just, however, things always projected towards a future? Is biology and its processes nothing but “going on towards going on towards going on”?
Or there’s a fourth and more theological sense of the meaning of life. In all theistic religions at any rate, the meaning of life is God himself. In other words, all this world means a person, it means a heart, it means an intelligence, and the relationship of love between God and man is the meaning of the world. The sight of God is the glory of God, and so on, but again here, there’s something to be further pursued.
What is it that we want in love with a person, and even a person in the sense of the Lord God? What is the content of it? What is it that we are really yearning after? Well, now, if we go back to the first point, taking Goethe’s words that all that is transitory is but a symbol and that we want to feel that all things have significance, it does seem to me that there is a sense in which we often use the word “significance” where the word seems to be chosen quite naturally, and yet at the same time it is not quite the right word. We say, for example, often, of music, that we feel it to be significant, when just at the same time, we don’t mean that it expresses some particular kind of concretely realizable emotion, and certainly it is not imitating the noises of nature. A program music, you know, which simply imitates something else, and it deliberately sets out to express sadness or joy (or whatever) is not the kind of thing I mean. So often when one listens to the beautiful arabesque character of the Baroque composers, Bach or Vivaldi, it is felt to be significant not because it means something other than itself, but because it is so satisfying as it is. And we use, then, this word, “significance,” so often in those moments when our impetuous seeking for fulfillment cools down, and we give ourselves a little space to watch things, as if they were worth watching – ordinary things.
And in those moments when our inner turmoil has really quietened, we find significance in things that we would not expect to find significant at all. I mean, this is, after all, the art of those photographers who have such genius in turning the camera towards such things as peeling paint on an old door, or mud and sand and stones on a dirt road, and showing us there that if we look at it in a certain way those things are significant. But we cannot say significant “of what” so much as significant “of themselves.” Or perhaps significance then is the quality of a state of mind in which we notice that we are overlooking the significance of the world by our constant quest for it later.
All this language is of course quite naturally vague and imprecise because, I think, the wrong word is used. And yet not entirely the wrong word because as I said, it comes so naturally to us.
It was Clive Bell, the great aesthetician, who wanted to say that all the characteristic of art, especially the characteristic of aesthetic success in painting, was the creation of significant form. Again, a very vague, imprecise expression. But it certainly is an attribute not only of those moments in which we are tranquil inside, but also of moments of deep, spiritual experience of what would be called moksha, or “release,” in Hinduism or satori in Zen. In those moments the significance of the world seems to be the world – seems to be what is going on now. And we don’t look any further – the scheme of things seems to justify itself at every moment of its unfoldment. I pointed out that this was particularly a characteristic of music- it’s also a characteristic of dancing, and in the sensation of belonging with one’s fellow man, in the carrying out of some significant pattern of life which I mentioned as a second sense of the world being meaningful. Again, the character of this feeling is again something that is fulfilled in itself: to dance is not to be going anywhere. When we dance in the ballroom, we don’t have a destination – we’re just going around a room. And it’s in doing this – it’s in executing the pattern, in singing the music with other people, that even though this does not point to anything else outside itself we again get the sense of meaning, and this is also obviously the case so often in the satisfaction of the biological urges. Does one live to eat or eat to live? I am not at all sure about this. I’m sure I very often live to eat because, sitting around a table with people – I don’t like eating alone – and enjoying food is absolutely delightful. And we’re not thinking when we do this – at least certainly I’m not – that we have to eat because it is good for us, and that we have to “throw something down the hatch,” as Henry Miller said, and swallow a dozen vitamins just because our system needs nourishment.
I remember, quite recently, there was an article in the Consumer Reports about bread. It seems there had been some correspondence and protest, saying that the bread one bought –the white bread one buys in the stores –is perfectly inedible and lacking in nutrition, and that it was much better to eat peasant-type breads – rough pumpernickel and things of that kind. And the experts replied that our white bread is perfectly full of good nutrients and there is nothing really the matter with it at all. Well, I felt like saying it is not a matter perhaps of the bread being deficient in the essential vitamins. Bread is not medicine, it is food, and one’s complaint against it is that it is bad cookery. It tastes of nothing. And we do tend – don’t we? – to look upon food, so often, for what it will do for us, rather than the delight of eating it. But if the satisfaction of biological urges is to mean anything, surely the point of these urges is not the fatuous one of mere survival. We might say that the point of the individual is simply that he contributes to the welfare of the race, and the point of the race is that it “reproduces itself to reproduce itself to reproduce itself” and keep going. But of course that is not really a point at all; that is just fatuous. Surely the race keeps going because going is great – because it’s fun. If it is not and never will be, then there is no point, obviously, in going, I mean, looking at it from the most hedonistic standpoint. But then when we come to the question, “What is fun?” – “What is the joy of it?” again we come to something that cannot very well be explained in the ordinary language of meaning of leading to something else. And this, I think, becomes preeminently true if we think of it in theological language – that the meaning of life is God. In any of the theistic religions what is God doing? What is the meaning of God? Why does He create the universe? What is the content of the love of God for His creation? Well, there’s the frank answer of the Hindus that the godhead manifests the world because of lila, which is Sanskrit for “play.”
And this is likewise said in the Hebrew scriptures or the Christian Old Testament in the Book of Proverbs where there is a marvelous speech by the divine wisdom, Sophia, which in describing the function of the divine wisdom in the creation of the world – the world, in other words, is a manifestation of the wisdom of God. The wisdom uses the phrase that in producing men and animals and all the creatures of the earth, wisdom is playing, and it was the delight of wisdom to play before the presence of God. And when it is likewise said in the scriptures that the Lord God created the world for His pleasure, this again means, in a sense, for play. And certainly this seems to be what the angels in Heaven are doing according to the traditional symbolic descriptions of Heaven: they are ringed around the presence of the Almighty, calling out “Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!” through all eternity. Well, “alleluia” may have meant something originally, but as it is used now it does not mean anything, except, well, in our own slang, “whoopee!” It is an exclamation of nonsensical delight, and it was Dante in The Paradiso who described the song of the angels as the laughter of the universe.
Now this sense of nonsense as the theme of the divine activity comes out also very strongly in the Book of Job. I always think that the Book of Job is the most profound book in the whole Bible, Old Testament and New Testament. Because here is the problem of the man – the righteous man – who has suffered and all his friends try to rationalize it and say, “Well, you must have suffered because you really had a secret sin after all, and you deserve the punishment of God,” or because… rationalize it somehow. And when they’ve had their say, the Lord God appears on the scene and says, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel with words without knowledge?” and then proceeds to ask Job and his friends a series of absolutely unanswerable conundrums, pointing out all the apparent irrationality and nonsense of His creation. “Why,” for example, He said, “do I send rain upon the desert where no man is?”
Most commentators on the Book of Job end with the remark that, “This poses the problem of suffering and the problem of evil, but doesn’t really answer it.” And yet in the end Job himself seems to be satisfied. He somehow surrenders to the apparent unreasonableness of the Lord God, and this is not, I think, because Job is beaten down and becomes unduly impressed with the royal, monarchical, and paternalistic authority of the deity and does not dare to answer back. He realizes that somehow these very questions are the answer. I think of all the commentators on the Book of Job, the person who came closest to this point was (old) G. K. Chesterton. He once made the glorious remark that it is one thing to look with amazement at a gorgon or a griffin, a creature who does not exist, but it is quite another thing to look at a hippopotamus, a creature who does exist, and looks as if he does not. In other words, that all this strange world with its weird forms like hippopotami – and when you look at them from a certain point of view – , stones and trees and water and clouds and stars – when you look at them from a certain point of view and don’t take them for granted – they are as weird as any hippopotamus, or any imagination of fabulous beasts of gorgons and griffins and things like that. They are just plain improbable, and it is in this sense, I think, that they are the “alleluia,” as it were, the nonsense song.
Why do we love nonsense? Why do we love Lewis Carroll with his “‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe…”? Why is it that all those old English songs are full of “Fal-de-riddle-eye-do” and “Hey-nonny-nonny” and all those babbling choruses? Why is it that when we get “hep” with jazz we just go “Boody-boody-boop-de-boo” and so on, and enjoy ourselves swinging with it? It is this participation in the essential glorious nonsense that is at the heart of the world, not necessarily going anywhere. It seems that only in moments of unusual insight and illumination that we get the point of this, and find that the true meaning of life is no meaning, that its purpose is no purpose, and that its sense is non-sense. Still, we want to use the word “significant.” Is this significant nonsense? Is this a kind of nonsense that is not just chaos, that is not just blathering balderdash, but rather has in it rhythm, fascinating complexity, and a kind of artistry? It is in this kind of meaninglessness that we come to the profoundest meaning."
Alan Watts - https://www.alanwatts
Well, now, it’s pretty obvious, I think, that when we talk about life having or not having a meaning, we are not using quite the ordinary sense of the word “meaning” as the attribute of a sign. We are not saying – are we? – that we expect this natural universe to behave as if it were a collection of words, signifying something other than themselves. It isn’t a point of view which would reduce our lives in the world merely to the status of signs. And, it’s obviously in some different sense than that, that Goethe wrote his famous lines at the end of Faust: “Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis” – forgive my pronunciation of German. “All that is mortal, or all that is perishable, is but a symbol.” And so, a symbol of what? What do we want to feel, what would satisfy us as being the meaning behind this world? It’s so often, you know, that we don’t follow our ideas and our desires through. Most of the things that we want very fervently are things that we have only half-glimpsed. Our ideals are very often suggestions – hints – and we don’t know really exactly what we mean when we think about it. But there is this obscure sense in which we feel that life ought to have significance, and be a symbol in at least that sense if not just so arid a symbol as a mere sign.
Or it also may mean that life is meaningful. An individual feels that his life amounts to something when he belongs and fits in with the execution of some group enterprise; he feels he belongs in a plan. And this too seems to give people a sense of great satisfaction, but we have to pursue that question further too. Why is it that a plan – why is it that fellowship with other people gives the sense of meaning? Does it come down perhaps to another sense of meaning that life is felt to be meaningful when one is fully satisfying one’s biological urges, including the sense of hunger, the sense of love, the sense of self-expression in activity, and so on? But then again, we have to push that inquiry further. What do our biological urges really point towards? Are they just, however, things always projected towards a future? Is biology and its processes nothing but “going on towards going on towards going on”?
Or there’s a fourth and more theological sense of the meaning of life. In all theistic religions at any rate, the meaning of life is God himself. In other words, all this world means a person, it means a heart, it means an intelligence, and the relationship of love between God and man is the meaning of the world. The sight of God is the glory of God, and so on, but again here, there’s something to be further pursued.
What is it that we want in love with a person, and even a person in the sense of the Lord God? What is the content of it? What is it that we are really yearning after? Well, now, if we go back to the first point, taking Goethe’s words that all that is transitory is but a symbol and that we want to feel that all things have significance, it does seem to me that there is a sense in which we often use the word “significance” where the word seems to be chosen quite naturally, and yet at the same time it is not quite the right word. We say, for example, often, of music, that we feel it to be significant, when just at the same time, we don’t mean that it expresses some particular kind of concretely realizable emotion, and certainly it is not imitating the noises of nature. A program music, you know, which simply imitates something else, and it deliberately sets out to express sadness or joy (or whatever) is not the kind of thing I mean. So often when one listens to the beautiful arabesque character of the Baroque composers, Bach or Vivaldi, it is felt to be significant not because it means something other than itself, but because it is so satisfying as it is. And we use, then, this word, “significance,” so often in those moments when our impetuous seeking for fulfillment cools down, and we give ourselves a little space to watch things, as if they were worth watching – ordinary things.
And in those moments when our inner turmoil has really quietened, we find significance in things that we would not expect to find significant at all. I mean, this is, after all, the art of those photographers who have such genius in turning the camera towards such things as peeling paint on an old door, or mud and sand and stones on a dirt road, and showing us there that if we look at it in a certain way those things are significant. But we cannot say significant “of what” so much as significant “of themselves.” Or perhaps significance then is the quality of a state of mind in which we notice that we are overlooking the significance of the world by our constant quest for it later.
All this language is of course quite naturally vague and imprecise because, I think, the wrong word is used. And yet not entirely the wrong word because as I said, it comes so naturally to us.
It was Clive Bell, the great aesthetician, who wanted to say that all the characteristic of art, especially the characteristic of aesthetic success in painting, was the creation of significant form. Again, a very vague, imprecise expression. But it certainly is an attribute not only of those moments in which we are tranquil inside, but also of moments of deep, spiritual experience of what would be called moksha, or “release,” in Hinduism or satori in Zen. In those moments the significance of the world seems to be the world – seems to be what is going on now. And we don’t look any further – the scheme of things seems to justify itself at every moment of its unfoldment. I pointed out that this was particularly a characteristic of music- it’s also a characteristic of dancing, and in the sensation of belonging with one’s fellow man, in the carrying out of some significant pattern of life which I mentioned as a second sense of the world being meaningful. Again, the character of this feeling is again something that is fulfilled in itself: to dance is not to be going anywhere. When we dance in the ballroom, we don’t have a destination – we’re just going around a room. And it’s in doing this – it’s in executing the pattern, in singing the music with other people, that even though this does not point to anything else outside itself we again get the sense of meaning, and this is also obviously the case so often in the satisfaction of the biological urges. Does one live to eat or eat to live? I am not at all sure about this. I’m sure I very often live to eat because, sitting around a table with people – I don’t like eating alone – and enjoying food is absolutely delightful. And we’re not thinking when we do this – at least certainly I’m not – that we have to eat because it is good for us, and that we have to “throw something down the hatch,” as Henry Miller said, and swallow a dozen vitamins just because our system needs nourishment.
I remember, quite recently, there was an article in the Consumer Reports about bread. It seems there had been some correspondence and protest, saying that the bread one bought –the white bread one buys in the stores –is perfectly inedible and lacking in nutrition, and that it was much better to eat peasant-type breads – rough pumpernickel and things of that kind. And the experts replied that our white bread is perfectly full of good nutrients and there is nothing really the matter with it at all. Well, I felt like saying it is not a matter perhaps of the bread being deficient in the essential vitamins. Bread is not medicine, it is food, and one’s complaint against it is that it is bad cookery. It tastes of nothing. And we do tend – don’t we? – to look upon food, so often, for what it will do for us, rather than the delight of eating it. But if the satisfaction of biological urges is to mean anything, surely the point of these urges is not the fatuous one of mere survival. We might say that the point of the individual is simply that he contributes to the welfare of the race, and the point of the race is that it “reproduces itself to reproduce itself to reproduce itself” and keep going. But of course that is not really a point at all; that is just fatuous. Surely the race keeps going because going is great – because it’s fun. If it is not and never will be, then there is no point, obviously, in going, I mean, looking at it from the most hedonistic standpoint. But then when we come to the question, “What is fun?” – “What is the joy of it?” again we come to something that cannot very well be explained in the ordinary language of meaning of leading to something else. And this, I think, becomes preeminently true if we think of it in theological language – that the meaning of life is God. In any of the theistic religions what is God doing? What is the meaning of God? Why does He create the universe? What is the content of the love of God for His creation? Well, there’s the frank answer of the Hindus that the godhead manifests the world because of lila, which is Sanskrit for “play.”
And this is likewise said in the Hebrew scriptures or the Christian Old Testament in the Book of Proverbs where there is a marvelous speech by the divine wisdom, Sophia, which in describing the function of the divine wisdom in the creation of the world – the world, in other words, is a manifestation of the wisdom of God. The wisdom uses the phrase that in producing men and animals and all the creatures of the earth, wisdom is playing, and it was the delight of wisdom to play before the presence of God. And when it is likewise said in the scriptures that the Lord God created the world for His pleasure, this again means, in a sense, for play. And certainly this seems to be what the angels in Heaven are doing according to the traditional symbolic descriptions of Heaven: they are ringed around the presence of the Almighty, calling out “Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!” through all eternity. Well, “alleluia” may have meant something originally, but as it is used now it does not mean anything, except, well, in our own slang, “whoopee!” It is an exclamation of nonsensical delight, and it was Dante in The Paradiso who described the song of the angels as the laughter of the universe.
Now this sense of nonsense as the theme of the divine activity comes out also very strongly in the Book of Job. I always think that the Book of Job is the most profound book in the whole Bible, Old Testament and New Testament. Because here is the problem of the man – the righteous man – who has suffered and all his friends try to rationalize it and say, “Well, you must have suffered because you really had a secret sin after all, and you deserve the punishment of God,” or because… rationalize it somehow. And when they’ve had their say, the Lord God appears on the scene and says, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel with words without knowledge?” and then proceeds to ask Job and his friends a series of absolutely unanswerable conundrums, pointing out all the apparent irrationality and nonsense of His creation. “Why,” for example, He said, “do I send rain upon the desert where no man is?”
Most commentators on the Book of Job end with the remark that, “This poses the problem of suffering and the problem of evil, but doesn’t really answer it.” And yet in the end Job himself seems to be satisfied. He somehow surrenders to the apparent unreasonableness of the Lord God, and this is not, I think, because Job is beaten down and becomes unduly impressed with the royal, monarchical, and paternalistic authority of the deity and does not dare to answer back. He realizes that somehow these very questions are the answer. I think of all the commentators on the Book of Job, the person who came closest to this point was (old) G. K. Chesterton. He once made the glorious remark that it is one thing to look with amazement at a gorgon or a griffin, a creature who does not exist, but it is quite another thing to look at a hippopotamus, a creature who does exist, and looks as if he does not. In other words, that all this strange world with its weird forms like hippopotami – and when you look at them from a certain point of view – , stones and trees and water and clouds and stars – when you look at them from a certain point of view and don’t take them for granted – they are as weird as any hippopotamus, or any imagination of fabulous beasts of gorgons and griffins and things like that. They are just plain improbable, and it is in this sense, I think, that they are the “alleluia,” as it were, the nonsense song.
Why do we love nonsense? Why do we love Lewis Carroll with his “‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe…”? Why is it that all those old English songs are full of “Fal-de-riddle-eye-do” and “Hey-nonny-nonny” and all those babbling choruses? Why is it that when we get “hep” with jazz we just go “Boody-boody-boop-de-boo” and so on, and enjoy ourselves swinging with it? It is this participation in the essential glorious nonsense that is at the heart of the world, not necessarily going anywhere. It seems that only in moments of unusual insight and illumination that we get the point of this, and find that the true meaning of life is no meaning, that its purpose is no purpose, and that its sense is non-sense. Still, we want to use the word “significant.” Is this significant nonsense? Is this a kind of nonsense that is not just chaos, that is not just blathering balderdash, but rather has in it rhythm, fascinating complexity, and a kind of artistry? It is in this kind of meaninglessness that we come to the profoundest meaning."
Alan Watts - https://www.alanwatts
August 4, 2019
Watts rambles on.
But, to be perfectly honest, I particularity enjoy when Watts rambles. Truly the title should be the following :
The philosophy of tao, from the eyes of Alan watts. You can read this. You can also simply listen to one of his lectures online. If I were you, I would just listen to the man speak. You won't miss much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE6mR...
But, to be perfectly honest, I particularity enjoy when Watts rambles. Truly the title should be the following :
The philosophy of tao, from the eyes of Alan watts. You can read this. You can also simply listen to one of his lectures online. If I were you, I would just listen to the man speak. You won't miss much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE6mR...
August 26, 2020
Another Alan Watts masterpiece! "The Tao of Philosophy" is a fairly short and rarely potent nonfiction work on Taoism that will literally blow your mind. Especially for those who have had no exposure to Eastern philosophy and religion, this book has the ability to induce in the reader a radical shift in perspective, a paradigm shift if you will. For those with some exposure, this book may be enlightening, bringing into stark contrast the fundamental differences in perspectives between Eastern and Western thinking. I was among the latter, having already been exposed, and so I found Watts' text as an immense product of, most likely, an excessively deep and sustained reflection about the psychology and philosophy that goes into innate Western and Eastern modes of thought. I should emphasize the former, the psychological component. My understanding is that Watts was trained in psychology, and that this lecture series was given to an audience of practicing psychologists. This makes the text a very interesting excursion, for, even if one has reflected upon the nature of comparison between Eastern and Western thought, one is sure to find many valuable psychologically nuanced points therein.
If anything, this text is not a deep exfoliation of ideas, but something to stir our pots. The only complaint I would have for this text is its short length - as a big Alan Watts fan, I could not get enough of this stuff. What's more, the plenitude of gems, in the form of aphorisms, is enough to occupy most readers for a lifetime, because of the value and objective importance of the points Watts' brings to the fore. Some of the revealing defenses Watts makes (e.g., that "scientific" attitudes are just a fade, and so we should not scoff at more humane perspectives), and some of the distinctions he develops (e.g., classicists and romanticists, albeit in much more flowery terminology), are downright brilliant.
My favorite part is when Alan talks about the multidimensionality of nature while human language is mostly linear. This is why we can't explain what we have experienced in human language terms - the only way to really make someone understand what you have experienced is to have them experience it also.
I highly recommend this book to all. Most of all, the intellectual with a spiritual side will probably find the most use for this book, being intelligent and fairly well-read enough to understand it (or re-read it if necessary for the rest of us), yet a free enough thinker to employ its wisdom. Do me a big favor though - make sure you get the audio-book version to get Alan's signature witt and charm along with his brilliance. 5 Stars all the way!
If anything, this text is not a deep exfoliation of ideas, but something to stir our pots. The only complaint I would have for this text is its short length - as a big Alan Watts fan, I could not get enough of this stuff. What's more, the plenitude of gems, in the form of aphorisms, is enough to occupy most readers for a lifetime, because of the value and objective importance of the points Watts' brings to the fore. Some of the revealing defenses Watts makes (e.g., that "scientific" attitudes are just a fade, and so we should not scoff at more humane perspectives), and some of the distinctions he develops (e.g., classicists and romanticists, albeit in much more flowery terminology), are downright brilliant.
My favorite part is when Alan talks about the multidimensionality of nature while human language is mostly linear. This is why we can't explain what we have experienced in human language terms - the only way to really make someone understand what you have experienced is to have them experience it also.
I highly recommend this book to all. Most of all, the intellectual with a spiritual side will probably find the most use for this book, being intelligent and fairly well-read enough to understand it (or re-read it if necessary for the rest of us), yet a free enough thinker to employ its wisdom. Do me a big favor though - make sure you get the audio-book version to get Alan's signature witt and charm along with his brilliance. 5 Stars all the way!
March 21, 2022
ما جاهل هستیم. ما غافلیم از اینکه چگونه متمرکز میشویم و چگونه اراده میکنیم که هوشیار باشیم. چگونه موهایمان را در میآوریم؟ استخوانمان را شکل میدهیم؟ قلبمان را به تپش میاندازیم؟ و هر مقدار هورمون لازم داریم از غددمان ترشح میکنیم. ما همهی این کارها را میکنیم اما نمیدانیم چگونه. چون میدانید که زیر این خود تصنعی ما که دائما حواسش پرت میشود، خود دیگری وجود دارد که به مراتب نسبت به کسی که «من» مینامیمش بیشتر شبیه خود ماست!— از متن کتاب
آلن واتس با ذهنی شفاف، بیرون از اندیشهی افلاطونی ایستاده. او میداند ژرفبنیانهای اندیشهی افلاطونی و خوانش یونانیشده از ادیان ابراهیمی (اعم از فقهی و اخلاقی و عرفانی) به چه فرجامهایی میانجامد. واتس بیرون از اندیشهی افلاطونی میایستد و گاهی یک و گاهی چند راه و نگاه جایگزین پیش مینهد اما فروتنانه هیچ یک را بر نمیگزیند. او در میانهی قرن بیستم در دوران کمبل و ایلیاده زیسته اما بر خلاف دیگر ژرفاندیشان آن زمانه، هیچ گاه ریشهی خود را از زمین دیانت بر نکنده. گرچه واتس آگاهانه اسطورهها را ورز میدهد و همیشه چند روایت اسطورهای در جیبش دارد اما از اسطورهبازی شرمگین نیست. گرچه این نخستین کتابی نبود که از آلن واتس خواندم اما نخستین جملاتی که از او شنیده بودم و مرا حیرتزده کرده بود از سخنرانیهای این کتاباند. اگر بنا باشد در تمام نوشتههایی که تا کنون در زندگیام خواندهام مدال «سخن ساحرانه» را به یک نفر بدهم، او بیشک آلن واتس است.
آلن واتس با ذهنی شفاف، بیرون از اندیشهی افلاطونی ایستاده. او میداند ژرفبنیانهای اندیشهی افلاطونی و خوانش یونانیشده از ادیان ابراهیمی (اعم از فقهی و اخلاقی و عرفانی) به چه فرجامهایی میانجامد. واتس بیرون از اندیشهی افلاطونی میایستد و گاهی یک و گاهی چند راه و نگاه جایگزین پیش مینهد اما فروتنانه هیچ یک را بر نمیگزیند. او در میانهی قرن بیستم در دوران کمبل و ایلیاده زیسته اما بر خلاف دیگر ژرفاندیشان آن زمانه، هیچ گاه ریشهی خود را از زمین دیانت بر نکنده. گرچه واتس آگاهانه اسطورهها را ورز میدهد و همیشه چند روایت اسطورهای در جیبش دارد اما از اسطورهبازی شرمگین نیست. گرچه این نخستین کتابی نبود که از آلن واتس خواندم اما نخستین جملاتی که از او شنیده بودم و مرا حیرتزده کرده بود از سخنرانیهای این کتاباند. اگر بنا باشد در تمام نوشتههایی که تا کنون در زندگیام خواندهام مدال «سخن ساحرانه» را به یک نفر بدهم، او بیشک آلن واتس است.
December 24, 2025
"Because we simply cheated ourselves the whole way down the line.
But if we thought of life by analogy with a journey,
With a pilgrimage,
Which had a serious purpose at the end.
But the thing was to get to that thing at that end.
Success, or whatever it is.
Or maybe in heaven, after you're dead.
But we missed the point the whole way along.
It was a musical thing,
And you were supposed to sing
Are to dance while the music was being played."
a great listen!
But if we thought of life by analogy with a journey,
With a pilgrimage,
Which had a serious purpose at the end.
But the thing was to get to that thing at that end.
Success, or whatever it is.
Or maybe in heaven, after you're dead.
But we missed the point the whole way along.
It was a musical thing,
And you were supposed to sing
Are to dance while the music was being played."
a great listen!
March 27, 2020
I do enjoy my philosophy and the Tao espcially, but Alan Watts seem actually gets the culture it comes from. While others try and explain it on the level of the west, he takes the western mind on a journey to understand the eastern mind, before he even starts explaining the Tao!
Beautifully done!
ENJOY
Beautifully done!
ENJOY
April 10, 2022
It is what it is. I have no real idea as to why I read this book. It is obviously outdated and a very very surface-level introduction to philosophical Daoism, which in reality is just about Laozi (Wade-Giles: Lao-Tzu). Not much substance here, in my humble opinion.
Meh. There are better books out there on Daoism/Taoism and Watts.
Meh. There are better books out there on Daoism/Taoism and Watts.
November 21, 2022
Tao of Philosophy by Alan Watts is one of the best books I have read that I will def reread. It left me with more questions than answers and provided many starting points for further research.
Read my notes here https://www.notion.so/ssmidianko/The-...
Read my notes here https://www.notion.so/ssmidianko/The-...
February 20, 2019
Great intro book on Tao
Alan Watts always delivers on expanding your mind with new perspectives. At times I felt lost with the content but I kept pushing through to find deeper understanding.
Alan Watts always delivers on expanding your mind with new perspectives. At times I felt lost with the content but I kept pushing through to find deeper understanding.
August 18, 2024
3 i 1/2 gwiazdki.
Zredagowana kompilacja wykładów radiowych Wattsa. Jako religioznawca wybiega często poza ramy tao, prezentując bardziej uniwersalne oodejście. Bardzo przystępna formuła, ale odbieram to jako zaletę, bo jest jak najbardziej zgodna z omawianą filozofią
Zredagowana kompilacja wykładów radiowych Wattsa. Jako religioznawca wybiega często poza ramy tao, prezentując bardziej uniwersalne oodejście. Bardzo przystępna formuła, ale odbieram to jako zaletę, bo jest jak najbardziej zgodna z omawianą filozofią
October 9, 2017
A useful read with several worthwhile nuggets but overall highly meandering and repetitive in its style. I felt I gained little after the midway point in the book.
December 21, 2022
I mostly didn’t understand this.
December 22, 2024
przecież to najlepsze co przeczytałem w tym roku. Alan Watts kotem
February 6, 2025
Excellent reminder how wester philosophy is different then East mindset. Good for own reflections
April 13, 2025
A nie wiem, daję 3.5. Te rzeczy, o których pisze autor są dosyć ciekawe, ale mało praktyczne. W zasadzie to większość treści sprowadza się do obserwacji i kontemplacji.
July 1, 2025
longe de um estudo rigoroso da filosofia taoista, mas um ótimo conjunto de textos filosóficos, mesmo que um tanto não ortodoxos
May 29, 2024
Watts starts out strong with his interpretations of the Self and consciousness but his writing begins to come undone at slightly less than halfway. You really only need to read chapters 1 - 3 to gain the substance as the rest of the book wanders off into meandering and repetitive territory. It gave me the impression of someone speaking directly into a recorder and writing down what came out.
However, I enjoyed his perspective on our almost compulsive need to glean a decisive answer about the meaning of the Self, our surroundings, and our existence. In true Taoist fashion, Watts argues that the more we seek to discover the minute and the gritty, the more elusive the answer becomes. I'm sure that other people have experienced seeking the "why" behind a subject, only for it to become more puzzling the deeper you went. He states that to find true fulfillment is to simply let things be without needing to "straighten them out."
I also enjoyed that he compared non-Western philosophies to Western as it provided a well-rounded explanation of his arguments. His chapter on nature in particular provided an interesting explanation into how the Western world comprehends nature. He writes, "we need to experience ourselves in such a way that we could say that our real body is not just what is inside the skin but includes our whole total external environment. If we do not experience ourselves that way, we tend to mistreat our environment" (18), expressing that if we do not consider the space around us, we fail to be whole beings. However, he reiterates this many chapters later when discussing dark matter and stars in a whole other topic which felt like poor editing.
Overall, this book could have (and should have) been condensed down to a solid three or four chapters rather than including every convoluted thought to connect basic principles, which weakened the work and rendered it less effective overall. An essay would have been more consumable and worth-while.
However, I enjoyed his perspective on our almost compulsive need to glean a decisive answer about the meaning of the Self, our surroundings, and our existence. In true Taoist fashion, Watts argues that the more we seek to discover the minute and the gritty, the more elusive the answer becomes. I'm sure that other people have experienced seeking the "why" behind a subject, only for it to become more puzzling the deeper you went. He states that to find true fulfillment is to simply let things be without needing to "straighten them out."
I also enjoyed that he compared non-Western philosophies to Western as it provided a well-rounded explanation of his arguments. His chapter on nature in particular provided an interesting explanation into how the Western world comprehends nature. He writes, "we need to experience ourselves in such a way that we could say that our real body is not just what is inside the skin but includes our whole total external environment. If we do not experience ourselves that way, we tend to mistreat our environment" (18), expressing that if we do not consider the space around us, we fail to be whole beings. However, he reiterates this many chapters later when discussing dark matter and stars in a whole other topic which felt like poor editing.
Overall, this book could have (and should have) been condensed down to a solid three or four chapters rather than including every convoluted thought to connect basic principles, which weakened the work and rendered it less effective overall. An essay would have been more consumable and worth-while.
August 4, 2011
Watts blasts us with the idea that our languages and thought processes are filled with contradictions, and in turn, offers answers with more contradictions. My biggest question is that if we're to live in the moment, as Watts suggests, then why in the hell did he live for the future by becoming an episcopalian priest, attending Ivy league school, and writing crappy books? If Watts' view of the world is true, then I would suggest jumping off the nearest tall building, bridge, or mountain top and calling it a day. Personally, there is nothing about this book that I would recommend to anyone, unless they are steeped in boredom, have lost all hope, are sick of it all, and want to die... in that case, this might cheer them up. Otherwise, it's a complete wash. Alan Watts has effectively made me disinterested in Buddhism and the rest of that kind of hokum for life.
Really
Really
December 31, 2025
Until we trust Nature...we are doomed. One of those books that confirms some ideas I was already mulling around in my head! What I enjoyed was that is was not one-sided...did not go out of the way to disprove anything...just give a stated opinion regarding different ways of thinking giving examples why we think how we do regarding purpose of life. Spot light vs. flood light. Prickly vs. goo. It is not just one thing- Christianity, Zen, Tao, Buddhism, Myth...it's that everyone is saying the very same thing-just in a different way. We are ALL living it! I found that he wrapped that up very smoothly. A short read at 97 pages...but oftentimes less is more! This is a keeper for my bookshelf!
March 18, 2014
Alan Watts' greatest greatest gift is not only his incredible mind, but more his humor and wit that make his work and teachings so appealing and interesting.
He has a great skill of taking complex philosophical and religious beliefs and concepts and turning them into unforgettable anecdotes and stories.
He has a great skill of taking complex philosophical and religious beliefs and concepts and turning them into unforgettable anecdotes and stories.
August 22, 2016
I read this during a one-week trek in solitude through Nepal's Langtang National Park. Watts' focus on controlling oneself rather than one's environment spoke immediately to me as a 19-year-old self trying to make sense of Nepalese culture and Eastern philosophy while coming to terms with just how American and individualistic I was.
December 2, 2007
It was surely something different:) I found the ideas he presented very interesting, even now after so many years after the authot has passed away.
It is material for someone who likes to challange his/her way of understanding life, religion and the world around us.
It is material for someone who likes to challange his/her way of understanding life, religion and the world around us.
October 21, 2007
bahasanya muter-muter. pusying. mesti baca berkali-kali baru nyambung. palagi dulu me masih belum terlalu kenal sama tao.
Want to read
August 3, 2016Naval
May 11, 2020
Has some very interesting ideas
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews