Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I have occasionally used an (apparent) quote from Chinese (Taoist) philosopher Zhuangzi's Wikipedia article and am wondering about the original form and where exactly it might be cited from:
To use the limited to pursue the unlimited, he said, was foolish.
Who knows enough about Zhuangzi's work and can tell?
I think the writer is quoting the original text from the chapter "Essentials for Nurturing Life"" (in Chinese 養生主). At the beginning of this chapter, Zhuangzi says (since I don't have an English translation, I just put my literal translation and some understanding here) our life is limited, and knowledge isn't. If we get ourselves addicted into knowledge (actually Zhuangzi, or the Taoist doctrine, resists all types of addiction and we shall not be bound by anything. So in my opinion, in Zhuangzi's sense, we may still be fully liberated if our mind is not attached to anything, and if one daoist believer cannot attain liberation due to the imprisonment, he can just suicide), then our spirit (I don't use mind since mind requires us to be rational, and it seems to me spirit in Zhuangzi's term requires us to be consciously liberal rather than rational) cannot be liberated and it would be dangerous to our life (in the spiritual sense. Chinese people may say your life is pointless or fruitless if you live a restrained life that you can't liberate your spirit). So in this sense, one living such a life is not wise as well. This might be why the writer of wiki Zhuangzi uses "foolish".
Original from the beginning of the 3rd inner chapter and my own provisional translation followed by 4 others (in the same order):
養生主
Cultivando o Anfitrião da Vida
The Preservation of Life (Lin Yutang)
Opinions on Nurturing Life (Nina Correa)
The Secret of Caring for Life (Burton Watson)
Nourishing the Lord of Life (James Legge)
吾生也有涯，而知也無涯。
Nossa vida tem um limite, mas o conhecimento é ilimitado.
Human life is limited, but knowledge is limitless.
There are limits in our lives, but there are no limits to knowledge.
YOUR LIFE HAS A LIMIT but knowledge has none.
There is a limit to our life, but to knowledge there is no limit.
以有涯隨無涯，殆已；
Usar o limitado para buscar o ilimitado é perigoso;
To drive the limited in pursuit of the limitless is fatal;
Using what's limited to try to catch up with what's unlimited can only bring trouble.
If you use what is limited to pursue what has no limit, you will be in danger.
With what is limited to pursue after what is unlimited is a perilous thing;
What you call foolish is actually 殆已.
殆 may mean "dangerous", "perilous", "to endanger", but also "almost", "probably", "only". According to Chinese Etymology: precarious / dangerous / danger / perilous / tired / afraid / nearly / almost / only / merely / even
So, it looks even worse than "foolish". I partially agree with the interpretation of Fatto Lee. But I don't think "rationality" is a state to be avoided. It's part of human nature. I think taoism is more against an excess of reason, reason disconnected of emotion, of balance, spontaneity and common sense. As the Dao De Jing emphasizes: "flexibility overcomes rigidity".
