Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Core Ideas in Daoist Philosophy from the Warring States Masters

Daoism, one of the “Hundred Schools of Thought” (Zhuzi Baijia) in ancient Chinese philosophy, is epitomized by Laozi’s Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi’s Zhuangzi, emphasizing the Dao (Tao)—the ineffable, generative way of the universe—as the source of all harmony and spontaneity. Core ideas include wu wei (non-action or effortless alignment with nature), the relativity of perspectives (qi wu lun, equality of things), xiao yao you (free and easy wandering), and a critique of rigid human artifices like coercive laws, which disrupt the natural flow and impose false hierarchies. Daoists advocate yielding to softness over hardness, simplicity over complexity, and acceptance of paradox to transcend dualities. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through the Daoist lens of the Warring States masters, exemplifies the peril of anti-Daoist meddling: judicial rigidity fractures the natural way of inquiry, enforcing artificial distinctions that breed disharmony, stifling the effortless wandering of thought.

1. The Disruption of the Dao: Coercive Law as Anti-Natural Intervention

Laozi’s Dao is the undifferentiated source from which all arises, flowing without coercion; “the Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao” (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 1), warning against naming and categorizing to control it.

The verdict intervenes unnaturally: Article 293’s “disruption of social order” artificially names Chen’s forwards (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as “knowingly false,” imposing a rigid taxonomy that fragments the Dao’s flux. This echoes Laozi’s scorn for “laws that multiply like rabbits” (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 57)—the “high education implies discernment” presumption enforces a false naming, disrupting inquiry’s spontaneous flow. Daoists would lament this as hubris: the closed-door trial dams the river, yet anomalies like unverified posts reveal the Dao’s indifference—coercion begets its opposite, as “the soft and supple will prevail” (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 76). The case’s evidentiary voids expose the artifice: naming cannot contain the Way.

2. Wu Wei and the Folly of Force: Judicial Hardness as Self-Defeating Rigidity

Wu wei, effortless action in harmony with the Dao, counsels rulers to govern by yielding, not grasping; Laozi advises, “The greatest good is like water, which benefits all without contending” (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 8).

The proceedings embody contending hardness: the “shut up” directive and non-oral appeal forcibly contend with Chen’s natural expression—his prison letter’s avalanche theory and rumor categorization (art/emotion/reason/fact) as unforced yielding to complexity—yet yield nothing but resentment. Zhuangzi’s extension of wu wei critiques such rigidity as the “useless tree” parable: the judiciary’s “evidence chain” appears useful but is brittle, ignoring the Dao’s supple flow (millions of similar forwards unpunished). Daoists would see self-defeat: coercive hardness invites reversal, as “what is firm and strong is the way of the dead” (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 40)—the sentence hardens “order” into stasis, fracturing harmony where effortless non-action would suffice.

3. Relativism and Qi Wu Lun: Illusory Hierarchies in the Equality of Things

Zhuangzi’s qi wu lun (equality of things) dissolves hierarchies through relativistic perspectives, as in the butterfly dream: all distinctions—true/false, order/chaos—are provisional illusions.

The charge fabricates hierarchies: Chen’s inquiry is relativized as “disruptive rumors,” privileging “social order” over the equality of discourse, yet the prosecutor’s unverified admission equates judicial “truth” with unexamined illusion. This ignores Zhuangzi’s perspectival flux: from the forwarder’s view, posts are egalitarian exchanges; from the court’s, threats—yet anomalies (zero causal chaos) reveal the dream’s arbitrariness. Daoists would mock this as human folly: imposing ranks on the Dao’s level plain, like the “useless” tree thriving in equality (Zhuangzi, Ch. 4). The case’s selective enforcement exposes the illusion—hierarchy crumbles, breeding the very disharmony it names.

Conclusion: The Daoist Lens on the Case—Artificial Dams on the River of Spontaneity

From the Daoist philosophy of the Warring States masters, the Chen Jingyuan case is a dammed river: naming disrupts the Dao, hardness defies wu wei, and hierarchies shatter equality, engendering disharmony. As of October 22, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a Zhuangzian yielding to the flux. This case cautions: true harmony flows unbound—meddle, and the Dao reclaims its course. As Laozi intoned, “The Dao is forever undefined; small understanding interferes”—may the interference cease.