Comedian Dusty Slay tells a story about trying to purchase some DVDs at a flea market. The DVDs are cheap: three for five dollars. He selects six DVDs. Unfortunately, the person running the store is not very good at basic math. Dusty gets into an awkward exchange trying to convince her that he isn’t trying to cheat her by offering $10 for the six DVDs. What to do?
I instantly thought of the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi (aka Chuang Tzu) the first time I watched this bit. The Daoists urge us to “be like water” and to “act without acting” (wu wei) [1]. The idea is that the best actions are, in a sense, effortless and involve finding harmonious solutions to difficulties rather than trying to force things into a mold that is unnatural. Why try to force your way through an obstacle if it is possible to achieve your aim by taking a path around it?
Dusty is in what Zhuangzi calls a “three in the morning” situation.
A “Three in the Morning Situation” is one in which the danger is insisting on only one way of looking at or resolving matters.
Here is Zhaungzi’s story and explanation:
“To wear out your brain trying to make things into one without realizing that they are all the same—this is called ‘three in the morning.’ What do I mean by ‘three in the morning’? When the monkey trainer was handing out acorns, he said, ‘You get three in the morning and four at night.’ This made all the monkeys furious. ‘Well, then,’ he said, ‘you get four in the morning and three at night.’ The monkeys all were delighted. There was no change in the reality behind the words, and yet the monkeys responded with joy and anger. Let them, if they want to. So the sage harmonizes with both right and wrong and rests in Heaven the Equalizer. This is called walking two roads.” [2]
Dusty wisely takes a different approach when the clerk fails to grasp that six for ten is three for five, two times. Instead, he makes a simple proposal: I’ll buy three. Then I’ll take off my hat and buy the other three. And that worked.
In class, I preface the video by asking the students to consider a time when they were in an argument with someone else and knew they were right. How do you win an argument with someone who just doesn’t get it? Why do you need to win it? What’s at stake? How could you have approached the situation differently than you did?
Of course, Zhuangzi’s story has broader implications. Being inflexibly sure that we are right is sometimes the problem. What do we lose if we consider other possibilities? On the one hand, we might discover that we were not so right, and may learn something valuable. Maybe we were wrong, or maybe there’s more than one valid way to think about or resolve the issue. On the other hand, by considering alternatives, we may come to a clearer understanding of why our view is to be preferred and how to guide others, like Dusty did, to the correct solution.
I often teach Zhaungzi as a counterpoint to Socrates.
Socrates may be right that he is innocent of a capital crime, but perhaps if he’d made his case differently, he could have avoided the hemlock. Ironic humor—proposing free meals as an alternative to a death sentence—doesn’t work for everyone. At least, Daoism reminds us to choose our battles wisely.
References:
[1] Cf. Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching, translated by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo, Hackett (1993).
[2] Zhuangzi, The Complete Works of Zhuangzi, translated by Burton Watson, Columbia University Press (2013), p. 11.
The Teaching and Learning Video Series is designed to share pedagogical approaches to using humorous video clips for teaching philosophy. Humor, when used appropriately, has empirically been shown to correlate with higher retention rates. If you are interested in contributing to this series, please email the Series Editor, William A. B. Parkhurst at parkhurw@gvsu.edu.
Matthew Pianalto
Matthew Pianalto is Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University. He is the author of the philosophical monograph, On Patience, published by Lexington Books in 2016, plus 20 articles and essays.
