Harmonizing Diversity: Insights from Zhuangzi’s Concept of Zhi 知
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article systematically elaborates on Zhuangzi's discourse on "Zhi." In response to the academic community's simplistic conclusion about Zhuangzi's anti-intellectualism, the paper offers an explanation that is closer to the text, going beyond the perspective of epistemology. It discusses Zhuangzi's understanding of diversity from angles such as breaking coventional knowledge and transcending narrow perspectives. The paper is well-structured and integrates viewpoints from academic research into its analysis.
The paper could further address the following issues:
- When discussing true knowledge, Zhuangzi distinguishes between not-knowing(无知、不知）, and knowing. Is knowledge inherently limited?
- The paper argues that Zhuangzi had a relatively systematic approach to knowledge. However, are there contradictions in Zhuangzi's discussion of knowledge? If Zhuangzi's theory of "knowledge" is placed within the broader context of pre-
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with my manuscript and for your insightful comments. I deeply appreciate the care and intellectual rigor evident in your feedback, which has significantly strengthened this work. Below I address your specific concerns.
Comments 1: When discussing true knowledge, Zhuangzi distinguishes between not-knowing(无知、不知）, and knowing. Is knowledge inherently limited?
Response 1: Regarding your first suggestion concerning the distinction between not-knowing (无知, 不知) and knowing, and whether knowledge is inherently limited, I have added Footnote 19 before introducing the concept of zhenzhi after discussing the limitations of xiaozhi and dazhi:
Zhuangzi contrasts the inherent limitations of conventional knowledge with the liberating potential of wuzhi 無知...
This footnote elaborates on Zhuangzi's contrast between the limitations of conventional knowledge and the liberating potential of wuzhi (not-knowing), drawing on his declaration in the Qiwu lun. It argues that, for Zhuangzi, all conventional forms of zhi are inherently limited because they reduce the fluid complexity of reality to rigid human constructs. It explains how wuzhi serves as both critique and resolution, dissolving the knower-known dichotomy, and resonates with wang (forgetting) as a form of negative capability that fosters openness to the transformations of dao. However, given the broad and profound nature of this question, as well as the scope limitations of this paper, I am unable to fully develop this discussion here. I will certainly explore this theme further in future research, particularly through comparative studies of wuzhi and apophatic traditions.
Comments 2: The paper argues that Zhuangzi had a relatively systematic approach to knowledge. However, are there contradictions in Zhuangzi's discussion of knowledge? If Zhuangzi's theory of "knowledge" is placed within the broader context of pre-
Response 2: Your second point regarding potential contradictions in Zhuangzi’s discussion of knowledge, particularly in relation to the broader context of pre-Qin philosophical thought, is particularly valuable. To address this, I have incorporated Footnote 25 in the conclusion section:
As illustrated above, while Zhuangzi critiques conventional knowledge...
This footnote clarifies that Zhuangzi does not reject knowledge per se but critiques its rigid application. His apparent contradictions—such as dismissing fixed knowledge while advocating zhenzhi—reflect his broader epistemological strategy: to mirror the fluidity of dao, which transcends binary logic. I argue that these contradictions are deliberate methodological interventions, encouraging a more dynamic and context-sensitive approach to knowing. By analyzing his hierarchical framework of zhi (from xiaozhi to zhenzhi), I demonstrate that these apparent inconsistencies do not signify a lack of coherence but rather an intentional rejection of rigid systematization in favor of adaptability and relational understanding.
That said, the broader implications of Zhuangzi’s paradoxical approach to systematicity in pre-Qin philosophy—particularly in contrast to Confucian and Mohist projects—deserve more extensive discussion. I intend to explore this issue in greater depth in future studies.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsdetailed comments are in the attached pdf. In general, I found many unsupported assumptions regarding the metaphysical nature of "dao" 道. I find it highly doubtful that Zhuangzi was a metaphysician since so much of the text repudiates such overly analytic approaches.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your pertinent and incisive critique of my manuscript. I deeply appreciate your rigorous engagement with the text and your constructive suggestions, which have prompted significant revisions to strengthen the paper’s philosophical coherence and philological precision. Below, I address your concerns, especially regarding the potential over-metaphysicalization of dao, and outline the revisions made in response. Please find the corresponding revisions highlighted in red in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: In general, I found many unsupported assumptions regarding the metaphysical nature of "dao" 道. I find it highly doubtful that Zhuangzi was a metaphysician since so much of the text repudiates such overly analytic approaches.
Response 1: Your observation that Zhuangzi’s dao should not be conflated with Western notions of “ultimate reality” or static metaphysical substance is both astute and foundational. I agree entirely that framing dao as a transcendent ontological entity risks misrepresenting Zhuangzi’s anti-dogmatic, process-oriented philosophy. In the original draft, my discussion inadvertently echoed outdated scholarly paradigms that project Western metaphysical categories onto Zhuangzi’s text. This was a critical oversight, and I have thoroughly revised the manuscript to align with contemporary scholarship emphasizing dao as a pluralistic, context-dependent practice rather than a monolithic “substance.”
Key revisions include:
(1) Introduction Revision:
I rewrote the second paragraph of the introduction. The revised text now clarifies that earlier interpretations of dao—influenced by Western philosophical frameworks—are increasingly challenged by scholars who stress its dynamic, performative, and anti-essentialist dimensions. The introduction positions dao not as a fixed metaphysical principle, but as an embodied way of way of navigating and harmonizing with life’s fluidity through embodied skill and perspectival flexibility.
(2) Footnote Addition:
To further substantiate my argument, I have included a detailed footnote 2 that provides scholarly context and explicitly rejects the reification of Dao as a metaphysical entity. This discussion draws on the works of Xu Keqian 徐克謙 and Jiang Chongyue 蔣重躍, which emphasize the practical and generative aspects of dao.
(3) Terminological Adjustments:
I have also checked throughout the manuscript to avoid reifying dao as a metaphysical entity. For instance, I replaced phrases like “the Dao” (with definite articles) with “dao” (lowercased and without definite articles) to stress the concept’s fluid and non-absolute nature. This adjustment was made to ensure that the text aligns with Zhuangzi’s rejection of ontological fixity.
(4) Section 2 Revision:
In Section 2, where I discussed the classifications of zhi (knowledge) in Zhuangzi’s philosophy, I have critically engaged with previous scholars who still partially adhere to traditional views on “dao.” I have revised this section to highlight their perspectives while also critiquing their ontological interpretations in light of the revised understanding of “dao” that I adopt in my paper. This way, I avoid any internal contradictions between their views and the one I advocate in this article.
(5) Section 5 Revision:
The original claim that dao represents an “ultimate truth and cosmic principle” has been entirely revised. I have completely rewritten the third paragraph of Section 5 to clarify the relationship between “dao” and “tian” (heaven). This revision better reflects the dynamic and non-ontological nature of dao, showing that it is not a final or ultimate principle, but rather a path that continually unfolds in relation to context and practice.
Comments 2: Redundancy
Response 2: Thank you for identifying the issue of redundancy in Section 2 of the manuscript. Upon revisiting this section, I acknowledge that certain passages indeed contained repetitive phrasing and overlapping arguments, which diluted the clarity and concision of the analysis. I have thoroughly revised this section as well as other sections to eliminate redundancy, streamline the narrative, and sharpen the focus on the core argument.
Comments 3: Overreliance on Sima Qian’s Accounts
Response 3: Thank you for raising this critical methodological concern. I fully agree that Sima Qian’s Shiji, compiled centuries after Zhuangzi’s era, reflects Han-dynasty historiographical perspectives rather than serving as direct evidence for reconstructing early Daoism. In revising the manuscript, I have taken care to: (1) Explicitly frame the Shiji’s interpretive nature by adding phrases such as “Han-era intellectual priorities” and “historiographical artifacts” to foreground Sima Qian’s role as a shaper of narratives, not merely a transmitter of facts. (2) Clarify the analytical purpose of citing these accounts: They are invoked not to assert historical claims but to demonstrate how later scholars negotiated the apparent paradox between Daoism’s critique of instrumentalized knowledge and its practitioners’ textual mastery.
Comments 4: Concerns about Transcending Sensory Perception
Response 4: Thank you for raising this critical point. The revised text and accompanying footnote address the concerns as follows:
(1) The phrasing “intrinsic limitations” has been removed to avoid essentializing sensory perception. Instead, the revised text emphasizes contextual risks of overdependence on sensory input (e.g., distortion of reality, confinement to subjective experience). Transcendence here is framed not as abandoning perception but as integrating it into embodied intuition through practice, exemplified by craftsmen like Cook Ding (footnote 9). This aligns with Zhuangzi’s immanent, non-dualistic epistemology.
(2) The footnote clarifies that transcendence entails a shift from sensory reliance (e.g., sight) to embodied attunement (e.g., tactile/rhythmic fluency). Cook Ding’s mastery demonstrates how sensory engagement is internalized into bodily spontaneity (shenyu “spiritual encounter”), reflecting Zhuangzi’s practical model of wuwei (effortless action).
(3) By grounding the argument in craftsmen—Zhuangzi’s paradigmatic exemplars—the revision underscores his preference for practical mastery over abstract theorizing. The “transcendence” he advocates is not metaphysical but a reorientation within lived experience, consistent with his immanent philosophy.
Comments 5: The ambiguity of the term “rational cognition”
Response 5: Thank you for highlighting the ambiguity in the original phrasing. The phrase “rational cognition” was indeed problematic, as it risked implying a false binary (e.g., “rational vs. irrational cognition”). In revising the text, I replaced "rational cognition" with "practical reasoning and instrumental calculation" to more accurately reflect the specific faculties we aim to emphasize: a form of utilitarian calculation and artificial scheming that disrupts natural spontaneity and obstructs harmonious alignment with dao.
