From the outside, it may seem that all Asian philosophical trends are the same: contemplation, self-improvement and regularity. However, this impression is misleading. On such a similar foundation, a mass of diametrically opposed teachings has grown, Taoism and Confucianism being an excellent example of the difference between them.
Confucianism was born first, starting with one person. Even during his lifetime, Confucius was a legendary person, and therefore had a lot of weight in politics - in this regard, the doctrine he created was practically the official state religion.
His main idea was self-improvement and personality development. The ideal of a person in Confucianism is not too different from that accepted in Europe: kindness is at the forefront, which relies on respect for others, honesty and the absence of negative qualities such as anger, lust and greed. And the ultimate goal of achieving personal excellence is maximum social utility, work for the good of the people.
Taoism, which appeared a little later, can be considered a response to the state teaching. The goal of the Taoists was identical: the pursuit of the ideal. But the methods were diametrically opposed, giving the person food for thought and putting him in front of a serious choice.
The main idea of the counterculture was passivity. As in Confucianism, vivid expression of emotions and susceptibility to passions were not welcomed here. However, instead of taking an active position of “correcting oneself,” the Taoist tried to take the position of an outside observer, perceiving his own, tormented by suffering, consciousness as something external and not belonging to him. The direct opposite of the state system is also manifested in the ultimate goal of self-improvement - the achievement of "universal equilibrium".
Taoism did not even think about any work for society (which is why it was perceived as an anarchist movement). An ideal person is a person in and of itself, without being tied to far-fetched ethical norms and, moreover, to the state good. On a cosmic scale, any ethics does not play any role, and therefore the Taoist should act simply on a whim.
This difference in positions results in yet another fundamental contradiction: a view of the structure of the world. Confucians, motivating themselves to take decisive action and active development, divided the world into "left" and "right", strictly referring things to either good or negative and corrupting. Their opponents, on the contrary, did not need this: a detached and passive position allowed Taoism to perceive the environment in a wide range, seeing both neutral actions and partially leaning in one direction.
