Before proceeding further, we might want to ask: what is Daoism and why is it significant for Heidegger and his generation? The expression has a variety of historical meanings. First, Daoism (daojia 道家) was applied to Laozi in a retrospective construction and categorization of schools in the Historical Records (Shiji 史記) of the Han dynasty historians Sima Tan 司馬談 (c. 165–110 bce) and his son Sima Qian 司馬遷 (c. 140–86 bce) for whom it signified Huanglao 黃老 biopolitical-cosmological discursive formations. Second, types of “religious Daoism” (daojiao 道教) emerged during the late and post-Han eras that were associated with biospiritual arts of internal alchemy (neidan shu 內丹術), the way of immortals (daoxian 道仙), and the way of spirits/gods (shendao 神道). Third, and most pertinently here, it referred to the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi, whose historical connections are unclear and controversial, for generations of Chinese literati and modern European intellectuals. This sense can be designated early, Lao-Zhuang, or ziranist.

(NELSON, E. S. Heidegger and Dao: things, nothingness, freedom. London New York Oxford New Delhi Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic, 2024)