After reading the article, according to Taoist philosophy, we can translate this headline to "The philosophy of Everything, minus some of the things that clearly shouldn't be a part of it because reasons."

That's delightfully illustrative and super helpful. Maybe, just maybe, there's a connection between the rise of all the "nonsense" the author discusses in the second half, and the fact that the first half is so vague that the best - least harmful - option is to do exactly what he wrote a Taoist savant might: read the quasi-maybe-non-definition of Tao, toss the book, and live one's life.

To whatever extent Tao is real and Taoism is legitimate, it'll just take care of itself. It is everything, after all. How does "everything" fail to sort itself out? Even yin and yang are illusions. Don't worry about yang poisoning. You are only very small. Imbalance is just another illusion.

If you would like a test to see whether I have a point, or whether instead I'm simply being smug and contrarian, allow me to offer a tried-and-true one that crosses all cultural boundaries: "Is he in the club, or isn't he?"

I'm not, so you can disregard everything I say. How convenient. How familiar.