Which rings more true to you: Taoism or Confucianism?

[Blue3]

Confucianism is more focused on being educated in good habits, relative to your role in society and who that social position is superior/inferior/equal to, for social harmony and love. Humans must be tamed for civilization.

Taoism is more focused on being attuned to the natural world and each person being true to their inner-self, living by intuition, being"in the flow" where all actions seem effortless. Humans must reconnect with both inner and outer nature.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes. While Daoism gets the name, Ruism is another valid viewpoint on the Dao. To ask which is truer is like asking which of the Ten Commandments is most important.

[anvi]

I tend to think that Chinese civilisation, in the long run, struck a wise balance in seeing these as complimentary traditions, with Confucianism a resource for social and ethical life and Daoism a resource for bodily health and natural attunement, rather than conflicting.  I sort of hold them in that kind of regard now. That said, in early China, particularly from the Warring States to the Tang Dynasties, these traditions were diametrically opposed to one another, in terms of their respective political and social visions, forms of personal cultivation and cosmological outlooks.  I've also come in recent years to have a great deal of respect for the early Mohist tradition, despite its relatively short life, from Warring States to early Han, before the 20th century witnessed a revival of interest in it.  Early Confucian and Daoist thought have very different meta-frameworks for evaluating social norms, but the Mohists, who accept the need for social norms, are much more precise ethical critics of Confucian ideas as well as developers of their own system.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't know much about Confucianism, but Taoism is awesome.

[136or142]

Confucius say that Taoism rings more true.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Taoism

[Antonio the Sixth]

Confucianism. I just think moral and political questions, questions about how we relate to each other, are inherently more important and meaningful than questions about muh true self and whatnot. Humans are social beings.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

They're two complementary takes on the Way. One emphasizes society, the other the individuality, but humans need both.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Ruism is Daoism concerned with citizenship and role value-judgment. Daoism is Ruism concerned with the liberation therefrom.

Ruism is well-guided but can not be applied perfectly, by design. It is not about focusing only on your material life and your family in-out roles, but through achieving the divinity represented thereof without relying on externalized ritualizations. It's a system for the intersection of broader truth with rightness-making; one way through which confluence with "God" can be achieved.

Daoism is more "true" in a fundamental sense, but there is nothing anti-intellectual or deceptive about Ruism.

[Mr. Smith]

Confucianism

[Blue3]

Confucianism. I just think moral and political questions, questions about how we relate to each other, are inherently more important and meaningful than questions about muh true self and whatnot. Humans are social beings.

But the Tao Te Ching is all about political and moral questions, and its target audience appears to be a ruler.

[vitoNova]

Taoism is the least fascist of the two.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Taoism is the least fascist of the two.

Which leaves unresolved the question of which rings more true to you. 

That said,  I don't think it's fair to equate Confucianism with Fascism.

[Mopsus]

Confucianism. I just think moral and political questions, questions about how we relate to each other, are inherently more important and meaningful than questions about muh true self and whatnot. Humans are social beings.

Individuals with a confused or misplaced sense of self tend to be quite troubled - and to create trouble for those around them.

[John Dule]

Confucianism. I just think moral and political questions, questions about how we relate to each other, are inherently more important and meaningful than questions about muh true self and whatnot. Humans are social beings.

Mob good. Individual bad.

[Kingpoleon]

Taoism’s emphasis on balance is a fundamentally healthy philosophy for life. Now, some of its less philosophical put ins - about cosmology, astrology, alchemy, and such - are generally tying the Chinese folk religion to Taoism. Obviously these two are intertwined in practiced Taoism today, but it’s important to maintain a distinction from the Tao Te Ching - which reads much like Machievelli’s famous work - as well as its philosophical school from this intertwining with folk religion.

[The Puppeteer]

I actually practice many of the core tenants of Taoism in my daily life so for me the answer is quite simple. Taoism.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I find the deep humanism of Confucianism more congenial - with a bit of qualification. But I agree with posters above that both have their value for a balanced life.  

Taoism is the least fascist of the two.

I would dispute this. Taoist rejection of wisdom and benevolence is what inspired the Legalists to argue that the ruler should govern by power alone. Shen Dao, Shen Buhai and Han Fei all promoted the Taoist doctrine of wu wei in a ruler also. That is to say, from one perspective the paradigmatic example of the Taoist prince is Mao Zedong.

When people have went back to classical Chinese thought to find the seeds of a democratic tradition, they have focused on Mencius the Confucian. Not any Taoist thinker.

[Blue3]

Taoism is the least fascist of the two.

Which leaves unresolved the question of which rings more true to you. 

That said,  I don't think it's fair to equate Confucianism with Fascism.

Confucius wrote about habits... and basically how to have a functioning society without the heavy hand of government. At its core origin, it's highly anti-fascist, and basically established the idea of the social contract and when the people are right to rebel and overthrow its government via revolution.
It is hierarchical (even if it does have those checks and balances), but that element of hierarchy can be removed/corrected, without altering the rest that much.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"They're complementary" is a trite and too-easy response, but it has the advantage of being true, at least if you presuppose the broader underpinnings of Chinese philosophy (which has always been a bit more pragmatist and less concerned with the expressly metaphysical than, say, Indian philosophy). I think how I'd like to interpret this question is which you think precedes the other, and I would tend to agree with the posters saying or implying that Confucianism precedes Taoism insofar as the Taoist theory of everyday life is among other things structured as liberation from some of the demands of the Confucian one.