Within the classical tradition, the figure known as Laozi is surrounded by a certain deliberate obscurity. The very name “Laozi” (老子) is an honorific, meaning “Old Master” or “Old Teacher,” and thus functions more as a title of reverence than as a straightforward personal name. This reflects a characteristic Taoist sensibility: the sage is known less by biographical detail and more by the resonance of the teaching. The person recedes so that the Dao may stand forth.

Traditional historical sources, most notably the *Records of the Grand Historian* (Shiji) attributed to Sima Qian, identify Laozi’s personal name as **Li Er** (李耳). In that same tradition, he is also associated with the courtesy name **Boyang** (伯陽), and some accounts refer to him as **Li Dan** (李聃). These names do not so much pin down a fixed historical personality as they gesture toward a lineage of wisdom associated with the Laozi figure. The multiplicity of names suggests that what matters in Taoist memory is not a single, neatly defined individual, but the embodiment of a certain way of seeing and living.

Modern scholarship often points out that it is uncertain whether Laozi was a single historical person or a composite of several early Taoist voices. From this perspective, even the name Li Er may be seen as part of a later attempt to give concrete form to a more fluid and elusive origin. Yet this very uncertainty can be read as an expression of the Dao itself, which resists being captured in fixed labels. The tradition preserves the name Li Er while simultaneously acknowledging that the ultimate source of the teaching lies beyond any one biography or identity.