For historians who patiently abide our company, I relay this announcement from John Makeham:
The Australian National University (ANU) is currently advertising two new positions in Chinese History:
These are both research-intensive positions. One position is a Senior Fellow specializing in the late imperial and contemporary periods (the Republic and People’s Republic, and Taiwan). The other position is for a Fellow specializing in the pre-modern period.
I would be most grateful if you could bring the following link–which provides details of the positions–to the attention of interested parties: http://jobs.anu.edu.au/PositionDetail.aspx?p=1949
Continue reading “Chinese History Positions at ANU”
Section 5B/4 of the Mencius is a very interesting text. It’s one of the points at which the Mencius gets defensive about Mencius’s personal virtue. The issue here is Mencius’s willingness to accept gifts from rulers who acquired them by taking from their people. Why accept those gifts, given that you wouldn’t accept gifts from a more everyday sort of bandit?
This passage interests me in part because I’m interested in Mencian defensiveness (on which see also the earlier thread about Shun and his awful family). But that’s not the issue I want to take up here. What I’m wondering about is how (if at all) Mencius’s argument is supposed to work. Continue reading “Kings and Thieves”
I’d like to welcome David Elstein to the Warp, Weft, and Way cast of contributors. David is assistant professor of philosophy at the State University of New York, New Paltz. He received his B.A. from Oberlin College and M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy at Academia Sinica in Taiwan. Though his initial training and research was in pre-Qin thought, recently he has become interested in contemporary Chinese philosophy, particularly Confucian political thought. He has published articles in Philosophy East and West and Dao, and is working on a book examining contemporary Chinese views on Confucianism and democracy.
As a forum for comparative studies between Chinese philosophy and other philosophical traditions in the world, Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy is soliciting contributions that make creative and fruitful use of the vast conceptual resources in the Chinese philosophical traditions to approach central issues and ideas in the Bhagavad Gita for a special issue, with the theme “Bhagavad Gita and Chinese Philosophy,” guest edited by Professor Tao Jiang. The Bhagavad Gita, or simply the Gita, is the best-known Indian religious scripture, and one of the most translated texts in the world along with the Bible and the Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching). Due to its prominence and influence within India and beyond, the Gita has been the subject of constant scholarly studies in the West, quite often in the context of fruitful comparisons with Western religious and philosophical texts. However, there has been little, if any, effort in the scholarly community to engage the Gita from perspectives arising out of Chinese philosophical texts. In order to facilitate philosophical engagement between Chinese and Indian traditions, we are soliciting papers that draw meaningful and fruitful connections between the ideas presented in the Gita and those in Chinese philosophical texts. The submissions need to be explicitly comparative involving the Gita and some Chinese text/thinker. Please send an electronic copy of your paper by January 31, 2012 to the editor-in-chief, Yong Huang (firstname.lastname@example.org). If you have any question, please feel free to contact either Yong Huang or the guest editor of the issue, Tao Jiang (email@example.com).