"Beyond New Confucianism" Conference at University of Buffalo
The conference will be held April 27-28, 2012; please see this poster for details.
Download this post as PDF (does not include comments; does not convert accented or non-Latin characters)
2 Responses to "Beyond New Confucianism" Conference at University of Buffalo
Leave a Reply
-
Warp, Weft, and Way is a group blog of Chinese and Comparative philosophy. Its primary purpose is to promote and stimulate discussion of Chinese philosophy and cross-tradition inquiry among scholars and students of philosophy, whatever their level of training. Contributors include active scholars with a variety of philosophical interests and approaches. Readers are encouraged to use the Question Board to submit any questions that they may have about the content, study, or profession of Chinese and Comparative philosophy.
Contributors Stephen Angle, Chris Fraser, and Manyul Im administer the blog behind the scenes. Any questions or requests regarding the blog and its operations may be directed to them. Contact information is available under their entries on the Contributor page. In order to maintain a dynamic conversational quality, discussion comments are not initially moderated. While a SPAM robot stands guard to prevent obvious intrusions, the administrators reserve the right to judge the appropriateness of any posted comment.
Warp, Weft, and Way is an academic venture. Neither the administrators nor the contributors profit financially from its contents.
NOTE: Any quoted material from the blog that is published elsewhere must be properly cited, according to professional standards, for example as outlined here. Posts and comments are the intellectual property of their contributors.
Recent Comments
- Scott Barnwell on International Conference on Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies
- Jenny Zhao on A review (or two) of comparative studies
- Jenny Zhao on A review (or two) of comparative studies
- Jenny Zhao on A review (or two) of comparative studies
- Agui on International Conference on Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies
- Thorsten Pattberg on International Conference on Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies
- Thorsten Pattberg on International Conference on Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies
- Bill Haines on International Conference on Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies
- Bill Haines on “Comparative Enlightenments” Forum at Wesleyan
- Thorsten Pattberg on International Conference on Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies
- An Lushan on “Comparative Enlightenments” Forum at Wesleyan
- Steve Angle on A review (or two) of comparative studies
- Brian Griffith on A review (or two) of comparative studies
- Dean Wang on A review (or two) of comparative studies
- Steve Angle on “Comparative Enlightenments” Forum at Wesleyan
- Bill Haines on “Comparative Enlightenments” Forum at Wesleyan
- Bill Haines on Against Empathy
- Bill Haines on Against Empathy
- Bill Haines on Against Empathy
- Thorsten Pattberg on Tu Weiming Lecture at Harvard
有朋自遠方來不亦樂乎
Hi,
Has anyone attended this conference? I would be grateful if you can share the contents from the conference.
The program shows that Steve Angle presented. Can you share with us, please?
Hi there,
It was a terrific conference. Two structural things stood out for me: (1) in the context of contemporary Confucianism, it was stimulating to have discussions from so many different disciplinary perspectives (intellectual and cultural history; sociology and media studies; European sinology; in addition to philosophy and political theory). (2) The conference was arranged so that we had ample time for discussion. This led to some extended exchanges that I definitely learned some things from! It was unfortunate that Lin An-wu was not able to attend, having had some personal issues arise at the last minute.
There were a lot of specific areas of overlapping interest/debate. One example was the question of how independent rights need to be from ethical judgment, and what sort of grounding or justification is needed for this independence. I argued that Tongdong’s view did not adequately ground rights; Daniel complained that my position, in turn, was more complicated and indirect than necessary. I’m not sure whether we convinced one another, but the exchange was fuller and more explicit than if often the case, at least!