An on-line review of Diana Lobel. The Quest for God and the Good: World Philosophy as a Living Experience (New York Columbia University Press, 2011). Confucianism and the Daode Jing make brief appearances in the review, as does the reviewer’s skepticism about Chinese and Indian philosophy as philosophy (note her scare quotes).
Download this post as PDF (does not include comments; does not convert accented or non-Latin characters)
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.
Thank you for posting this review; western “thinkers” without spiritual practice often do not see the shared Mystic/apophatic elements in Asian and Caucasian experience; judgmental mind,negative or positive, impedes wisdom ie direct “presence” awareness.
While the reviewer gives relatively little space to China (aside from Buddhism), it looks to me as though her use of scare quotes is merely meant to hold at arm’s length Lobel’s use of ‘philosophy’ as a countable noun, in such phrases as ‘Chinese and Indian philosophies’ — not meant to question the philosophical quality of the Chinese and Indian traditions.
The review makes it sound like Girl Talk wrote the book.
I agree with Bill about the scare quote usage. (A minor point: I think the reviewer is male — James Diamond.) I think I even sympathize at some level with this from the reviewer, which accompanies his oblique expression of distaste for eliding ‘philosophical traditions’ to ‘philosophies’: “…my skeptical gene is aroused by any synthesizing of post-Newtonian physics and ancient currents of thought.” I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know if Lobel actually tries to “synthesize” those things, but I am usually unimpressed with the results of comparing ancient Chinese metaphysics with the metaphysics implied by, say, quantum physics.