New post in the series “Family as Topic, Root and Model in the West: An Ephemeral Resource for Comparative Philosophy.” Continue reading →
Author Archives: Bill Haines
Roman Stoicism
New post in the series “Family as Topic, Root and Model in the West: An Ephemeral Resource for Comparative Philosophy.” Continue reading →
Plato
New post in the series “Family as Topic, Root and Model in the West: An Ephemeral Resource for Comparative Philosophy.” Continue reading →
Athens and the Polis
New post in the series “Family as Topic, Root and Model in the West: An Ephemeral Resource for Comparative Philosophy.” Continue reading →
Family as Topic, Root, and Model in the West
Here is the beginning of a planned series of sketches on family as topic, root, and model (inspiration for other order) in Western philosophy and culture. I expect to post a new installment every two or three weeks. Papers are linked at their titles.
Impartiality in the Ancient Root: Two Concepts of Xiàotì
Here is a link to my paper “Impartiality in the Ancient Root: Two Concepts of Xiàotì.“
(This paper is a correction and improvement of parts of a paper I posted on June 12, 2025.)
Abstract:
Blind Spots: On the Authority of Scholarly Consensus on the Analects
Here is a link to my paper “Blind Spots: On the Authority of Scholarly Consensus on the Analects.”
Abbreviated preface:
A Speculation on the History of tì 弟/悌
At this link is a downloadable long paper defending a speculation on the history of tì 弟/悌.
Edward O. Shaughnessy has convinced me in personal communication that the part of this paper about the Odes is at least inadequately argued—or, as he would say, wrong. I have now posted an improved version of some of the rest of the paper (click here), focusing on xiàotì in the Analects and the Mencius. –BH, 5/25/2026
Book: The Global Encyclopedia of Informality
While scouring the web for freebies this morning, I came across something that may be of interest to many readers here: The Global Encyclopedia of Informality, University College London, 2018, in two volumes.
http://oapen.org/search?identifier=642570;keyword=informality
Here’s the table of contents for Volume 1:
Who’s Which? Which What?
My guess, really just a guess, is that the discussion of role ethics or relational ethics might benefit from some direct attention to a couple of fallacies available for commission—one minor, one major. I don’t know whether they’re actually committed or directly discussed in the literature. Possible examples of each can be found in Henry Rosemont’s essay “Rights-Bearing Individuals and Role-Bearing Persons” (in Mary Bockover, ed., Rules, Rituals, and Responsibility: Essays Dedicated to Herbert Fingarette, Open Court 1991, pp. 71-101). I’ll make that my text. I don’t understand it.
