G. E. R. Lloyd, Analogical Investigations. Historical and Cross-cultural Perspectives on Human Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Pp. vi, 139. ISBN 9781107518377. $34.99 (pb).
Reviewed by Anders Klostergaard Petersen, University of Aarhus (akp@cas.au.dk)
Review is here.
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
2016.05.18 View this Review Online View Other NDPR Reviews
Alexus McLeod, Theories of Truth in Chinese Philosophy: A Comparative Approach, Roman and Littlefield, 2016, 197pp., $39.95 (pbk), ISBN 9781783483457.
Reviewed by Bryan W. Van Norden, Vassar College
This book provides an overview of philosophical theories of truth and semantics in ancient China, using contemporary analytic philosophy of language as an interpretive framework. The discussion is limited to Chinese philosophy prior to the intellectual revolution caused by Buddhism. However, the period Alexus McLeod focuses on (551 BCE-220 CE) is philosophically rich. This book is accessible to mainstream philosophers, generally well argued, and plausible in most of its conclusions.
The latest issue of FPC has been published. Until June 1, 2016, the full text is available here. The Table of contents is below.
Upcoming conference: “Political Theory in the East Asian Context: Beyond West-Centrism” at Hong Kong CityU from 3-4 June 2016 (Friday to Saturday). All are welcome. More details here.
Bryan Van Norden talks about Chinese philosophy in an interview on the APA Blog. Check it out!
The latest APA Newsletter on Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies (15:2) is now available on-line here. (To save a click, you can also directly download it here.) Its table of contents is as follows:
From the Guest Editor, Amy Olberding
Submission Guidelines and Information
Articles
From Bo Mou… (Updated May 18, 2016)
For your information and possible interest, the FYI description of the 2016 term “Beijing Roundtable on Contemporary Philosophy” workshop series is attached here. The theme topic for 2016 term of “Beijing Roundtable” workshop is “How constructive engagement of epistemological resources in classical Chinese philosophy and contemporary philosophy is possible” (15 July 2016, Beijing).
CALL FOR PAPERS: TRAVELLING THEORISTS/THEORIES
SOAS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 30 JUNE-1 JULY
SOAS CENTRE FOR COMPARATIVE POLITICAL THOUGHT AND THE LONDON CPT RESEARCH GROUP
This workshop explores the myriad and perhaps mysterious ways in which theory travels. The phrase ‘travelling theory’ already puts both terms under question. What is travelling? How is it travelling? Whence is it travelling? And who produces theory and enables it to travel? The workshop is about articulating critical questions about producers, users, and diffusers of theory as well as the ethics, aesthetics, and politics of intellectual production.
In a February 2016 blog post, Bin SONG makes a powerful case for switching from “Confucianism” to “Ruism.” This is not a brand-new idea; for instance, David Elstein has consistently used “Ruism,” including in his posts here at Warp, Weft, and Way, and Robert Eno advocated for such a practice in his 1990 book The Confucian Creation of Heaven (see here for relevant quote). Still, Bin Song raises some new arguments. To some degree, the things that Elstein, Eno, and Song are talking about may not be entirely the same: at least in the first instance, I take them to be referring to a modern philosophical movement, an ancient ritual-cum-philosophical movement, and a modern spiritual or religious movement of potential relevance in the contemporary US, respectively. (Admittedly, the application of these categories to Chinese practices can only be approximate; I just mean to gesture toward some possible distinctions.) Be this as it may, it may be that the arguments for using “Confucianism” in any of these contexts are weaker than many of us have assumed. What do you think: should we abandon the word “Confucianism”?
Issue 9 of 当代儒学 (Contemporary Confucianism) has been published, and the table of contents is available here.
