An editor at Bloomsbury contacted me about putting together a 2nd edition of my book Doing Philosophy Comparatively. In the next couple of months we’ll be gathering suggestions about what to add the new edition, which will include about 30% new material, and we’re trying to get as much feedback about the current edition as possible. If you have looked at the book and thought certain topics were missing or that parts of it could be expanded or have other suggestions for improvement, please send me an email at email@example.com. Many thanks!
The Department of East Asian Languages & Civilizations at the University of Pennsylvania is delighted to announce an interdisciplinary symposium in honor of Nathan Sivin at Perry World House, 3803 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, on Oct. 14-15, 2017.
The symposium is free and open to the public, but pre-registration is required. Just click here if you’d like to attend:
The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy Methodologies, edited by Sor-hoon Tan, is due to be published later this week. Details are here, and I’ll paste the very rich Table of Contents below. This is another in the Bloomsbury Research Handbooks in Asian Philosophy series, on which more is available here. So far, the only other title concerned with Chinese philosophy is The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy and Gender, edited by Ann-Pang White, which appeared earlier this year; see further below for its Table of Contents, and more details here. The series also contains several books focusing on the philosophies of India.
The latest issue of Confluence: Online Journal of World Philosophies, has just been released. It contains about 300 pages of articles, including a symposium led by Jonardon Ganeri on the question, “Is reason a neutral tool in comparative philosophy?” Near the end of the issue is a short survey article I wrote about the competing role ethical and virtue ethical interpretations of early Confucianism.
The current issue of Comparative and Continental Philosophy (issue 7:2) has some excellent, provocative material on the methodology of comparative philosophy. I particularly recommend:
- Amy K. Donahue & Rohan Kalyan, “Introduction: On the Imperative, Challenges, and Prospects of Decolonizing Comparative Methodologies”
- David Haekwon Kim, “José Mariátegui’s East-South Decolonial Experiment”
The hypothesis that I want to put forward here is that the conception of the “philosophical” underlying this state of affairs does not correspond to a timeless Platonic form, but that it is instead a construction undertaken in a specific cultural context, at a specific historical moment, for some very specific reasons, not all of which have to do with the love of wisdom. The time is the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The place is northern Europe, chiefly, though not exclusively, Prussia and Hanover.
From Yong Huang, Editor of Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy
Call for Papers for a special issue of Dao on Chinese and Comparative Philosophy: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
In conjunction with our academic sponsor, Association of Chinese Philosophers in America, which is going to celebrate its 20th anniversary, Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy, which will have its own 15thbirthday, plans to publish a special issue (or special topic, depending upon the number of finally accepted papers; if more than enough papers are finally accepted, some space may be reserved for this theme in the immediately following issue), on the theme “Chinese and Comparative Philosophy: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections.” The inaugural issue of our journal was featured by an article of this nature by Robert Neville: “Two Forms of Comparative Philosophy.” Now, after 15 years of publication of quality articles and book reviews in Chinese and comparative philosophy, it is time for us to reflect on this issue again.
[Dear readers: I am happy to present the following invited guest post from Dr. Elisa Freschi of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Freschi (BA +MA in Indology and Tibetology, BA in Philosophy, PhD in South Asian Studies) has worked on topics of Classical Indian Philosophy and more in general on comparative philosophy, epistemology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of language and on the re-use of texts in Indian philosophy (about which she has just finished editing a volume). She is a convinced upholder of reading Sanskrit philosophical texts within their history and understanding them through a philosophical approach. She has worked at the Austrian Academy of Sciences since September 1, 2012, with a Lise Meitner project on Epistemology of Sacred Texts in Vedāntadeśika’s Seśvaramīmāṃsā. For more information about her work see here.]
No matter whether one focuses on Classical Chinese philosophy (as probably most readers of this blog) or on Classical Indian philosophy (like myself), one works on something which is different than oneself. I will contend that this feeling is useful also if one focuses on contemporary Chinese, or Indian (or Tibetan and so on) philosophy, or on Classical, Medieval, Modern Western philosophy, since it alerts one to a key factor, namely the difference between oneself and one’s object of study.
The Gongsunlongzi and Other Neglected Texts: Aligning Philosophical and Philological Perspectives
Conference, August 27–29, 2014
Convenors: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Behr, Dr. Lisa Indraccolo, Dr. Rafael Suter
Organization: Institute of Asian and Oriental Studies – Sinology and URPP Asia and Europe
- Museum Rietberg, Park-Villa Rieter, Lecture Hall, Seestrasse 110, 8002 Zurich (August 27, 2014)
- Room KO2 F-174, University of Zurich, Main Building, Karl Schmid-Strasse 4, 8006 Zurich (August 28–29, 2014)
Registration required – Contact email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The Gongsunlongzi is one of the few early Chinese received texts dealing with problems of logic and epistemology. Unfortunately, philological inquiries suggest that most probably huge parts were only composed during the Chinese Medieval period (3rd–7th centuries AD). Philosophical studies on the text usually take its authenticity for granted and consider the Gongsunlongzi as if it actually were a Warring States text (453–221 BC). Philological evidence speaking against this widely shared assumption tends to be ignored. Yet, the materials included in the received text are rather heterogeneous and any information about the context or reading instructions are lacking. As a consequence, any interpretation heavily relies on the premises of the reader. A more accurate philological study might not only provide a clearer picture of the process of composition of the Gongsunlongzi and the dating of the different textual layers that compose the text, but might also provide useful information about the context and valuable clues for its interpretation. The workshop aims at bringing together several scholars both in philosophical and philological studies, sharing an interest in the Gongsunlongzi. By contributing their complementary expertise, it is hoped that the workshop will provide ideal conditions for developing a more comprehensive perspective on the text, yielding new insights on the Gongsunlongzi and shedding light on the modalities in which questions of logic and epistemology were addressed in early and medieval China.