International Society for Chinese Philosophy (ISCP) plans to host two sessions at the 2013 Pacific Division Meeting of American Philosophical Association (APA), San Francisco, March 27-30.
You are invited to submit panel proposal or paper abstract. The paper abstract should be about 100-200 words. If you submit a panel proposal, please provide a panel title, abstract of each paper, affiliations of the presenters and commentators. Panel proposals with a unified theme are encouraged and preferred. For individual paper submissions, priority will go to those that can be grouped into a themed session. Submissions related to the topic “Action in Chinese Philosophy” are especially encouraged.
Since our pacific liaison Professor Robin Wang is on her sabbatical leave, Jiyuan Yu will serve as the acting liaison this year. Please send the submissions electronically to jyyu@buffalo.edu.
The deadline for submission is Sept 15, 2012. Submissions will be reviewed by the Executive Board.
P.S Forthcoming ISCP activities:
- ISCP panels at AAR, Chicago, Nov. 2012, contact Professor Eric Nelson at Eric_Nelson@uml.edu
- ISCP panels at APA Eastern, Dec. 2012, contact Professor Jinmei Yuan at JinmeiYuan@creighton.edu
- ISCP panels at APA Central, March, 2013, contact Professor Huaiyu Wang at huaiyu.wang@gcsu.edu
- ISCP 18th International Conference, SUNY Buffalo, July 21-14, 2013, contact buffaloiscpconference@yahoo.com
- ISCP panels at the World Congress of Philosophy, Athens, August, 2013, contact Professor Chung-ying Cheng at ccheng@hawaii.edu
I don’t wanna hurt your feelings, but “Chinese philosophy” is such an unprofessional title for your society and the conference. It’s the 21st century. Time to get scientific. You cannot simply use Hellenic or Christian concepts and annotate “Chinese” to get the China you want to see. Things have smartened up. You now can look it up and find out the real China. And the word “philosophy” doesn’t appear in any of the Chinese classics. -Thorsten Pattberg
No, none of the non-Chinese words appear in the Chinese classics. Neither does “Chinese classics,” for that same reason. Maybe we shouldn’t discuss target literature in non-target languages at all. But that seems drastic. I’m not sure which “science” it is to which you refer. You seem smart; engagement rather than dismissiveness would be helpful but if you’d rather not engage constructively, well… leave us to wallow in our crude inquiries.
After several minutes thinking about this…somehow I’m most hung up that you introduced it with “I don’t wanna hurt your feelings.” People here are pretty amenable to reasoning, and most of us are familiar with the dangers and pitfalls of translation across radically different traditions. That we have not concluded as you have does not mean our “feelings” are in any way at stake.
If you’d rather we conduct ourselves in Chinese, advice doesn’t get any more Sinitic than this: 順物自然，而無容私焉.
Philosophy might have the meaning of love to wisdom. Not wisdom. Philosophy is the way to wisdom. where this way ends wisdom might start. In this sense every culture has a philosophy. Every culture has a love for wisdom. Every culture is on the long way to wisdom. Good luck. Christian Thomas Kohl