The Asian Journal of Philosophy is inviting submissions for a topical collection on the topic of Metaphysics: East and West, with guest editors Micheal Clark, Li Kang, Kris McDaniel, and Tuomas Tahko. This collection will provide new perspectives on these debates by bringing them into contact with Asian metaphysical traditions. Papers should be between 7000-10000 words and prepared for double-blind review. Click HERE for more information about the CFP, requirements, and submissions.
Warp, Weft, and Way
Chinese and Comparative Philosophy 中國哲學與比較哲學
I have long been divided on the subject of metaphysics. Whereas I find it a fascinating topic, it also seems difficult to assign any sort of quantification. Accordingly, my notion of its value is limited. More like one of Dennett’s intuition pumps…although I do not recall him going quite that far. So, I have little to offer. Good luck with your project!
At least they’re acknowledging that there could be “Eastern” metaphysics–although the rules of the road are always going to be Western as long as we’re using Western categories.
Why is quantification a desideratum? Perhaps your conception of value is limited. That brings to mind Hilary Putnam’s pragmatist critique of formalism in philosophy: “This revolt against formalism is not a denial of the utility of formal models in certain contexts; but it manifests itself in a sustained critique of the idea that formal models, in particular, systems of symbolic logic, rule books of inductive logic, formalizations of scientific theories, etc.—describe a condition to which rational thought can or should aspire.” Even our conceptions of scientific rationality are subject to this critique: scientific rationality cast a net far wider than all that can be logicized or mathematized, in short, formalized: “The horror of what cannot be methodized is nothing but method fetishism” Or, in the words of the late John Ziman, “the domain of science extends far beyond the scope of formal reasoning,” and thus formal reasoning is not emblematic of the “highest” or “best” sort of scientific theorizing, as the types and standards of scientific reasoning vary from discipline to discipline, as well as across the divide between the natural and social sciences.” (Incidentally, this is well-appreciated in Deirdre McCloskey’s work over the years on the secret and not so secret ‘sins of economics’.) So much more so, I would think, in the case of philosophy, and thus metaphysics.