A guest post by JeeLoo Liu

The Rise of Analytic Chinese Philosophy

JeeLoo Liu

The existence of Chinese philosophy has long been dismissed from both sides of the world. In the West, Hegel famously denied the presence of Chinese philosophy, focusing on the essential speculative nature of “philosophy” itself. Of Confucius, he wrote that Confucius was “only a man who has a certain amount of practical and worldly wisdom—one with whom there is no speculative philosophy.” Of the Daodejing, Hegel wrote: “If Philosophy has got no further than to such expression, it still stands on its most elementary stage. What is there to be found in all this learning?” (Hegel’s Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol. 1). When Derrida visited China in 2001, he proclaimed that China “does not have any philosophy, only thought” on the grounds that “philosophy” is “something of European form.” This has since become a popular, if not the received, view in the Western philosophical world.

In China, many traditionalist Chinese scholars reject the terminology of “Chinese philosophy,” focusing instead on what counts as “Chinese.” They argue that “philosophy” is a borrowed word from the West; for the same reason, they reject the categorization of Chinese metaphysics, Chinese epistemology, Chinese ethics, Chinese philosophy of language, Chinese philosophy of mind, and the like. To these scholars, even Feng Youlan’s (1895-1990) groundbreaking A History of Chinese Philosophy in the early twentieth century has “contaminated” Chinese thought by introducing Western concepts into the narrative.

However, there are also people on both sides who refuse to accept stereotyped conceptions of “philosophy” or the regional essentialization of either “the West” or “Chinese.” Beginning in the 1980s, young Chinese philosophers enrolled in graduate programs in North America began to promote analytic engagement with Chinese philosophy. They were primarily trained in analytic philosophy, and they saw the merit of employing philosophical analysis in the elucidation of ancient Chinese thought. They aimed to “philosophize” Chinese thought, moving away from the Sinological tradition and focusing on philosophical problems rather than purely textual studies of ancient Chinese texts. These young philosophers organized philosophical societies for the promotion of Chinese philosophy, most notably the Association of Chinese Philosophers in North America (ACPA), founded in 1995, and the International Society of Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Philosophy (ISCWP), established in 2002. Through their joint efforts, more books, journal articles, and philosophical meetings on various topics in Chinese philosophy have gradually emerged. One notable trend that arose from this cohort of philosophers in North America is what has come to be called analytic Chinese philosophy, which, as Bo Mou (2006) puts it, “has formed up a collective enterprise with systematic efforts instead of some individual scholars’ personal projects.”

Generally speaking, by “analytic” I mean the methodological approach of philosophical analysis that emphasizes conceptual analysis, the formulation of arguments, the examination of basic assumptions, and the pursuit of clarity in language and rigor in reasoning. In a more historical sense, however, analytic philosophy refers to the tradition of Anglo-American philosophy developed in the early twentieth century. According to Neil Levy, analytic philosophy is essentially “a problem-solving activity,” and it builds theories in answer to problems. There is thus a “proliferation of subdisciplines which characterizes the discipline” (Levy 2003, 293). In other words, there are two ways in which work can count as analytic Chinese philosophy: through the use of the method of philosophical analysis, or through engagement with philosophical problems as they are framed in the subdisciplines of analytic philosophy.

Building on this distinction, analytic Chinese philosophy has two main objectives. One is to employ philosophical analysis to reconstruct ancient Chinese thought. With the analytic approach, Chinese philosophical terms are clearly defined and examined, and Chinese philosophical debates are critically assessed as instances of speculative argumentation. Readers do not need to master Chinese texts or know the intellectual lineage in China in order to learn about issues and views in Chinese philosophy. With these reconstructive approaches and clear writings in analytic Chinese philosophy, one can no longer charge Chinese philosophy with being vague or impenetrable.

A more specific orientation within this approach has been called the “constructive-engagement strategy” with Chinese philosophy by Bo Mou. Through constructive engagement across different philosophical traditions, both within and outside Chinese philosophy, scholars emphasize focusing on philosophical issues with the aim to “contribute to the contemporary development of philosophy” (Mou 2016). There are many comparative philosophical works that engage analytic philosophy with Chinese philosophy, and many efforts made by early leaders in analytic Chinese philosophy to bring about dialogues between Chinese philosophers and prominent analytic philosophers—most notably Donald Davidson, Ernest Sosa, Michael Slote, John Searle, Owen Flanagan, and A. P. Martinich.

Building on the constructive-engagement strategy, an even more important objective of analytic Chinese philosophy emerged, namely, to develop philosophical positions inspired by ancient Chinese philosophy. Philosophers working in this field tackle a variety of issues in analytic philosophy with ideas gleaned from the tradition of Chinese philosophy. New Chinese-inspired philosophical views have burgeoned over the years. In Confucian-inspired analytic metaethics and normative ethics, there are Confucian moral realism, Confucian virtue ethics, Confucian role ethics, Confucian care ethics, Confucian feminist ethics, Confucian robot ethics, Confucian moral exemplarship, Confucian partialist ethics, Confucian perfectionism, and so on. In Confucian-inspired analytic political philosophy, there are Confucian meritocracy, pragmatic Confucian democracy, Confucian liberalism, Progressive Confucianism, Confucian theories of rights, and the like. Other noteworthy developments include Neo-Confucian moral psychology, Confucian moral sentimentalism, Confucian partialist cosmopolitanism, Confucian virtue epistemology, Confucian theories of moral motivation, moral responsibility, and moral blame, Confucian social ontology, Confucian relational theories of the self, Xunzi’s philosophy of language and constructivism, Confucian qi-monism and qi-naturalism, the Yijing’s philosophy of time and change, and so on.

In Daoist-inspired analytic philosophy, there are Daoist moral anti-realism, Daoist philosophy of language, Daoist metaphysics, Daoist theories of nothingness and non-being, Daoist qi-monism, Daoist naturalism, Daoist environmental ethics, Daoist political philosophy, Daoist skepticism and relativism, Zhuangzian therapeutic skepticism, Daoist action theory, Daoist theories of agency—with many more topics newly emerging. Other established philosophical views include Mohist logic, Mohist consequentialism, Mohist pragmatism, Mohist philosophy of language, Legalist political philosophy, the School of Names’ philosophy of language and paradoxes, Buddhist virtue ethics, Buddhist philosophy of causation, Buddhist logic, Buddhist metaphysics of interdependence, Buddhist philosophy of time and change, Buddhist philosophy of emptiness, Buddhist philosophies of consciousness and mind, Huayan Buddhist holism, Buddhist philosophies of self and non-self—and the list goes on. The landscape of these Chinese-inspired analytic philosophical views is rapidly expanding, and it has no fixed boundaries or limitations.

Analytic Chinese philosophy is also on the rise in China. In March 2024, the School of Philosophy at Shanxi University launched the Center for Analytic Chinese Philosophy, the first research center in China to bear this title. The establishment of the Center resulted from the joint efforts of Linhe Han of Peking University, Jianhua Mei of Shanxi University, and Yi Jiang, who holds a special appointment at Shanxi University. Since 2021, Professor Yi Jiang has led a Major Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China entitled A Study of the History of Analytic Philosophy in China in the Twentieth Century. This project led to the first philosophical forum on analytic Chinese philosophy at Shanxi University in 2024, thereby inaugurating the Center for Analytic Chinese Philosophy. In June 2024, Shanxi University hosted the first international conference on the history of analytic Chinese philosophy in the twentieth century, which drew close to one hundred philosophers in attendance. Linhe Han, Yi Jiang, Jianhua Mei, and others have published articles in newspapers and journals such as Guangming Daily and Philosophical Trends, vigorously promoting research on analytic Chinese philosophy. The second philosophical forum on analytic Chinese philosophy was held at Shanxi University in October 2025. The Center for Analytic Chinese Philosophy will continue to promote analytic Chinese philosophy, with more forums, conferences, and book series planned for the near future. With the official establishment of the name “analytic Chinese philosophy,” it is time that we recognize analytic Chinese philosophy as a distinctive branch of both Chinese philosophy and analytic philosophy.

The rise of analytic Chinese philosophy is now an established fact. In light of these developments over the past forty years, it is no longer tenable for contemporary analytic philosophers to dismiss or question the existence of Chinese “philosophy.” Philosophy is activity-oriented, not a fixed ontological kind. We should no longer cling to an outdated essentialism about what “philosophy” is or to a backward-looking narrative about where philosophy is supposed to have originated.