What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
-
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
Anja Steinbauer on modern developments in an ancient philosophical tradition.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/23/Whats_New_in_Chinese_Philosophy
https://philosophynow.org/issues/23/Whats_New_in_Chinese_Philosophy
-
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
This article from 1999 is most substantial and fascinating. I must try to read it again and pick out the juicy parts for discussion. Can't think why this has zero comments...
Is it because 'Philosophy Now' or its readers couldn't care less about China ? Or its philosophy, either traditional or modern?
Have to admit - until recently - you could count me in as being out. No motivation whatsoever to read about China - especially way back then in 1999.
However, there is a time and a place when issues arise in the mind - perhaps following news reports - and all of a sudden you search out material.
Anja is mightily motivated in this area. Her enthusiasm and clarity of thought and writing is exceptional. Thanks.
For background of modern Chinese Philosophy (1901- 1949) see the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ( IEP ).
I always enjoy the final paragraph of an article. This one tells of the philosopher Mou Zongsan ( yeah, never heard of him either ) - about how we must learn to respect differences in the nature of scholarship, the nature of historical era. Philosophy is a 'directional pointer of cultural development'.
Philosophy has to do with Who we are and from which culture and historical angle we pose and approach philosophical problems.
Anja suggests that in 'serious engagement with thought of other traditions we might discover much about them but also about ourselves'.
So - the question could be asked of Anja -
What did you learn about yourself in the process of studying modern Chinese philosophy ?
And how has this changed since 1999 ?
Is it time for an update ?
Or have I missed it...
Is it because 'Philosophy Now' or its readers couldn't care less about China ? Or its philosophy, either traditional or modern?
Have to admit - until recently - you could count me in as being out. No motivation whatsoever to read about China - especially way back then in 1999.
However, there is a time and a place when issues arise in the mind - perhaps following news reports - and all of a sudden you search out material.
Anja is mightily motivated in this area. Her enthusiasm and clarity of thought and writing is exceptional. Thanks.
For background of modern Chinese Philosophy (1901- 1949) see the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ( IEP ).
I always enjoy the final paragraph of an article. This one tells of the philosopher Mou Zongsan ( yeah, never heard of him either ) - about how we must learn to respect differences in the nature of scholarship, the nature of historical era. Philosophy is a 'directional pointer of cultural development'.
Philosophy has to do with Who we are and from which culture and historical angle we pose and approach philosophical problems.
Anja suggests that in 'serious engagement with thought of other traditions we might discover much about them but also about ourselves'.
So - the question could be asked of Anja -
What did you learn about yourself in the process of studying modern Chinese philosophy ?
And how has this changed since 1999 ?
Is it time for an update ?
Or have I missed it...
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
Can you imagine trying to discuss these ancient ideas in the context of intelligent design in a secular institution. You wouldn’t get out alive.As A.C. Graham puts it: “The great achievement of the Neo-Confucians was to create a system in which all the old concepts have a place, treating all concrete things as modifications of ether (qi) out of which they condense, and the Way (Dao), heaven and the nature as different aspects of a single principle (li) by which things are united.”
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
No, but some kids are spiritually killed because of egoistic secular ignorance
-
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
Acid drip.
Last edited by marjoram_blues on Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
No, this isn't thread killing. It is an invitation to discuss intelligent design in the context of ideas offered in the article. Can a secularist do it without going bonkers?marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:09 pmNick has a thing about kids. And looks to kill any other thread with his nasal drippings.
Sad really.
-
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
Yes it is. It is going to be like all the others you contaminate. You're only here cos you got a severe thrashing Saturday night on your Secular rubbish thread.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:17 pmNo, this isn't thread killing. It is an invitation to discuss intelligent design in the context of ideas offered in the article. Can a secularist do it without going bonkers?marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:09 pmNick has a thing about kids. And looks to kill any other thread with his nasal drippings.
Sad really.
Now fuck off.
And I really don't care if I get banned. In fact, I think Going more Bonkerish might do me the Power of Good.
So, really go away Mr. Acid Drip with your total fucking Shite.
Total Fucking Shite
etc, etc....
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
Has anyone else noticed that most engagements with Nick have a tendency to conclude in a similar way to the above?marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:28 pm
So, really go away Mr. Acid Drip with your total fucking Shite.
Total Fucking Shite
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
Can i quote you on that? Needless to say discussing intelligent design in the context of the wholeness of Chinese Philosophy is a no no. That's what I thought. Spirit killing is far more satisfying.marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:28 pmYes it is. It is going to be like all the others you contaminate. You're only here cos you got a severe thrashing Saturday night on your Secular rubbish thread.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:17 pmNo, this isn't thread killing. It is an invitation to discuss intelligent design in the context of ideas offered in the article. Can a secularist do it without going bonkers?marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:09 pm
Nick has a thing about kids. And looks to kill any other thread with his nasal drippings.
Sad really.
Now fuck off.
And I really don't care if I get banned. In fact, I think Going more Bonkerish might do me the Power of Good.
So, really go away Mr. Acid Drip with your total fucking Shite.
Total Fucking Shite
etc, etc....
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
I hope the answer is yes, seeing as you already have quoted it.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:40 pmCan i quote you on that?marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:28 pmYes it is. It is going to be like all the others you contaminate. You're only here cos you got a severe thrashing Saturday night on your Secular rubbish thread.
Now fuck off.
And I really don't care if I get banned. In fact, I think Going more Bonkerish might do me the Power of Good.
So, really go away Mr. Acid Drip with your total fucking Shite.
Total Fucking Shite
etc, etc....
Re: What’s New in… Chinese Philosophy
Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:40 pmHas anyone else noticed that most engagements with Nick have a tendency to conclude in a similar way to the above?marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:28 pm
So, really go away Mr. Acid Drip with your total fucking Shite.
Total Fucking Shite
It has to be that way Harbal. I am drawn to ancient philosophy such as revealed by Plato as the love of wisdom while modern secular philosophy is drawn to the need for self justification. The paradox is a joy for me but an annoyance to self justification that considers itself above questioning but only welcomes approved interpretations.“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.”― Søren Kierkegaard