Warp, Weft, and Way - APA Letter on Asian Philosophy

From the excellent Warp, Weft, and Way:
http://warpweftandway.com/2013/10/20/new-apa-newsletter/

APA Newsletters, Fall 2013 (Volume 13, Number 1):
Newsletter on Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies

Contents:

1. From the Editor, David H. Kim
2. “Neuroscience, Moral Sentimentalism, and Confucian Philosophy: Moral Psychology of the Body and Emotion,” Bongrae Seok
3. “The Resonant Mind: Daoism and Situated-Embodied Cognition,” Bradley Douglas Park
4. “Self-Making and World-Making: Indian Buddhism and Enactive Philosophy of Mind,” Matthew MacKenzie
5. “Report on APA Central Session: New Orleans, Louisiana,” JeeLoo Liu

These collections of essays touch on a nascent area in comparative studies that holds immense potential for growth and insight. Chinese philosophy has the potential to provide a number of insights to philosophy of mind because Chinese philosophy functions with different root metaphors in their descriptions of experience. Unlike western philosophy, the metaphors and images at the root of Chinese philosophical conceptions of mind already begin with consciousness as an embodied activity. Chinese philosophy doesn't have to extract itself from the vocabulary of Cartesian boxes, black slates, phenomenon vs. noumenon, or any of the ghosts that still haunt western models.

Talking With Confucius: Chinese Philosophy and Experience

When I first opened the pages to Confucius' analects and read the first paragraphs, I was immediately stricken by how immediate and real Confucius' insights felt. This stood in stark contrast to my encounters with western philosophy. The writings of western philosophy simply reiterated the assumptions and arguments I saw embodied in the problematic social structures and relationships I saw in the world around me. Western philosophy seemed both naïve and paternalistic, and insisted on simplifying problems I thought were more complex or that could be solved by intellectual compromise. Most of all, western philosophy seemed devoid of insights drawn from experience, and my experience felt at odds with large portions of the western tradition.

By comparison Confucius and his disciples seemed to walk off the page and into the world. Their own discussions had an immanence that I never felt in most western thought. Much of this was due to the narrative style. The analects are written as vignettes. They contain much more than simple records of his pronouncements and sayings, although they do this too. They contain descriptions of Master Kong and his students; they contain accounts of his travels and his responses to diplomatic encounters; they contain discussions between sagely exemplars and a cast of students, some adept in the ways of Dao and others struggling for approval. At times we see Confucius talking to his students, and at times we see him standing in reflection of the world around him. But no matter who is talking or what is happening, we engage the philosophy as a set of encounters that draws a shared space between ancient China and the modern reader. The analects were a collection of experiences, and even if entirely fictional they still presented a way to engage the thought being put forward in a way that was immediately engaging.

But this was, I believe, intentional. Writing aphorisms provided models for Confucius' disciples, and presumably for the people who heard the stories. Confucius speaks about the importance of providing sagely examples for the people: a single sage can transform the behavior of an entire community simply by participating in a standard of excellence. By observing deference and ritual propriety the sage does not simply demonstrate - the sage inspires.

This strikes at one of the major differences between eastern and western philosophy - the analects of Confucius seek to change behavior through the power of example and inspiration. The writings of most philosophers in the western cannon seek to change behavior through rational deliberation and argumentative discourse. Argument and discourse certainly have their place and are inherent tools of academic writing. However, they also reflect the western tradition's overriding belief in rationalism, that everything can be understood and controlled through the power of reason alone. While this may be incredibly optimistic it also contains deep flaws. Not only is the human animal not a perfectly rational being, but attempts to dictate all activity through reason end in failure - reason cannot predict all situations, account for all variables, nor make all distinctions. And while reason may be a vital tool to overthrowing oppression it can just as easily become a tool of oppression.

But this is not about the shortcomings of western philosophy. The reason I write this is to explain my appreciation for the vitality of Chinese philosophy. The engagement with experience is at the core of Chinese thought. This is true not only with the analects of Confucius but also the cryptic riddles of the Dao De Jing and the fantastic wanderings of Zhuangzi. It is true for the followers of Confucius, Mencius and Xunzi, as well as the Moists and the Legalists. All these schools of thought understood that human activity occurred within a complex world of nature, politics, emotion, and language. They understood that the human desire for harmony occurred in a world of turbulence and change. Their writing reflects this, and it was this engagement with the complexities of experience that drew me into Chinese philosophy.

Philosophy - Aesthetic Experience, Part 2: The Questions

In the following posts in this series I'm going to articulate some particular issues related to my views on aesthetic experience. There are two questions we have to address. The first question is what we mean when we say that aesthetic experience is primary. I've already been talking about this the preceding part to this post, where I mentioned some of the influences on my thought and why aesthetic experience does not devolve to mere Emotivism.

The second question is easy to ask but difficult to answer: what are the mechanics of an aesthetic theory of experience? This simple question leads to a variety of other more complex questions, such as: Which parts of experience are we talking about? How do these parts relate? What is the relation between experience and "reality?" Ultimately, all these questions push us in the direction of asking about the relationship between experience and meaning.

This also points to my ultimate goal with an aesthetic theory of experience. Ultimately I argue for the value of moral psychology. Most philosophies, political systems, religious systems, or other traditions of thought have their own way of looking at the world. This is not controversial. However, what is less accepted is that each of these has ways to engage experience that allows for therapeutic treatment and restoration of a humanitarian orientation. That's my goal, right there - to argue that aesthetic experience provides the conditions for therapeutic moral psychology in many different traditions.

Journals - Journal of Comparative Philosophy, Vol 4, No. 2

Journal: Comparative Philosophy
Volume 4, No. 2 (2013)

Center for Comparative Philosophy
University Library
San Jose State University, California, USA

Journal Information can be found here: http://www.comparativephilosophy.org/index.php/ComparativePhilosophy/

Philosophy - Aesthetic Experience, Part 1: General Thoughts

Aesthetic Experience as an Alternative to the dichotomy of Reason and Emotion

The history of western philosophy is a history of our understanding of thought. In the process of undergoing this journey from the Pre-Socratics to the present day, one of our most recurring themes is the objectivity of rational discourse. This objectivity is usually understood as a contrast between reason and emotion, privileging reason and disparaging emotion. This has, of course, been challenged by a number of voices in the history of western philosophy. My understanding of contemporary philosophy is lacking, but I suspect much of the conversation has shifted to meta-ethics and studies on consciousness.

This post is more a reply to the tradition of rationalism, which is not a current mainstream project. However, some of these thoughts relate to a theory of experience which I think is relevant to contemporary projects, especially theories of consciousness (discussions of which will follow later). For the moment, consider this a general reflection on a reaction to rationalism in the history of western philosophy.

What I propose is that the dichotomy between reason and emotion is a red herring; the conflict between reason and emotion has become something of a smoke-screen that obscures the role that aesthetic experience plays in philosophy. I'm thinking in particular of the manner in which aesthetic experience shapes how practice philosophy and, by proxy, how we live the rest of our lives.

Emphasis on the aesthetic itself is not new, but I appeal to a smaller tradition that places aesthetic experience in the foreground of personal experience. This tradition includes Vico, Cassirer, James, Thoreau, Dewey, and others. Each of these thinkers regard aesthetic experience slightly differently, but they all regard aesthetic experience as being primary to human experience. In this light, I contend that the manner in which we develop attachments to different kinds of aesthetic experience is related to the kinds of philosophical system to which we found ourselves most attracted - which in turn, affects the manner in which we interpret and understand the world.

This is different from Emotivism, because emotivism claims that all meaning is ultimately reducible to emotion. This doesn't mean subjectivity is an infinite downward spiral of self-recursivity. It means that we, as active subjects within the world, are constantly interacting within the world. We are in constant conversation with the world, speaking to the world via a variety of mechanisms.

Announcement - Rutgers 2013: Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies

The original post can be found here, at Warp, Weft and Way: 

The conference is at Rutgers University, April 4-5, and marks the first occasion of the Annual Rutgers Workshop on Chinese Philosophy.

1st Annual Rutgers Workshop on Chinese Philosophy (RWCP)

An International Conference on Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies

April 4-5, 2013
Rutgers University Inn & Conference Center 178 Ryders Lane
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
USA

Organizers:

Tao JIANG (Rutgers University)
Stephen Angle (Wesleyan University)
Ruth Chang (Rutgers University)

---

Thursday, April 4, 2013

8:45 am – 9:00 am
Welcome Remarks

Joanna Regulska (Vice President for International and Global Affairs, Rutgers University)
Jeffrey King (Chair, Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University)

9:00 am – 10:30 am
The Role of Nature in Early Confucian Ethics

Moderator: Ching-I TU (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Kwong-loi SHUN (Chinese University of Hong Kong) — Ethical Justification and Ethical Appeal
Sor-hoon TAN (National University of Singapore) — Xunzi and Naturalistic Ethics

Commentator: Ruth Chang (Rutgers University)

10:30 am – 10:45 am Coffee Break

10:45 am – 12:15 pm
Nature and Norm in Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism

Moderator: Sukhee Lee (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Stephen Angle (Wesleyan University) — Nature (xing) as Ground of Ethics: Neo-Confucianism And/Versus Buddhism
Justin Tiwald (San Francisco State University) — The Relationship between Imperatives and Natural Tendencies in Neo-Confucianism

Commentator: Barry Leower (Rutgers University)

12:15 pm – 1:45 pm Lunch

1:45 pm – 3:45 pm
Crafting Human Nature in Early Confucianism

Moderator: Wendy Swartz (Rutgers University) Presenters:

Amy Olberding (University of Oklahoma) — From Corpses to Courtesy: Xunzi’s Defense of the Artifice of Etiquette
Hagop Sarkissian (Baruch College, CUNY) — Manipulating Human Nature in Early Chinese Thought
David Wong (Duke University) — The Moral Craftsmen of Human Nature in the Analects and the Xunzi

Commentator: Owen Flanagan (Duke University)

3:45 pm – 4:00 pm Coffee Break

4:00 pm – 5:30 pm
Happiness and Compassion in Comparative Ethics

Moderator: Jessey Choo (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Jiyuan YU (SUNY Buffalo) — Moral Naturalism in Daoism and Stoicism
Tongdong BAI (Fudan University, China) — Mencius, Nietzsche, and the Nature of Compassion

Commentator: Michael Slote (University of Miami)

5:30 pm Reception and Dinner

---

Friday, April 5, 2013

9:00 am – 10:30 am
Facts and Values in Neo-Confucianism

Moderator: Deborah Sommer (Gettysburg College)

Presenters:
HUANG Yong (Kutztown University) — How To Derive Ought from Is: Zhu Xi’s Neo- Confucian Approach
PENG Guoxiang (Peking University, China) — Nature as Value: A Confucian One-body Ecological Vision

Commentator: Holly Smith (Rutgers University)

10:30 am – 10:45 am Coffee Break

10:45 am – 12:15 pm
Chinese Naturalistic Metaethics in Comparative Perspective

Moderator: Peter Klein (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Chris Fraser (University of Hong Kong) — Chinese Naturalism and the Limits of Ethics
JeeLoo LIU (California State University, Fullerton) — Grounding Objectivity in Confucian Ethics

Commentator: Dean Zimmerman (Rutgers University)

12:15 pm – 1:45 pm Lunch

1:45 pm – 3:45 pm
Virtue Epistemology and Chinese Philosophy

Moderator: Chun-fang Yu (Columbia University)

Presenters:
Chienkuo MI (Soochow University, Taiwan) — What Is Knowledge? When Confucius Meets Ernest Sosa
Rueylin CHEN (National Chung-Cheng University, Taiwan) — Intellectual Virtues and Craft Knowledge in Traditional China
Hsiang-Min SHEN (Soochow University, Taiwan) — On Zhu Xi’s Theory of Investigation, Knowledge and Intellectual Virtue: A Perspective from Virtue Epistemology

Commentator: Ernest Sosa (Rutgers University)

3:45 pm – 4:00 pm Coffee Break

4:00 pm – 5:30 pm
The Problem of Freedom in Confucian and Daoist Philosophical Projects

Moderator: Richard Simmons (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Tao JIANG (Rutgers University) — Isaiah Berlin and the Problem of Spiritual Freedom in the Zhuangzi
Kai Marchal (Soochow University, Taiwan) — Paradoxes and Possibilities of “Confucian Freedom”: From Yan Fu (1853-1921) to Mou Zongsan (1909-1995)

Commentator: Larry Temkin (Rutgers University)

6:00 pm Dinner

Special thanks to our sponsors whose generous support has made this conference possible:

Confucius Institute of Rutgers University, Dean of Humanities at School of Arts and Sciences, Director of Rutgers China Office, Department of Philosophy, and Department of Religion

All inquiries should be directed to Ms. Susan Rosario srosa@rci.rutgers.edu.