中国古典哲学与(康德)实用主义形而上学的结合:对 JeeLoo Liu 一文的评论

Sami Pihlström
{"title":"中国古典哲学与(康德)实用主义形而上学的结合:对 JeeLoo Liu 一文的评论","authors":"Sami Pihlström","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00176-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper is a brief comment on JeeLoo Liu’s interpretation of classical Chinese philosophy, especially Wang Yangming’s (1472–1529) views, in terms of pragmatist metaphysics primarily drawn from William James and Hilary Putnam. Liu’s reading of Wang Yangming both in the context of the Chinese tradition and in relation to pragmatism is most welcome as a novel contribution to comparative and intercultural philosophy. However, in such comparisons, we also have to be careful to avoid anachronistically attributing, e.g., Kantian and/or pragmatist ideas to earlier thinkers coming from a very different cultural context.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-024-00176-5.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating classical Chinese philosophy with (Kantian) pragmatist metaphysics: comments on JeeLoo Liu’s essay\",\"authors\":\"Sami Pihlström\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44204-024-00176-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper is a brief comment on JeeLoo Liu’s interpretation of classical Chinese philosophy, especially Wang Yangming’s (1472–1529) views, in terms of pragmatist metaphysics primarily drawn from William James and Hilary Putnam. Liu’s reading of Wang Yangming both in the context of the Chinese tradition and in relation to pragmatism is most welcome as a novel contribution to comparative and intercultural philosophy. However, in such comparisons, we also have to be careful to avoid anachronistically attributing, e.g., Kantian and/or pragmatist ideas to earlier thinkers coming from a very different cultural context.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-024-00176-5.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-024-00176-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-024-00176-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文简要评述了刘继路(JeeLoo Liu)主要从威廉-詹姆斯(William James)和希拉里-普特南(Hilary Putnam)的实用主义形而上学角度对中国古典哲学,尤其是王阳明(1472-1529)观点的解读。刘氏从中国传统和实用主义的角度解读王阳明,为比较哲学和跨文化哲学做出了新的贡献,值得欢迎。然而,在进行此类比较时,我们也必须注意避免不合时宜地将康德和/或实用主义思想归因于来自截然不同文化背景的早期思想家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Integrating classical Chinese philosophy with (Kantian) pragmatist metaphysics: comments on JeeLoo Liu’s essay

This paper is a brief comment on JeeLoo Liu’s interpretation of classical Chinese philosophy, especially Wang Yangming’s (1472–1529) views, in terms of pragmatist metaphysics primarily drawn from William James and Hilary Putnam. Liu’s reading of Wang Yangming both in the context of the Chinese tradition and in relation to pragmatism is most welcome as a novel contribution to comparative and intercultural philosophy. However, in such comparisons, we also have to be careful to avoid anachronistically attributing, e.g., Kantian and/or pragmatist ideas to earlier thinkers coming from a very different cultural context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What naturalism? great apes, old-fashioned philosophy, an the McDowellian language game Internalist reliabilism in statistics and machine learning: thoughts on Jun Otsuka’s Thinking about Statistics Defending phenomenal explanationism: responses to Fumerton, Huemer, McAllister, Piazza, Steup, and Zhang How the metaphysical and the ethical are intertwined: an organismic response to JeeLoo Liu Derivative normativity and logical pluralism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1