| The Concept of Chinese Philosophy |
| Sources of Chinese Philosophy |
| Basic Themes of Chinese Philosophy |
| Modern Chinese Philosophy |
| Contemporary Chinese Philosophy |
| Chinese Philosophers |
Contemporary Chinese Philosophy can be viewed as an outcome of two roots: the traditional Chinese worldview and the modern Western philosophical thought. Just like other non-Western traditional thought, controversy around its depiction as ‘philosophy’ takes place.
Wei Changbao presents the discussions around the ‘legitimacy’ of describing traditional Chinese thought as ‘philosophy’ as follows,
Ever since 2001, the discussions on Chinese philosophy’s “legitimacy” issue, raised by such scholars as Zheng Jiadong and Chen Lai, have jogged the nerves and cultural sensibilities of a good many scholars. Indeed, large numbers of scholars who research Chinese philosophy have joined the discussions on this matter, either out of intense interest, or because they feel duty-bound to do so. Some keenly perceptive academic journals have lost no time putting out several successive groups of specialized articles on the “legitimacy” issue, and academic circles in China have convened many seminars centered on this topic. In the wake of in-depth research and exploration, more and more scholars in other specializations, especially those researching Western philosophy and Marxist philosophy, have begun to pay attention to this issue and have become involved in the discussions. (Wei Changbao.2006. ‘The “Legitimacy” of Chinese Philosophy’, p.90)
In the wake of these discussions Carine Defoort returns this controversy to the fact that,
The term "philosophy"- just like many other Western terms - has been applied to the Chinese tradition in retrospect (Carine Defoort .2001. ‘Is There Such a Thing as Chinese Philosophy? P.394).
She introduces the two opposite positions as follows,
First Position: Chinese Philosophy Does Not Exist. The position that denies the legitimacy of Chinese philosophy is primarily, though not exclusively, implicit and Western. The strongest arguments are of both a historical and a theoretical nature... The historical argumentation departs from the irrefutable fact that philosophy is a well-defined discipline that came into existence in Greece and has expanded throughout the West, just as the masters (zhuzi) are considered a product of Chinese culture… , the historical line is often coupled with a theoretical argument that states that the Chinese masters do not in general - and certainly not entirely - satisfy the conditions of philosophy. (Carine Defoort .2001. ‘Is There Such a Thing as Chinese Philosophy? P.396).
Second Position: Chinese Philosophy Exists. The second position is best and most explicitly represented in contemporary China. But it also exists, although more implicitly, in the West... According to this second position, the word "philosophy" is quite simply the Western term for the discussions and speculations of, by and large, the traditional "masters," despite the cultural variations. .. . Because this position is more explicit, its representatives are also more clearly identifiable. The most famous of them was Feng Youlan (1895-1990), and the oldest was perhaps his mentor, Hu Shi (1891-1962). The illustration of the second position is dominated to a great extent by their reasoning. Feng Youlan studied at Columbia University, taught at American and Chinese universities, and in later life was awarded with honorary doctorates in the United States and in India. Feng thought that Chinese and Western thinkers expounded on similar concerns and experiences and thus, without knowing it themselves, participated in the universal human project of philosophy. (Carine Defoort .2001. ‘Is There Such a Thing as Chinese Philosophy? P.397).
From another side, Bryan Van Norden supports this second position as follows,
A second reason that Chinese philosophy should be studied in US philosophy departments is that it simply has much to offer as philosophy. Consider the revelations in just a few of the seminal works about Chinese philosophy in the English- speaking world. Lee H. Yearley started a minor revolution in comparative philosophy with his book Mencius and Aquinas: Theories of Virtue and Conceptions of Courage, which shows how the concepts of Western virtue ethics can be applied to the study of Confucianism. Yearley argues that the two traditions are similar enough for comparisons to be legitimate, but different enough for both traditions to learn from each other. For example, both the Thomistic tradition and the Confucian tradition have lists of “cardinal virtues” (the major virtues that encompass all the lesser ones); however, the lists overlap only partially. The Confucian cardinal virtues are benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom, while the Thomistic list of natural virtues is wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. Thinking about different conceptions of the cardinal virtues gives us a broader range of possible answers to the question: What is it to live well?
Many philosophers are doing fascinating work on other aspects of Confucian philosophy: comparing Confucian and Western conceptions of justice, discussing how Confucian views of filial piety and childhood education can inform specific public policy recommendations, bringing seminal Western philosophers like Hobbes and Rousseau into productive dialogue with Mengzi and Xunzi, examining the similarities and differences between Christian and Confucian views of ethical cultivation, and combining insights from Chinese philosophy with contemporary psychology and metaethics to formulate powerful alternatives to conventional Western ethics. Some leading mainstream philosophers have also been open- minded enough to engage in dialogue with Confucian thought, including Alasdair MacIntyre and Martha Nussbaum.
Asian philosophy can also make important contributions to the philosophy of language and logic. For example, most Western philosophers (going back to Aristotle) have argued that no contradiction can be true. However, there are a surprisingly large number of statements that seem to be both true and false. Some are sentences in ordinary language (like the Liar Paradox, “This sentence is false,” which is false if it is true, and true if it is false), while others are generated by formal logico- mathematical systems (like Russell’s Paradox, “There is a set that has as a member every set that is not a member of itself,” which both does and does not have itself as a member). Asian philosophers have been more willing to entertain the possibility that some statements might be both true and false. Consequently, some contemporary philosophers are attempting to synthesize Buddhist and Daoist insights about paradoxes with “paraconsistent logic” to defend dialetheism, the claim that some contradictions are true. This is not the only technical topic on which Asian philosophy anticipates Western philosophy by millennia: the ancient Mohist philosophers recognized that “opaque contexts” block the substitutivity of coreferential terms, something not fully appreciated in the West until the twentieth century. (Bryan Van Norden. 2017. “Taking back philosophy p.5-7).
Due to these divergent controversial views, no concluding unified position is reached among scholares and the question is left open. Wei Changbao describes such a state of affairs as follows,
The debate over the “legitimacy” issue has been played up by some scholars as a “crisis” of the discipline of Chinese philosophy, and has triggered anxiety and unease among some scholars. The “legitimacy” issue has also been narrowly understood by some scholars as requiring the production of evidence affirming or negating the “legitimacy” of Chinese philosophy and the existence or other- wise of philosophy in China, and so has been regarded by a number of critical scholars as a “false issue,” and has been disdained and spurned as such. (Wei Changbao.2006. ‘The “Legitimacy” of Chinese Philosophy’, p.91)
Lai Chen, in his introduction of the core values of Chinese civilization, outlines the philosophical foundations of the Chinese civilization as
The philosophical foundations of Chinese civilization manifest mainly as cosmology. In contrast to modern Western mechanistic theories of the universe, the classical Chinese philosophical cosmology emphasizes continuity, dynamism, relativity, relationships, and the totality. It is not a self-centric philosophy that assumes a subject-object dichotomy and focuses on static, isolated, and substantial entities. Starting from its organic holism, the classical Chinese perspective views everything in the cosmos as interrelated and interdependent. Each thing’s own existence and value manifests only in its relations to other things. Thus, relationships of symbiotic harmony should be established between humans and nature follows, between persons, and between cultures. This cosmology of Chinese philosophy not only provided ideological support for ancient Chinese civilization, but also provides the philosophical foundation for the values of the Chinese civilization. (Lai Chen, “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, P.1).
In addition,
Sinologists have already pointed out that in order to understand Chinese civilization it is necessary to understand its ideological foundations. The method for doing so involves tracing the formation of Chinese civilization to its roots, and finding the ways of thinking and concepts that have been influential to its development, which thereby shows the core elements of Chinese civilization. Understanding Chinese cosmology and the Chinese worldview have been considered the most important of these core elements. Truly, they are the most fundamental premises upon which the Chinese perspective on time, space, causality, and human nature are built. These worldviews are thought to be closely related to many aspects of the history of Chinese civilization. (Lai Chen, “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, P.2).
Lai Chen, justifies his attention to the basic concepts of the early stages of the Chinese civilization as follows,
This attention to the basic concepts of the early stages of the Chinese civilization’s formation implies affirmation of the long continuity of the totality of Chinese civilization. This is because if this civilization had been interrupted or significantly altered then there would be no point in paying so much attention to its early formation. Benjamin Schwartz has pointed out that overemphasizing the importance of the early stages of a civilization is often met with criticism because there have been various changes in many aspects of Chinese civilization from the Axial Age to modern China. Schwartz stresses that these changes in Chinese history should be taken within the framework of this civilization because, unlike in the West, it has experienced no comprehensive or fundamental ruptures. That is to say, the overall framework of the Chinese civilization persists continuously throughout history. Here the “framework of civilization” includes not only external institutions of culture, but also characteristics of the ideas behind them. Clearly this means that the most basic concepts and ways of thinking, as the foundation of Chinese civilization, are stable and consistent through history. However, it should also be pointed out that the way Western sinologists trace the origins of Chinese civilization, looking for how modern thinking and concepts are influenced and established in earlier times, is not a comprehensive method. Key characteristics of a civilization are formed not only in its early stages. Understanding the mature stages of a civilization, with all its integrated features, can provide a more complete picture of its content and characteristics. (Lai Chen, “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, P.3).
Lai Chen, then concludes,
The development of Chinese philosophical thought has proceeded uninterrupted for more than two thousand years. There is no doubt that it possesses certain outstanding features in terms of its general understandings of the universe and world, as well as the manner of its thinking reflected by these understandings. (Lai Chen, “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, P.7).
He summarizes these basic features in the following three principles,
1- The One Continuous Qi
One of the most prominent of these features is that the unique characteristics of the structure of Chinese cosmology cannot be separated from a notion of qi.
With regard to its understanding the existing world, the theory of qi is one of the most basic properties of Chinese philosophy. The philosophy of qi is an important property of ancient Chinese ontologies. Since the original meaning of qi is a materialistic substance, cosmological qi theory represents efforts of Chinese philosophy to understand the structure of the world in terms of materialistic concepts.
In Chinese philosophy, wu indicates a physical object, and zhi refers to the fixed form or body of a thing. The fixed form or body of zhi is composed of qi. Qi that has not yet been formed into specific things is the material from which things are formed. Qi in Chinese philosophy refers to the most subtle and dynamic entity. Atomic theory in Western philosophy holds that all things are composed of tiny solid objects, and that these atoms are a type of final individual particle of matter. In Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, qi theories hold that all things are made up of the coalescence and dissipation of qi. One of the most fundamental differences between atomic theory and qi theory is that atomic theory has to assume that in addition to atoms there is empty space, and that there are no atoms in this space, which provides the possibility for atoms to move. Qi theory opposes the idea of empty space, thinking instead of all space as full of qi . There is an interesting contrast between the qi theory of Chinese thought and the atomic theory of Western thinking. On this issue Zhang Dainian points out, “Ancient Chinese philosophy discusses qi and emphasizes qi ‘s movement and transformation, affirming its continuous existence and the unity of voids and qi . This all differs from Western material conceptions.” (Lai Chen, “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, P.7-8)
2- Yin-Yang Complementation
The concepts of yin and yang arose even earlier than qi, having appeared already in the early Western Zhou. In their earliest uses they referred to the sunny and shady sides of things, the sunny being yang and the shady being yin. In the Yijing (Book of Changes), yin and yang are taken to be two fundamental forces in the world and two opposing aspects of single things. (Lai Chen, “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, P.10)
Another big difference between the mechanistic worldviews of the West and the philosophical cosmology of China is that the latter stresses the generative nature of the universe. The Yijing is representative of this in seeing the world as a process of continuous generation. Confucius (d. 479 B.C.E.) also views the world as a continuous flow of change and transformation. Standing by a river Confucius is recorded as saying, “It passes by like this, without ceasing day or night.” This continuous passing is endless movement and change. The world we exist in is like an enormous river, which is to say that everything exists in a flow of change. Thus, flow and change are universal. (Lai Chen, “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, P.13).
3- Unification of Humans and Heaven
The idea of “the unification of humans and heaven” argues that heaven and humans do not simply exist in opposition to one another. In some ways there is a distinction between heaven and humans, and in this way they are opposed. But in other ways, and from a higher perspective, heaven and humans comprise a unified totality. The two are continually related, and there is no gap between them: this is “the unification of humans and heaven.” While this idea can be seen as evolved from the “unity of life” thinking of the era of mythology, it actually has greater significance in rejecting opposition between subject and object. (Lai Chen, “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, P.20).
JeeLoo Liu, in his introduction to the Chinese Philosophy discusses the concept of God in such a philosophical framework as follows,
Even though the prehistoric Chinese did embrace a worldview with a personified Supreme Being, whom they called “Shang-di” (the same term is currently used to translate the English word “God”), this folk religion never entered the realm of discourse of Chinese philosophy. The residue of this primitive belief was sometimes seen in such expressions as “the will of Heaven,” which was often identified with the people’s preferences, or “the mandate of Heaven,” which was sometimes used as a political justification for overthrowing the ruling power. However, the sense of a Divine Will, or Divine Intervention, was not taken as literally as it was in the Old Testament. The predominant belief held by ancient Chinese thinkers was that there was no “Creator” of the cosmos, no volitional act of creation, and no personal adjudicator in Nature. Their religion was more a form of Nature worship, though it was different from the ancient Greeks’ assignment of personified gods or goddesses to various natural phenomena. Instead, the ancient Chinese believed that there was a spiritual correspondence between the world of Nature and the world of men. The universe was thought to be an organic system, with all parts integrated into an ordered whole. What is above men is Heaven; what is underneath men is Earth. In ancient Chinese usage, “Heaven” (tian) is not merely the sky as viewed from earth; nor is it a transcendent realm used in the Christian sense. “Heaven” stands for the totality of heavenly bodies and phenomena; in particular, it is often used to refer to the operation of the sun. “Earth” (di), on the other hand, generally refers to the ground on which everything exists. It includes various territories of the ground, but it is most frequently used to cover lowland territories such as valleys, gorges, basins, etc. To the ancient Chinese, the universe is the totality of Heaven, Earth, and all that exists in between. There was no beginning; the world has always existed.
Since the ancient Chinese believed that there was a spiritual correspondence between natural phenomena and human states of affairs, the common explanation for natural disasters was that they were causally related to some adverse human states of affairs. Drought was attributed to Heaven; flood to Earth. Either of these phenomena could bring about famine in human societies. For an agricultural society, famine poses the greatest risk to human survival, and yet in Chinese history it was a recurring threat. Even so, in the ancient Chinese worldview, there was no evil in Nature. Natural disasters were seen as part of the natural development of the world; hence, they did not stand for “evil.” Either they were brought about by the natural correspondence between Nature and the human world, or they represented a form of “temporary deflection from the essential harmony of the universe,” not a positive force in itself. When the human world has accumulated sufficient disorder, the original harmonious state of the world is disrupted. Such disruptions bring about disturbances in Nature, which in turn bring disasters to human society. Some other infrequent natural phenomena such as hail, earthquakes, infestation of insects, etc., were seen as forewarning signs. These signs were also what naturally happened at the time when the cosmic harmony was disturbed. Therefore, Nature corresponds to the human world, just as a bell would chime upon being struck. The implicit belief behind this cosmic correspondence is that everything is interconnected in this cosmic whole, which has a cosmic rhythm shared by all. Max Kaltenmark says: “Conforming to the rhythm of the universe is the prerequisite of wisdom in all Chinese thinking”. (JeeLoo Liu, “An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy, p.2-3)
He adds,
In summary, under the ancient Chinese pre-philosophical worldview, the world is an organic whole with order and regularities, not a chaotic conglomerate dominated by chance. The basic constituents of myriad things in the world are not matter, but energy or force of two natures: yin and yang, the movement of which follows a regulated rhythm. A sage, or one who is adept at deciphering the divination results, can tap into the cosmic rhythm because his mind and the cosmos are unified. This cosmic rhythm runs through Nature and the human world in the same way. Furthermore, the realm of the spiritual and the realm of the material are not sharply divided. The dead and the living are not situated in incommunicable worlds. One’s spirit is not bound by one’s body. Once the body is dead, the spirit can roam about in different dimensions - above the living, below the living, or even among the living. There is, in addition, no separation of the self from the world. The subjective person and the objective world are not in opposition, but are parts of an integrated whole. How man lives his life is affected by what goes on in the universe; at the same time, how he lives will affect what continues in the universe. Just as the air we breathe joins the cosmic atmosphere, so what we do interacts causally with the world around us. This belief in the unity of Nature and the human world, mind and matter, body and spirit, or man and the universe, became the foundational thesis for Chinese cosmology.
(JeeLoo Liu, “An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy”, p.4)
1- Dao
Chinese cosmology is built on belief in the cosmic order or cosmic pattern, which serves not only as the source for all existence, but also as the governing rule for all cosmic developments. This basic assumption of the existence of a cosmic pattern became the core thesis of all major schools in Chinese philosophy. The universe is seen “as a self-contained
organism functioning according to its own inherent pattern.” This pattern was commonly referred to as “Dao” by ancient philosophers. (Daois capitalized when it is used to designate a unique, all-embracing Dao; it is not capitalized when it refers to the Chinese word “dao” or to the daoof particular things. ) The pursuit of Daowould become an ultimate goal shared by all Chinese philosophers. According to Bryan Van Norden's analysis:
This word [dao] has several related senses. (1) The original sense was “way,” in the sense of “path” or “road.” It came to mean (2) “way,” in the sense of “the right way to do something,” or “the order that comes from doing things in the right way,” (3) a linguistic account of a way to do something, or “to give a linguistic account,” (4) a metaphysical entity responsible for the way things act.
In other words, the word dao can be used as a common noun designating roads; it can be used as a moral term signifying the right way of doing things; it can be used as a verb meaning “to speak”; and it can be used as an ontological notion suggestive of the origin of the universe. These four senses, although on the surface widely different, are actually interwoven in the philosophical significance of Dao.
In the context of Chinese cosmologyDaostands for an “all-embracing entelechy” - it is a life-giving force responsible for the creation of myriad things. This usage is seen in Yijing's Great Treatise, and Laozi (the originator of Daoism) seems to interpret Dao this way from time to time. Dao in this sense also governs the whole universe from its inception. Hence, Dao stands for the cosmic order, the Way things are. So an appropriate translation for dao is “the Way.” “The Way,” used in the singular, signifies the existence of a single cosmic order or a single cosmic pattern. It can be loosely rendered as the Truth, or the Reality. It can also be called the cosmic principle, in the same way that later Neo-Confucians used “Heavenly Principle” in place of Dao. The two words in Chinese, dao (the Way) and Ii (principle), are often used in conjunction to signify reasons or truth. Under the holistic cosmic picture, the cosmic order also governs human affairs. Consequently, Dao takes on a moral connotation, as the right way for states of affairs in the human world to be. Since Dao is the “right way,” it also comes to stand for “the path (the Way) one ought to take.” In this sense, Dao stands for the highest moral precept for human beings. Confucius definitely uses daoin this sense, as do other Confucians.
Finally, daoas “to speak” reveals the assumption that our language depicts the reality as it is, and to speak the truth means to depict the Way. This assumption was common to early Confucians. Laozi's opening remark in the Daodejing , “A daothat can be spoken of (dao) is not a constant Dao,” could be seen as a direct challenge to this assumption. We would call such a view, which challenges the possibility of our language’s accurate depiction of reality, language skepticism.
(JeeLoo Liu, “An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy”, p.5-)
2- Qi
Another important notion in Chinese cosmology is that of qi , in relation to which Dao should also be understood, since Dao is often seen as the rhythm or pattern of the movement of qi . There is no adequate English translation for qi , although it has been rendered variously as “energy,” “vital energy,” “pure energy,” “force,” “material force,” “spirit,” “vapor,” “air,” etc. Many commentators have pointed out the etymological root of the word “ qi. “ Originally, it referred to the steam or vapor coming from boiling rice (the Chinese character for qi contains the character for rice as a component). It came to represent the nourishing vapor or the moistening mist, both of which encompass the atmosphere, furnishing the bodies of all creatures and becoming the source of life. From this, the philosophical notion of qi was developed and came to stand for the ontological basis for all things. Benjamin Schwartz thinks that this notion is “the closest Chinese approximation of the Western concept of ' matter' .” But the two concepts are quite different, in that qi is dynamic, while matter is inactive; qi penetrates everything, while matter is solid; qi is constantly changing, while matter is static. Chinese cosmology treats qi as existentially prior to matter - the condensation of qi constitutes matter. Everything is comprised of qi , and the various degrees of purity or impurity determine the levels of existence. Human beings are made out of the purest of qi , while lower animals are produced by qi with greater impurity. Qi is not volitional; hence, our creation is not the result of any intentional production. Qi condenses and rarefies, but it never gets exhausted or even diminished. Qi pervades the universe; in other words, the universe is simply the totality of qi in perpetual motion and constant alteration. In this cosmology, the cosmos is viewed as being composed of a great force ( qi ) that has no mind of its own. This great force permeates everything in the cosmos; as a result, everything is interconnected in this organic whole. (JeeLoo Liu, “An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy”, p.6)
3- Yin, and Yang
In the Chinese conception, qi is divided into two strands: yin and yang . Both strands seem to manifest at once physical differences as well as symbolic differences. On the physical level, yin and yang are both competitive and complementary. On the one hand, the yin qi and the yang qi are competing forces or opposite forms of energy, which constantly work against each other. Since both are part of the totality of qi , when yin grows, yang declines; when yang strengthens, yin weakens. The competition is constant and the flow of qi is always in motion; hence, change ( " yi ") is the constant state of qi . On the other hand, yin and yang complement each other, since everything relies on both of them to exist. In the physical world, nothing can be either purely yang or purely yin . We can say that the cooperation of yin and yang is based on their mutual competition. Things can change, grow, decline, and get reborn, exactly because yin and yang work against each other. The change of seasons is a perfect illustration of the interaction between yin and yang . Viewed in this way, nothing that we humans deem to have “negative values” can be dispensed with.
Yin and yang do not stand for a simplified polarization between good and evil or light and dark. The cosmic whole cannot be bifurcated into opposites, fighting for the eradication of the other. The apparent competition between yin and yang is actually the motivating force behind their cooperation. Hence, without one, the other could not exist. As Bodde explains this kind of dualism:
Never . . . is the suggestion made by [all thinkers who adopt the yin - yang ideology that the one can or should wholly displace the other. Hence there is no real analogy with the dualisms based on conflict (light vs. darkness, etc.) so familiar to us in the West. On the contrary, the yin and yang form a cosmic hierarchy of balanced inequality in which, however, each complements the other and has its own necessary function.
On a metaphorical level, yin and yang seem to represent symbolic traits, rather than physical differences, among things in the world. Yin represents everything that is female; yang represents everything that is male. In Chinese symbolization, the sun is yang , while the moon is yin ; the mountain is yang , while the lake is yin ; fire is yang , while water is yin ; and heat is yang , while chill is yin . The traits of yang include being vigorous, firm, aggressive, active, and strong. The traits of yin include being docile, yielding, accommodating, passive, and gentle. All things associated with yang are thus symbolic representations of yang traits; all things associated with yin are symbolic representations of yin traits.
From the primitive form of Nature worship, the ancient Chinese developed a sense of admiration and affection toward the natural world around them. This religious spirit prompted a philosophical pursuit of the order of the universe and the ontological foundation for all existence. The ancient philosophers called this cosmic order and the ontological foundation for all things " Dao ," even though different philosophers assigned different connotations to this notion. This pursuit of the cosmic order and the ontological foundation would later become the quest for the metaphysical " Buddha" in Chinese Buddhism, and the study of the Heavenly Principle ( Li ) in Neo-Confucianism.
(JeeLoo Liu, “An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy”, p.7-8)
Changbao, Wei.2006. ‘The “Legitimacy” of Chinese Philosophy’, Contemporary Chinese Thought, vol. 37, no. 3, Spring 2006, pp. 90–97.
Chen, Lai.2017. “The Core Values of Chinese Civilization”, Translated by Paul J. D’Ambrosio, Robert Carleo III, Chad Meyers, Joanna Guzowska, Springer.
Defoort, Carine.2001. ‘Is There Such a Thing as Chinese Philosophy? Arguments of an Implicit Debate’, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 51, No. 3, Eighth East-West Philosophers' Conference (Jul., 2001), pp. 393-413.
Liu, JeeLoo. 2006. “An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy From Ancient Philosophy to Chinese Buddhism”, Blackwell Publishing.
Van Norden, Bryan W.. 2017. “Taking back philosophy - a multicultural manifesto”, Columbia University Press.