Warp, Weft, and Way

A Group Blog of Chinese and Comparative Philosophy

Welcome to the Group Blog!

Manyul Im’s Chinese Philosophy Blog has been phased out (though still available for archived reference). Most of the posts and comments from that blog have been imported here to Warp, Weft, and Way. As you can see, much of the appearance of the blog has also been preserved. Click on the Home tab to join the new discussion!

I’m personally very pleased with the group of scholars who have come aboard to contribute their thoughts and to stimulate discussion. Please feel as welcome here to join in the conversation — in the warp and weft of discussion, if you will — as you felt at the old blog.

Advertisements

November 8, 2009 - Posted by | Chinese philosophy

7 Comments

  1. New line-up looks intimidating and exciting. I look forward to following your debates very much.

    Comment by Phil Hand | November 9, 2009

  2. I second Phil’s comment: a stellar group of scholars and philosophers assembled for renewal of the blog’s principal purposes. No doubt along with others, I’ll continue to learn much from the posts and discussions.

    Comment by Patrick S. O'Donnell | November 9, 2009

  3. Perhaps one of the inaugural posts could center upon a discussion of David Wong’s recent SEP entry, “Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and Western”– http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/ Among other things, it might help by way of learning a bit about the possible presuppositions and animating assumptions of the contributors. Or, maybe an early post could focus on a particular book deserving of our attention, say (coincidentally), Wong’s Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism (2006).

    Among my undergraduate and graduate teachers (apart from Fingarette, for whom I was a teaching assistant) were Gerald James Larson, Raimundo Panikkar, and the late Ninian Smart, three of the contributors to the volume edited by Larson, Interpreting Across Boundaries: New Essays in Comparative Philosophy (1988). One can thereby easily ascertain where I cultivated a taste for the aforementioned questions.

    Comment by Patrick S. O'Donnell | November 9, 2009

    • That sounds interesting, Patrick. A couple of the contributors worked with Wong at Duke. Maybe one of them will pick this up…

      Comment by Manyul Im | November 9, 2009

      • Did somebody ring?

        Patrick–I think this is a good idea. I will try to put a post up sometime next week on Wong’s work.

        Comment by Hagop Sarkissian | November 12, 2009

        • Hagop,

          That is very kind and considerate of you: thanks. I (and no doubt others as well) look forward to whatever you’ll have to say.

          Comment by Patrick S. O'Donnell | November 12, 2009

  4. One other item: I’m just finishing J. David Velleman’s How We Get Along (2009), and want to suggest that it has what I take to be a “Confucian” flavor to its account of practical reasoning and self-understanding made possible by adherence to “socially shared scenarios” which is suggestive for thinking about the role of li in moral training or developing a moral disposition. And the notion of “second-order scenarios by way of monitoring or policing adherence to the “standard repertoire” is provocative for explicating the nature of specific moral values and principles.

    Anyway, I don’t have the time, and probably lack the talent, to spell out things now in more detail, so I’ll leave it to greater minds to explore this further should they be sufficiently provoked by the suggestion.

    Comment by Patrick S. O'Donnell | November 10, 2009


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.