Bo Mou

In this paper, I give a metaphilosophical examination of three major orientations in comparative studies (i.e., historical one, interpretation-concerned one, and philosophical-issue-concerned one) and four 'sins' that are oft-cited in critically evaluating a comparative study, namely over-simplification, over-use of external resources, exaggerated distinction, and blurring assimilation. I argue that the appropriateness of these 'sins' depends on orientations, purposes and methodological approaches in comparative studies and that, in those comparative studies with the interpretation-concerned and philosophicalissue- concerned orientations, due simplification, use of external resources and assimilation are not merely legitimate but also adequate or even necessary. In so doing, I explain how constructive engagement between Chinese and Western philosophy, or, more generally speaking, between different philosophical traditions, is related to contemporary development and resources of philosophy.

Through a comparative case analysis regarding the Chinese language, it is discussed how the structure and functions of a natural language would bear upon the ways in which some philosophical problems are posed and some ontological insights shaped. Disagreeing with Chad Hansen's mass-noun hypothesis, a collective-noun hypothesis is argued for: (1) the denotational semantics and relevant grammatical features of Chinese nouns are like those of collective nouns; (2) their implicit ontology is a mereological ontology of collection-of-individuals with both part-whole and member-class structure; and (3) encouraged and shaped by the folk semantics of Chinese nouns, classical Chinese theorists of language take this kind of mereological nominalism for granted

The dissertation consists of two parts: a negative part and a positive part. The negative part is a critical examination of a contemporary approach to the problem of truth, deflationism, which argues against the traditional substantive approach. The positive part provides an account of truth, called 'substantive quietism', which attempts to preserve and develop what are reasonable in the contrary theories. ;The approach of the critical examination is analytic and critical, not historical or expository. I focus on the core idea and the basic line of deflationism as a whole. The critical examination consists of a general characterization of deflationism and two case analyses . ;The basic moral drawn from the critical examination is this: there are different projects intended to answer different questions concerning truth; those theses in different projects might be compatible with each other; however, an advocate of a certain theory of truth might mistake what he has done actually for one project to meet the demands of quite another. My basic conclusion is this: in spite of its brilliant linguistic descriptions of the logico-syntactic function of the truth predicate, deflationism fails to justify its core idea, i.e., truth is not substantive, by virtue of the descriptions, because the substantive notion of non-linguistic truth turns out to be compatible with the linguistic descriptions. ;Drawing upon the morals from the critical examination, the positive part is a theoretical construction of substantive quietism, which consists of a theory of truth called 'substantive quietist theory' and my surrounding arguments on behalf of its adequacy. SQT is composed of an account of non-linguistic truth and an account of the linguistic truth predicate. The former provides a general definition of what it is to be a definition of truth and a definition of truth, attempting to capture our pretheoretic understanding of non-linguistic truth with minimal explanatory resources. The latter endeavors to characterize the situated uses of the truth predicate that constitute its raison d'etre by an epistemico-pragmatic notion of the truth predicate

This paper is concerned with the issue of how predication is possible, as a significant common concern in the philosophy of language, metaphysics and semantics. A ‘subject-comment’ account is suggested in view of its constructive engagement with two relevant competing approaches, i.e., the traditional ‘subject-categorization’ account and the ‘topic-comment’ account. The suggested account views predication as a unifying two-level predication: the primary level of predication is made through recognizing and commenting on some particular attribute(s) of the subject’s semantic referent as a thick object (resulting in a weaker version of Russellian proposition) and the secondary level of predication through categorizing the subject’s semantic referent into a certain group via the Fregean conceptual content of the predicate.