•  142
    A Theory of Interpretation for Comparative and Chinese Philosophy
    with Lin Ma
    Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 15 (4): 575-589. 2016.
    Why should interpretation of conceptual schemes and practices across traditions work at all? In this paper we present the following necessary conditions of possibility for interpretation in comparative and Chinese philosophy: the interpreter must presuppose that there are mutually recognizable human practices; the interpreter must presuppose that “the other” is, on the whole, sincere, consistent, and right; the interpreter must be committed to certain epistemic virtues. Some of these necessary c…Read more
  •  152
    In this article, I look at those passages in the Zhuangzi usually associated with “uselessness.” I discuss in what way these passages may have been suggestive to Martin Heidegger to explain his ideas of the necessity of the other thinking and of the “waiting people” being entirely unusable to others. Then I make some brief comments concerning basic conditions of interpretation, using examples taken from the Zhuangzi passages discussed. These conditions include family resemblance across the board…Read more
  •  84
    Ceteris paribus laws
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15 (3): 584-585. 1992.
  •  60
    We
    Ethical Perspectives 6 (3): 268-276. 1999.
    Williams's comments raise the questions I'll here address: what sort of wes are there?, what goes with the 'we of science and logic'?, and what goes with the 'parochial us'? The quotations from Williams suggest that there are two wes, the contrastive and inclusive we.
  •  97
    The ethnocentricity of colour
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15 (1): 53-54. 1992.
  •  37
    Are There Concepts/Theories of Truth in Classical Chinese Philosophy?
    Journal of World Philosophies 1 (1): 159-161. 2016.
    The main argument of the book under review, 'Theories of Truth in Chinese Philosophy,' is to show that one can find a pluralistic theory of shí 實 in the Lunheng, “prepared” by a range of sources in the Warring States Period in China. This argument is not convincing because of small inconsistencies and major unsupported stipulations. Nevertheless the book contains many perceptive and suggestive remarks concerning the texts discussed.