Xingding Liu

Scholarship on the ineffability of dao has long been dominated by metaphysical inquiries into the nature of dao and its elusiveness. This is due in part to a dominant interpretation, influenced by an early thinker, WANG Bi (王弼, 226–249 CE), in his commentary on the Daodejing (道德經, Classic of the Way and Virtues). This paper proposes an understanding of WANG Bi’s philosophy that has been eclipsed by this dominant metaphysical interpretation. From the angle of philosophy of language, I argue that WANG Bi holds a distinction between two kinds of signifiers, ming (名) and cheng (稱). Ming-s are definitional: they map to distinguishing features and operate within coherent systems. Cheng-s are focal: they enable about-ness or sayability without committing to features. On this basis, I demonstrate the dual modality of the word “dao”: as a ming or as a cheng. As ming, “dao” is used to establish a conceptual structure that embraces the myriad things. As cheng, “dao” operates in a reflexive mode, marking the limits of ming-s, thus sustaining discourse about the ineffable. This distinction clarifies the apparent tension between the necessity of names for discourse and the claim that dao exceeds naming. Ultimately, this analysis reframes the dao-discourse as a dynamic linguistic strategy rather than a static metaphysical puzzle. It offers a new solution to ineffability grounded not in their ontological status but in the pragmatic usage of signifiers.

How should we conceptualise a philosophical tradition retrospectively defined and continuously shaped by contemporary scholarship? This paper addresses this philosophy-of-historiography question by focusing on Xuanxue, a significant yet underdeveloped domain of Chinese philosophy centered on the corpus of the Wei-Jin (魏晉) Period (220–589 CE) and beyond. Scholarly conceptions of Xuanxue have long been bound by entrenched themes, the ‘Daoist’ label, and rigid periodisation. In contrast, this paper situates Xuanxue within both its historical milieu and the context of ongoing modern interpretations. Drawing heuristically from Wang Bi’s (王弼, 226–249 CE) conceptual interdependence between Name (ming 名) and Actual Situation (shi 實), I propose a new method (HPE) for evaluating Xuanxue conceptions with three criteria: Historical embeddedness, Plurality, and Evolvingness. This research thus offers a philosophically reflexive model for Xuanxue studies and the broader field of cross-cultural philosophy, demonstrating how ancient traditions can be engaged as dynamic intellectual projects.