Yi Jiang

The human brain optimises cognitive resource allocation to enhance the processing speed and efficiency of vital information for better survival and adaptation in response to threat signals. Previous studies found that fearful expressions, as visual cues signalling threats, can not only have advantages in entering and remaining in awareness, but also enhance subsequent perceptual processing of low-spatial-frequency (LSF) information. However, it remains unknown whether the enhanced perceptual processing of LSF induced by fearful expressions also grants LSF information a competitive advantage in awareness. To this end, we employed a binocular rivalry paradigm to measure awareness of Gabor patches with low or high spatial frequencies following the rapid priming of fearful versus neutral expressions. The results revealed that the relative dominance of LSF over high-spatial-frequency (HSF) Gabor patches was markedly heightened following brief exposure to fearful compared with neutral expressions. This effect was found for both upright and inverted expressions, indicating it is independent of face configuration. Our study thus suggests a feature-based perceptual optimisation mechanism with evolutionary significance, potentially optimising cognitive resource allocation in threatening situations.

Most modern philosophers, including Gerhard Preyer, believe that physicalism is the same as materialism, whether they defend it or not. However, few people are aware of the subtle differences between them. In this article, I will first clarify the historical distinction between materialism and physicalism by explaining three distinct senses of materialism in historical and modern contexts, especially in the empiricist tradition. Second, I will focus on the differences between the three forms of materialism in the philosophy of mind. Based on the above analysis, physicalism cannot be interpreted as materialism. Finally, I will summarize the intrinsic relationship between physicalism and materialism by defining materialism from the perspective of the ontology of physical objects.

The relationship between philosophy and science in contemporary times is closer than ever. From the methodology perspective, scientific and philosophical research has a clear sequential relationship. It is highlighted in the following aspects: 1. the methodology of scientific research, including theoretical assumptions and data modeling, parallels with apparent similarities in conceptual analysis and logical deduction in philosophy;2. consistency of analytical argumentation methods in scientific research and philosophical research;3. naturalism is currently a research approach that both scientific and philosophical research adopt. There has been a significant dispute over the relationship between philosophy and science among contemporary philosophers. This dispute focuses on the impact of scientific development on philosophy research. Nowadays, no one would deny the existence of this impact, but there is no consensus on the impact's nature, scope, and role. Wittgenstein's conception of certainty can provide valuable insights to understand the relationship between philosophy and science. In addition, we conclude the pragmatic turn in cognitive science because we misinterpret the cognitive scientists' emphasis on action as a practical claim and interpret the cognitive scientists' views with pragmatism. The theoretical analysis and research suggestions philosophers provide are becoming essential focuses in contemporary artificial intelligence research, including the interpretability of computer technology, the ethical norms of artificial intelligence technology, and the possible conception of human beings in the future. The interdisciplinary study of science and philosophy will achieve more significant development. In sum, understanding the nature of philosophy can be given a new explanation from a future perspective. The future outlook here refers to the starting point from possible world scenarios that can be conceived and traced back to all the facts happening in the present world, thereby giving an appropriate explanation to the real world.

Huw Price and Ken Wharton claimed recently in their paper published in The Conversation that quantum mechanics shows that the future can influence the past. According to their paper, many scientists are convinced about it. However, there is still something mystical for philosophers. The first is about the definition of retrocausality and its philosophical relation to causality. Second, it is concerned with understanding the relationship between cause and effect, not only scientifically but also logically. In this talk, I will answer the two questions by analyzing the concept of temporality and by examining the counterfactual and overdetermination. I found a tension in understanding the concept of necessity in the physical and logical sense. Finally, I will argue that the time reversal asymmetry does not imply retrocausality, and the phenomenon of retrocausality does not exist in reality but only in logic.

This paper summarizes the evolution of analytic philosophy in Taiwan, examines its impact within and beyond academia, and discusses the future of the discipline. The roots of modern philosophy in Taiwan can be traced back to the Japanese colonial era, and analytic philosophy was introduced to the country in the late 1940s when many intellectuals in China moved to Taiwan. However, massive curbs were imposed on philosophy during Chiang Kai-shek’s dictatorship, and the discipline began to thrive again only after Taiwan’s democratization in the late 1980s. Nonetheless, since its introduction in the colonial era, modern philosophy has made significant contributions in Taiwan, encouraging interdisciplinary engagements, advancing civic education, and promoting the spirit of democracy and political liberation. Philosophy has played a key role in Taiwan’s remarkable transformation from an island colonized for hundreds of years to a country that recognizes democracy, freedom, and human rights. The themes of anti-colonialism and anti-domination seen in the works of modern Taiwanese philosophers not only reflect the discipline’s political and historical underpinnings but also signal how Taiwanese philosophy can acquire a distinct identity despite being influenced by many other philosophical traditions. While still at a nascent stage, Taiwanese philosophy has the potential to join forces with other philosophical traditions in advancing the vision of decolonizing philosophy.

Peirce’s pragmatic maxim is closely related to his conception of abduction. The acquisition of the actual effect required by the method of scientific reasoning expressed by Peirce’s maxim must be accomplished by resorting to abductive logic. Abductive logic starts from a surprising fact, derives a hypothetical explanation about that fact, and finally arrives at the possibility that the hypothesis is true. This is the process of abductive reasoning, as provided by Peirce, which is distinct from induction and deduction and generates explanatory views. Peirce opposed a unified and unchangeable concept of causality. He used different interpretations of causality to illustrate the considerable differences in people’s understanding of cause and effect in different periods. The concept of pragmatism, as developed from the pragmatic maxim to abduction and then to scientific inference to the best explanation, is precisely what Peirce initially proposed, and inference to the best explanation is the starting point and the final result of the pragmatic maxim.

Some commentaries have claimed Peirce and Husserl to have common interests in their interpretations of intentionality; others have denied the connection. In this paper, I argue that although the two philosophers had different motives from which the problem of intentionality arises, they shared common concerns of intentionality as the first state of consciousness and as the first step to be taken in deliberate interpretations of mind. Last, I will illuminate Husserl’s and Peirce’s common contribution to the revolution of philosophy in contemporary times.

C. S. Peirce has been considered in China as the pioneer of American pragmatism, not only within academic circles, but also in the public’s perception. Nonetheless, some Chinese scholars still confuse his theory with that of the other two principal figures in classical pragmatism. However, there are a few Chinese scholars who clearly realize the difference between Peirce’s pragmaticism and other forms of pragmatism. As a result, an increasing number of Chinese books and contributions focus on Peirce’s philosophy. The Selected Writings of C. S. Peirce, edited by Jiliang Tu, were published in 2006, and the translation of The Essential Peirce in two volumes is in process. The translation of The Collected Papers of C. S. Peirce in 8 volumes has been planned under the leadership of Yi Jiang. Chinese Peirce scholars are mainly concerned with the following topics: (1) the historical relation of Peirce to the pragmatist movement in the 19th century; (2) the contribution of Peirce’s logic to the philosophy of logic; (3) Peirce as a pioneer of philosophy of science in the 20th century; (4) the comparative study of Peirce’s semiotics and Saussure’s linguistics; and (5) Peirce’s unique place in the history of Western philosophy. There are a number of views about Peirce, but most Chinese scholars agree that his philosophy had a significant influence on 20th century philosophy in the West as well as in the rest of the world.

In this paper I will try to argue for a new version in philosophy entitled as Philosophical Topology. It is inspired by the thought of Peter Strawson as well as ones of some of so-called Continental philosophers like Heidgger. Unlike any of metaphilosophy in general, the philosophical topology focuses rather on analyses of processes of make-up in philosophers’ thinking, especially by revealing the internal logic of philosophical ideas in making and processing in order to explain the intrinsic continuation of philosophical ideas in particular philosophers’ thinking. In this sense the philosophical topology is not one of philosophical methods but a new branch in philosophy that is characterized as being concerned with continuation of ideas as its basic task. So, in this way, it is available to analyses of various doctrines in philosophy. Main issues in the philosophical topology are as follows: 1) to analyze the internal law-likes in the development of philosophy with the perspective of topology; 2) to interpret the general routes of Western philosophy in terms of the philosophical topology; 3) to view the philosophical topology as a way to inquire into metaphysics; 4) to deal properly with the relation of the philosophical topology to other branches in contemporary philosophy such as the philosophy of language, of logic, of science and ethics

In this paper, I situate C.S. Peirce's theory of knowledge and action in comparison to Chinese philosophy. My argument is that the comparison makes it important to understand Peirce's abduction and his maxim as a much more potent force in comparative philosophy. Peirce's priority of practical effects over theory is similar to Confucian conceptions of truth and action. Jon Alan Schmidt has summarized sixty-one formulations of Peirce's maxim, from which I draw the four main expressions of the maxim here. According to Peirce, understanding the meaning of concepts in terms of actual effects is the core element of the maxim. This view can be seen as an echo in Wang Yangming's theory of the unity of knowledge and action. The theory is essentially a moral humanist philosophy. It integrates morality, ethics, and politics. It is similar to Peirce's pragmatic maxim, as James Liszka has explained. Finally, reflecting on the recent studies of Peirce's semiotics in China, I discuss the significance of Peirce's pragmatism in Chinese philosophy.

This essay explores the history of studies in analytical philosophy in China since the beginning of the last century, by dividing into three phases. It shows that, in these phases, analytic philosophy was always at a disadvantage in confronting serious challenges coming from both Chinese traditional philosophy and modern philosophical trends. The authors argue that Chinese philosophers have both done preliminary studies and offered their own analyses of various problems as well as some new applications of analytic philosophy especially in the latest period. Meanwhile, Chinese traditional philosophy was always trying to adjust its cultural mentality in the struggle with analytic philosophy, and accommodated in its own way the rationalistic spirit and scientific method represented in analytic philosophy

Tscha Hung was a member of the Vienna Circle who achieved high international academic recognition. He dedicated his entire life to spreading the philosophy of the Circle to China and developed deep insights in his criticisms to that philosophy. Hung was a witness to the encounter of Western and Chinese philosophy in the twentieth century. His debate with Fung You-lan on metaphysics reflects different understandings of the nature of philosophy and metaphysics as well as different perspectives. Hung defended the position of metaphysics in Chinese philosophy in his own way and engaged in a contemporary reconstruction of Chinese philosophy.

It has been a century since Wittgenstein was introduced into China, and his philosophy has been in conflict with traditional Chinese philosophy and culture ever since. During this time, Wittgenstein’s philosophy has been the focus of considerable dialogue regarding Chinese and Western philosophies and has been responsible for introducing many new ideas into Chinese philosophy. There are three ways to study Wittgenstein’s philosophy in China: contextual reading, interpretation of thoughts and extended understanding. Chen Jiaying is one of the foremost scholars of the study of Wittgenstein in China. This scholar incorporates Wittgenstein’s methodology, especially in his later philosophy, to explain meanings of ordinary language. Wittgenstein’s philosophy introduces anti-essentialism into Chinese studies, a new way to interpret the philosophy of language, and his criticism of traditional Western philosophy. Taken together, these factors emphasise the significance of Wittgenstein’s philosophy to philosophical research in China.