Online research in philosophy

Beginning with Aristotle, philosophers have taken artifacts to be ontologically deficient. This paper proposes a theory of artifacts, according to which artifacts are ontologically on a par with other material objects. I formulate a nonreductive theory that regards artifacts as constituted by - but not identical to - aggregates of particles. After setting out the theory, I rebut a number of arguments that disparage the ontological status of artifacts.

This is an attempt to assemble the fragmentary remains of xuan-school Analects commentary so as to articulate the broad coherence of a xuan-school style of interpretation of that text. A model of "gestural language" is proposed as a way of seeing the overall thrust of interpretive approaches to this text by commentators from Wang Bi in the mid-third century to Huang Kan in the first half of the sixth. This xuan-school approach to reading the Analects is of considerable interest in its own right, reminding us of the centrality of the notions of sagehood and "timeliness" to hermeneutical thought in this period, as well as anticipating some of the insights obtained by modern-day applications of speech-act theory to the interpretation of the text. What close attention to these relatively neglected sources conveys, moreover, is a sense of the real importance of the Analects, and of the sage Confucius, to much xuan-school thought. Viewing this historical style of interpretation in its conceptual sophistication and broad coherence may thus also serve as a corrective to persistent assumptions about xuan-school thought as essentially "metaphysical" or "Neo-Daoist" in its basic orientation.

Since Durkheim ([1912] 1965), the concept of ritual has held a privileged position in studies of social life because investigators recurrently have treated it as a source of insight into core issues of human sociality, such as the maintenance of social order. Consequently, studies of ritual have typically focused on rituals' function(s), and, specifically, whether ritual begets social integration or fragmentation. In this frame, students of ritual have tended to ignore other, equally fundamental issues, including (1) how actions, or courses of action, constitute a ritual, and (2) whether ritual is best understood as an aspect of all social action or a specific type of it. Drawing on Durkheim's overlooked contemporary, Van Gennep ([1908] 1960), I argue that analyses of ritual must describe how participants enact an occasion as ritual through distinctive activities and sequences of these. Analysts of ritual must attempt to ground the relevance of their descriptions in the participants' demonstrable orientations, an undertaking with more general implications for the study of social action.

This paper introduces the Analects of Kongzi (better known to English-speakers as 'Confucius') to non-specialist readers, and discusses two major lines of interpretation. According to one group of interpretations, the key to understanding the Analects is passage 4.15, in which a disciple says that 'loyalty' and 'reciprocity' together make up the 'one thread' of the Master's teachings. More recently, some interpreters have emphasised passage 13.3, which discusses 'correcting names': bringing words and things into proper alignment. This paper argues that both approaches are mistaken, based on interpolated and unrepresentative passages. The paper closes with a brief suggestion that the Analects reveals a thinker who emphasises cultivating virtues that allow for the appreciation of complex individual contexts, rather than one who seeks systematic generalisations. An afterword to the paper suggests that we should avoid both 'methodological dualism' (which posits a radical incommensurability between Western and Eastern philosophies) and 'the perennial philosophy' (which ignores differences in favour of similarities).

This article takes issue with the stereotype of "Confucianism" as authoritarian, a view common in discussions of modern China as well as in scholarship on early China. By studying the roles of master and students and the relationship between them in the Analects , it attempts to show that according to this text the master did not occupy a position of complete dominance over the student. Masters are not generally considered to be like fathers, and students have more room to dispute with their master than previously recognized. In contrast to later depictions of Kongzi, he is not presented as infallible in the Analects , and his students do not always accept his opinions. Questioning the master is often a good quality in a disciple. The master-student relationship, while undoubtedly hierarchical, did not involve complete submission by the student. It is argued here that there is little basis for concluding that the Analects is fundamentally authoritarian in its depiction of teaching. It further suggests a need for a distinct understanding of teaching authority that is not modeled on political authority.

Confucius Now: Contemporary Encounters with the Analects, edited by David Jones, is a stirring, thought-provoking anthology that invites reflection and soul searching. Other collections on Confucius and the Analects have appeared in recent years, but they have tended to focus narrowly on issues such as what we know about the Master, what in the Analects constitutes his original teachings, and the like. By raising imponderable questions about the Master’s identity and his fluctuating persona over time, and pursuing hypothetical philological arguments, they have detracted from what is of interest in Confucius’ teachings as presented in the Analects while offering little in return.Drawing on several disciplines ..

Theory -- An origins myth for the Analects -- The Analects' silences -- Exemplarist elements in the Analects -- A total exemplar : Confucius -- A partial exemplar : Zilu -- A partial exemplar : Zigong -- Conclusion.

The unique discourse of Confucian ritual practice encompasses a powerful and sophisticated way of talking about individual fulfillment within the context of more substantive or universal conceptions of the good life. To make this case, I will consider both the text of the "Analects" and the influential readings of the "Analects" offered by Fingarette in "Confucius: The Secular as Sacred" and by Hall and Ames in "Thinking through Confucius". Though the two interpretive works are helpful in articulating the classical Confucian contribution to the problem of balancing conformity and individuality, I will argue that an alternative reading is required to appreciate fully how values thought to embody and express the fullest humanity might be inculcated in ethical agents without undoing their individuality. Such an alternative is developed here.

The purpose of One Heart is to illuminate the common sacred ground at the heart of seven faiths: Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Taoism. Its method is to identify 65 essential principles, among them: Feel what other people feel; Don't harm others; Lead with virtue and concern for others; Be honest; Practice what you preach; Be content; Don't let anger take over; Choose your companions wisely; Accept the existence of spiritual beings; Seek and you will find. Illustrating each principle are one, two, or three quotations (adding up to more than 600) from a wide variety of texts sacred to each of the seven faiths—including the Old and New Testaments, the Talmud, the Mahabarata, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, the Analects of Confucius, and many other sacred sources. In addition, each chapter also provides guidance on a spiritual theme or practice—prayer beads, a home altar, labyrinth walking—to enhance our understanding of these wise words and universal principles.