David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 10 (2):127-148 (2011)
Drawing primarily on the Mòzǐ and Xúnzǐ, the article proposes an account of how knowledge and error are understood in classical Chinese epistemology and applies it to explain the absence of a skeptical argument from illusion in early Chinese thought. Arguments from illusion are associated with a representational conception of mind and knowledge, which allows the possibility of a comprehensive or persistent gap between appearance and reality. By contrast, early Chinese thinkers understand mind and knowledge primarily in terms of competence or ability, not representation. Cognitive error amounts to a form of incompetence. Error is not explained as a failure to accurately represent the mind-independent reality due to misleading or illusory appearances. Instead, it can be explained metaphorically by appeal to part-whole relations: cognitive error typically occurs when agents incompetently respond to only part of their situation, rather than the whole
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Chad Hansen (1992). A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. Oxford University Press.
Chad Hansen (1983). Language and Logic in Ancient China. University of Michigan Press.
Donald J. Munro (1969). The Concept of Man in Early China. Stanford, Calif.,Stanford University Press.
Ruth Garrett Millikan (1987). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Noûs 21 (3):430-434.
Citations of this work BETA
Chris Fraser (2013). Distinctions, Judgment, and Reasoning in Classical Chinese Thought. History and Philosophy of Logic 34 (1):1-24.
Justin Tiwald (2012). Xunzi on Moral Expertise. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 11 (3):275-293.
Chris Fraser (2012). The Limitations of Ritual Propriety: Ritual and Language in Xúnzǐ and Zhuāngzǐ. [REVIEW] Sophia 51 (2):257-282.
Similar books and articles
Roy A. Sorensen (2007). Knowledge Beyond the Margin for Error. Mind 116 (463):717 - 722.
Jérôme Dokic & Paul Égré (2009). Margin for Error and the Transparency of Knowledge. Synthese 166 (1):1 - 20.
Timothy Williamson (2007). Knowledge Within the Margin for Error. Mind 116 (463):723 - 726.
Brian Bruya (2003). Review of Geaney's On the Epistemology of the Senses in Early Chinese Thought. [REVIEW] China Review International 10 (1):157-164.
Jonathan Ellis (2006). Color, Error, and Explanatory Power. Dialectica 60 (2):171-179.
Richard Rowland (2013). Moral Error Theory and the Argument From Epistemic Reasons. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 7 (1):1-24.
Richard Joyce (2011). The Error In 'The Error In The Error Theory'. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):519-534.
John M. Collins (2008). Content Externalism and Brute Logical Error. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):pp. 549-574.
Kwong-loi Shun (1997). Mencius and Early Chinese Thought. Stanford University Press.
Chris Daly & David Liggins (2010). In Defence of Error Theory. Philosophical Studies 149 (2):209-230.
Chris Fraser (2007). Language and Ontology in Early Chinese Thought. Philosophy East and West 57 (4):420-456.
Christopher J. Fraser, Similarity and Standards : Language, Cognition, and Action in Chinese and Western Thought.
Donald Nute (2011). A Logical Hole the Chinese Room Avoids. Minds and Machines 21 (3):431-433.
Added to index2011-04-03
Total downloads31 ( #102,719 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #118,705 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?