What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy
An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy
This comprehensive introductory textbook to early Chinese philosophy covers a range of philosophical traditions which arose during the Spring and Autumn (722–476 BCE) and Warring States (475–221 BCE) periods in China, including Confucianism, Mohism, Daoism, and Legalism. It considers concepts, themes and argumentative methods of early Chinese philosophy and follows the development of some ideas in subsequent periods, including the introduction of Buddhism into China. The book examines key issues and debates in early Chinese philosophy, cross-influences between its traditions and interpretations by scholars up to the present day. The discussion draws upon both primary texts and secondary sources, and there are suggestions for further reading. This will be an invaluable guide for all who are interested in the foundations of Chinese philosophy and its richness and continuing relevance.
322 pages, Paperback
First published July 31, 2008
14 people are currently reading
120 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 17, 2018
I'm no scholar of Chinese thought, although I'm gaining a basic familiarity with it. I'm also not a college student, so I didn't have to buy this for a course or anything. This is just the impression of an interested layman.
As a survey of Chinese philosophy, this is basically what you would expect: Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, Mohism, and Chinese Buddhism are all covered.
While I don't presume to know more about Chinese philosophy than the author of this text, who, I am certain, has read far more of it than I have, I found myself questioning how much Chinese philosophy can really be given a satisfactory treatment in the contemporary fashion. Much of Chinese philosophy has a decidedly anti-theoretical bent, so I have to wonder if it can really be addressed in the same manner as something like Kant or Hegel or something like that. Sure, there are ideas in Chinese philosophy, and examining those ideas in the context of academic philosophy can be fascinating. But if you're an academic philosopher, can you really "criticize" a group of writers who weren't interested in your kind of question and wouldn't have cared much for your kind of theorizing? Not that this applies to all of Chinese philosophy, of course. The Mohists certainly weren't scared of theory, or even semantics. Indeed, the Mohists were the most "Western" of any Chinese philosophical school, with their focus on engineering and something like natural science. The text even mentions Chinese philosophers at the end of the 19th century looking through their own history for something approximating European thinking and finding it in the Mohists. But it's hard to criticize someone like Confucius from within a Western idiom. The Analects does not contain many definitions, and it certainly isn't axiomatic reasoning or deduced from discrete premises.
This all plays into something that has been on my mind for a while regarding the relation between contemporary thought in Western(ized) liberal democracies and classical Chinese philosophy. Namely, the preoccupation with logic we inherited from the Greeks simply isn't found to the same extent in other traditions. I say “to the same extent” because a preoccupation with formal logical reasoning does occur in traditions that were not influenced by the Greeks from time to time; Nagarjuna famously had a system of dialethic logic (logic with true contradictions) and I've already mentioned the Mohists. But traditions influenced by the Greeks are dominated by this kind of thing to a degree not found outside of those traditions – indeed, the Greek influence on Islamic philosophy gave rise to one of the few places in the pre-colonial world where this way of thinking arose outside of Europe.
The Tao Te Ching, for example, states that “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao,” while presumably telling us about the eternal Tao, which is something that can't be done, according to the text itself. The fact that the Tao Te Ching contains, prima facie, a glaring contradiction did not seem to bother the Taoists, who perhaps even found it natural. Given this way of doing philosophy, how much hope is there for a systematic treatment of Chinese thought in the systematic fashion to which contemporary philosophers are accustomed? Perhaps the Mohists can be treated thus, but what about all the other schools?
If you're looking for a good survey of Chinese philosophy, then this is a perfectly serviceable text, especially if you have a background in contemporary academic philosophy. Nevertheless, you may find yourself nagged, as I was, by the thought that perhaps the treatments of Chinese philosophy in this text are leaving something out.
As a survey of Chinese philosophy, this is basically what you would expect: Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, Mohism, and Chinese Buddhism are all covered.
While I don't presume to know more about Chinese philosophy than the author of this text, who, I am certain, has read far more of it than I have, I found myself questioning how much Chinese philosophy can really be given a satisfactory treatment in the contemporary fashion. Much of Chinese philosophy has a decidedly anti-theoretical bent, so I have to wonder if it can really be addressed in the same manner as something like Kant or Hegel or something like that. Sure, there are ideas in Chinese philosophy, and examining those ideas in the context of academic philosophy can be fascinating. But if you're an academic philosopher, can you really "criticize" a group of writers who weren't interested in your kind of question and wouldn't have cared much for your kind of theorizing? Not that this applies to all of Chinese philosophy, of course. The Mohists certainly weren't scared of theory, or even semantics. Indeed, the Mohists were the most "Western" of any Chinese philosophical school, with their focus on engineering and something like natural science. The text even mentions Chinese philosophers at the end of the 19th century looking through their own history for something approximating European thinking and finding it in the Mohists. But it's hard to criticize someone like Confucius from within a Western idiom. The Analects does not contain many definitions, and it certainly isn't axiomatic reasoning or deduced from discrete premises.
This all plays into something that has been on my mind for a while regarding the relation between contemporary thought in Western(ized) liberal democracies and classical Chinese philosophy. Namely, the preoccupation with logic we inherited from the Greeks simply isn't found to the same extent in other traditions. I say “to the same extent” because a preoccupation with formal logical reasoning does occur in traditions that were not influenced by the Greeks from time to time; Nagarjuna famously had a system of dialethic logic (logic with true contradictions) and I've already mentioned the Mohists. But traditions influenced by the Greeks are dominated by this kind of thing to a degree not found outside of those traditions – indeed, the Greek influence on Islamic philosophy gave rise to one of the few places in the pre-colonial world where this way of thinking arose outside of Europe.
The Tao Te Ching, for example, states that “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao,” while presumably telling us about the eternal Tao, which is something that can't be done, according to the text itself. The fact that the Tao Te Ching contains, prima facie, a glaring contradiction did not seem to bother the Taoists, who perhaps even found it natural. Given this way of doing philosophy, how much hope is there for a systematic treatment of Chinese thought in the systematic fashion to which contemporary philosophers are accustomed? Perhaps the Mohists can be treated thus, but what about all the other schools?
If you're looking for a good survey of Chinese philosophy, then this is a perfectly serviceable text, especially if you have a background in contemporary academic philosophy. Nevertheless, you may find yourself nagged, as I was, by the thought that perhaps the treatments of Chinese philosophy in this text are leaving something out.
September 13, 2023
I know nothing about Chinese philosophy and picked this book up on a whim in a book shop. I did not enjoy the ride. This is probably written more as an academic textbook but, even then, the writing style was incredibly dry and a slog to read. The selection of philosophers seemed comprehensive and the topics covered for each were generally interesting with the links and disagreements between the thinkers clearly laid out (at least so far as my amateur opinion can be trusted). The author has a clear command over the subject matter and they engage with a broad range of secondary sources. The treatment of a lot of big topics was frequently brief, to the degree that I would have appreciated fewer subjects and more depth. Though that's not really the book's about.
It was just a slog to read, though. I watched some very engaging academic lectures about some of the philosophers, so I'm convinced it's not the subject matter that's uninteresting. In the end, this book has just given me a reading list of other Chinese philosophy books to check out.
It was just a slog to read, though. I watched some very engaging academic lectures about some of the philosophers, so I'm convinced it's not the subject matter that's uninteresting. In the end, this book has just given me a reading list of other Chinese philosophy books to check out.
June 26, 2021
Very good introduction for "Ancient Chinese Philosophy", but this book has not provide any information for Modern or Contemporary period of Chinese Philosophy. If you interested in Neo Confucianism, Contemporary New Confucianism etc., you may have another choice.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews