The Uses of Neo-Confucianism, Revisited
A Reply to Professor de Bary
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13637259 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hoyt Cleveland Tillman (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1994 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 135-135 |
| Publication date | 1994-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy East and West (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-8221 • E-ISSN: 1529-1898 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/1399807 |
| OpenAlex | W2320502345 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
Reading Professor Wm. Theodore de Bary's recent response1 to my article in the July 1992 issue of Philosophy East and West, I feel that to a great degree we have talked past one another. Much of his discussion appears to me to have missed the point I sought to make. I now realize why my efforts on several occasions over the last few years have failed to engage him in dialogue about these issues. If my intentions and objections did, in fact, comport with the way he presented them, I would owe Professor de Bary a personal apology. And for any unintended personal offense or any misunderstanding that may have arisen from my inarticulate expression, I do indeed apologize. A more useful reply to his response, however, might be to try once more to clarify what I am proposing, and to explain why Neo-Confucianism as the primary working rubric among most scholars in the West appears to me to be problematic. Professor de Bary has generously taken time to respond to me and to expound on his approach and usage of terms; in turn, I should not withhold my thoughts on why, in some important cases, I do not follow his lead. It is because I appreciate his contributions to our understanding of that I have sought to have this dialogue. I am suggesting that we need to pay much closer attention to historical contexts in the evolution of Confucian thought and to do this in a way that takes into account the interaction of ideas with social, political, and cultural factors. The world of thought needs to be contextualized in both its synchronic and diachronic dimensions. I also urge that we take greater care with the terms that we use, for the use of certain terms has conventionally tended to privilege or validate certain thinkers and developments at the expense of others. I do not fear that being more rigorous with our terms would, as Professor de Bary suggests, foreclose the fuller exploration of Confucian thought in both its inner depths and larger historical significance (p. 541). One of the fundamental places where Professor de Bary and I have failed to communicate is to be found in the term Confucianism itself
Epistemology · Linguistics · Pedagogy · Reading (process · Rubric · Sociology · Chinese history and philosophy · Philosophy · Psychology
| Unique citing works | 8 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,29 |
| Citation span | 1998 - 2017 (20) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |