As a species, we have long been both settled and mobile, with some of us rooted in place and others more migratory. Mobility is not a new feature of human life; however, contemporary forms of mobility diminish geographical, cultural, and ecological rootedness and bring together people with many diverse ways of life. This cultural interchange offers both challenges and opportunities: challenges as people encounter unfamiliar contexts and navigate values and perspectives that differ radically from their own; and opportunities as new perspectives can generate new insights and possibilities for living well together.
Along with this cultural exchange, there are significant pressures to reach common moral understanding on issues such as climate change, migration, humanitarian intervention, and responses to poverty. Global discourse is no longer governed exclusively by international political realism, and moral reasons are frequently invoked in international debates. In light of these contexts, many believe that we should view the world as a single moral community—we should be cosmopolitans—but precisely what this entails remains subject to debate. Do the Confucian Analects and the early Daoist text, the Zhuangzi, offer resources relevant to the contexts just described and to understanding what forms contemporary cosmopolitanism might take? The first, theoretical/textual portion of this chapter answers affirmatively, showing how insights can be gleaned from both traditions and how these insights complement one another.
The Analects illustrates the importance of certain forms of rootedness and con nection for moral personhood, suggesting that cosmopolitanism needs to make space for sustained relations and take seriously the significance of culture. On the other hand, the Zhuangzi cautions against fixating too strongly on a single outlook and casts doubt on claims of a single, uniquely correct moral point of view. The second part of the chapter considers the relevance of these perspec
tives for contemporary debates over cosmopolitanism and human rights. There we critique approaches that place too much weight on a universal moral minimum and show how both Confucian and Zhuangian insights may inform a genuinely multicultural cosmopolitanism.
An Introduction to Symbolic Logic
Symbolic Logic is a relatively new subject, and the easiest methods of approach have not yet been determined. In point of arrangement, therefore, this Introduction has no predecessor. That is just why it was written: the need of some systematic guide, from the state of perfect innocence to a possible understanding of the classical literature, has become acute and commanding.
New Words for Old Wrongs
This paper begins with the idea that there are sometimes gaps in our shared linguistic/conceptual resources that make it difficult for us to understand our own social experiences, and to make them intelligible to others. In this paper, I focus on three cases of this sort, some of which are drawn from the literature on hermeneutical injustice. I offer a diagnosis of what the gaps in these cases consist in, and what it takes to fill them. I argue that these gaps are filled in, at least initially, by labels of a particular kind. Specifically, these are labels that allow us to see the experiences in question as novel instances of phenomena with which we are already normatively familiar. Further, I also show that these labels bring with them important downsides: they introduce distortions into our understandings of these experiences. Using a pair of case studies (‘statutory rape,’ ‘sexual harassment’), I illustrate these distortions.
Generics and Social Justice
Is it harmful to make generic claims about social groups? Those who say yes cite
the reinforcement of oppressive stereotypes and cognitive bias. Those who say no
cite the potential of generics to do good, rather than harm, by taking advantage of
the same mechanisms that perpetuate the harms. This paper analyzes generic utterances in the context of social justice efforts to weigh in on the debate about whether
and how generic utterances contribute to stereotypes and oppression. We need to
first pay more attention to what it means to utter generics in social justice contexts.
Doing so will allow us to distinguish those generic utterances that are helpful for
social justice projects from those that might impede their progress. I argue that there
is an important pragmatic sense in which generics can be undermined: especially
generics used in service of social justice claims. I then offer an epistemic thesis for
why some generics are more susceptible to being undermined by counter-examples
than others. I conclude that if we are interested in using generics in the service of
social justice, then there is reason to restrict the contexts in which we utter generics. In doing so, I challenge the conventional wisdom that generics are resistant to
counterexamples.
Cognitive Transformation, Dementia, and the Moral Weigh of Advance Directives
Dementia patients in the moderate-late stage of the disease can, and often do, express different preferences than they did at the onset of their condition. The received view in the philosophical literature argues that advance directives which prioritize the patient’s preferences at onset ought to be given decisive moral weight in medical decision-making. Clinical practice, on the other hand, favors giving moral weight to the preferences expressed by dementia patients after onset. The purpose of this article is to show that the received view in the philosophical literature is inadequate and is out of touch with real clinical practice. I argue that having dementia is a cognitive transformative experience and that preference changes which result from this are legitimate and ought to be given moral weight in medical decision-making. This argument ought to encourage us to reduce our confidence in the moral weight of advance directives for dementia patients.
The Limit of Language in Daoism
The paper is concerned with the development of the paradoxical theme of Daoism. Based on Chad Hansen’s interpretation of Daoism and Chinese philosophy in general, it traces the history of Daoism by following their treatment of the limit of language. The Daoists seem to have noticed that there is a limit to what language can do and that the limit of language is paradoxical. The ‘theoretical’ treatment of the paradox of the limit of language matures as Daoism develops. Yet the Daoists seem to have noticed that the limit of language and its paradoxical nature cannot be overcome. At the end, we are left with the paradoxes of the Daoists. In this paper, we jump into the abyss of the Daoists’ paradoxes from which there is no escape. But the Daoists’ paradoxes are fun!
Logical Illumination Of Indian Mysticism
Figures from Eastern Philosophy in general and Nāgārjuna in particular are often labeled as engaging in mysticism. In this lecture, Matilal argues that if we want to use this label, we must at least admit that this mysticism is illuminated by rigorous logical argument.
The Problem of Speaking for Others
As philosophers and social theorists we are authorized by virtue of our academic positions to develop theories that express and encompass the ideas, needs, and goals of others. However, we must begin to ask ourselves whether this is a legitimate authority. Is the discursive practice of speaking for others ever a valid practice, and, if so, what are the criteria for validity? In particular, is it ever valid to speak for others who are unlike me or who are less privileged than me?
Ever the Twain shall Meet? Chomsky and Wittgenstein on Linguistic Competence
It is a dominant view in the philosophical literature on the later Wittgenstein that Chomsky’s approach to the investigation of natural language stands in stark contrast to Wittgenstein’s, and that their respective conceptions of language and linguistic understanding are irreconcilable. The aim in this paper is to show that this view is largely incorrect and that the two approaches to language and its use are indeed compatible, notwithstanding their distinctive foci of interest. The author argues that there is a significant correspondence in at least five different areas of their work, and that once we pay attention to these there will be less temptation to see Wittgenstein and Chomsky as enemies.
The Autonomy of Grammar and Semantic Internalism
In his post-Tractatus work on natural language use, Wittgenstein defended the notion of what he dubbed the autonomy of grammar. According to this thought, grammar – or semantics, in a more recent idiom – is essentially autonomous from metaphysical considerations, and is not answerable to the nature of things. The argument has several related incarnations in Wittgenstein’s post-Tractatus writings, and has given rise to a number of important insights, both critical and constructive. In this paper I will argue for a potential connection between Wittgenstein’s autonomy argument and some more recent internalist arguments for the autonomy of semantics. My main motivation for establishing this connection comes from the fact that the later Wittgenstein’s comments on grammar and meaning stand in opposition to some of the core assumptions of semantic externalism.