Zhuangzi as externalist: Reconciling two interpretations of the Happy Fish debate
In the English language contemporary literature, there are mainly two philosophical approaches to interpretation of the Zhuangzi’s Happy Fish debate. The two approaches to the famous passage are the logical, which focuses on analysis, and the non-analytic, which focuses on context. The approaches ar...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Carfax
2023
|
| Dans: |
Asian philosophy
Année: 2023, Volume: 33, Numéro: 4, Pages: 363-376 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Zhuangzi
B Daoism B Chinese philosophy B Externalism B Happy Fish debate |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | In the English language contemporary literature, there are mainly two philosophical approaches to interpretation of the Zhuangzi’s Happy Fish debate. The two approaches to the famous passage are the logical, which focuses on analysis, and the non-analytic, which focuses on context. The approaches are in tension with one another since one implies that the other is wrong. This paper suggests that the view that Zhuangzi holds an externalist view of justification according to the debate (here abbreviated as ZE) reconciles the approaches. ZE is the interpretation that says that in the debate, Zhuangzi is an externalist, in particular, a process reliabilist, because he takes sense perception as means to attaining knowledge. ZE reconciles the two approaches in that in each of them ZE is implicit. Ultimately, this paper not only offers a perspective about the two approaches, it also offers a view about the debate. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-2961 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Asian philosophy
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/09552367.2023.2247634 |