Is Chinese Culture Dualist?: An Answer to Edward Slingerland from a Medical Philosophical Viewpoint

A recent challenge by Edward Slingerland to the conventional view of Chinese thought is that China is no exception to the recent cognitive science hypothesis that dualism is an innate cognitive universal. However, a close reexamination of Slingerland’s evidence shows that it is biased. Extensive evi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Pan, Dawei (VerfasserIn)
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Lade...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Veröffentlicht: Oxford University Press [2017]
In: Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Jahr: 2017, Band: 85, Heft: 4, Seiten: 1017-1031
normierte Schlagwort(-folgen):B Slingerland, Edward G. 1968- / China / Philosophie / Kultur / Dualismus / Leib-Seele-Problem
RelBib Classification:BM Chinesischer Universismus; Konfuzianismus; Taoismus
KBM Asien
Online Zugang: Volltext (Verlag)
Volltext (doi)
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:A recent challenge by Edward Slingerland to the conventional view of Chinese thought is that China is no exception to the recent cognitive science hypothesis that dualism is an innate cognitive universal. However, a close reexamination of Slingerland’s evidence shows that it is biased. Extensive evidence across philosophy and medicine suggests that a concept of degrees of substantiality rather than a distinct barrier between mind and body underlies both early Chinese afterlife beliefs and ideas about the xin-body relationship. In particular, medical accounts of the xin’s dual role as the organ of thought and a physical organ does not reject the division between mind and body. A dualist claim, however weak, cannot explain China’s traditional focus on the link between physicality and mentality, especially in medicine. The cognitive science-driven attempt to recast the conventional holist claim of Chinese thought is an overly hasty attempt to take refuge in science.
ISSN:1477-4585
Enthält:Enthalten in: American Academy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfx028