Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
icantfindaname
Jul 1, 2008


Somewhat unrelated, but I read this recently

https://brill.com/view/title/16465

quote:


The Discovery of Chinese Logic
Series:

Modern Chinese Philosophy, Volume: 1

Author: Joachim Kurtz
Until 1898, Chinese and foreign scholars agreed that China had never known, needed, or desired a field of study similar in scope and purpose to European logic. Less than a decade later, Chinese literati claimed that the discipline had been part of the empire’s learned heritage for more than two millennia. This book analyzes the conceptual, ideological, and institutional transformations that made this drastic change of opinion possible and acceptable. Reconstructing the discovery of Chinese logic as a paradigmatic case of the epistemic shifts that continue to shape interpretations of China’s intellectual history, it offers a fresh view of the formation of modern academic discourses in East Asia and adds a neglected chapter to the global histories of science and philosophy. See Less

Turns out that the vast majority of Protestant missionaries in late 19th Century China dismissed syllogistic logic as Catholic Jesuit nonsense and as having no real relation to scientific empiricism and positivism

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Mar 1, 2019

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

icantfindaname
Jul 1, 2008


Tell me about Hegel's self-conscious relation to the Enlightenment? As I understand it he's not an explicitly anti-modernist/anti-Enlightenment position like Heidegger, but sees himself as building on Kant and completing Kant's legacy in a sense?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply