为了正常的体验网站,请在浏览器设置里面开启Javascript功能!
首页 > 美国哲学学会关于中国哲学危机的报告

美国哲学学会关于中国哲学危机的报告

2012-09-10 23页 pdf 1MB 9阅读

用户头像

is_081600

暂无简介

举报
美国哲学学会关于中国哲学危机的报告 Volume 08, Number 1 Fall 2008 APA Newsletters © 2008 by The American Philosophical Association NEWSLETTER ON ASIAN AND ASIAN-AMERICAN PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHY FROM THE GUEST EDITOR, AMY OLBERDING ARTICLES Part I: Perspectives from the Field ...
美国哲学学会关于中国哲学危机的报告
Volume 08, Number 1 Fall 2008 APA Newsletters © 2008 by The American Philosophical Association NEWSLETTER ON ASIAN AND ASIAN-AMERICAN PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHY FROM THE GUEST EDITOR, AMY OLBERDING ARTICLES Part I: Perspectives from the Field STEPHEN C. ANGLE “Does Michigan Matter?” ROGER T. AMES “A State-of-the-Art Reflection on Chinese Philosophy” BRYAN W. VAN NORDEN “Three Questions about the Crisis in Chinese Philosophy” JUSTIN TIWALD “A Case for Chinese Philosophy” MANYUL IM “Taking Stock: A State-of-the-Field Impression” INTERVIEWS BY CHEUNG CHAN-FAI AND LIU XIAOGAN “Professor Donald Munro on the State of Chinese Philosophy DAVID B. WONG “The State of Chinese Philosophy in the U.S.” Part II: Perspectives from Hiring Departments HUGH BENSON “One Perspective on Chinese Philosophy in a Ph.D. Program” LESLIE P. FRANCIS “I Cannot Imagine Our Department without Asian Philosophy” Part III: Data on the Profession AMY OLBERDING “Ph.D. Granting Programs in the United States with Faculty Specializing in Asian Philosophy” AMY OLBERDING “Job Postings in Chinese, Asian, and Non-Western Philosophy, 2003 - 2008” APA NEWSLETTER ON Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies Chang-Seong Hong, Editor Fall 2008 Volume 08, Number 1 FROM THE GUEST EDITOR Amy Olberding University of Oklahoma Some time ago, a colleague alerted me to a discussion about Chinese philosophy on the Leiter Reports blog.1 The discussion there centered around perceptions that there is a “crisis” in Chinese philosophy in the United States and the difficulties faced by students who wish to enter the field but find relatively few choices in selecting graduate programs. It occurred to me that an organized effort to assess the state of the field in the U.S. would be useful and that is what this issue of the Newsletter aspires to provide. While the essays collected here are diverse in their interests and orientations, each undertakes to assess the state of the field, with a particular focus on the opportunities for graduate study in Chinese philosophy. As many of our authors observe, a key measure of the health of the field is its sustainability. Like any area of philosophy, it is not enough that there be talented scholars producing research and “moving the field forward.” There must also be reliable graduate programs through which new generations of scholars can arise. We require, in short, not simply good work but the promise of more to come. Thus, while there are surely other important gauges by which we might evaluate state of the field, the focus of this issue is on opportunities for Ph.D. study of Chinese philosophy. It is in this sense forward-looking, aimed at evaluating not simply where the field is, but where it may go. It is perhaps necessary at the outset to articulate the limitations of the discussion offered here. Both the scholarship in Chinese philosophy and the scholars working in the field come to it from diverse quarters. Many scholars publishing in the field are professionally placed in disciplines outside philosophy. Likewise, much work in Chinese philosophy is, of course, produced outside the boundaries of the United States. The field is by no means confined by disciplinary or geographical boundaries. However, this issue of the Newsletter must be understood to treat the field in a somewhat artificially narrowed fashion, looking principally to the discipline of philosophy and to departments in the United States. While this narrow focus is deliberate and self-conscious, it may be necessary to explain its rationale. In corresponding with colleagues about this issue and in the Leiter Reports blog discussion, one source of worry that emerged was that while Chinese philosophy may be flourishing as an intellectual endeavor, it may do so elsewhere, outside the discipline of philosophy and outside the United States. Impressive philosophy programs have developed in Hong Kong and Singapore, impressive scholars are located in Religious Studies and East Asian programs throughout the U.S., but these developments have served, for some at least, to emphasize the contraction of offerings in U.S. philosophy departments. In short, there is a concern, among some at least, that the health of the field qua intellectual endeavor has come apart from the health of the field qua professional disciplinary domain in the United States. In order to address this local and particular aspect of the field, the scholars invited to write for this issue of the Newsletter are all placed in, or spent their careers in, U.S. philosophy departments. The Newsletter is divided into three sections. The first and largest section consists in essays solicited from a variety of specialists in Chinese philosophy who currently hold or have recently held positions in U.S. philosophy departments. Some of our contributors have long worked in the field and watched its progress over long careers; others are newer to the field and offer insight derived from recent experiences with both graduate study and the job market. All are actively engaged, in a variety of ways, with promoting the study of Chinese philosophy in the United States. The second section of the Newsletter offers two essays from faculty well placed to address the field from an external vantage point, Hugh Benson (University of Oklahoma) and Leslie Francis (University of Utah). Both Professor Benson and Professor Francis chair departments that, while predominantly Western in orientation, include scholars of Chinese philosophy among their faculty. They were invited to speak to their departments’ experience with Chinese philosophy in their graduate curricula and offer their reflections regarding the inclusion of Chinese philosophy in the wider profession. The third section contains empirical data on the situation of Chinese philosophy in the Unites States. Here we provide data assembled to give definite shape and context to the reflections included in the essays. The material provided here both outlines the opportunities for Ph.D. study presently available in U.S. philosophy departments and gives a snapshot of recent hiring patterns. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to those who assisted in assembling this issue. Chang Seong-Hong, Chair of the Committee on the Status of Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies, provided very helpful advisory assistance; Roger Ames, Philip J. Ivanhoe, and Steve Angle all provided valuable advice regarding how to structure the discussion and organize the data collected here. I am also grateful to the editors at The Chinese University Press for their permission to reprint an excerpt from Professor Donald Munro’s new work and to the staff at The American Philosophical Association for their assistance in producing this issue and in gathering the data from Jobs for Philosophers included here. While we would surely need multiple issues of the Newsletter to provide a truly comprehensive review, the material gathered here, it is hoped, will prove a helpful marker for those in the field and those considering entering it. — APA Newsletter, Fall 2008, Volume 08, Number 1 — — 2 — Endnotes 1. This discussion may be accessed at: http://leiterreports. typepad.com/blog/2006/12/the_situation_f.html. PART I: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD Does Michigan Matter? Stephen C. Angle Wesleyan University When I went off to graduate school, specialists in Chinese philosophy taught in philosophy departments at four significant graduate programs: University of Michigan, University of California at Berkeley, Stanford University, and University of Hawai’i. Today, of those four programs, only Hawai’i—which, in contrast to the other three, has not been viewed as a strong broad-based graduate program1—still has specialists in Chinese philosophy. My question here is: Does this matter, and if so, to whom? First of all, it matters to prospective graduate students. In saying this, I do not mean to slight the Hawai’i program, which has trained many excellent teachers and scholars. I also recognize that there are several options that a student might consider today. To see why it matters that Michigan, Berkeley, and Stanford have dropped out of the game, let us consider these other options briefly: 1. New U.S. philosophy Ph.D. programs with specialists (e.g., DePaul University, University of Oklahoma, University of Oregon, University of Utah) 2. U.S. philosophy Ph.D. programs with faculty who, despite not having graduate training in Chinese philosophy, have developed strong research and teaching interests in it (e.g., Duke University, University of Connecticut) 3. U.S. Ph.D. programs outside of philosophy (e.g., East Asian Languages and Civilizations or Religious Studies) with faculty centrally interested in the Chinese philosophical/religious tradition (e.g., Harvard University, Indiana University, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University, etc.) 4. A U.S. philosophy Ph.D. program with no faculty strongly interested in Chinese philosophy, but having a specialist as an outside member of one’s dissertation committee (anywhere, in principle) 5. A non-U.S. philosophy Ph.D. program with specialists (e.g., Chinese University of Hong Kong, National University of Singapore, Peking University, etc.) Next, let us think about what an aspiring student would want to get out of his or her graduate training: A. Broad foundation in the Chinese philosophical traditions—texts, commentaries, and secondary literature B. Deep understanding of at least one time period or tradition, including engagement with Chinese (and perhaps Japanese or Korean) scholarship C. Strong linguistic and sinological training D. Broad foundation in relevant history of Western philosophy E. Deep understanding of relevant area(s) of philosophical research cognate with one’s interests in the Chinese tradition F. Original and insightful dissertation project G. Excellent teaching skills Certainly it is a tall order to acquire A through G. But there is actually one more thing that a student wants, namely: H. Prospective employers (especially U.S. philosophy departments) recognize that the student has acquired A though G How well do institutions of types 1 though 5 fare in preparing students, by the criteria A though H? Let me immediately acknowledge that there is nothing uniquely magical about being employed by a philosophy department. For many people, it may make most sense and be most attractive to aim at other disciplines instead. But I do think that there is something distinctive and valuable about the project of philosophy, and so I empathize with those students who desire a career teaching Chinese philosophy in a philosophy department. For them, I submit that it is difficult for any of options 1 through 5 to be as good at meeting our desiderata as would a top U.S. philosophy Ph.D. program with one (or more) specialists. The reasons are various and mostly obvious. I will comment here only on the importance of D and E, and on their relation to H. I take it that a key goal of those doing research on Chinese philosophy today is (or should be) to engage our colleagues whose research is on historical or contemporary issues in Western philosophy in constructive dialogue. We should be striving to learn from them, and they from us. We should be challenging one another. This is a crucial ingredient in philosophical development, whether that development is accounted in terms of better interpretations of past traditions or more meaningful work on contemporary issues. To be sure, there is much more involved in either of these projects than dialogue, but dialogue is important. Therefore, D and E would be important even if they were not also instrumental to achieving H. As it stands, learning D and E at a strong graduate program tends to result both in learning D and E well, and in having this strength recognized (i.e., H). So, it matters for prospective students that top graduate programs in the U.S. no longer have specialists in Chinese philosophy. I have just asserted that not only the study of Chinese philosophy but also the study of Western philosophy would be better off if scholars of each tradition were in dialogue with one another. This may be controversial but I believe it to be common sense: our philosophical work is enhanced by challenges from different traditions pursuing similar-enough questions, and once we start looking, we see that there are many, many areas in which various traditions are similar enough. It is, of course, critical to avoid reading one’s own concerns into another tradition; the role of comparative work varies, depending on whether one’s main project is historical interpretation or contemporary philosophical analysis and construction. But in most cases there is room for constructive stimulus from comparative perspectives.2 If this is so, then it is not just potential students of Chinese philosophy to whom it matters that specialists in Chinese philosophy no longer teach at places like Michigan, Berkeley, and Stanford. It matters to the faculty at these schools, it matters to their students no matter what their area of focus, and it matters to all those who are influenced by the writing and lecturing of scholars at these prominent institutions. My claim is not that cross-tradition dialogue and stimulus is impossible without specialists in Chinese philosophy at prominent graduate — Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies — — 3 — institutions. It is starting to happen in spite of the obstacles created by such a lack. But there can be no question that this (hopefully inevitable) progress would be accelerated if more scholars and students at schools like Michigan, Stanford, and Berkeley rubbed shoulders with specialists in Chinese philosophy. Endnotes 1. For whatever it is worth, Hawai’i does not rank among the top sixty programs according to the “Philosophical Gourmet Report” (http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com). 2. Two examples of Western philosophers being stimulated by Chinese traditions might be helpful. In his “The Way of the Wanton” (available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1006893), J. David Velleman draws significantly on Zhuangzi in order to further develop ideas of Harry Frankfurt. Paul Woodruff ’s Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue (Oxford, 2001) is importantly informed by his understanding of early Confucianism, especially concerning the relation between ritual and reverence. A State-of-the-Art Reflection on Chinese Philosophy Roger T. Ames University of Hawai’i I would like to join the discussion over the “crisis” in Chinese philosophy in America by appealing to the Chinese expression for “crisis”—weiji, literally, a correlation of “danger-opportunity.” The insight captured in this term is that a “crisis” is potentially a real danger, but at the same time, it presents an opportunity to someone who can turn it to advantage. I would like to focus my comments on the “opportunity” side of this familiar expression. Let me begin by observing that there are more jobs in Chinese philosophy being advertised today than a decade ago—that is, more by a power of ten. Chinese philosophy is on a roll. And most of these jobs are in philosophy departments. The exponential rise of China economically and politically has not gone unnoticed in America and, as we all know, culture follows wealth. China is “hot” in American education, and the pressure for a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of this tradition is coming from below (students), from above (administrations), and from outside the walls of those philosophy departments that would continue to understand philosophy as essentially an Anglo-European profession. Just as culture follows wealth, supply follows demand. While some of the recent graduates from the University of Hawai’i have found replacement positions—positions that were previously defined as Chinese philosophy—an important number are filling new faculty lines. And I suspect that this positive trend will continue to grow as the interest in Chinese language and culture continues to expand. Do students who ultimately want to find employment teaching Chinese philosophy in the U.S. have to graduate from philosophy departments in the U.S.? I do believe that we have to locate the study of Chinese philosophy within the discipline of philosophy proper. “Comparative philosophy” will have worked its magic when this geographically rather than philosophically determined term has become obsolete. I think that students who have strong Western philosophical training do Chinese philosophy better, and I also believe that Western philosophy students who have strong Chinese philosophical training will do Western philosophy better. The post-Darwinian revolution in Western philosophy has produced an internal critique under the banners of hermeneutics, post-structuralism, deconstructionism, pragmatism, phenomenology, existentialism, and so on, that has opened the door for an increasingly important exchange between these two worlds—an exchange that will transform and enrich them both, and that will in the fullness of time make the notion of “exchange” itself an old vocabulary. Chinese philosophy in the U.S. took a dramatic turn in 1989 when many P.R.C. graduate students studying in America were granted asylum here. Many of these students had undergraduate and graduate degrees from China’s finest institutions, and were pursuing a Ph.D. within the context of an established American philosophy program. Two decades later, these American Ph.D.’s have now become an important resource in institutions across the country for training a new generation of Chinese philosophers and have raised the bar on both proficiency in language and in philosophical training. What they have also done is closed a gap, making education at and degrees from Chinese institutions a desirable if not a necessary part of the Ph.D. process. While in the old days Chinese philosophy in America had little to do with Chinese philosophy in China, the demand for new Ph.D.’s is that they have the language skills and the personal experience that locates them within an increasingly inclusive conversation. The presumption that the prestige of a Ph.D. from an American institution is a necessary condition for securing a good position is giving way to an appreciation of what is available within the context of China itself. Indeed, if I were at the beginning of my career, I would take the opportunity of being trained in China and of finding a lifetime position in China as a very important option. I would certainly include Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan in this possibility, but would perhaps be even more interested in the exciting opportunities increasingly available on the mainland. Do I think that the evaporation of the positions at the elite institutions such as Stanford University, University of Michigan, and University of California at Berkeley signal a danger to the future of Chinese philosophy in America? Certainly it is bad news. But it is not a fair gauge of what is going on in the country as a whole. Such news is offset at least in some degree by increasing opportunities for those who in their lifetimes will do more to transform the discipline of philosophy itself than any generation that has come before. Such is the nature of our current “crisis.” Three Questions about the Crisis in Chinese Philosophy Bryan W. Van Norden Vassar College The primary question we have been invited to address is whether there is a crisis in the field of Chinese philosophy. In many
/
本文档为【美国哲学学会关于中国哲学危机的报告】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑, 图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。 本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。 网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。

历史搜索

    清空历史搜索