Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2017, Vol. 12 Issue (1) : 26-37    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-006-017-0003-2
Orginal Article
A Process Interpretation of Daoist Thought
Alan Fox()
Department of Philosophy, University of Delaware, Delaware 19716, USA
 Download: PDF(294 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Despite the fact that the Dao De Jing 道德經 is one of the most frequently translated texts in history, most of these translations share certain unexamined and problematic assumptions which often make it seem as though the text is irrational, incoherent, and full of non sequiturs. Frequently, these assumptions involve the imposition of historically anachronous, linguistically unsound, and philosophically problematic categories and attitudes onto the text. One of the main causes of the problem is the persistent tendency on the part of most translators to read the first line of the text as referring to or implying the existence of some kind of “eternal Dao.” These are what I term “ontological” readings, as opposed to the “process” reading I will be articulating here.

Keywords Dao De Jing      dao      de      weiwuwei      process philosophy      Zhuangzi      paradox      Whitehead      Amds and Hall      William James     
Issue Date: 24 April 2017
 Cite this article:   
Alan Fox. A Process Interpretation of Daoist Thought[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 26-37.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-006-017-0003-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2017/V12/I1/26
[1] YUAN Li. Developing Ethical Leadership in China: The Value of Confucian Virtue Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 586-611.
[2] HAN Zhen. Some Philosophical Thinking about the COVID-19 Pandemic[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 547-566.
[3] YU Chung-Chi. Husserl’s Intercultural Implication of Ethical Renewal and Theoretical Rationality: A Reappraisal from an East Asian Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 509-531.
[4] ZHANG Xianglong. The Marginality of Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 472-492.
[5] Saulius Geniusas. Husserlian Phenomenology and Derridean Deconstruction: Their Fundamental Methodological Commitments[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 451-471.
[6] WANG Qingjie. Heidegger, Communal Being, and Politics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 395-408.
[7] Genki Uemura. Articulating Consciousness: Brentano and Husserl on Descriptive Analysis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 352-379.
[8] ZONG Desheng. To Anchor a Pure De Se[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 270-292.
[9] JIA Lumeng, HUNG Ching. From Assessment to Design: What Is Really Needed in Technology Accompaniment to Achieve Subject Constitution?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 73-92.
[10] WANG Xiaowei. Toward a Confucian Notion of Human Dignity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 7-28.
[11] XU Difei. Hintikka’s Logical Revolution[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 630-648.
[12] John Robert Williams. A Couple Nagging Interpretive Difficulties in Zhuangzi Studies vis-à-vis William James on the Ethics and Psychology of Belief[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 593-611.
[13] Mark Kevin S. Cabural. Daoism and the German Mission in Martin Heidegger’s “The Thing”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 570-592.
[14] LIU Yu-Chao, TSAI Wei-Ding. On Interpretations of Heidegger’s Black Notebooks from the Viewpoint of Academic Micro-Politics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 552-569.
[15] Jean-Yves Heurtebise. Is Heidegger an Orientalist or an Occidentalist European Philosopher? Disclosing the Political Factor behind Heidegger’s Representation of Chinese Thinking[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 523-551.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed