Copleston and Chinese Philosophy
Chad Trainer argues that Frederick Copleston S.J. was wrong to expand the notion of philosophy from Western (Greek) philosophy to include Eastern philosophies.1 He believes that while in Hawai'i Copleston changed his mind to accept what Trainer calls ‘aphoristic writings, mystically inspired tr...
| 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: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2022
|
| Dans: |
Heythrop journal
Année: 2022, Volume: 63, Numéro: 2, Pages: 277-285 |
| RelBib Classification: | BM Religions chinoises KBM Asie TA Histoire VA Philosophie |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | Chad Trainer argues that Frederick Copleston S.J. was wrong to expand the notion of philosophy from Western (Greek) philosophy to include Eastern philosophies.1 He believes that while in Hawai'i Copleston changed his mind to accept what Trainer calls ‘aphoristic writings, mystically inspired tracts and exegetical exercises’ as philosophy, even though to do so resulted in contradicting his earlier published views.2 In the following paper I will to some extent agree with Trainer's opinion about Copleston. However, based solely on Chinese material, I will explore why it is possible to draw a distinction between Chinese and Greek thought, what that distinction implies and whether the term ‘philosophy’ can be justifiably expanded to Chinese thought. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1468-2265 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Heythrop journal
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/heyj.12080 |