Modern and Contemporary Taiwanese Philosophy

Sernelj, Téa. 2019. "Modern Confucian Objection against Communism in China––the Unique Case of Xu Fuguan." Asian Studies, 7(1): 99-113.

In January 2019, the research project team member Téa Sernelj has published a research paper on the Taiwanese philosopher Xu Fuguan in the renewed journal Asian Studies (impact factor SJR 0,21), The articles of this journal are indexed/reviewed in the following databases/resources:

• SCOPUS
• Elsevier A&I
• A&HCI (Emerging Sources)
• WEB OF SCIENCE
• COBISS.si
• dLib.si
• DOAJ
• ERIH PLUS
• ESCI
• CNKI

Téa Sernelj’s article “Modern Confucian Objection against Communism in China––the Unique Case of Xu Fuguan” investigates the political views of Xu Fuguan, who belongs to the most prominent representatives of the so-called second generation of Modern Confucianism. It reveals his unique position within this intellectual movement. Even though all other adherents of Modern Confucianism were focused upon metaphysics and ontology rather than political theory, Xu believed that these lines of thought could not contribute enough to solving the various urgent social and political problems of modern China. In this regard, the article focuses upon a critical analysis of Xu’s critique of the Chinese Communist Party. The author presents and evaluates his critique mainly with regard to his search for a resolution of the problematic and chaotic political and social situation of China during the first half of the 20th century. In conclusion, the author provides a critical evaluation of Xu’s social democratic thought and particularly of his attitude towards the Chinese Communist Party.

The author has acknowledged the support of the Chiang Ch’ing-Kuo Foundation on the first page of the article.

Link to the article in here.

2. Rošker, Jana S. 2019. “Modernization of Confucian Ontology in Taiwan and Mainland China.” Asian Philosophy, 29(2): 1-17.

In May 2019, the project director Jana S. Rošker has published an article entitled Modernization of Confucian Ontology in Taiwan and Mainland China in the prestigious philosophical journal Asian Philosophy.

Here is some basic information

- to cite this article: Jana S. Rošker (2019): Modernization of Confucian ontology in Taiwan and mainland China, Asian Philosophy, DOI: 10.1080/09552367.2019.1622195

- to link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2019.1622195

The project director has acknowledged the support of the Chiang Ch’ing-Kuo Foundation at the end of the text, under “Acknowledgements” and under “Funding”

Abstract:

The present paper compares three models of modernized Confucian Ontology. The philosophers under debate belong to the most important, well-known and influential theoreticians in modern Taiwan and mainland China respectively. Through a contrastive analysis, the paper aims to critically introduce three alternative models of ontology, which have been developed from the Chinese philosophical tradition by the most well-known Taiwanese philosopher Mou Zongsan and by two most influential mainland Chinese theoreticians, Li Zehou and Chen Lai respectively. In this paper, I will analyze and critically introduce Li Zehou’s and Chen Lai’s respective critiques of Mou Zongsan’s basic assumptions that have been reflected in his methodological paradigms, while also exposing some major differences within their own lines of thought.

Link to the article: here.

3. Kang, Byoung Yoong. 2019. Taiwanese Philosophy in Korea: A comprehensive list of research papers on Taiwanese philosophy published in Korea between 1994 and 2018. Ljubljana: Scientific Press, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana

In June 2019, the research project team member Kang Byoung Yoong has published an independent booklet entitled Taiwanese Philosophy in Korea: A comprehensive list of research papers on Taiwanese philosophy published in Korea between 1994 and 2018 . The book (ISBN 978-961-06-0213-2, CIP - 1(529)(082)) was published and printed by the Scientific Press of the Faculty of Arts, Ljubljana University.

Short description:

This booklet comprises a comprehensive list of research papers on Taiwanese philosophy published in Korea between 1994 and 2018. The research material, which is rich and comprehensive, represents a valuable collection of material that could be accessed for this research topic in South Korea. It was mainly collected by means of a comprehensive review

and survey of several of the most important Korean databases that are available for researchers at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia. The present research report will enhance and facilitate further Slovenian and international investigations on the impact of Taiwanese philosophy on the wider East Asian area.

The author has acknowledged the support of the Chiang Ch’ing-Kuo Foundation on the first page of the book.

Link to the book: here

4. Rošker, Jana S. 2019. “Philosophy in Taiwan: the Continuation of Tradition and the Creation of New Theoretical Paradigms.” Asian Studies, 7(2): 247-268.

In June 2019, the research project director Jana S. Rošker has published a research paper on Taiwanese philosophy in the journal Asian Studies (impact factor SJR 0,21). The article is written in Slovene language and its original title is:

“Filozofija na Tajvanu: nadaljevanje tradicije ali ustvarjanje novih teoretskih paradigem?”

The author has acknowledged the support of the Chiang Ch’ing-Kuo Foundation on the first page of the article.

Abstract

Taiwanese philosophers are playing a rather prominent role in the context of preserving the Chinese ideational tradition, even though their significance in this context is still widely unknown. The present article is thus focused upon the critical introduction of their work, and its positioning into the context of the political, economic and intellectual conditions of the second half of the 20th century. The role of the Taiwanese philosophy was especially important precisely in the period which begun in 1949 and lasted until the end of the century. In these five decades, the philosophical production on the mainland was mostly dominated by censorship, and the prevailing regulations of the Communist Party’s policies mainly demanded that researchers working in philosophy stayed in the field of the sinization of Marxism, whereby investigating the Chinese intellectual tradition was not so much in favour. The article clearly exposes the reasons for and significance of the preservation of continued research into Chinese ideational history in Taiwan, and points out that without this extraordinarily constructive role of the Taiwanese philosophers, these studies would have suffered immense damage. The author also shows that the work carried out by the Taiwanese philosophers was not merely important in respect of preserving the continuation of Chinese philosophical research, but also because they have at the same time created numerous innovative methodological and theoretical concepts that have fundamentally enriched the recent history of investigating and developing Chinese philosophy. In this regard, the author exposes and critically analyses some of the central philosophical concepts of Mou Zongsan, who is among the most important representatives of modern Taiwanese philosophy.

Keywords: Taiwanese philosophy, research in the Chinese intellectual tradition, Chinese

philosophy, Confucianism, new concepts, new methodologies

Link to the article: here

5. Rošker, Jana S. ed. 2019. Philosophy in Taiwan – Characteristics, Function and Importance. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba

In June 2019, the research project director Jana S. Rošker (chief editor) and the project team member Jasna Bavec (technical editor) have published a book on Taiwanese philosophy. The book is written in Slovene language and its original title is:

Filozofija na Tajvanu: značilnosti, vloga in pomen

Summary:

The present book is related to an unusual chapter of Chinese intellectual history. It is a collection of Slovene translations of modern philosophy, which was originally written in Chinese, and mainly deals with traditional Chinese thought. Yet this philosophy did not originate in mainland China, and thus in some supposedly logical “centre” of Chinese culture, but on its alleged “periphery”, namely on the beautiful island of Taiwan. The main reason for compiling this book is to show to Slovenian readers that Taiwanese philosophers have played an important role in the development of modern Chinese philosophy, and especially in the second half of the 20th century.

The editor, Jana S. Rošker, has also authored two contribution in this volume, namely the Introduction (p. 7-13), and chapter 2 entitled The Significance of Modern and Contemporary Taiwanese Philosophy for the Preservation of the Chinese Ideational Tradition (p. 27-44). Same as the rest of the book, these two contributions were also published in Slovene language.

Link to the PDF version of the book: here.

6. Rošker, Jana S. 2019. "A philosophical relation between Taiwan and Japan: models of dialectical thought in Mou Zongsan’s and Nishida Kitaro’s theories." Asian Philosophy, 29(4): 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2019.1699260

In December 2019, the research project director Jana S. Rošker has published a research paper on Taiwanese philosophy in English language in the renewed academic journal Asian Philosophy. The paper is entitled A philosophical relation between Taiwan and Japan: models of dialectical thought in Mou Zongsan’s and Nishida Kitaro’s theories.

The author has acknowledged the support of the Chiang Ch’ing-Kuo Foundation on the first page of the article, as well as in the end of the paper, under the section Funding.

Abstract:

The article opens with a discussion of recent theoretical and methodological innovations in the field of comparative philosophy. In this regard, I propose and explain a new possible method of contrasting particular aspects of divergent philosophical texts or discourses and denote it as a ‘philosophy of sublation’. Then, the paper provides a concrete example for such a post-comparative method of reasoning, I will try to apply a ‘sublation philosophy’ approach for a reinterpretation of certain aspects of the complex philosophical intersections between modern Japanese and Chinese philosophies through the lens of a contrastive analysis of Nishida Kitarō’s and Mou Zongsan’s dialectical thought. In this way, I hope to shed some new light upon some general questions regarding different models of dialectics.

Keywords: Taiwanese philosophy, modern Japan philosophy, comparison between Taiwanese and Japanese philosophy, Mou Zongsan, Nishida Kitaro, dialectics, philosophy of sublation

Full article can be accesed here.

PDF version here.

7. Book (Scientific Monograph): Rošker, Jana S. 2020. IN THE SHADOW OF GREAT MASTERS: TWO CONTEMPORARY TAIWANESE FEMALE PHILOSOPHERS AND THE QUESTION OF WOMEN IN CHINESE PHILOSOPHY.

(Original title in Slovene: V senci vélikih mojstrov: vprašanje žensk v kitajski filozofiji na primeru dveh sodobnih tajvanskih filozofinj).

ISBN 978-961-06-0303-0. 

Book in e-bookstore.

doi: 10.4312/9789610603030

The book has been published in April 2020 at the Scientific Press of the Ljubljana University, Faculty of Arts. It is written in Slovene language but is currently being translated into English language.

Summary

This book on female Chinese philosophers has been on my mind for many years. But its actual writing was always put on hold and pushed into the background of my other research work. Other topics always seemed more important, more urgent and more topical. Being a female expert in Chinese philosophy myself, this belittling attitude regarding the importance of female philosophers is somehow ironic, and it is certainly symptomatic of the way the topic treated in this work has usually been approached.

But finally, I made it, and I wrote the book through the lens of two problems. Both are linked to a philosophical work that is – entirely unjustifiably – pushed to the very margins of dominant discourses.

Firstly, this book deals with problems pertaining to the question of gender discrimination in the field of general philosophy, and particularly in the field of Chinese philosophy. It deals with this discrimination on many different levels, starting with the multifarious expressions of misogyny in the very contents and structures of these discourses, and trying then to reveal why and in which ways such views still influence the precarious relation between female gender and philosophy to the present day. All these theoretical endeavours have been exemplified and concretized by several problems, specifically pertaining to Chinese philosophy. This latter task also included introductions of the life and work of several more or less forgotten Chinese female philosophers, who always remained in the shadow of their male colleagues, teachers and colleagues – regardless of the historical time and geographical place in which they lived and worked, and in spite of their talent and the actual value of their theoretical work.

The second aspect that aroused my interest in this framework of the discrimination-related questions within (Chinese) philosophy was connected to the problem of the role and the contribution of Taiwanese philosophy in maintaining the continuity of research in the Chinese intellectual tradition during the second half of the 20^th century, which was in mainland Chinese philosophy primarily defined by discourses of Maoist ideologies and by the Sinicization of Marxism. 

The book brings together both of these aspects, representing a kind of a narrow, but solid bridge between them. At a first glance, discrimination against female philosophical theorists on the one hand, and the repudiation of Taiwan's important contribution to the development of contemporary Chinese philosophical theory on the other, have little in common. In fact, however, both issues are connected through a common problem, which is rooted in the underlying, and mutually comparable, discourses of negation arising from the historical, political, and social disparities associated with existing power structures.

The central part of the book introduces two Taiwanese female philosophers whose life and work is related to both issues mentioned above. Firstly, they are both women, i.e. belonging to the gender which is still severely marginalized in all philosophical disciplines. Secondly, they are both Taiwanese, and hence, working in the “marginal segment” of Chinese philosophy. In this sense, both phenomena – namely the “female” as well as the “Taiwanese” philosophy – belong to a theoretical periphery, to the furthest, most obscure, and almost unexpectedly existing edges of philosophical production.  

For the exploration of the questions outlined above, I have chosen two female Taiwanese scholars of Chinese philosophy, namely Lin Yue-huei and Wu Huei-ling. There are several reasons for this choice. First of all, they are – in spite of the many aforementioned similarities – very different. These differences fundamentally determine two different theoretical paths of development in modern and contemporary Taiwanese philosophy. While the former is a representative of the older generations, the latter stands at the beginning of her academic career. Besides, Professor Lin is a Confucian scholar and a student of Mou Zongsan, probably the most influential thinker of the second generation of Modern Confucianism. Assistant Professor Wu, on the other hand, is researching, analysing and re-interpreting classical Daoist philosophy, following the enthusiastic inspiration of her Neo-Daoist teacher, Professor Chen Guying. 

History will show whether these two female philosophers will eventually liberate themselves from from the shadow of their great masters, together with numerous other female scholars who are trying to find their way through the dense and difficult jungles of past and present philosophical theories. And since we now find ourselves at the threshold of the third decade of the 21^st century, in which the Enlightenment values of equality, autonomy, subjectivity and human dignity should already belong to the long secured heritage of humankind, we should have good reason to hope that their (and our own) life in the twilight of the idols will finally come to an end. Moreover, I can only hope that this book will be one of the many small, initial steps towards a more egalitarian future in philosophical theory. 

PDF of the book: here

8. Article written by the project leader: Rošker, Jana S. 2020. "Mandate of Heaven and Two Kinds of Truth: a Contrastive Analysis of Tang Junyi’s and Mou Zongsan’s Models of Confucian Democracy (In Slovene). Asian Studies, 8 (2): 337–349.

This article, published in the Slovene academic journal Azijske študije (Asian Studies) is written in Slovene language (Slovene title: Nebeški mandat in dve vrsti resnice: kontrastna analiza Tang Junyijevega in Mou Zongsanovega modela konfucijanske demokracije). It deals with the comparison of Mou Zongsan’s and Tang Junyi’s political theories and analyses their respective views on Confucian democracy.

The article has currently been translated into English and will presumably be published in English language in 2021.

Abstract

The majority of modern scholars believed that Confucianism was an obsolete and outdated ideology, which is not only inappropriate for the development of modern sciences and democratic societies, but also responsible for a deep social and political crisis that has marked China during the last two centuries. The Taiwanese Modern Confucians, however, have never assumed that the Confucian system was responsible for such a situation. Most of them believed that Confucianism is compatible with science and democracy. Besides, the majority of them assumed that the East Asian cultures will never be able to develop truly democratic structures of their societies unless they take in consideration the appropriate elements of their own, i.e. Confucian traditions. This paper critically analyses Tang Junyi’s and Mou Zongsan’s theoretical models of a possible revival of Confucian proto-democracies.

Keywords: Confucianism, Taiwanese philosophy, Modern Confucianism, Democracy, Science

Please find the PDF version of the article here.

9. Book (Scientific Monograph): Téa, Sernelj. 2020. THE CONFUCIAN REVIVAL IN TAIWANESE PHILOSOPHY: XU FUGUAN AND HIS THEORY OF CHINESE AESTHETICS.

(Original title in Slovene: Konfucijanski preporod v tajvanski filozofiji: Xu Fuguan in njegova teorija kitajske estetike).

ISBN 978-961-06-0337-5.

See the book in e-bookstore.

doi: https://doi.org/10.4312/9789610603399

The book has been published in June 2020 at the Scientific Press of the Ljubljana University, Faculty of Arts. It is written in Slovene language but is currently being translated into English language.

Summary

This monograph deals with the critical analysis of Xu Fuguan’s aesthetic theory. Xu (1904−1982) is one of the central representatives of the second generation of the Taiwanese theoretical current of Modern Confucianism. The research was mainly focused on his fundamental contributions to the philosophy of this current, especially regarding his reinterpretations and re-evaluations of the basic axiological concepts of original Confucian and Daoist aesthetics. It also deals with questions linked to his attempts to preserve, systematize and modernize traditional Chinese aesthetics. Xu Fuguan’s theory of Chinese ideational tradition is defined by the paradigm of the traditional connection between ethics and aesthetics, the study also explored the importance of the mutually complementary interaction between Confucianism and Daoism in Xu’s theory of aesthetics. Through the analysis of certain crucial fragments derived from the classical works of these two intellectual currents, the study also verified the presumption according to which both currents are instrumental for the consolidation of specifically Chinese aesthetics, albeit each of them in its unique way: while Confucianism contributed axiological elements to the inner coherence of traditional aesthetic discourses, Daoism endowed it with the important aspect of holistic vitality. On the basis of studying, analysing and interpreting Xu Fuguan’s most important works, the author also illuminated the significance of his innovative interpretation of the Chinese aesthetic concept qiyun shengdong, which still belongs to the most complex and difficult notions of the Chinese aesthetic tradition.

Since the representatives of the second generation of Modern Confucianism mainly placed their interpretations and re-evaluations of basic concepts defining the Chinese intellectual tradition into the framework of comparative analyses of Chinese and Euro-American intellectual history, Xu Fuguan also based his interpretation of traditional Chinese aesthetics upon a comparative perspective, contrasting it with European aesthetics. However, the dissertation clearly shows that his analysis of European aesthetics is too generalized, and therefore problematic.

These difficulties also manifest themselves in Xu’s superficial and defective comprehension of modern Western art and culture. Xu Fuguan’s central theoretical contributions, i.e. the notion of concerned consciousness, the concept qiyun shengdong, and the systematic elucidation of the axiological foundations of Chinese aesthetics, which have been introduced and critically analysed in the present dissertation, are among the most important philosophical innovations elaborated by the Modern Confucian theory. These novel approaches are also interesting from the perspective of the global theoretical discourses, for they reveal important, culturally conditioned differences between traditional Western and traditional Chinese philosophy regarding their particular ways of perceiving and interpreting reality.

The work contains a critical account of Xu’s work on Chinese aesthetics. It focuses on the analysis and interpretation of his most important concepts and attempts placing them in the historical contexts of his life and work, as well as in the context of the development of Chinese aesthetics at the crossroads between tradition and modernity.

The first chapter presents the historical development, basic concepts, paradigms and methods of traditional Chinese aesthetics. The second chapter deals with the characteristics and development of Chinese aesthetics as an academic discipline and introduces the investigation of the characteristics of traditional Chinese aesthetics. In this chapter, we learn about the various conceptual guidelines within the development of Chinese aesthetics in the 20th century, which was greatly influenced by certain concepts derived from the Western aesthetics, through which the recognition and re-evaluation of the special features of traditional Chinese aesthetics were established.

The third chapter presents the historical and ideological background of Modern Confucianism, with an emphasis on the critical evaluation and substantive analysis of the Declaration or the Manifesto for the re-evaluation of Chinese culture as a world heritage. In this document, the second generation of Modern Confucians, whose representatives include Mou Zongsan, Fang Dongmei and Tang Junyi, highlighted the central objectives of this intellectual current. Amongst other issues, the second chapter also deals with the problems of China‘s modernization, especially with the issues linked to the survival and preservation of the Chinese tradition. These questions were of utmost importance for all representatives of the second generation, including Xu Fuguan.

The fourth chapter presents Xu Fuguan‘s life, professional career, his political views which influenced his understanding of Confucianism, and his theoretical contributions regarding the methodology he used when interpreting and analyzing Confucianism. The main part of this chapter focuses on the analysis of the concept of concerned consciousness, which - according to Xu Fuguan - represents the basic worldview that laid the foundations for the development of Confucian ethics and its cultivation of the moral self. Xu‘s interpretation of this concept is widely regarded as one of his crucial contributions to the understanding of Chinese conceptual tradition.

The sixth chapter deals with Xu Fuguan‘s theory of Chinese aesthetics through the lens of axiology. On one hand, this chapter provides Xu‘s detailed comparative analysis of Confucian and Daoist (especially Zhuangzian) aesthetics. On the other, it offers his comparison between Zhuangzi’s aesthetics and Western phenomenology.

Both comparative studies open the questions linked to the onto-aesthetic paradigm which underlies the Chinese intellectual tradition through the aspect of bodily recognition, which is, according to Xu, the fundamental method for establishing and realising the moral self. An extensive part of the sixth chapter is devoted to Xu‘s interpretation of one of the most complex Chinese aesthetic concepts, namely the notion of qiyun shengdong remains one of the most fundamental and most difficult concepts in Chinese art and aesthetics134.

The seventh chapter addresses Xu‘s critical evaluation of Modern Western aesthetics and axiology, which are manifested in his critiques of abstract paintings, the political implications of modern art and his overall critique of Western culture.

The book concludes with a critical evaluation of Xu‘s contribution to the development of contemporary Chinese aesthetics as a new theoretical discipline, which also includes a methodological critique of his comparative studies.

Please find the PDF version of the book here.

10. Taiwanese Philosophy and the Preservation of Chinese Philosophical Traditions

Special issue of the academic journal Asian Studies on Modern and Contemporary Taiwanese Philosophy

(DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2020.8.3), edited by the project leader, Professor Jana S. Rošker.

The main goal of this issue is to show the broader academic audience dealing with the fields of Philosophy, Chinese or East Asian studies that Taiwanese philosophers have played an important role in the development of modern Chinese philosophy, and especially in the second half of the 20th century.

Besides the articles, contributed by the project leader and the project team members, i.e.

• Jana Rošker (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9091)
• Tea Sernelj (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9200)
• Byong Yoong Kang (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9115)
• Marko Ogrizek (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9141)

This special issue also contains articles written by many Taiwanese researchers and other international experts on the topic, i.e.

• Huang Kuan-Min (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9099)
• Fabian Heubel (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9236)
• Wang Keping (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9091)
• Ady Van den Stock (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9072)
• Forkan Ali (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9114)
• Bart Dessein (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/8966)
• Jan Vrhovski (see https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/9066)

In contrast to the mainland, Taiwanese philosophy of that time had almost no connection with  either  Marxism  or  any  of  the  many  streams  of  post-Marxist  philosophy. While theorists from the People’s Republic of China were mainly dealing with various forms, issues and innovations in the field of the Sinization of Marxism,1 those working on Taiwan devoted themselves to the exploration and adaptation of other forms of Western modernity, especially those deriving from  Kant  and  German  classical  philosophy.  They  wanted  to modernize their own (i.e. Chinese) traditions through the ideas of the European  Enlightenment.  While  in  the  1950s  the  Chinese  conceptual  tradition  (in  particular,  Confucianism)  fell  into  disrepair  and  was  often  prohibited,  or  at  least  severely  criticized,  on  the  mainland,  Taiwanese philosophers  were  constantly  striving  for  its  preservation  and  development.

However, at issue was not only the preservation of tradition; in the second half of the 20th century, several complex and coherent philosophical systems emerged in Taiwan. The creation of these discourses is proof of the great creativity and innovativeness of many Taiwanese theorists. Here, it is particularly important to highlight the Modern or New Confucianism and its most famous Taiwanese representative, Mou Zongsan. Nevertheless, Confucianism is not the only stream of thought that was developed and subjected to innovation in post-war Taiwan; during the same period, we could witness  many  other  forms  of  investigating  and  developing  traditional  Chinese  thought on the island. In this regard, the Neo-Daoist currents and the Taiwan-ese Buddhist studies are certainly worth mentioning. Besides, modern Taiwanese philosophers have also enriched and advanced the originally Western medieval scholastic thought by establishing a specific school of the so-called Taiwanese Neo-Scholasticism, which was founded at the Fu-jen Catholic University. In the second half of the 20th century, specific schools of logical thought (including both Western and Chinese logic) also developed in several Taiwanese universities.

It is also important to highlight that even though the philosophical currents in modern and contemporary Taiwan belong to the most influential and important streams of thought in contemporary East Asian theory, they are still unrecognized as specifically Taiwanese. Moreover, the main reasons for the immense importance of Taiwanese philosophy for East Asia and the contemporary world are twofold. First, they can be found in its contributions to the preservation of traditional Chinese, especially Confucian thought. Secondly, its development of specific innovative philosophical approaches and systems profoundly influenced the theoretical discourses in the entire East Asian region. The philosophical currents in modern Taiwan were mainly developed during the second half of 20th century, in which the philosophical theory in mainland China was, as already noted, largely limited to the Sinization of Marxist thought. Hence, for many decades, Taiwanese philosophy represented the only driving force of developing, modernizing and up-grading traditional Chinese thought and its syntheses with Western thought. As such, they soon gained a widespread popularity in most of the other East Asian societies that were traditionally influenced by classical Confucian thought, as for example Japan and South Korea.

The present issue of Asian Studies aims to introduce its important contributions to the wider international academic public, and to discuss and exchange knowledge regarding their philosophical approaches, ideas and methods. Given the fact that numerous Taiwanese philosophers belong to the pinnacle of contemporary theoretic achievements in Chinese-speaking world, and because there is still an almost complete  lack  of  awareness  of  this  fact  in  European  academic  circles,  this  issue  aims to clarify and present several important aspects of modern and contemporary Taiwanese  philosophy,  which  have  been  summarized  into  three  scopes  of  contents.  The first deals with the revitalization of Confucian philosophy, while the second introduces Taiwanese philosophy from broader East Asian perspectives. The third scope is entirely devoted to one modern Taiwanese philosopher. It critically introduces Fang Dongmei (also known as Thomé Fang), who is still practically  unknown  in  the  Western  world,  even  though  his  remarkable  works  show he was an important, original philosopher and a brilliant scholar, who might well be compared with the most famous Taiwanese theoretician, Mou Zongsan. The fourth and last scope traces the innovative Taiwanese transformations and modernizations of Chinese logic and Chinese Buddhist as well as Daoist philosophy from the beginning of the 20th century to the present.

With its rich palette of different topics that are all linked to modern Taiwanese thought and reveal the multifarious richness of its ideas, this intriguing volume will doubtless show that Taiwanese philosophy can be seen as a bridge that links different  discourses  across  time  and  space  by  illuminating  and  exposing  various  otherwise  neglected  traditions  of  Chinese philosophical thought. I also believe that it will show why this connective function  and  dialogical nature is precisely the greatest significance of contemporary Taiwanese philosophy, and sincerely hope that it will raise awareness of this among the wider circles of European academia. And last, but not least, my sincere wish is also that this special issue of our journal may serve, similar to Taiwanese philosophy, which is its subject matter, as a bridge connecting many different ideas, viewpoints and values.

11. Jana S. Rošker (editor). 2021. Modern and Contemporary Taiwanese Philosophy: Traditional Foundations and New Developments. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing

In January 2021, the research team has published an anthology on Taiwanese philosophy at the British publishing house Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

The announcement of this publication can be found at the following website. 

An extract of the book, containing the cover pages and a part of the Foreword can be obtained at the following link. 

The acknowledgement of the support from the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation was stated in the very beginning of the book, under the title Acknowledgement.

The chief editor of the volume was the project director Jana Rošker. She also wrote the Foreword and one of the chapters, introducing the field of Taiwanese philosophy. This chapter is entitled The Role of Taiwanese Philosophy in the Second Half of the 20th Century.

The project co-director, Professor Lee Ming-huei, has also contributed a chapter, entitled The Problem of “Inner Sageliness and Outer Kingliness” Revisited: On the Controversy raised by Yu Ying-shih’s Work Zhu Xi’s Historical World.

The project research team member Téa Sernelj also contributed a chapter entitled Modern Confucianism and the Methodology of Chinese Aesthetics: Body and Mind in Xu Fuguan’s Theory,

In her Foreword, the project leader Jana S. Rošker describes the book, exposing that it is a collection of translations of texts on modern Taiwanese philosophy, which were originally written in Chinese, and mainly deal with traditional Chinese thought. She also explains that this philosophy did not originate in mainland China, that is, in some supposedly logical “centre” of Chinese culture, but on its alleged “periphery,” namely on the beautiful island of Taiwan. She points out that the main reason for compiling this book was to show to the wider circles of Western readers that Taiwanese philosophers have played an important role in the development of modern Chinese philosophy, and especially in the second half of the 20th century. Therefore, the author emphasizes that the book includes several pioneering Western studies regarding the work of different modern and contemporary Taiwanese streams of thought.

In the chapter The Role of Taiwanese Philosophy in the Second Half of the 20th Century she introduces the role and the function of Taiwanese philosophy in the context of Sinophone theory. In the second half of the 20th century, the philosophers in mainland China were mostly investigating Marxist and Leninist theories, aiming to adapt them to specific Chinese conditions. In this process, they had to deal with ideological directives from the Communist Party of China (CPC). Hence, while on the mainland, the Chinese ideational tradition was being exiled to the graveyards of “feudal ideologies” up until the 1980’s, Taiwanese theoreticians – similar to those in Hong Kong – were developing, upgrading and modernizing mostly Confucian and partly Daoist thought. Jana S. Rošker emphasizes that without the continuity that was sustained, preserved and developed by Taiwanese theoreticians, a lot of important research topics would have faded into oblivion, as it would not have been possible for them to keep developing. This interruption of knowledge could certainly have had catastrophic consequences for the development of new methodologies for researching Chinese philosophy. Besides, Taiwan in the second half of the 20th century was also a place of highly innovative philosophers, who developed their own theoretical systems and are among the most important personalities of Chinese philosophy in the last century.

In his chapter on “Inner Sageliness and Outer Kingliness” Revisited: On the Controversy raised by Yu Ying-shih’s Work Zhu Xi’s Historical World, the project co-director, Professor Lee Ming-huei offers a comprehensive analysis of the important binary category of “Inner Sageliness and Outer Kingliness”, which belongs to the main categories of traditional Chinese political philosophy. He points out that the expression “inner sageliness outer kingliness” (neisheng waiwang 内聖外王) originates from the “Tianxia 天下” chapter of the Zhuangzi. In the later ages, however, the expression was often borrowed with the intention to highlight the special characteristics of Confucian tradition, and even transformed into the very notion of Confucian self-identity. In fact, it is very appropriate to epitomize the characteristics of Confucian tradition with the phrase “inner sageliness outer kingliness” in order to distinguish it from the two schools of Daoism and Buddhism. This is also the reason why scholars have rarely objected to it over the centuries. Nevertheless, in the past, Confucian scholars offered different interpretations of the essential meaning of the expression “inner sageliness and outer kingliness”, which have become even more diverse until the present day. The chapter explores and analyses these various interpretations and concludes that each of them reflects the socio-political circumstances in which it arose.

The research project team member, associate professor Téa Sernelj has contributed the chapter on  Xu Fuguan’s philosophy, entitled Modern Confucianism and the Methodology of Chinese Aesthetics: Body and Mind in Xu Fuguan’s Theory. In this paper, she deals with the philosophic theory and epistemological methodology of the Modern Confucian Xu Fuguan (1903–1982), an important Taiwanese thinker of the 20th century, whose theoretical contributions are presently in the center of academic interests in China and Taiwan, while they are still almost completely unexplored in the West. The chapter is mainly focused upon Xu’s interpretation of the concepts of bodily recognition and the creative potential Qi that are forming the basis for the unification of body and mind as a fundamental method of traditional Chinese perception of reality.

Link to the image and the short description of the book: here

12. Téa Sernelj: The Problem of the Authenticity of the Aesthetic Concept qiyun shengdong: Xu Fuguan’s Analysis and Interpretation

Published in Asian Studies, 9(1): 159-180

DOI: 10.4312/as.2021.9.1.159-180

In January 2021, the project team member Téa Sernelj has published an academic article on the Modern Confucian aesthetic theory of the Taiwanese philosopher Xu Fuguan.

The article explores Xu Fuguan’s analysis and interpretation of the concept of qiyun sheng­dong 氣韻生動, which is considered to be one of the most important, fundamental and complex concepts in Chinese aesthetics and art. It was created by Xie He in the Wei Jin period (220–420 AD), which is marked as a turning point in the development of Chinese aesthetics. The complexity of the concept of qiyun shengdong is reflected in literary works, painting, calligraphy, and music, as well as in literary theory and the theory of painting.

According to Xu Fuguan, qi refers to the external features of the artwork, while yun ex­presses the internal characteristics that are a matter of the human spirit. For Xu, shengdong signifies the manifestation and fusion of qi and yun in the artwork. Xu Fuguan claimed that the profound comprehension of this concept is fundamental for understanding the essence of Chinese art. The article also addresses the problem of translating this aesthetic concept into English and discusses the problem of its authenticity.

The PDF version of the paper can be found here.

Also available here.  

13. Jana S. Rošker (2021):Kant, Confucianism, and “Global Rooted Philosophy” in Taiwan: From Mou Zongsan to Lee Ming-huei.

Published in SYNTHESIS PHILOSOPHICA 71 (1/2021) p.p. 217–238 

Doi: 10.21464/sp36113. 

In January 2021, the project director Jana S. Rošker has published an academic article on the Taiwanese philosophers Mou Zongsan and Lee Ming-huei in the philosophical academic journal Synthesis Philosphica, which is published in Croatia.  

In Taiwan, the Confucian revival was always defined by the search for a synthesis between Western and traditional Confucian thought. Taiwanese Modern Confucians aimed to create a system of ideas and values capable of resolving modern, globalised societies’ social and political problems. Mou Zongsan, the best-known member of the second generation of Modern New Confucianism, aimed to revive the Chinese philosophical tradition through a dialogue with Modern European philosophy, especially with the works of Immanuel Kant. His follower Lee Ming-huei is arguably the most renowned expert on Kantian philosophy in the entire Sinitic region. The present paper aims to compare their respective approaches and evaluate them in a broader context of modern Chinese thought. I will first introduce Mou Zongsan’s elaborations on Kant. In the following, I will present the main aspects of Lee Ming-huei’s development of Mou’s theories and provide in later sections a critical assessment of Lee’s philosophical innovation, focusing upon the evaluation of his conceptualisation of immanent transcendence and Confucian deontology. 

The PDF of the article can be found here.

14. Jana S. Rošker (2021): Female Philosophers in Contemporary Taiwan and the Problem of Women in Chinese Thought. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-7384-0

In October 2011, the project leader Jana S. Rošker has published a new book on Taiwanese philosophy. This time, her interest is focused upon female Taiwanese philosophers and their contributions to traditional Chinese philosophy.

Book description:

This book illuminates the problem of women in Chinese philosophy through the lens of the lives and work of two contemporary Taiwanese female philosophers. It takes two approaches that have been relegated, quite unfairly, to the margins of dominant discourses. The first is concerned with the work of women philosophical theorists who are still overshadowed by their male colleagues, regardless of where they live, their theoretical potential, and the value of their research. The second approach is related to the question of the role of Taiwanese philosophy in maintaining the continuity of the Chinese intellectual tradition in the second half of the twentieth century. The book thus connects these two issues and provides a bridge linking them. Although discrimination against female philosophical theorists, on the one hand, and the failure to recognize the important contribution of Taiwanese philosophy to the development of modern Chinese philosophy, on the other, seem, at first glance, to have little in common, both harbor a problem that has its roots in discourses of exclusion emanating from the political, historical, and social inequalities associated with power structures.

Book cover

15. SERNELJ, Tea. Anxiety, “Concerned Consciousness” and their Manifestation in the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Asian studies, 10 (1): 155-182. https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/10192/10038 , doi: 10.4312/as.2022.10.1.155-182. 

In the beginning of 2022, the project research team member Téa Sernelj has published an article related to the concept of “concerned consciousness”, which is a very significant notion established by the representatives of the Taiwanese Modern New Confucians.  

The article examines the specifics of the Chinese containment measures of the OVID-19 pandemic and their social consequences at the beginning of 2021. The author analyses empirical psychological research results on distress and anxiety of people in times of the first wave  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  in  China,  and  explores to  what  degree  the  individual  feelings of anxiety in contemporary China are conditioned by the traditionally prevailing absence of faith in higher transcendent forces on the one hand, and social isolation on the other. It proceeds from the work of the Taiwanese scholar and philosopher Xu Fuguan and focuses upon his interpretation of the origins of a traditional Chinese concept of “concerned consciousness” (youhuan yishi 憂患意識). The author shows that this concept can  be  compared  to  the  feeling  of  anxiety,  but  highlights  important  differences  which separate it from the anxiety as developed and understood in the framework of modern Western philosophy. The paper aims to provide some preliminary answers to the questions of whether and in what way such a traditional feeling of anxiety in the sense of a “concerned consciousness” manifested itself in the period of social isolation that was implemented as a part of the government measures for the COVID-19 pandemic in China. These questions are being investigated through an analysis of philosophical studies on concerned conscious-ness on the on hand, and a contemporary case study on the other. The results show that the specifically Chinese kind of anxiety, which is rooted in concerned consciousness, is tightly linked to the relational nature of Chinese ethics and the corresponding understanding of individual identity. In addition, it is connected with the traditional understanding of human destiny,  which  is  not  fatalistic  or  determinist,  but  rather  based  on  autonomous  decisions  based on the social responsibilities of a free human self. 

16. SERNELJ, Téa. The Confucian Revival in Taiwan: Xu Fuguan and his Theory of Chinese Aesthetics. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, cop. 2021. VIII, 269 str. ISBN 978-1-5275-7303-1. [COBISS.SI-ID 85477379]

In 2021, the project team member Téa Sernelj has published a book (academic monograph) on the Taiwanese scholar Xu Fuguan in Great Britain, i.e. at the Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Here is a short summary of the book:

Xu Fuguan (1904-1982) is one of the central representatives of the second generation of Taiwanese Modern Confucianism. This book focuses primarily on his fundamental contributions to the philosophy of this intellectual current, particularly his reinterpretations and reevaluations of the basic axiological concepts of the original Confucian and Daoist aesthetics. It also addresses issues related to his attempts to preserve, systematize, and modernize traditional Chinese aesthetics. Xu Fuguan’s theory of the Chinese ideational tradition is defined by the paradigm of the traditional link between ethics and aesthetics. The book highlights the importance of the complementary interaction between Confucianism and Daoism in Xu’s theory. In his interpretation of Chinese aesthetics, Xu also incorporated a comparative perspective and contrasted it with Western aesthetics. However, the book shows that his analysis of Western aesthetics is too generalized and therefore problematic. These difficulties are also manifested in Xu’s superficial understanding of modern Western art and culture. Nevertheless, this does not detract from the great relevance of his studies of traditional Chinese aesthetics. Xu Fuguan’s central theoretical contributions, such as the concept of concerned consciousness, the concept of qiyun shengdong, and the systematic explanation of the axiological foundations of Chinese aesthetics presented and analyzed in this book, are among the most important philosophical innovations elaborated by Modern Confucian theory. These novel approaches are also interesting from the perspective of global theoretical discourses, as they reveal important, culturally conditioned differences between traditional Western and traditional Chinese philosophy in terms of their respective ways of perceiving and

17. ROŠKER, Jana S. 2022 Two models of Confucian democracy: a contrastive analysis of Tang Junyi’s and Mou Zongsan’s political philosophy. Asian philosophy3. 6. 2022 (ahead-of-print), pp. 1-14. ISSN 1469-2961.  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09552367.2022.2083301, DOI: 10.1080/09552367.2022.2083301. [COBISS.SI-ID 111066883], [SNIP, WoS]

In the beginning of 2022, the project director Jana S. Rošker has published an original research article on modern Taiwanese Confucianism and its political philosophy. The article was published in the high impact factor international journal Asian philosophy. The article, which focuses upon analyzing Tang Junyi’s and Mou Zongsan’s theories on Confucian democracy, is summarized below:

In the final decades of the 20th century, the majority of modern Sinophone scholars believed that Confucianism was an outdated and obsolete ideology that was not only unsuitable for the development of modern science and democratic societies, but also responsible for the deep social and political crisis that had branded China for the previous two centuries. Modern New Confucians, however, never assumed that the Confucian system was responsible for such a situation. Most of them believed that Confucianism was compatible with science and democracy. Moreover, the majority of them assumed that the East Asian cultures would never be able to develop truly democratic structures of their societies unless they incorporated the appropriate elements of their own, i.e. Confucian, traditions. This paper critically analyses the theoretical models of Tang Junyi and Mou Zongsan on the possible revival and development of Confucian proto-democracies.