A Medley of Potpourri

Sunday, October 12, 2025

Linguistics wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_wars

The linguistics wars were extended disputes among American theoretical linguists that occurred mostly during the 1960s and 1970s, stemming from a disagreement between Noam Chomsky and several of his associates and students. The debates started in 1967 when linguists Paul Postal, John R. Ross, George Lakoff, and James D. McCawley —self-dubbed the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse"—proposed an alternative approach in which the relation between semantics and syntax is viewed differently, which treated deep structures as meaning rather than syntactic objects. While Chomsky and other generative grammarians argued that meaning is driven by an underlying syntax, generative semanticists posited that syntax is shaped by an underlying meaning. This intellectual divergence led to two competing frameworks in generative semantics and interpretive semantics.

Eventually, generative semantics spawned a different linguistic paradigm, known as cognitive linguistics, a linguistic theory that correlates learning of languages to other cognitive abilities such as memorization, perception, and categorization, while descendants of interpretive semantics continue in the guise of formal semantics.

Background

In 1957, Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) published Syntactic Structures, his first influential work. The ideas in Syntactic Structures were a significant departure from the dominant paradigm among linguists at the time, championed by Leonard Bloomfield (1887–1949). The Bloomfieldian approach focused on smaller linguistic units such as morphemes and phones, and had little to say about how these units were organized into larger structures such as phrases and sentences. By contrast, syntax was the central empirical concern of Syntactic Structures, which modeled grammar as a sets of rules that procedurally generate all and only the sentences of a given language. This approach is referred to as transformational grammar. Moreover, Chomsky criticized Bloomfieldians as being "[t]axonomic linguists", mere collectors and cataloguers of language. Early work in generative grammar attempted to go beyond mere description of the data and identify the fundamental underlying principles of language. According to Chomsky, semantic components created the underlying structure of a given linguistic sequence, whereas phonological components formed its surface-level structure. This left the problem of ‘meaning’ in linguistic analysis unanswered.

Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) developed his theory further by introducing the concepts of deep structure and surface structure, which were influenced by previous scholarship. First, Chomsky drew from Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), specifically his dichotomy of langue (the native knowledge of a language) versus parole (the actual use of language). Secondly, Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965) later argued parole is observable and can be defined as the arrangement of speech, whereas langue comprises the systems within actual speech that underpin its lexicon and grammar. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax also addressed the issue of meaning by endorsing the Katz–Postal hypothesis, which holds that transformations do not affect meaning, and are therefore “semantically transparent”. This attempted to introduce notions of semantics to descriptions of syntax. Chomsky's endorsement resulted in further exploration of the relation between syntax and semantics, creating the environment for the emergence of generative semantics.

Dispute

The point of disagreement between generative semantics, known at the time as Abstract Syntax, and interpretive semantics was the degree of abstractness of deep structure. This refers to the distance between deep structures and the surface structure. Generative semantics views deep structure and transformations as necessary for connecting the surface structure with meaning. Whereas Chomsky’s paradigm considers the deep structure and transformation that link the deep structure to the surface structure essential for describing the structural composition of linguistic items—syntactic description—without explicitly addressing meaning. Notably, generative semanticists eventually abandoned deep structures altogether for the semantic representation.

Generative semantics approach

Generative semantics was inspired by the notions of Chomsky in Aspects, in which he highlights two notions: deep structures determine the semantic representations, and selectional restrictions—rules that govern what follows and precedes words in a sentence—are stated in deep structures. These restrictions include the ‘semantic’ nature of the verb eat which necessitates that it should be followed by something edible. Generative semanticists initially misinterpreted Chomsky’s ideas about the relation between semantic representation and used the arguments of selectional restrictions to draw a direct and bilateral relation between meaning and surface structures, where semantic representations are mapped onto surface structures, thereby conflating the two levels of semantic representation and deep structures.

Generative semantics analysis evolved to favor an approach where deep structures reflect meaning directly through semantic features and relations—semantic representations. Thus, the formal characteristics of deep structures are considered insufficient and meaning drives the surface structures. The formal features of deep structures include context-free phrase-structures grammar and lexical insertion point—the point where words enter the derivation. Generative semantics view of the transformations and deep structures contrasted sharply with those of Chomsky's. Generative sematicist believed that deep structures are meaning representation and transformations apply to deep structures to create different surface structures while preserving meaning. Chomsky's model suggests that deep structure pertain the organization of linguistic items while transformations apply to and manipulate deep structure but sometimes alter the meaning.

Generative semantics' model:

deep structure:[AGENT] boy,[ACTION] hitting, [PATIENT]the ball

Transformation active: The boy hit the ball.

Chomsky's model:

deep structure: S ((NP the boy) (VP [hit]) (NP the ball))

Transformation passive: The ball was hit by the boy.

Generative semanticists used arguments such as category-changing transformations in which simple paraphrase clouds alter the syntactic categories yet the meaning is unchanged, solidifying the Katz-Postal hypothesis which postulates a transparent nature of transformations. These category-changing transformations exist in inchoative and causative clauses which share the same underlying structures similar to their stative clause as evident in the sentences below.

Inchoative: The door opened.

Causative: He opened the door.

The underlying structure is similar to the stative clause: The door is open.

Generative semanticists used this argument, first suggested by George Lakoff in his dissertation, to cement the idea that the underlying meaning (The door is OPEN) drives two different surface structures (Inchoative- causative), not the other way around.

Generative semantics and logical form

The level of semantic representation in the generative semantic analyses resembled the logical form, therefore, the derivation of a sentence is the direct mapping of semantics, meaning, and logic onto the surface structure, thus all aspects of meaning are represented in phrase-marker. Generative semanticists have claimed that the semantic deep structure is generated in a universal manner similar to those of Predicate logic, thereby reducing the syntactic categories to just three: S (= proposition), NP (= argument), and V (= predicate). In this analysis adjectives, negatives, and auxiliaries are reduced to one category which is Verb, and the other forms are derived transformationally.

Lexical decomposition

Lexical decomposition was used to draw the syntactic stretch of sentences relaying the semantic implication inherent to words. In the word kill the analysis would reveal that it has atomic bits such as CAUSE and BECOME and NOT and ALIVE and work the semantic and syntactic relation between lexical items and their atomic parts. Generative semantics’ case for lexical decomposition in which lexical reading, and base but different lexical extensions in example such as dead where the lexical base would be NOT ALIVE and the lexical extensions such as kill or die but similar readings such as the word die come from NOT ALIVE with the transformation inchoative it becomes (BECOME NOT ALIVE), and kill with the same lexical base NOT ALIVE with transformation causative, it becomes (CAUSE TO BECOME NOT ALIVE). This simplified the projections rules necessary for transformations; rather than entering the word kill directly in the deep structure, thereby creating a new ‘syntactic’ deep structure, it would be considered as sharing the same ‘semantic’ deep structure with dead, NOT ALIVE. Using this case of lexical decomposition, McCawley proposed a new rule—predicate raising—where lexical items can enter at any point of the derivation process rather than the deep structures. This argument by McCawley undermined deep structures as lexical insertion points; as evident in the generative semantics analysis, some transformations—predicate-raising—needed to be applied before the inserting the lexical items—lexical insertion point—in the derivation. Because predicate-raising collects the predicate parts –abstract verbs— into the meaning complexes, words.

These arguments were used to conclude that it made no theoretical sense to have syntactic deep structures as a separate level and that semantic representations, features, and relations should be mapped directly onto the surface structure. Additionally, generative semanticists have proclaimed that any level of structure that comes between the semantic representation and surface structure requires empirical justification.

Interpretivist critique of generative semantics

Chomsky and others conducted a number of arguments that are designed to demonstrate that generative semantics not only did not offer something new but was misconceived and misguided. In response to these challenges, Chomsky conducted a series of lectures and papers, known later as Remarks, which culminated in what was later known as the "interpretivist program". This program aimed to establish syntax as an independent level in the linguistic analysis—autonomous syntax—with independent rules, while the meaning of the syntactic structure follows from ‘interpretive’ rules applied to the syntactic structures. This approach retains the formal characteristics of deep structure as context-free phrase-structure grammar. Chomsky also criticized the Predicate-raising rule of McCawley for being an upside-down interpretive rule.

Lexicalism and deverbal nouns

The generative semanticist’s analysis—lexical decomposition—holds that words refuse and refusal would belong to the same category refuse, but in Remarks Chomsky argued for the limitation of transformations and the separation of lexical entries for semantically related words as some nominalizations have distinct meanings. Chomsky argued that words such as marry, marriage; revolve, revolution should not be treated as derived from their verb forms as revolution has broader scope, so is marry. These nouns—which are known as deverbal nouns—should exist separately in the lexicon. This approach was later known as lexicalism. This posited also, that nominalization transformations should happen in the lexicon not in the deep structure thereby limiting the power of transformations. The words refuse and refusal would belong to the same category REFUSE in the generative semantics framework, but in Remarks Chomsky argued for the limitation of transformations and the separation of lexical entries for semantically related words.

For example:

a. John is eager to please.

b. John's eagerness to please.

c. John is easy to please.

d. *John's easiness to please.

The d. sentence shows some distributional differences not accounted for if the deverbal nouns are to be derived transformationally. Another point made by Chomsky against the generative semantics was the structural similarity deverbal nouns have with noun phrases, which suggests that it has its own independent internal structure, in the example, proofs functions like portraits a regular noun phrase.

a. Several of John's proofs of the theorem.

b. Several of John's portraits of the dean.

Remarks contributed to what Chomsky terms the Extended Standard Theory, which he thought of as an extension to Aspects. To many linguists, the relation between transformations and semantics in the Generative Semantics was the natural progression of Aspects.

Lexical decomposition

The interpretive semanticist, Jerry Fodor, also criticized generative semanticists’ approach to lexical decomposition in which the word kill is derived from CAUSE TO BECOME NOT ALIVE in the work of Foder in a sentence such as:

a Putin caused Litvinenko to die on Wednesday by having him poisoned three weeks earlier.

b * Putin killed Litvinenko on Wednesday by having him poisoned three weeks earlier.

In these sentences (a) kill is derived from (b) caused to die, however, (a) is correct and causes no discrepancies but (b) which suggests a direct causal of killing contradicts the temporal qualifier “Wednesday by having him poisoned three weeks earlier” which suggests that lexical decomposition cloud fail to account for causal and temporal intricacies required for accurate semantic interpretation.

Cases for formalism in underlying structures

Coreference

Under the generative semanticist coreference relations in a sentence such as “Harry thinks he should win the prize” are analyzed in the deep structure as “Harry thinks Harry should win the prize”, then transformations happen to replace Harry with he in the surface structure. But this approach was criticized for creating an infinite loop of embedding— with he—in the deep structure “The man who shows he deserves it will get the prize he desires.”. Thus, the interpretivists considered he as a base component, and finding the correct antecedents is achieved through interpretive rules. Further solidifying the existence of formal structures independent of semantics, which transformations apply to.

Transformations and meaning

Transformations are not fully accounted for in the Katz-Postal hypothesis which underlies the generative semantics paradigm. The Interpretivists argued that passive transformations do alter meaning in sentences with qualifiers such as every. In the sentences

Everyone in the room knows two languages.

Two languages are known by everyone in the room.

Chomsky analyzed these two sentences as semantically different despite being only derivational pairs; he observed that the first sentence might imply that everyone knows two different languages, while the second sentence implies that everyone in the room knows the same two languages. This argument was used to retain the formal characteristics of deep structures as transformation movements are not accounted for through semantic relations, but rather formal ones. The existence of an independent level of syntactic structure to which transformations apply is evidence of formalism.

Global rules of generative semantics

Generative semanticists accounted for such discrepancy resulted from passive transformations by claiming that the previous sentences do not share the same underlying structure, but rather two different structures; the first sentence has an underlying structure starting with “Everyone”, while the other sentence is with “Two” with the quantifier determining the scope of the meaning. Additionally, generative semanticists provided the “Quantifier lowering” rule where quantifiers are moved to the last position in the surface structures. In the previous sentences, in the sentence with “two” as an underlying structure, everyone is lowered highlighting that it is the same two languages are known by everyone, while in the sentence with “Everyone” as an underlying structure, the quantifier “two” is lowered maintaining that it is everyone knows two different languages. Thus, generative semanticist, Lakoff, has expressed that the two sentences are not semantically equivalent. George Lakoff proposed another rule which he termed the global derivational constraint in which sentence such as "Two languages..." would not be possible derivationally from an underlying structure with quantifier "Everyone" encompassing "Two".

Challenges in the paradigm

Generative semantics faced challenges in its empirical confirmation. Analyses in interpretive semantics involve phrase-structure rules and transformations that are innately codified according to Aspects, drawing on Chomsky’s ideas of innate faculty in the human brain which process languages. By contrast, generative analyses contained hypotheses concerning factors like the intent of speakers and the denotation and entailment of sentences. Its lack of explicit rules, formulas, and underlying structures made its predictions difficult to compare and evaluate compared to those of interpretive semantics. Additionally, the generative framework was criticized for introducing irregularities without justification: the attempt to bridge syntax and semantics blurred the lines between these domains, with some arguing that the approach created more problems than it solved. These limitations led to the decline of generative semantics.

Aftermath

After the protracted debates and with the decline of generative semantics, its key figures pursued various paths. George Lakoff moved on to cognitive linguistics, which explores the cognitive domain and the relation between language and mental processes. Meanwhile, in the late 90s Chomsky switched his attention to a more universal program of generative grammar, the minimalist program, which does not claim to offer a comprehensive theory of language acquisition and use. Postal rejects the idea of generative semantics and embraces natural languages discarding aspects of cognition altogether and emphasizing grammaticality. Postal adopts a mathematical/ logical approach to studying ‘natural’ languages. John R. Ross ventured to more literary-orientated endeavors such as poetry, though he maintained his transformationalist essence as his name existed in many of the Chomskyan works. As for McCawley, he continued following the tradition of Generative Semantics until his unfortunate death in 1999. He was known for his malleable approach to linguistic theory, employing both Extended Standard Theory and Generative Semantics elements.

Books

A first systematic description of the linguistics wars is the chapter with this title in Frederick Newmeyer's book Linguistic Theory in America, which appeared in 1980.

The Linguistics Wars is the title of a 1993 book by Randy A. Harris that closely chronicles the dispute among Chomsky and other significant individuals (George Lakoff and Paul Postal, among others) and also highlights how certain theories evolved and which of their important features have influenced modern-day linguistic theories. A second edition was published in 2022, in which Harris traces several important 21st century linguistic developments such as construction grammar, cognitive linguistics and Frame semantics (linguistics), all emerging out of generative semantics. The second edition also argues that Chomsky's minimalist program has significant homologies with early generative semantics.

Ideology and Linguistic Theory, by John A. Goldsmith and Geoffrey J. Huck, also explores that history, with detailed theoretical discussion and observed history of the times, including memoirs/interviews with Ray Jackendoff, Lakoff, Postal, and Ross. The "What happened to Generative Semantics" chapter explores the aftermath of the dispute and the schools of thought or practice that could be seen as the successors to generative semantics.

Astrology and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

Astrology consists of a number of belief systems that hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events or descriptions of personality in the human world. Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe. Scientific testing has found no evidence to support the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.

Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.The most famous test was headed by Shawn Carlson and included a committee of scientists and a committee of astrologers. It led to the conclusion that natal astrology performed no better than chance.

Astrology has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity, and is thus regarded as pseudoscience. There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth in the way astrologers say they do that does not contradict well-understood, basic aspects of biology and physics. Although astrology has no scientific validity, astrological beliefs have impacted human history and astrology has helped to drive the development of astronomy.

Modern scientific inquiry into astrology is primarily focused on drawing a correlation between astrological traditions and the influence of seasonal birth in humans.

Introduction

The majority of professional astrologers rely on performing astrology-based personality tests and making relevant predictions about the remunerator's future. Those who continue to have faith in astrology have been characterised as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary". Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson commented on astrological belief, saying that "part of knowing how to think is knowing how the laws of nature shape the world around us. Without that knowledge, without that capacity to think, you can easily become a victim of people who seek to take advantage of you".

The continued belief in astrology despite its lack of credibility is seen as a demonstration of low scientific literacy, although some continue to believe in it even though they are scientifically literate.

Historical relationship with astronomy

The foundations of the theoretical structure used in astrology originate with the Babylonians, although widespread usage did not occur until the start of the Hellenistic period after Alexander the Great swept through Greece. It was not known to the Babylonians that the constellations are not on a celestial sphere and are very far apart. The appearance of them being close is illusory. The exact demarcation of what a constellation is is cultural and varied between civilisations. Ptolemy's work on astronomy was driven to some extent by the desire, like all astrologers of the time, to easily calculate the planetary movements. Early Western astrology operated under the Ancient Greek concepts of the Macrocosm and microcosm, and thus medical astrology related what happened to the planets and other objects in the sky to medical operations. This provided a further motivator for the study of astronomy. While still defending the practice of astrology, Ptolemy acknowledged that the predictive power of astronomy for the motion of the planets and other celestial bodies ranked above astrological predictions.

During the Islamic Golden Age, astronomy was funded so that the astronomical parameters, such as the eccentricity of the sun's orbit, required for the Ptolemaic model could be calculated to sufficient accuracy and precision. Those in positions of power, like the Fatimid Caliphate vizier in 1120, funded the construction of observatories so that astrological predictions, fuelled by precise planetary information, could be made. Since the observatories were built to help in making astrological predictions, few of these observatories lasted long due to the prohibition against astrology within Islam, and most were torn down during or just after construction.

The clear rejection of astrology in works of astronomy started in 1679, with the yearly publication La Connoissance des temps. Unlike the West, in Iran, the rejection of heliocentrism continued up towards the start of the 20th century, in part motivated by a fear that this would undermine the widespread belief in astrology and Islamic cosmology in Iran. The first work, Falak al-sa'ada by Ictizad al-Saltana, aimed at undermining this belief in astrology and "old astronomy" in Iran was published in 1861. On astrology, it cited the inability of different astrologers to make the same prediction about what occurs following a conjunction and described the attributes astrologers gave to the planets as implausible.

Philosophy of science

Astrology provides the quintessential example of a pseudoscience since it has been tested repeatedly and failed all the tests.

Falsifiability

Science and non-science are often distinguished by the criterion of falsifiability. The criterion was first proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper. To Popper, science does not rely on induction; instead, scientific investigations are inherently attempts to falsify existing theories through novel tests. If a single test fails, then the theory is falsified.

Therefore, any test of a scientific theory must prohibit certain results that falsify the theory, and expect other specific results consistent with the theory. Using this criterion of falsifiability, astrology is a pseudoscience.

Astrology was Popper's most frequent example of pseudoscience. Popper regarded astrology as "pseudo-empirical" in that "it appeals to observation and experiment", but "nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards".

In contrast to scientific disciplines, astrology does not respond to falsification through experiment. According to Professor of neurology Terence Hines, this is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

"No puzzles to solve"

In contrast to Popper, the philosopher Thomas Kuhn argued that it was not lack of falsifiability that makes astrology unscientific, but rather that the process and concepts of astrology are non-empirical. To Kuhn, although astrologers had, historically, made predictions that "categorically failed", this in itself does not make it unscientific, nor do the attempts by astrologers to explain away the failure by claiming it was due to the creation of a horoscope being very difficult (through subsuming, after the fact, a more general horoscope that leads to a different prediction).

Rather, in Kuhn's eyes, astrology is not science because it was always more akin to medieval medicine; they followed a sequence of rules and guidelines for a seemingly necessary field with known shortcomings, but they did no research because the fields are not amenable to research, and so, "They had no puzzles to solve and therefore no science to practise."

While an astronomer could correct for failure, an astrologer could not. An astrologer could only explain away failure but could not revise the astrological hypothesis in a meaningful way. As such, to Kuhn, even if the stars could influence the path of humans through life astrology is not scientific.

Progress, practice and consistency

Philosopher Paul Thagard believed that astrology can not be regarded as falsified in this sense until it has been replaced with a successor. In the case of predicting behaviour, psychology is the alternative. To Thagard a further criterion of demarcation of science from pseudoscience was that the state of the art must progress and that the community of researchers should be attempting to compare the current theory to alternatives, and not be "selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations".

Progress is defined here as explaining new phenomena and solving existing problems, yet astrology has failed to progress having only changed little in nearly 2000 years. To Thagard, astrologers are acting as though engaged in normal science believing that the foundations of astrology were well established despite the "many unsolved problems", and in the face of better alternative theories (Psychology). For these reasons Thagard viewed astrology as pseudoscience.

To Thagard, astrology should not be regarded as a pseudoscience on the failure of Gauquelin to find any correlation between the various astrological signs and someone's career, twins not showing the expected correlations from having the same signs in twin studies, lack of agreement on the significance of the planets discovered since Ptolemy's time and large scale disasters wiping out individuals with vastly different signs at the same time. Rather, his demarcation of science requires three distinct foci: "theory, community [and] historical context".

While verification and falsifiability focused on the theory, Kuhn's work focused on the historical context, but the astrological community should also be considered. Whether or not they:

are focused on comparing their approach to others.
have a consistent approach.
try to falsify their theory through experiment.

In this approach, true falsification rather than modifying a theory to avoid the falsification only really occurs when an alternative theory is proposed.

Irrationality

For the philosopher Edward W. James, astrology is irrational not because of the numerous problems with mechanisms and falsification due to experiments, but because an analysis of the astrological literature shows that it is infused with fallacious logic and poor reasoning.

What if throughout astrological writings we meet little appreciation of coherence, blatant insensitivity to evidence, no sense of a hierarchy of reasons, slight command over the contextual force of critieria, stubborn unwillingness to pursue an argument where it leads, stark naivete concerning the efficacy of explanation and so on? In that case, I think, we are perfectly justified in rejecting astrology as irrational. ... Astrology simply fails to meet the multifarious demands of legitimate reasoning.

— Edward W. James

This poor reasoning includes appeals to ancient astrologers such as Kepler despite any relevance of topic or specific reasoning, and vague claims. The claim that evidence for astrology is that people born at roughly "the same place have a life pattern that is very similar" is vague, but also ignores that time is reference frame dependent and gives no definition of "same place" despite the planet's moving in the reference frame of the Solar System. Other comments by astrologers are based on severely erroneous interpretations of basic physics, such as the general belief by medieval astrologers that the geocentric Solar System corresponded to an atom. Further, James noted that response to criticism also relies on faulty logic, an example of which was a response to twin studies with the statement that coincidences in twins are due to astrology, but any differences are due to "heredity and environment", while for other astrologers the issues are too difficult and they just want to get back to their astrology. Further, to astrologers, if something appears in their favour, they may latch upon it as proof, while making no attempt to explore its implications, preferring to refer to the item in favour as definitive; possibilities that do not make astrology look favourable are ignored.

Quinean dichotomy

From the Quinean web of knowledge, there is a dichotomy where one must either reject astrology or accept astrology but reject all established scientific disciplines that are incompatible with astrology.

Tests of astrology

Astrologers often do not make verifiable predictions, but instead make vague statements that are not falsifiable. Across several centuries of testing, the predictions of astrology have never been more accurate than that expected by chance alone. One approach used in testing astrology quantitatively is through blind experiment. When specific predictions from astrologers were tested in rigorous experimental procedures in the Carlson test, the predictions were falsified. All controlled experiments have failed to show any effect.

Mars effect

In 1955, astrologer and psychologist Michel Gauquelin stated that although he had failed to find evidence to support such indicators as the zodiacal signs and planetary aspects in astrology, he had found positive correlations between the diurnal positions of some of the planets and success in professions (such as doctors, scientists, athletes, actors, writers, painters, etc.), which astrology traditionally associates with those planets. The best-known of Gauquelin's findings is based on the positions of Mars in the natal charts of successful athletes and became known as the "Mars effect". A study conducted by seven French scientists attempted to replicate the claim, but found no statistical evidence.They attributed the effect to selective bias on Gauquelin's part, accusing him of attempting to persuade them to add or delete names from their study.

Geoffrey Dean has suggested that the effect may be caused by self-reporting of birth dates by parents rather than any issue with the study by Gauquelin. The suggestion is that a small subset of the parents may have had changed birth times to be consistent with better astrological charts for a related profession. The sample group was taken from a time where belief in astrology was more common. Gauquelin had failed to find the Mars effect in more recent populations, where a nurse or doctor recorded the birth information. The number of births under astrologically undesirable conditions was also lower, indicating more evidence that parents choose dates and times to suit their beliefs.

Carlson's experiment

Shawn Carlson's now renowned experiment was performed by 28 astrologers matching over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) test using double blind methods.

The experimental protocol used in Carlson's study was agreed to by a group of physicists and astrologers prior to the experiment. Astrologers, nominated by the National Council for Geocosmic Research, acted as the astrological advisors, and helped to ensure, and agreed, that the test was fair. They also chose 26 of the 28 astrologers for the tests, the other two being interested astrologers who volunteered afterwards. The astrologers came from Europe and the United States. The astrologers helped to draw up the central proposition of natal astrology to be tested. Published in Nature in 1985, the study found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis".

Dean and Kelly

Scientist and former astrologer Geoffrey Dean and psychologist Ivan Kelly conducted a large-scale scientific test, involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioural, physical and other variables, but found no support for astrology. A further test involved 45 confident astrologers, with an average of 10 years' experience and 160 test subjects (out of an original sample size of 1198 test subjects) who strongly favoured certain characteristics in the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to extremes.The astrologers performed much worse than merely basing decisions off the individuals' ages, and much worse than 45 control subjects who did not use birth charts at all.

Other tests

A meta-analysis was conducted, pooling 40 studies consisting of 700 astrologers and over 1,000 birth charts. Ten of the tests, which had a total of 300 participating, involved the astrologers picking the correct chart interpretation out of a number of others that were not the astrologically correct chart interpretation (usually three to five others). When the date and other obvious clues were removed, no significant results were found to suggest there was any preferred chart.

In 10 studies, participants picked horoscopes that they felt were accurate descriptions, with one being the "correct" answer. Again the results were no better than chance.

In a study of 2011 sets of people born within 5 minutes of each other ("time twins") to see if there was any discernible effect; no effect was seen.

Quantitative sociologist David Voas examined the census data for more than 20 million individuals in England and Wales to see if star signs corresponded to marriage arrangements. No effect was seen.

Theoretic obstacles

Beyond the scientific tests astrology has failed, proposals for astrology face a number of other obstacles due to the many theoretical flaws in astrology including lack of consistency, lack of ability to predict missing planets, lack of connection of the zodiac to the constellations in Western astrology, and lack of any plausible mechanism. The underpinnings of astrology tend to disagree with numerous basic facts from scientific disciplines.

Lack of consistency

Testing the validity of astrology can be difficult because there is no consensus amongst astrologers as to what astrology is or what it can predict. Dean and Kelly documented 25 studies, which had found that the degree of agreement amongst astrologers' predictions was measured as a low 0.1. Most professional astrologers are paid to predict the future or describe a person's personality and life, but most horoscopes only make vague untestable statements that can apply to almost anyone.

Georges Charpak and Henri Broch dealt with claims from Western astrology in the book Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, and other Pseudoscience. They pointed out that astrologers have only a small knowledge of astronomy and that they often do not take into account basic features such as the precession of the equinoxes. They commented on the example of Elizabeth Teissier who claimed that "the sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year" as the basis for claims that two people with the same birthday but a number of years apart should be under the same planetary influence. Charpak and Broch noted that "there is a difference of about twenty-two thousand miles between Earth's location on any specific date in two successive years" and that thus they should not be under the same influence according to astrology. Over a 40 years period there would be a difference greater than 780,000 miles.

Lack of physical basis

Edward W. James, commented that attaching significance to the constellation on the celestial sphere the sun is in at sunset was done on the basis of human factors—namely, that astrologers did not want to wake up early, and the exact time of noon was hard to know. Further, the creation of the zodiac and the disconnect from the constellations was because the sun is not in each constellation for the same amount of time. This disconnection from the constellations led to the problem with precession separating the zodiac symbols from the constellations that they once were related to. Philosopher of science, Massimo Pigliucci commenting on the movement, opined "Well then, which sign should I look up when I open my Sunday paper, I wonder?"

The tropical zodiac has no connection to the stars, and as long as no claims are made that the constellations themselves are in the associated sign, astrologers avoid the concept that precession seemingly moves the constellations because they do not reference them. Charpak and Broch, noting this, referred to astrology based on the tropical zodiac as being "...empty boxes that have nothing to do with anything and are devoid of any consistency or correspondence with the stars." Sole use of the tropical zodiac is inconsistent with references made, by the same astrologers, to the Age of Aquarius, which depends on when the vernal point enters the constellation of Aquarius.

Lack of predictive power

Some astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account, but astrologers were unable to predict the existence of Neptune based on mistakes in horoscopes. Instead Neptune was predicted using Newton's law of universal gravitation. The grafting on of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto into the astrology discourse was done on an ad hoc basis.

On the demotion of Pluto to the status of dwarf planet, Philip Zarka of the Paris Observatory in Meudon, France wondered how astrologers should respond:

Should astrologers remove it from the list of luminars [Sun, Moon and the 8 planets other than earth] and confess that it did not actually bring any improvement? If they decide to keep it, what about the growing list of other recently discovered similar bodies (Sedna, Quaoar. etc), some of which even have satellites (Xena, 2003EL61)?

Lack of mechanism

Astrology has been criticised for failing to provide a physical mechanism that links the movements of celestial bodies to their purported effects on human behaviour. In a lecture in 2001, Stephen Hawking stated "The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment." In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, The Humanist magazine presented a rebuttal of astrology in a statement put together by Bart J. Bok, Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz. The statement, entitled "Objections to Astrology", was signed by 186 astronomers, physicists and leading scientists of the day. They said that there is no scientific foundation for the tenets of astrology and warned the public against accepting astrological advice without question. Their criticism focused on the fact that there was no mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur:

We can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures.

Astronomer Carl Sagan declined to sign the statement. Sagan said he took this stance not because he thought astrology had any validity, but because he thought that the tone of the statement was authoritarian, and that dismissing astrology because there was no mechanism (while "certainly a relevant point") was not in itself convincing. In a letter published in a follow-up edition of The Humanist, Sagan confirmed that he would have been willing to sign such a statement had it described and refuted the principal tenets of astrological belief. This, he argued, would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy.

The use of poetic imagery based on the concepts of the macrocosm and microcosm, "as above so below" to decide meaning such as Edward W. James' example of "Mars above is red, so Mars below means blood and war", is a false cause fallacy.

Many astrologers claim that astrology is scientific. If one were to attempt to try to explain it scientifically, there are only four fundamental forces (conventionally), limiting the choice of possible natural mechanisms. Some astrologers have proposed conventional causal agents such as electromagnetism and gravity. The strength of these forces drops off with distance. Scientists reject these proposed mechanisms as implausible since, for example, the magnetic field, when measured from Earth, of a large but distant planet such as Jupiter is far smaller than that produced by ordinary household appliances. Astronomer Phil Plait noted that in terms of magnitude, the Sun is the only object with an electromagnetic field of note, but astrology isn't based just off the Sun alone. While astrologers could try to suggest a fifth force, this is inconsistent with the trends in physics with the unification of electromagnetism and the weak force into the electroweak force. If the astrologer insisted on being inconsistent with the current understanding and evidential basis of physics, that would be an extraordinary claim. It would also be inconsistent with the other forces which drop off with distance. If distance is irrelevant, then, logically, all objects in space should be taken into account.

Carl Jung sought to invoke synchronicity, the claim that two events have some sort of acausal connection, to explain the lack of statistically significant results on astrology from a single study he conducted. However, synchronicity itself is considered neither testable nor falsifiable. The study was subsequently heavily criticised for its non-random sample and its use of statistics and also its lack of consistency with astrology.

Psychology

Psychological studies have not found any robust relationship between astrological signs and life outcomes. For example, a study showed that zodiac signs are no more effective than random numbers in predicting subjective well-being and quality of life.

It has also been shown that confirmation bias is a psychological factor that contributes to belief in astrology. Confirmation bias is a form of cognitive bias.

From the literature, astrology believers often tend to selectively remember those predictions that turned out to be true and do not remember those that turned out false. Another, separate, form of confirmation bias also plays a role, where believers often fail to distinguish between messages that demonstrate special ability and those that do not.

Thus there are two distinct forms of confirmation bias that are under study with respect to astrological belief.

The Barnum effect is the tendency for an individual to give a high accuracy rating to a description of their personality that supposedly tailored specifically for them, but is, in fact, vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. If more information is requested for a prediction, the more accepting people are of the results.

In 1949 Bertram Forer conducted a personality test on students in his classroom. Each student was given a supposedly individual assessment but actually all students received the same assessment. The personality descriptions were taken from a book on astrology. When the students were asked to comment on the accuracy of the test, more than 40% gave it the top mark of 5 out of 5, and the average rating was 4.2. The results of this study have been replicated in numerous other studies.

The study of the Barnum/Forer effect has been focused mostly on the level of acceptance of fake horoscopes and fake astrological personality profiles. Recipients of these personality assessments consistently fail to distinguish between common and uncommon personality descriptors. In a study by Paul Rogers and Janice Soule (2009), which was consistent with previous research on the issue, it was found that those who believed in astrology are generally more susceptible to giving more credence to the Barnum profile than sceptics.

By a process known as self-attribution, it has been shown in numerous studies that individuals with knowledge of astrology tend to describe their personalities in terms of traits compatible with their sun signs. The effect is heightened when the individuals were aware that the personality description was being used to discuss astrology. Individuals who were not familiar with astrology had no such tendency.

Sociology

In 1953, sociologist Theodor W. Adorno conducted a study of the astrology column of a Los Angeles newspaper as part of a project that examined mass culture in capitalist society. Adorno believed that popular astrology, as a device, invariably led to statements that encouraged conformity—and that astrologers who went against conformity with statements that discouraged performance at work etc. risked losing their jobs. Adorno concluded that astrology was a large-scale manifestation of systematic irrationalism, where flattery and vague generalisations subtly led individuals to believe the author of the column addressed them directly. Adorno drew a parallel with the phrase opium of the people, by Karl Marx, by commenting, "Occultism is the metaphysic of the dopes."

False balance is where a false, unaccepted or spurious viewpoint is included alongside a well reasoned one in media reports and TV appearances and as a result the false balance implies "there were two equal sides to a story when clearly there were not". During Wonders of the Solar System, a TV programme by the BBC, the physicist Brian Cox said: "Despite the fact that astrology is a load of rubbish, Jupiter can in fact have a profound influence on our planet. And it's through a force... gravity." This upset believers in astrology who complained that there was no astrologer to provide an alternative viewpoint. Following the complaints of astrology believers, Cox gave the following statement to the BBC: "I apologise to the astrology community for not making myself clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation." In the programme Stargazing Live, Cox further commented by saying: "in the interests of balance on the BBC, yes astrology is nonsense." In an editorial in the medical journal BMJ, editor Trevor Jackson cited this incident showing where false balance could occur.

Studies and polling have shown that the belief in astrology is higher in Western countries than might otherwise be expected. In 2012, in polls 42% of Americans said they thought astrology was at least partially scientific. This belief decreased with education and education is highly correlated with levels of scientific knowledge.

Some of the reported belief levels are due to a confusion of astrology with astronomy (the scientific study of celestial objects). The closeness of the two words varies depending on the language. A plain description of astrology as an "occult influence of stars, planets etc. on human affairs" had no impact on the general public's assessment of whether astrology is scientific or not in a 1992 eurobarometer poll. This may partially be due to the implicit association amongst the general public, of any wording ending in "-ology" with a legitimate field of knowledge. In Eurobarometers 224 and 225 performed in 2004, a split poll was used to isolate confusion over wording. In half of the polls, the word "astrology" was used, while in the other the word "horoscope" was used. Belief that astrology was at least partially scientific was 76%, but belief that horoscopes were at least partially scientific was 43%. In particular, belief that astrology was very scientific was 26% while that of horoscopes was 7%. This appeared to indicate that the high level of apparent polling support for astrology in the EU was indeed due to confusion over terminology.

Saturday, October 11, 2025

Chinese philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_philosophy

Chinese philosophy
Yin and Yang symbol with the bagua symbols paved in a clearing outside of Nanning City, Guangxi province, China

Chinese philosophy (simplified Chinese: 中国哲学; traditional Chinese: 中國哲學) refers to the philosophical traditions that originated and developed within the historical and cultural context of China. It encompasses systematic reflections on issues such as existence, knowledge, ethics, and politics. Evolving over more than two millennia, Chinese philosophy includes classical traditions such as Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, as well as modern responses to Western philosophical currents. As a cultural form of philosophy, it addresses universal philosophical concerns while also reflecting the specific historical and social conditions of China.

The historical development of Chinese philosophy began during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, a time known as the "Hundred Schools of Thought". Major schools such as Confucianism, Daoism, Mohism, and Legalism emerged with distinct views on human nature, social order, and political authority. During the Han dynasty, Confucianism was established as the official ideology, shaping China's intellectual and political systems for centuries. In subsequent eras, Chinese philosophy integrated influences from Indian Buddhism, giving rise to new developments such as Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties. In the modern period, Chinese thinkers engaged with Western thought, resulting in the emergence of Three Principles of the People, Chinese Marxism, New Confucianism, and other philosophical movements. Throughout the 20th century, these traditions were reshaped by political upheaval and continue to evolve today.

Chinese philosophy, like other philosophical traditions, engages with fundamental questions in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy. Thinkers across various schools explored debates about the nature of human goodness, the source of moral knowledge, and the foundations of social order. Confucianism emphasizes ethical cultivation and political responsibility; Daoism advocates a life in accordance with nature and spontaneity; and Buddhist and Neo-Confucian thinkers developed detailed theories of consciousness and moral practice. Beyond abstract theorizing, Chinese philosophy has played a significant role in shaping Chinese education, governance, and cultural life. In the modern era, Chinese philosophers continue to reinterpret classical ideas while engaging with global philosophical discourse.

Chinese philosophy has exerted significant influence across East Asia. Buddhist thought and Neo-Confucian philosophy spread to Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, where they shaped local intellectual and educational traditions. During the 17th and 18th centuries, Confucianism attracted the interest of European Enlightenment thinkers—often through idealized or inaccurate interpretations—which nonetheless played a role in debates about reason, morality, and secular governance. In the contemporary era, Chinese philosophy is gaining greater visibility in global academia, though challenges remain regarding its integration into broader philosophical discourse beyond cultural or regional frameworks.

Overview

The development of Chinese philosophy began in earnest during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods (c. 770–221 BCE), an era later known as the "Hundred Schools of Thought" (诸子百家). Thinkers such as Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Mozi, Han Fei, and Xunzi laid the foundations for enduring traditions like Confucianism (儒家), Daoism (道家), Mohism (墨家), and Legalism (法家). These schools addressed questions of ethics, governance, human nature, and the ideal social order, reflecting the intellectual ferment of a politically fragmented age. Legalism as a coherent philosophy disappeared largely due to its relationship with the unpopular authoritarian rule of Qin Shi Huang. However, many of its ideas and institutions would continue to influence Chinese philosophy throughout the Han dynasty and after.

During the early Han dynasty, these competing traditions began to merge in practice, but it was not until the reign of Emperor Wu (141–87 BCE) that Confucianism, through the work of Dong Zhongshu, was officially adopted as state ideology. This institutionalization of a mysticized form of Confucianism, infused with cosmological elements from Yin-Yang and Five Elements theories (阴阳五行)—often summarized as "rejecting the Hundred Schools, honoring Confucianism alone" (罢黜百家，独尊儒术)—would shape Chinese education, bureaucracy, and political thought for centuries. Daoism, meanwhile, developed into an organized religion, while Buddhism (佛教) entered China from India and gained increasing prominence in the centuries that followed.

Buddhism entered China during the Han dynasty and developed into a major philosophical force through the translation efforts of figures like Kumārajīva and Xuanzang, who introduced Madhyamaka (中观) and Yogācāra (唯识) thought, which profoundly influenced Chinese metaphysics, epistemology, and soteriology. In the 5th–7th centuries, Indian monk Bodhidharma transmitted the foundations of Chan (Zen) Buddhism (禅宗), which was later transformed by Huineng into a distinctly Chinese tradition emphasizing sudden awakening (顿悟) and direct experience. Over time, Buddhist metaphysics and moral psychology significantly influenced Daoist thought and provoked Confucian responses, laying the groundwork for later syntheses such as Neo-Confucianism.

Beginning in the mid-Tang dynasty, certain scholars with a strong sense of cultural identity initiated efforts to revive Confucianism in response to what they perceived as moral nihilism in Buddhism. Han Yu was a leading figure in this movement; he criticized Buddhist monastics for being unproductive and for undermining the Confucian ethic of social responsibility. Following two major waves of Buddhist suppression (三武一宗灭佛) under Emperor Wuzong of Tang and Emperor Shizong of Later Zhou, Buddhism's dominance in political and intellectual life declined. During the Song dynasty, Confucian scholar-officials critically absorbed elements of Buddhist and Daoist philosophy and practice, laying the foundations for what became Neo-Confucianism (宋明理学). Zhang Zai articulated a philosophy of qi (matter, 气) as the material basis of all existence. The Cheng brothers (Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi) emphasized li (principle, 理) and the necessity of internal cultivation to eliminate selfish desires and restore moral nature.

Building on these earlier thinkers, Zhu Xi systematized Neo-Confucian thought into a comprehensive metaphysical and ethical framework. He posited li (principle) as the underlying structure of the cosmos, advocated for "investigation of things" (格物) as the path to knowledge, and emphasized the importance of preserving tianli (Heavenly Principle, 天理) by eliminating personal desire. From the Yuan dynasty onward, the School of Principle (程朱理学) became state orthodoxy and the basis of the imperial examination system throughout the Ming and Qing dynasties, playing a central role in governance, education, and moral regulation. During the late Ming period, rapid commercial expansion and a flourishing publishing industry gave rise to new currents of thought, many of which challenged Zhu Xi's doctrines. The most influential among them was Wang Yangming's School of Mind (陆王心学), which replaced external investigation with introspective moral awareness (良知) and emphasized the unity of knowledge and action to solve Zhu's epistemology paradox. Wang's philosophy gained wide support and even political traction, though it never supplanted the School of Principle as the state-sanctioned orthodoxy. After the fall of the Ming, Confucian scholars entered a period of deep reflection. Among them, Wang Fuzhi developed an integrative synthesis drawing from Neo-Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. Though his influence was limited during his lifetime, his ideas gained renewed interest in the late Qing and would later be reinterpreted as a source of inspiration for modern political ideologies, including aspects of Maoist thought. The Qing dynasty saw the rise of evidential scholarship (乾嘉学派) and philology, though official ideology remained conservative, especially during the height of literary inquisition.

Beginning in the late Qing dynasty, Chinese philosophy underwent a profound transformation in response to national crisis, Western imperialism, and the collapse of the dynastic worldview. Thinkers such as Yan Fu introduced liberalism, Social Darwinism, and utilitarian thought through translations of Western works, while reformers like Kang Youwei sought to modernize Confucianism into a national religion (立教改制). During the early Republic of China period, the New Culture Movement promoted science and democracy while denouncing traditional morality, leading to the marginalization of classical Confucianism. Meanwhile, under the influence of Abraham Lincoln, Sun Yat-sen developed the Three Principles of the People (三民主义)—nationalism (民族), democracy (民权), and people's livelihood (民生)—as a political-philosophical framework that blended Western republicanism with Chinese moral values. The ideology of the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, 国民党) incorporated this system into its governance strategy, creating a modernist yet culturally rooted foundation for the Chinese state. Following the April 12 Purge, Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist right-wing synthesized the Three Principles of the People with Confucianism, authoritarian governance, and nationalist ideology, developing a framework explicitly opposed to both liberalism and Marxism which often referred to as Chiangism (蒋介石主义).

Mao Zedong Thought (毛泽东思想) drew from Soviet Marxism–Leninism (马克思列宁主义), particularly Stalinist doctrine (斯大林主义), as well as late Qing Hunanese intellectual traditions and the anti-elitist, anti-capitalist sentiments prevalent in Republican-era China. In the struggle for ideological leadership within the Communist Party against Wang Ming, Mao reinterpreted Marxist terminology and developed a distinctive theoretical system centered on concepts like practice (实践), contradiction (矛盾), and dialectical materialism (辩证唯物主义), which gained institutional authority following his political success and became the unquestioned orthodoxy. Following the Communist victory in 1949, Maoism became the dominant state ideological system. During the later stages of the Cultural Revolution, its discourse became increasingly ritualized and detached from theoretical coherence. Although the Maoist period ended in 1976, Mao Zedong Thought remains one of the guiding ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party, and its paradigmatic impact on philosophical discourse, institutional norms, and modes of intellectual expression continues to shape Chinese thought.

Since the 1980s, Chinese philosophy has gradually diversified under conditions of economic reform. New Confucianism, initially developed by scholars in Taiwan and Hong Kong such as Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi, was reintroduced into the mainland and engaged in dialogue with Western humanism. At the same time, Marxist humanism, existentialism, phenomenology, Frankfurt School, Rawlsianism, and analytic philosophy gained influence in academic circles. State ideology shifted toward "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" (中国特色社会主义), emphasizing pragmatism and national rejuvenation while selectively drawing on traditional values. Though political constraints remain, contemporary philosophers have attempted to develop original frameworks addressing global ethics, language, and subjectivity. Nevertheless, the legacy of revolutionary philosophy and ongoing state involvement in ideology continue to shape the structure and limits of philosophical inquiry in China.

In addition to the Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist traditions rooted in Han cultural regions, other philosophical systems developed across China's multiethnic landscape. Tibetan Buddhism (藏传佛教), which took shape from the Yuan dynasty onward, formed a systematic tradition incorporating Madhyamaka thought and Buddhist logic (pramāṇa, 因明), particularly through the Gelug school (格鲁学派) founded by Tsongkhapa. This tradition had a major influence on Mongolian and Manchu political institutions and continues to play a central role in Tibetan intellectual life.

Beginning in the 17th century, Catholic missionaries, especially Jesuits like Matteo Ricci and Johann Adam Schall von Bell, introduced Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy to China. They translated Western philosophical concepts into Confucian terminology and attempted to establish a dialogue between Catholic theology and Chinese ethical traditions. Although controversial, these efforts created an enduring legacy of cross-cultural exchange that shaped the development of modern Chinese intellectual history.

Islamic philosophy in China—often referred to as Islamic Heavenly Studies (天方理学)—flourished particularly during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Muslim scholars such as Liu Zhi and Ma Zhu synthesized Islamic theology with Confucian ethics, developing distinctive metaphysical and ethical frameworks known as "Hui Confucianism" (回儒). Their works reflected efforts to reconcile Islamic and Chinese thought within a shared intellectual world.

Early beliefs

Early Shang dynasty thought was based on cycles like the 10 stems and 12 earthly branches. This notion stems from what the people of the Shang dynasty could observe around them: day and night cycles, the seasons progressed again and again, and even the moon waxed and waned until it waxed again. Thus, this notion, which remained relevant throughout Chinese history, reflects the order of nature. In juxtaposition, it also marks a fundamental distinction from western philosophy, in which the dominant view of time is a linear progression. During the Shang, Ancestor worship was present and universally recognized.

When the Shang were overthrown by the Zhou a new political, religious and philosophical concept was introduced called the Mandate of Heaven. This mandate was said to be taken when rulers became unworthy of their position and provided a justification for Zhou rule it is said that the Duke of Zhou made the early solar terms by measuring with a gnomon that was added to make the complete solar terms. He is also said to have used try squares and wrote the Zhoubi Suanjing with his astrologer. Several early beliefs might be found in the Guicang and perhaps the earliest Chinese book, the small calendar of the Xia in Da Dai Liji, though debated to exist the Xia dynasty is said to be its origin.

Ancient philosophy

Spring and Autumn period

Around 500 BCE, after the Zhou state weakened and China moved into the Spring and Autumn period, the classic period of Chinese philosophy began. This is known as the Hundred Schools of Thought (諸子百家; zhūzǐ bǎijiā; "various scholars, hundred schools"). This period is considered the golden age of Chinese philosophy. Of the many schools founded at this time and during the subsequent Warring States period, the four most influential ones were Confucianism, Daoism (often spelled "Taoism"), Mohism and Legalism.

Confucianism

Confucianism is a philosophical school developed from the teachings of Confucius collected and written by his disciples after his death in The Analects, and in the Warring States period, Mencius in The Mencius and Xunzi in The Xunzi. It is a system of moral, social, political, and religious thought that has had tremendous influence on Chinese history, thought, and culture down to the 20th century. Some Westerners have considered it to have been the "state religion" of imperial China because of its lasting influence on Asian culture. Its influence also spread to Korea, Japan, Vietnam and many other Asian countries.

Confucianism reached its peak of influence during the Tang and Song dynasties under a rebranded Confucianism called Neo-Confucianism. Confucius expanded on the already present ideas of Chinese religion and culture to reflect the time period and environment of political chaos during the Warring States period. Because Confucius embedded the Chinese culture so heavily into his philosophy it was able to resonate with the people of China. However, the relationship between Confucianism and contemporary Chinese society is continuously transforming, reflecting the evolving cultural, political, and social landscape of modern China.

The major Confucian concepts include filial piety, loyalty (忠; zhōng), li (ritual), ren (humanity or humaneness), the rectification of names (i.e., to ensure everything is what its name implies it should be),. Confucius taught both positive and negative versions of the Golden Rule. The concepts yin and yang represent two opposing forces that are permanently in conflict with each other, leading to perpetual contradiction and change. The Confucian idea of "Rid of the two ends, take the middle" is a Chinese equivalent of the idea of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis", often attributed to Hegel, which is a way of reconciling opposites, arriving at some middle ground combining the best of both.

Confucius heavily emphasized the idea of microcosms in society (subunits of family and community) success's were the foundations for a successful state or country. Confucius believed in the use of education to further knowledge the people in ethics, societal behavior, and reverence in other humans. With the combination of education, successful family, and his ethical teachings he believed he could govern a well established society in China.

Taoism

Taoism arose as a philosophy and later also developed into a religion based on the texts the Tao Te Ching (ascribed to Laozi) and the Zhuangzi (partly ascribed to Zhuang Zhou). The word Tao (道; also transliterated as Dao) literally means 'path' or 'way'. However, in Taoism it refers more often to a meta-physical force that encompasses the entire universe but which cannot be described nor felt.

All major Chinese philosophical schools have investigated the correct Way to go about a moral life, but in Taoism it takes on the most abstract meanings, leading this school to be named after it. It advocated nonaction (wu wei), the strength of softness, spontaneity, and relativism. Although it serves as a rival to Confucianism, a school of active morality, this rivalry is compromised and given perspective by the idiom "practice Confucianism on the outside, Taoism on the inside."

Most of Taoism's focus is on the notion that human attempts to make the world better actually make the world worse. Therefore, it is better to strive for harmony, minimising potentially harmful interference with nature or in human affairs.

Warring States period

Legalism

Philosopher Han Fei synthesized together earlier the methods of his predecessors, which famous historian Sima Tan posthumously termed Legalism. With an essential principle like "when the epoch changed, the ways changed", late pre-Han dynasty reformers emphasized rule by law.

In Han Fei's philosophy, a ruler should govern his subjects by the following trinity:

Fa (法; fǎ): law or principle.
Shu (術; shù): method, tactic, art, or statecraft.
Shi (勢; shì): legitimacy, power, or charisma.

What has been termed by some as the intrastate Realpolitik of the Warring States period was highly progressive, and extremely critical of the Confucian and Mohist schools. But that of the Qin dynasty would be blamed for creating a totalitarian society, thereby experiencing decline. Its main motto is: "Set clear strict laws, or deliver harsh punishment". In Han Fei's philosophy the ruler possessed authority regarding reward and penalty, enacted through law. Shang Yang and Han Fei promoted absolute adherence to the law, regardless of the circumstances or the person. Ministers were only to be rewarded if their words were accurate to the results of their proposals. Legalism, in accordance with Shang Yang's interpretation, could encourage the state to be a militaristic autarky.

Naturalists

The School of Naturalists or the School of Yin-yang (Chinese: 陰陽家; pinyin: Yīnyángjiā; Wade–Giles: Yin-yang-chia; lit. 'School of Yin-Yang') was a Warring States era philosophy that synthesized the concepts of yin-yang and the wuxing; Zou Yan is considered the founder of this school. His theory attempted to explain the universe in terms of basic forces in nature: the complementary agents of yin (dark, cold, female, negative) and yang (light, hot, male, positive) and the Five Elements or Five Phases (water, fire, wood, metal, and earth).

In its early days, this theory was most strongly associated with the states of Yan and Qi. In later periods, these epistemological theories came to hold significance in both philosophy and popular belief. This school was absorbed into Taoism's alchemic and magical dimensions as well as into the Chinese medical framework. The earliest surviving recordings of this are in the Mawangdui texts and Huangdi Neijing.

Mohism

Mohism (Moism), founded by Mozi, promotes universal love with the aim of mutual benefit. Everyone must love each other equally and impartially to avoid conflict and war. Mozi was strongly against Confucian ritual, instead emphasizing pragmatic survival through farming, fortification, and statecraft. Tradition is inconsistent, and human beings need an extra-traditional guide to identify which traditions are acceptable. The moral guide must then promote and encourage social behaviors that maximize general benefit. As motivation for his theory, Mozi brought in the Will of Heaven, but rather than being religious his philosophy parallels utilitarianism.

Logicians

The logicians (School of Names) were concerned with logic, paradoxes, names and actuality (similar to Confucian rectification of names). The logician Hui Shi was a friendly rival to Zhuangzi, arguing against Taoism in a light-hearted and humorous manner. Another logician, Gongsun Long, originated the famous When a White Horse is Not a Horse dialogue.

Agriculturalists

Agriculturalism was an early agrarian social and political philosophy that advocated peasant utopian communalism and egalitarianism. The philosophy is founded on the notion that human society originates with the development of agriculture, and societies are based upon "people's natural propensity to farm."

The Agriculturalists believed that the ideal government, modeled after the semi-mythical governance of Shennong, is led by a benevolent king, one who works alongside the people in tilling the fields. The Agriculturalist king is not paid by the government through its treasuries; his livelihood is derived from the profits he earns working in the fields, not his leadership. Unlike the Confucians, the Agriculturalists did not believe in the division of labour, arguing instead that the economic policies of a country need to be based upon an egalitarian self sufficiency. The Agriculturalists supported the fixing of prices, in which all similar goods, regardless of differences in quality and demand, are set at exactly the same, unchanging price.

Early imperial era philosophy

History

Qin and Han dynasties

A Western Han (202 BC – 9 AD) fresco depicting Confucius (and Laozi), from a tomb of Dongping County, Shandong province, China

The short founder Qin dynasty, where Legalism was the official philosophy, quashed Mohist and Confucianist schools. Legalism remained influential during the early Han dynasty under the Taoist-Realist ideology Huang-Lao until Emperor Wu of Han adopted Confucianism as official doctrine. Confucianism and Taoism became the determining forces of Chinese thought until the introduction of Buddhism.

Confucianism was particularly strong during the Han dynasty, whose greatest thinker was Dong Zhongshu, who integrated Confucianism with the thoughts of the Zhongshu School and the theory of the Five Elements. He also was a promoter of the New Text school, which considered Confucius as a divine figure and a spiritual ruler of China, who foresaw and started the evolution of the world towards the Universal Peace.

In contrast, there was an Old Text school that advocated the use of Confucian works written in ancient language (from this comes the denomination Old Text) that were so much more reliable. In particular, they refuted the assumption of Confucius as a godlike figure and considered him as the greatest sage, but simply a human and mortal.

Six Dynasties

The 3rd and 4th centuries saw the rise of the Xuanxue (mysterious learning), also called Neo-Taoism.

Buddhism arrived in China around the 1st century AD, but it was not until the Northern and Southern, Sui and Tang dynasties that it gained considerable influence and acknowledgement. At the beginning, it was considered a sort of Taoist sect. Mahayana Buddhism was far more successful in China than its rival Hinayana, and both Indian schools and local Chinese sects arose from the 5th century. Two chiefly important monk philosophers were Sengzhao and Daosheng. But probably the most influential and original of these schools was the Chan sect, which had an even stronger impact in Japan as the Zen sect.

In the mid-Tang Buddhism reached its peak, and reportedly there were 4,600 monasteries, 40,000 hermitages and 260,500 monks and nuns. The power of the Buddhist clergy was so great and the wealth of the monasteries so impressive, that it instigated criticism from Confucian scholars, who considered Buddhism as a foreign religion. In 845 Emperor Wuzong ordered the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, confiscating the riches and returning monks and nuns to lay life. From then on, Buddhism lost much of its influence.

Schools of thought

Xuanxue

Xuanxue was a philosophical school that combined elements of Confucianism and Taoism to reinterpret the I Ching,Tao Te Ching, and Zhuangzi. The most important philosophers of this movement were Wang Bi, Xiang Xiu and Guo Xiang. The main question of this school was whether Being came before Not-Being (in Chinese, ming and wuming). A peculiar feature of these Taoist thinkers, like the Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove, was the concept of feng liu (lit. wind and flow), a sort of romantic spirit which encouraged following the natural and instinctive impulse.

Buddhism

Buddhism is a religion, a practical philosophy, and arguably a psychology, focusing on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, who lived on the Indian subcontinent most likely from the mid-6th to the early 5th century BCE. When used in a generic sense, a Buddha is generally considered to be someone who discovers the true nature of reality.

Buddhism until the 4th century AD had little impact on China but in the 4th century its teachings hybridized with those of Taoism. Buddhism brought to China the idea of many hells, where sinners went, but the deceased sinners souls could be saved by pious acts. Since Chinese traditional thought focused more on ethics rather than metaphysics, the merging of Buddhist and Taoist concepts developed several schools distinct from the originating Indian schools.

The most prominent examples with philosophical merit are Sanlun, Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan (a.k.a. Zen). They investigate consciousness, levels of truth, whether reality is ultimately empty, and how enlightenment is to be achieved. Buddhism has a spiritual aspect that complements the action of Neo-Confucianism, with prominent Neo-Confucians advocating certain forms of meditation.

Mid to late imperial era philosophy

History

Neo-Confucianism was a revived version of old Confucian principles that appeared around the Song dynasty, with Buddhist, Taoist, and Legalist features. The first philosophers, such as Shao Yong, Zhou Dunyi and Chang Zai, were cosmologists and worked on the I Ching. The Cheng brothers, Cheng Yi and Cheng Hao, are considered the founders of the two main schools of thought of Neo-Confucianism: the School of Principle the first, the School of Mind the latter.

The School of Principle gained supremacy during the Song dynasty with the philosophical system elaborated by Zhu Xi, which became mainstream and officially adopted by the government for the imperial examinations under the Yuan dynasty. The School of Mind was developed by Lu Jiuyuan, Zhu Xi's main rival, but was soon forgotten. Only during the Ming dynasty was the School of Mind revived by Wang Shouren, whose influence is equal to that of Zhu Xi. This school was particularly important in Japan.

During the Qing dynasty many philosophers objected against Neo-Confucianism and there was a return to the Han dynasty Confucianism, and also the reprise of the controversy between Old Text and New Text. In this period also started the penetration of Western culture, but most Chinese thought that the Westerners were maybe more advanced in technology and warfare, but that China had primacy in moral and intellectual fields.

Chinese culture was highly influential on the traditions of other East Asian states, and its philosophy directly influenced Korean philosophy, Vietnamese philosophy and Japanese philosophy. During later Chinese dynasties like the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), as well as in the Korean Joseon dynasty (1392–1897), a resurgent Neo-Confucianism led by thinkers such as Wang Yangming (1472–1529) became the dominant school of thought and was promoted by the imperial state. In Japan, the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1867) was also strongly influenced by Confucian philosophy.

Schools of thought

Neo-Confucianism

Despite Confucianism losing popularity to Taoism and Buddhism, Neo-Confucianism combined those ideas into a more metaphysical framework. Its concepts include li (principle, akin to Plato's forms), qi (vital or material force), taiji (the Great Ultimate), and xin (mind). Song dynasty philosopher Zhou Dunyi (1017–1073) is commonly seen as the first true "pioneer" of Neo-Confucianism, using Daoist metaphysics as a framework for his ethical philosophy.

Neo-Confucianism developed both as a renaissance of traditional Confucian ideas, and as a reaction to the ideas of Buddhism and religious Daoism. Although the Neo-Confucianists denounced Buddhist metaphysics, Neo-Confucianism did borrow Daoist and Buddhist terminology and concepts. Neo-Confucianist philosophers like Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming are seen as the most important figures of Neo-Confucianism.

Zhu Xi was a leading figure in Neo-Confucianism.
Wang Yangming was an important figure in Neo-Confucianism.

Modern era

During the Industrial and Modern Ages, Chinese philosophy had also begun to integrate concepts of Western philosophy, as steps toward modernization. Chinese philosophy never developed the concept of human rights, so that classical Chinese lacked words for them. In 1864, W.A.P. Martin had to invent the word quanli (Chinese: 權利) to translate the Western concept of "rights" in the process of translating Henry Wheaton's Elements of International Law into classical Chinese.

By the time of the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, there were many calls such as the May Fourth Movement to completely abolish the old imperial institutions and practices of China. There have been attempts to incorporate democracy, republicanism, and industrialism into Chinese philosophy, notably by Sun Yat-Sen at the beginning of the 20th century. Mao Zedong added Marxism, Stalinism, Chinese Marxist Philosophy and other communist thought.

When the Chinese Communist Party took over in 1949, previous schools of thought were denounced as backward, and later purged during the Cultural Revolution as part of the campaign against the Four Olds.

During the Xi Jinping general secretaryship, the People's Republic of China has promoted a revival in Chinese philosophy. In 2024, East China Normal University established the Chinese Zhuzi Research Institute to promote the study of Chinese philosophies.

New Confucianism

New Confucianism (Chinese: 新儒家; pinyin: Xīn Rújiā; lit. 'New Confucianism') is an intellectual movement of Confucianism that began in the early 20th century in Republican China, and further developed in post-Mao era contemporary China. It primarily developed during the May Fourth Movement. It is deeply influenced by, but not identical to, the neo-Confucianism of the Song and Ming dynasties.

Philosophers

Confucius, seen as the Great Master but sometimes ridiculed by Taoists.
- Mencius, Confucius' follower having idealist inspiration
- Xun Zi, another Confucius' follower, closer to realism, teacher of Han Fei and Li Si
- Zhu Xi, founder of Neo-Confucianism
- Wang Yangming, most influential proponent of "state of mind." (Xinxue [zh])
Laozi, the semi-mythical founder of Taoist school.
- Zhuang Zhou, said to be the author of the Zhuangzi.
- Lie Yukou, said to be the author of the Liezi.
Yang Zhu, proposed ethical egoism and founded Yangism.
Mozi, the founder of Mohist school.
Shang Yang, Legalist founder and pivotal Qin reformer
Han Fei, one of the most notable theoreticians of Legalism
Li Si, major proponent and practitioner of Legalism

Chinese philosophy as a philosophy

The debate over whether the thought of ancient Chinese masters should be called philosophy has been discussed since the introduction of this academic discipline into China.^[46] See Legitimacy of Chinese philosophy for details.

Concepts

Although the individual philosophical schools differ considerably, they nevertheless share a common vocabulary and set of concerns.

Among the terms commonly found in Chinese philosophy are:

道 Dao (the Way, or one's doctrine)
德 De (virtue, power)
理 Li (principle, Law)
氣 Qi (vital energy or material force)
太極The Tai-chi (Great Heavenly Axis) forms a unity of the two complementary polarities, Yin and Yang. The word Yin originally referred to a hillside facing away from the sun. Philosophically, it stands the dark, passive, feminine principle; whereas Yang (the hillside facing the sun) stands for the bright, active, masculine principle. Yin and Yang are not antagonistic, they alternate in inverse proportion to one another—like the rise and fall of a wave and are known by their comparison.

Among the commonalities of Chinese philosophies are:

The tendency not to view man as separate from nature.
Questions about the nature and existence of a monotheistic deity, which have profoundly influenced Western philosophy, have not been important in Chinese philosophies or a source of great conflict in Chinese traditional religion.
The belief that the purpose of philosophy is primarily to serve as an ethical and practical guide.
The political focus: most scholars of the Hundred Schools were trying to convince the ruler to behave in the way they defended.

Search This Blog

Sunday, October 12, 2025

Linguistics wars

Background

Dispute

Generative semantics approach

Generative semantics and logical form

Lexical decomposition

Interpretivist critique of generative semantics

Lexicalism and deverbal nouns

Lexical decomposition

Cases for formalism in underlying structures

Coreference

Transformations and meaning

Global rules of generative semantics

Challenges in the paradigm

Aftermath

Books

Astrology and science

Introduction

Historical relationship with astronomy

Philosophy of science

Falsifiability

"No puzzles to solve"

Progress, practice and consistency

Irrationality

Quinean dichotomy

Tests of astrology

Mars effect

Carlson's experiment

Dean and Kelly

Other tests

Theoretic obstacles

Lack of consistency

Lack of physical basis

Lack of predictive power

Lack of mechanism

Psychology

Sociology

Saturday, October 11, 2025

Chinese philosophy

Overview

Early beliefs

Ancient philosophy

Spring and Autumn period

Confucianism

Taoism

Warring States period

Legalism

Naturalists

Mohism

Logicians

Agriculturalists

Early imperial era philosophy

History

Qin and Han dynasties

Six Dynasties

Schools of thought

Xuanxue

Buddhism

Mid to late imperial era philosophy

History

Schools of thought

Neo-Confucianism

Modern era

New Confucianism

Philosophers

Chinese philosophy as a philosophy

Concepts

Eastern philosophy