Bibliographic record
Abstract
World philosophy involves bringing together two or more of the world’s three main endogenous philosophical traditions (the Indian, Chinese, and Western) in order to make philosophical progress. My own take on this possibility involves combating Western skepticism about Chinese thought and demonstrating that ideas from China can serve as a course correction for largely mistaken Western views about the mind in particular. The West sees cognition and emotion as separable, but Chinese thought subscribes to the idea of a heart-mind where these elements are vitally interconnected. And we nowadays are in a position to support the Chinese view against the Western. All thinking and reasoning involves belief, but given that confidence that p is strong belief that p, belief and confidence lie on a single scale of increasingly positive epistemic feeling. If confidence involves feeling, so do belief and mental activity in general. Further, yin and yang understood in modern generalized terms as receptivity and directed purpose respectively can be used to understand all the cases where cognition and emotion come together. In compassion receptive yin empathy coincides with purposeful yang motivation to help. Yin and yang are (necessarily) complementary in this and a host of other cases involving the mind or, better, heart-mind. So Chinese categories can take us philosophically further with the idea that cognition and emotion cannot be separated. This is an instance of world philosophy, but the West isn’t interested in such a thing, and the domination of Marxism in China would make it difficult for it to establish roots there. But Indian philosophy has a tradition of philosophical interest in more than one world tradition, and Indian philosophers have now set about establishing an International Society for World Philosophy at the University of Toronto.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".