[ **up: [[Philosophy]]** ] --- # Chinese philosophy [[Chinese philosophy is less dualistic; encompasses at least three divergent traditions; has developed over 3,000 years; has a much more fluid understanding of masculinity and femininity; and has a a less dichotomized sense of the self and the other.]][^1] [[2024-0802. Although Chinese philosophy developed in connection with ethical ideas and meta-physical concepts, there was a close relationship between moral and metaphysical thought on the one hand, and logical reasoning on the other.]][^2] --- ## Chinese philosophy and science [[2024-0607. The Chinese saw no reason to doubt that the fundamental physical realities are what we see and touch.|The Chinese saw no reason to doubt that the fundamental physical realities are what we see and touch.]][^3] [[2024-0607. Chinese philosophy has devoted itself to the cultivation of the mind, at the expense of a need for science.|Chinese philosophy has devoted itself to the cultivation of the mind, at the expense of a need for science.]][^4] [[2024-0607. Feng Youlan wrote 'China has no science, because according to her own standard of value she does not need any'.|Feng Youlan wrote 'China has no science, because according to her own standard of value she does not need any'.]][^5] [[2024-0607. There was science in Ancient China, however it was broken into specialisations rather than 'science' as a greater whole.|There was science in Ancient China, however it was broken into specialisations rather than 'science' as a greater whole.]][^6] [[2024-0607. There was no word for 'nature as a whole' in early Chinese philosophic and scientific language.|There was no word for 'nature as a whole' in early Chinese philosophic and scientific language.]][^7] --- - *See also:* - [[Confucianism]] - [[Dragons--Chinese#Dragons and Chinese philosophy|Dragons and Chinese philosophy]] [^1]: Ann A. Pang-White, ‘Rereading the Canon’, in *[[Pang-White, ed. 'The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy and Gender', 2016.|The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy and Gender]]*, ed. Ann A. Pang-White (Bloomsbury, 2016), p. 1. [^2]: Jana S. Rošker, ‘[[Rošker. ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015.|Classical Chinese Logic]]’, *Philosophy Compass* 5, Issue 10 (April 2015), p. 301. [^3]: Nathan Sivin and G. E. R. Lloyd, ‘[[Sivin & Lloyd. ‘Why Wasn’t Chinese Science about Nature_ With A Discussion of Nature in Ancient Greece and Comparisons’, 2023.|Why Wasn't Chinese Science about Nature? With a Discussion of Concepts of Nature in Ancient Greece and Comparisions]]’, *The Way and the Word*, updated 7 September 2003, https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/wayword.html. [^4]: ‘[['Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy', 2020.|Science and Chinese Philosophy]]’, *Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, updated 7 October 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-phil-science/. [^5]: ‘[['Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy', 2020.|Science and Chinese Philosophy]]’, *Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, updated 7 October 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-phil-science/. [^6]: ‘[['Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy', 2020.|Science and Chinese Philosophy]]’, *Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, updated 7 October 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-phil-science/. [^7]: Nathan Sivin and G. E. R. Lloyd, ‘[[Sivin & Lloyd. ‘Why Wasn’t Chinese Science about Nature_ With A Discussion of Nature in Ancient Greece and Comparisons’, 2023.|Why Wasn't Chinese Science about Nature? With a Discussion of Concepts of Nature in Ancient Greece and Comparisons]]’, *The Way and the Word*, updated 7 September 2003, https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/wayword.html.