Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Do Filial Values Corrupt? How Can We Know? Clarifying and Assessing the Recent Confucian Debate.Hagop Sarkissian - 2020 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 19 (2):193-207.
    In a number of papers, Liu Qingping has critiqued Confucianism’s commitment to “consanguineous affection” or filial values, claiming it to be excessive and indefensible. Many have taken issue with his textual readings and interpretive claims, but these responses do little to undermine the force of his central claim that filial values cause widespread corruption in Chinese society. This is not an interpretive claim but an empirical one. If true, it merits serious consideration. But is it true? How can we know? (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • One korean's approach to buddhism: The mom/momjit paradigm (review).Jin Y. Park - 2011 - Philosophy East and West 61 (3):576-578.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • May we harm fellow humans for the sake of kinship love?: A response to critics.Qingping Liu - 2008 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 7 (3):307-316.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Confucian Puzzle.Yong Li - 2012 - Asian Philosophy 22 (1):37-50.
    The Confucian tradition is famous for its family value. This tradition emphasizes that, after one's moral sentiments are cultivated in the family, one is capable of caring for people outside the family. However, since the early 2000s, there has been a debate in the Chinese Philosophy community about how to understand the ?the father-covering-son? story in the Analects. The story tells that a father covers for his son's stealing a sheep. This is a puzzle because while Confucius's virtue theory implies (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • More than “for the sake of defense”.Qiyong Guo - 2008 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 7 (3):317-324.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark