Assignment Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/A-Review-Of-Transcendence-And-Non-Natur 👈

1. N eDa ePhil hicalRe ie
T a ce de ce a d N -Na ali i Ea l Chi e e Th gh
J a R. B a d A e McLe d, T an cendence and N n-
Na ali m in Ea l Chine e Th gh , B b , 2021,
245 ., $115.00 ( b ), ISBN 9781350082533.
Re ie ed b Bin Song, Washington College
2021.03.01
To paraphrase Kant's ords on enlightenment, I propo nd that on the
topic of transcendence and non-nat ralism in Chinese and comparati e
philosoph , altho gh e do not ha e a reckoned book et, e finall ha e
a book of reckoning.
Josh a R. Bro n and Ale s McLeod discern t o major reasons h
scholars ass me there is no rob st idea of transcendence, and hence, take
nat ralism as an ine itable lens for interpreting earl Chinese tho ght:
Firstl , some of these scholars o ld like to find in earl Chinese tho ght
something that is different from the West, mainl from Christianit .
Secondl , some of them o ld like to find in earl Chinese tho ght something that looks the same as the West, i .,
the same as the scientific and anal tic mindset pre alent in Western academia since earl modern E rope.
Regardless, one common ass mption has been taken b these apparentl contrasting approaches: All these scholars
take hat is p rported to be the West as a fi ed and pre-established standard, and then read earl Chinese tho ght

2. against it. While doing so, the ha e o erlooked other hermene tical possibilities, firstl , that earl Chinese tho ght
ma impl more than hat comparisons ia a set standard can tell. Secondl , the pre-established standard ma itself
not be adeq ate to the rich di ersit and potentialit of Western tho ght. Therefore, hat Bro n and McLeod tr to
accomplish in this book is to pro e there are a n mber of te ts of earl Chinese tho ght (s ch as the Ch nqi fanl
(CQFL), X n i, Lao i, Zh ang i, Mo i, etc.) hich can be interpreted fr itf ll b means of a con ersation ith
Western thinkers rich on transcendence and non-nat ralism, s ch as Plotin s, Thomas Aq inas, Pse do-Dion si s,
etc. As a conseq ence, Bro n and McLeod also rge the field of Chinese and comparati e philosoph to pass the
domination of hether or not q estions concerning transcendence, and instead to ask more interesting q estions
s ch as hat these concepts ere like in earl China, hat roles the pla ed in both partic lar s stems and broader
s aths of the intellect al tradition, and in hat a s earl Chinese nderstandings of these concepts compare ith
those of other traditions. (193)
I celebrate that, beca se of their sophisticated anal ses of so man earl Chinese te ts, Bro n and McLeod ha e
accomplished their goal. One good e ample of this is ho the arg e the transcendence of the Dao in perhaps still the
most ell-kno n ancient Chinese cosmolog to the West, i ., Lao i's Dao De Jing. The te t is freq entl taken b
scholars s ch as Roger Ames and Francois J llien as the e idence par e cellence that classical Chinese tho ght lacks
the Western idea of hierarchical transcendence, since the Dao is interpreted b these scholars as a hidden force hich
nfolds ithin a single plane of being. In comparison, the Western conception of transcendence normall implies a
s preme being on a s perior plane of being hich contrasts ith the inferior ones. Ho e er, Bro n and McLeod
arg e: Concepts of transcendence are meant to capt re the idea that there are different orders of e istence, some of
hich are o tside of or in important a s not s bject to the states and conditions of the orders of e istence and the
rest of the sensible orld are s bject to. (185) The also belie e that there are good reasons for interpreting Lao i's
Dao as indicating s ch a different order of e istence. For instance, Dao is described b the initial chapter of Dao De
Jing as constant (‫)׶‬, and therefore, altho gh the Dao is s rel a principle immanent to the process of gro th and
deca of orldl phenomena, e need to admit that the process of gro th and deca is not itself s bject to the
process of gro th and deca . (151) B the same token, the change of orld phenomena is concept ali ed b the Dao
De Jing as being ca sed b the interaction bet een the in and ang aspects of the Dao. Ho e er, in and ang are
ho Dao maintains the generation of the phenomenal orld, b t the process does not ork in re erse. (152) In
[1]

3. other ords, as ca sing the in- ang change of the phenomenal orld, the Dao itself cannot be changed b in and
ang in the same a things in the orld are changed. All these anal ses b Bro n and McLeod demonstrate that
Lao i's Dao indicates significant traits of transcendence, e en if these traits ma not belong to the hierarchical,
contrasti e t pe of transcendence against hich Ames and J llien read Lao i.
Altho gh the goal of the book has been accomplished, not all of the concrete interpretations of selected earl Chinese
te ts are con incing. This is mainl beca se the fi e ke concepts of the frame ork emplo ed b Bro n and McLeod
for the interpretations -- nat ralism, non-nat ralism, contrasti e transcendence, non-contrasti e transcendence, and
non-transcendence -- are either not clearl defined, or hile being clearl defined, not consistentl applied in the
co rse of interpretation. For instance, after in estigating the ambig o s connotations of nat ralism in
contemporar philosophical scholarship, Bro n and McLeod concl de b treating nat ralism more as an affiliation
claim than as a marker of a s bstanti e philosophical position, and hence define nat ralism as a commitment to
standing ith the sciences, to adopting ie s and constr cting s stems that are respectable from the point of ie of
the ph sical sciences and their practitioners, or at least do not directl oppose them. (22) In tandem ith this
treatment of nat ralism, the also define contrasti e transcendence ia a q ote of Kathr n Tanner's theological
ork: In contrasti e theories of transcendence, di init and the rest of the orld taken as hole are ie ed as
logical contraries ithin a single spectr m: this forces an a priori separation of the t o. (35) A non-contrasti e
transcendence of the di init o ld nderlie the entire spectr m of all beings in the orld, and th s o ld impl
that di ine in ol ement ith the orld need be neither partial, nor mediate, nor simpl formati e: if di init is not
characteri ed b contrast ith an sort of being, it ma be the immediate so rce of being of e er sort. (36) In other
ords, a contrasti e transcendence characteri es ltimate realit as a s preme being hich stands alongside orldl
beings and imposes an imperial order of e istence pon the de fac o e istence of those beings. Ho e er, a non-
contrasti e transcendence e plains the origin of the being of the orld. While being itself is ltimatel nkno able
and ineffable, s ch a gro nd of being does not dictate hat the orld is apart from the e isting empirical order of the
orld. Instead, the empirical order of the orld o ld be the onl means b hich h mans can kno s ch an
ltimate gro nd.

4. Among all the three mentioned concepts, nat ralism has not been clearl defined, altho gh Bro n and McLeod ma
ha e good reasons not to do so. Ho e er, according to the presented concept al frame ork, e en ision there co ld
be a serio s philosophical endea or to constr ct a orld ie hich is both transcendent in a non-contrasti e mode
and nat ralistic in the sense that hat the orld ie presents is compatible ith modern ph sical sciences. This also
means that hen e discern rob st themes of transcendence in earl Chinese te ts, e cannot infer ip o fac o that
the are non-nat ralistic. Ho e er, the core commitment of a philosoph cannot be both contrasti el transcendent
and nat ralistic at the same time. Unfort natel , I find that Bro n and McLeod freq entl combine these logicall
inconsistent concepts to interpret selected earl Chinese te ts. For instance, hile anal ing CQFL, the concl de:
in the cosmolog of the CQFL, ian is nderstood in terms go erned b contrasti e transcendence b t the te t
concomitantl embraces hat are apparentl both nat ralistic and transcendental aspects of ian. (81) If Bro n and
McLeod ere correct, the tho ght of CQFL o ld be incoherent since it is interpreted b them as ad ocating both the
contrasti e transcendence of ian, hich impinges on the de fac o order of the empirical orld, and the nat ralism of
ian. The concl sion is s rel orth debating. Similarl , hile anal ing the X n i, Bro n and McLeod sa ,
e think it is fair and acc rate to interpret the Tianl n as defending some aspects of ian's transcendence . . .
Conseq entl , far from seeing X n i as a poor nat ralist, e think it is better to interpret him as a er niq e
and interesting non-nat ralist, hose conception of ian sho ld be placed in con ersation ith other non-
nat ralist conceptions of the orld and the di ine. (113)
Readers o ld onder h X n i cannot be sim ltaneo sl transcendent and nat ralistic, since this is a reasonable
combination according to the adopted frame ork.
While remaining s mpathetic ith their o erall goal of the book, in the remaining part of this re ie I ill tr to
perfect Bro n and McLeod's concept al frame ork so as to pa e a a for f t re scholars to more consistentl and
contin all f rnish no el and legitimate readings of the addressed earl Chinese te ts. The aforementioned fi e
concepts can be refined as follo s, and s ch a refinement o ld s rel s cc mb to f rther critiq e.
I agree ith Bro n and McLeod that nat ralism is a name of affiliation hich speaks to one's commitment to the
concept of nat re fashioned b modern ph sical sciences. Ho e er, as indicated b historians and philosophers of
science s ch as Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and Geoffre Llo d, this name of affiliation also designates a marker of a

5. s bstanti e philosophical position on nat re, hich is predicated on the follo ing t o claims: Firstl , there is a set
of orders hich operates pon the totalit of e isting realities in the ni erse, and these orders can be disco ered in
the form of la s of nat re ia a bottom- p method of empirical obser ation and h man reasoning. Whether these
orders come from a deeper realm of being remains ndefined b this concept of nat re. Secondl , the set of orders is
stable in the sense that these orders remain ninfl enced b npredictable metaph sical entities, s ch as so ls,
spirits and other magical forces hich ma also e ist among the realities of the obser ed orld, and hence the
disco ered la s of nat re are testable, falsifiable, and impro able so that the kno ledge of nat re can progress on the
basis of acc m lati e h man endea ors ithin scientific comm nities. Still, hether these npredictable
metaph sical entities e ist and hether the come from another realm of being remain nans ered b this concept
of nat re. In a ord, nat ralism o ld refer to a orld ie hich either affirms or remains compatible ith the t o
conditional claims: the order of the e isting orld can be disco ered empiricall ia h man reason, and the order is
recogni ed as being stable in a certain degree so that deri ed la s of nat re remain debatable. According to this re-
definition of nat ralism, the so-called nat ralistic transition detected b Bro n and McLeod in earl Han te ts
cannot be assessed as strictl nat ralistic, since as admitted b Bro n and McLeod (84 and 92), the correlati e
cosmolog of earl Han te ts enchants the orld. S ch an enchantment makes the orld so f ll of omens, signs, and
m sterio s resonances among apparentl nrelated things that, as pointed o t b Joseph Needham, the theories
that are sed b earl Han thinkers to e plain the orldl phenomena, s ch as the one of in- ang ital energ and
fi e phases, cannot be seen as la s of nat re in the strict sense of modern ph sical sciences.
Non-nat ralism o ld be a ie of nat re that denies the alidit of either of the t o conditional claims hich
nat ralism as defined makes. This e plains f rther h an enchanted orld ie of earl Han cannot be seen as f ll
nat ralistic, since it complies ith part of the first condition of nat ralism, b t is not compatible ith the second.
A ie of non-transcendence o ld affirm that the totalit of e isting realities in the ni erse has no origin other
than themsel es. I also agree ith Bro n and Ale s's conceptions of contrasti e and non-contrasti e transcendence,
and o ld f rthermore indicate that this distinction is essentiall the same as the one b hich Pa l Tillich
disting ishes God as a s preme being from the gro nd of being. Conseq entl , a ie of transcendence o ld
[2]

6. a er that the totalit of e isting realities in the ni erse cannot e plain the origin of themsel es, and th s need
another realm of being for s ch an e planation, regardless of hether this original realm of being is contrasti e or
not.
According to this refined concept al frame ork, e can en ision m ltiple possibilities of combination and be better
positioned to interpret ar ing philosophies. For instance, both nat ralism and non-nat ralism can be non-
transcendent. A non-transcendent nat ralism o ld impl the self-s fficienc of the scientificall percei ed orld to
e plain itself, hereas a non-transcendent non-nat ralism o ld present an enchanted orld not s per ised b a
s preme deit , s ch as the one hich ma be en isioned b astrolog , alchem or other so-called pse do-sciences.
F rthermore, a nat ralism co ld be non-contrasti el transcendent. This o ld be the case hen hat a thing is gets
e plained b the de fac o relationship among things, hereas here a thing comes from gets e plained b another
realm of being hich does not impinge pon the empirical order of the e isting orld. Ho e er, nat ralism cannot
be contrasti el transcendent nless the order implied b the di ine realm of being remains compatible ith the
empirical order of the e isting orld. We cannot find an eas e ample of s ch a compatibilit partic larl in the
Abrahamic religions, since the idea of a s preme God normall implies a di ine plan hich is concei ed b God e en
prior to the e istence of the orld. Moreo er, a non-nat ralism co ld be either non-contrasti el transcendent, hen
an enchanted orld is said to deri e from an ltimatel ineffable God, or contrasti el transcendent, hen the
enchanted orld is tho ght of as being gro nded ithin s ch a di ine origin.
If e emplo this refined concept al frame ork to interpret earl Chinese tho ght, e'll garner ne insights. For
instance, CQFL o ld present a non-nat ralistic ie of the enchanted orld ith a contrasti el transcendent Tian,
hich go erns the orld pro identiall . Lao i's Dao De Jing presents a nat ralistic Daoist ie of nat re ith a non-
contrasti e transcendence, b t s ch a ie does not prioriti e the role of h man beings in reali ing the cosmic Dao in
the h man orld. Ho e er, the Xici (the Appended Te of the Cla ic of Change) presents a nat ralistic R ist
(Conf cian) ie of nat re ith a non-contrasti e transcendence, hich does prioriti e the role of h manit in
reali ing the h mane manifestation of the cosmic Dao. Moreo er, the X n i presents a mainl nat ralistic R ist ie
of nat re ith a mainl non-transcendent ie of Tian, beca se altho gh Tian is still treated as being the
e ol tionar origin of e isting things in the ni erse, h mans are enco raged b X n i to tili e Tian to ser e the

7. flo rishing of h man societ and, hence, to strip Tian of its di ine depth. The ie of Mo i o ld be both non-
nat ralistic and contrasti el transcendent, since the te t ad ocates both the e istence of ghosts and the s preme
stat s of Tian as a pro idential deit .
I o ld not claim that the refined frame ork is he right a to interpret earl Chinese tho ght. Ho e er,
conc rring ith Bro n and McLeod's rge to ask more interesting q estions of Chinese and comparati e philosoph
concerning transcendence, I do think e need more refined comparati e categories to treat both Western and non-
Western tho ght ith more respect, n ances, and no elties.
REFERENCES
Song, Bin (2020). A re ie of Apopha ic Pa h from E rope o China: Region i ho Border , b William Franke
(State Uni ersit of Ne York Press, 2018). Jo rnal of he American Academ of Religion, Vol me 88, Iss e 1
(2020): 278-281.
Needham, Joseph (1956). Science and Ci ili a ion in China, Vol. II (Cambridge Uni ersit Press).
For details of Ames's and J llien's interpretations of the Daoist metaph sics in the Dao De Jing, please refer to
Song 2020.
Needham 1956: 290.
[1]
[2]

8. N e Da e Phil hical Re ie
Depar men of Philosoph
100 Mallo Hall
No re Dame, IN 46556 USA
ndpr@nd.ed
2021 Uni ersi of No re Dame