Coming to know anything as philosophy

Abstract I make explicit how Michael Beaney’s The Joy of Chinese Philosophy is a reflexive book: its subject matter, the happy fish dialogue, and the overarching goal in discussing that subject are the same. Both the dialogue and the book, I argue, present a performative argument in favor of roaming beyond the confines of one’s own given perspective. In both cases the strength of the performative argument depends on the credibility of a crucial analogy. I point out that the analogy used by Beaney in the book hinges on certain familiar characteristics of analytic philosophy being retrofitted onto the happy fish dialogue, and I question whether this analogy can be maintained in the face of contextualist interpretations of the Zhuangzi. I use this case to present an overall methodological puzzle about comparative philosophy: what is the point at which the fusion of intellectual horizons becomes senseless to create? I argue that this is a question, not only for Beaney, but equally a question that arises from within the happy fish dialogue itself.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Published
2026-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-026-00458-0
Primary Topic
Chinese history and philosophy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Coming to know anything as philosophy

Fons Dewulf
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Chinese history and philosophy
article

Coming to know anything as philosophy

Fons Dewulf
article en

Abstract

Abstract I make explicit how Michael Beaney’s The Joy of Chinese Philosophy is a reflexive book: its subject matter, the happy fish dialogue, and the overarching goal in discussing that subject are the same. Both the dialogue and the book, I argue, present a performative argument in favor of roaming beyond the confines of one’s own given perspective. In both cases the strength of the performative argument depends on the credibility of a crucial analogy. I point out that the analogy used by Beaney in the book hinges on certain familiar characteristics of analytic philosophy being retrofitted onto the happy fish dialogue, and I question whether this analogy can be maintained in the face of contextualist interpretations of the Zhuangzi. I use this case to present an overall methodological puzzle about comparative philosophy: what is the point at which the fusion of intellectual horizons becomes senseless to create? I argue that this is a question, not only for Beaney, but equally a question that arises from within the happy fish dialogue itself.

Asian Journal of PhilosophyVol. 5(2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Chinese history and philosophy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.