This article argues against the strong “holist ” position that the early Chinese lacked any concept of mind–body dualism, and more broadly against a “neo-Orientalist ” trend that portrays Chinese thought as radi-cally different from Western thought. In the first half, it makes the case against strong mind–body holism by drawing upon traditional archeo-logical and textual evidence. In the second, it turns to resources from the sciences, arguing that large-scale quantitative–qualitative analyses of early Chinese texts suggest that they embrace a quite vigorous form of mind–body dualism, and further that a huge body of evidence coming out of the cognitive sciences suggests that this is not at all sur-prising. In this section, the role that deep humanistic knowledge can, and should, play in scientific approaches to culture is also explored. The article concludes by suggesting that a mutually informed, human-ities–scientific approach to religious studies is the best way for our field to move forward.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edward Slingerland (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: