?258 of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is often seen as the core of his private language argument. While its role is certainly overinflated and it is a mistake to think that there is anything that could be called the private language argument, ?258 is an important part of the private language sections of the Philosophical Investigations. As with so much of Wittgenstein's work, there are widely diverse interpretations of why exactly the private diarist's attempted ostensive definition fails. I argue for a (...) version of the no-stage-setting interpretation of the failure of private ostension. On this interpretation, the reason why the diarist cannot establish a meaning for ?S? is that she lacks the conceptual-linguistic stage-setting needed to disambiguate the concentration of her attention (the private analogue of an ostensive definition). Thus, the problem with any subsequent use of ?S? is not that there is no criterion of correctness for remembering the meaning of ?S? correctly, or for re-identifying S correctly in the future. Rather, it is because of the initial failure to define ?S? that there is nothing that could count as a criterion of correctness for the future use of ?S?; there is nothing to remember or re-identify. My argument for the no-stage-setting interpretation consists in showing how well it fits into the rest of the Philosophical Investigations and in defending it against objections from Robert J. Fogelin, Anthony Kenny, and most recently John V. Canfield. Kenny's and Canfield's objections are found to suffer from problems regarding memory scepticism. (shrink)

This chapter deals with one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, ad hominem: circumstantial. The circumstantial variety of the ad hominem argument is distinct from the direct form in that instead of directly attacking the character of the arguer, one draws attention to an inconsistency in the personal circumstances of the proponent (his/her commitments) and the content of his/her argument/position as a way to question his/her sincerity or credibility. As with all the ad hominem argument forms, the ad hominem: (...) circumstantial has both fallacious and legitimate uses. Fallacious uses of the ad hominem argument type are pernicious, in part, because of how difficult it can be to respond to them in an effective way. One of the main issues with ad hominem arguments is telling which are fallacious and which are not. (shrink)

This book addresses the question of how to properly handle Dōgen’s texts, a core issue that became critical during the Meiji period in which the philosophical appropriation of Dōgen became apparent inside and outside of the monastery. In present day Dōgen studies, most scholarship is informed by a number of factions representing Dōgen. The chapters herein address: the Zennist (j. zenjōka) emphasising practice, the Genzōnians (j. genzōka) shifting the attention to the close reading of Dōgen’s texts, the laity movement opening (...) up both the texts and the practice to people in modern society, and the Genzō researchers (j. genzō kenkyūka) searching for the authenticity and truth of Dōgen’s writings. The book aims to clarify the rightful place of Dōgen: in the monastery, in denominational studies, or in modern academic philosophy? It brings forth various viewpoints on Dōgen, and analyzes the relations of these viewpoints from the premodern to modern times. The collected volume appeals to students and researchers in the field while establishing hermeneutic standards of reading and proposing new, original, and critical interpretations of Dōgen’s texts. Chapter From Uji to Being-time (and Back): Translating Dōgen into Philosophy is available open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License via link.springer. com. (shrink)

This chapter deals with one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy: ad hominem: tu quoque. An ad hominem: tu quoque argument is often seen in political debate. As Walton stresses: “The primary case of the tu quoque type of ad hominem retort occurs when an ad hominem reply is used to respond to an ad hominem attack”. As with all the ad hominem argument forms, the ad hominem: tu quoque has both fallacious and legitimate uses. Fallacious uses of the (...) ad hominem argument type are pernicious, in part, because of how difficult it can be to respond to them in an effective way. One of the main issues with ad hominem arguments is telling which are fallacious and which are not. The chapter looks at some examples to illustrate the use of proponent's ad hominem, and respondent's ad hominem. (shrink)

This chapter deals with fallacies that appeal to pity. Sometimes evoking pity can be a legitimate part of arguing, particularly if emotion is part of what is at issue. However, often appeals to pity in Western philosophy are irrelevant to the point at issue and are fallacious attempts to convince an audience to accept one's argument/position. Thus, a central problem in regard to appeal to pity arguments is figuring out when such appeals are legitimate and when they're fallacious. The two (...) basic issues relevant to considering whether an appeal to pity is fallacious are: what exactly is the conclusion, and what is the understood point of the dialogue. The chapter looks at some examples to illustrate the meaning and use of these questions. (shrink)

Emotions have long been seen as suspect because of their power to overwhelm us. Fear of negative consequences is a great motivator. An argument that appeals to force or fear attempts to make the audience feel fear at the threat or possibility of harm in order to get them to accept a conclusion. This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy: appeal to force or fear. Sometimes evoking fear in, or threatening, another can be a legitimate (...) part of arguing, particularly if emotion is part of what is at issue. However, often appeals to fear or force are irrelevant to the point at issue and are fallacious attempts to convince an audience to accept one's argument/position. Thus, a central problem in regard to appeals to force or fear arguments is figuring out when such appeals are legitimate and when they are fallacious. The chapter addresses this by employing several critical questions. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Part I : Shorter Version (Leaves Key Premises Unsupported) Part II : Detailed Version Complete Failure of Translation Partial Failure of Translation The Unintelligibility of the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme.

Beginning with the assumption that the normative conception of Zen that Dōgen expounded and practiced constitutes at its heart a religio-philosophical practice, I focus on Dōgen’s zazen-only as its primary locus. Specifying the nature of zazen-only on and off the cushion, I seek to foreground the ways in which the transformation of apparent dualities into non-dual dualities is key to understanding Dōgen’s Zen as a religio-philosophical practice. Since this activity implicates more than experience, e.g., valuations, desires, goals, actions, reactions, etc., (...) i.e., the entire psycho-physical existence of the practitioner, it is itself philosophical in the demands it makes on practitioners in the “nitty gritty” of life. Further, the activity of transforming apparent dualities into non-dual dualities relies on two other important concepts that Dōgen utilizes, those of “weighing emptiness” and non-thinking. I, thus, focus on expounding the manner in which grappling with non-dual duality, weighing emptiness, and non-thinking should be seen as loci of Dōgen’s religio-philosophical activities. Lastly, I note that the extent to which someone can engage the philosophical dimensions will depend on the person, their motivations, and that of their teachers. Yet, the more deeply one can penetrate the various issues, ideas, and concepts at stake, the deeper one’s practice-realization.Yet, following Hee-Jin Kim’s treatment of it, weighing emptiness is vital to the dynamicity of practice-realization in the world. This is because weighing emptiness is a way to describe the transformation and engagement with a non-dual duality in the world. While not denying the idea of “equality in emptiness,” it insists that differences must be taken into consideration in realizing the fairness, reasonableness, and justness of the practitioner acting in the world. (shrink)