About me

Q: Do you have any credentials?

I have a PhD in philosophy (ironically, "PhD" stands for "doctor of philosophy," so you could say that I'm a doctor of philosophy ... of philosophy). I currently teach philosophy at a state university.

Q: What formal training do you have in eastern philosophy?

Very little. I took a class on classic Chinese philosophy (Kongzi, Laozi, Mozi, etc.) as an undergraduate. During my PhD program, my area of concentration was medieval European philosophy rather than any Asian philosophy. I became increasingly interested in eastern philosophy as a result of teaching Eastern Philosophy at my university.

Q: What do you mean by "eastern philosophy"?

The philosophies that originated in South, Southeast, and/or East Asia. This site focuses on philosophies with ancient roots: Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Confucianism, etc.

Q: Do you belong to any Asian religion?

I am not a practicing member of any Asian religion, although I have made ānāpānasati meditation (quietly focusing on one's breath—a core practice in many Buddhist traditions) part of my daily routine, with positive results for my mood and focus. As far as this site is concerned, I take no position regarding the truth or falsity of the supernatural claims made within any Asian philosophy or religion.

Q: Why are you engaging with these texts?

I find Asian philosophy, especially Asian metaphysics (in the academic philosophical sense of "metaphysics," not the popular, spiritual sense), fascinating. I'm especially fascinated by certain facets of Buddhist metaphysics—for example, the close resemblance between the metaphysics of Theravadin abhidhamma and issues in analytic philosophy regarding the composition and constitution of material objects.

Q: Are your interpretations of philosophical texts based on traditional commentaries?

For the most part, no. I'm trying to see what sense I can make of the "raw" texts with the tools of analytic philosophy. I do, however, bring to my reading of Buddhist texts a basic knowledge of Buddhism, especially the basic terminology and concepts of Theravada Buddhism.

Q: Are you trying to figure out what these texts' original authors meant?

No. For one thing, I have neither the knowledge nor the credentials for such an undertaking. For another thing, such an undertaking is often less valuable than one might think. In many cases, a text has been copied and recopied, edited, revised, combined with other texts, etc. Which of the many hands that went into shaping the text count as "the original author"? Moreover, even if we could determine what "the original author" meant, who's to say that this meaning is the most important or interesting feature of the text? A devout Hindu or Buddhist might regard an Asian philosophical text as the product of a divinely inspired author or as a first-hand account of a sermon by the Buddha, so it might make sense for them to try to decipher the original author's meaning. I'm not a Hindu or Buddhist, so I have no stake in such matters. I simply find these texts fascinating and stimulating, and I want to see what ideas I can extract from them.

Q: If you aren't a devotee or follower of any Asian religion or school of Asian philosophy, then what gives you the right to interpret these texts? Who do you think you are?

Well, I'm me. I don't have much of a choice. I'm someone who enjoys reading and interpreting difficult philosophical texts without slogging through huge quantities of historical, textual, and philological data. No one has complained about it so far. If I continue to enjoy posting here and some people find my reflections helpful or interesting, then this site will have served its purpose.