1

The Task of Philosophy

1. Introduction

My motivation for this thesis lies in the fact that any serious philosophical inquiry cannot be

justified without first ascertaining the parameters and content of “the task of philosophy”. In

other words, determining what role philosophy should play and how it should be played, are two

fundamental issues that directly influence our philosophizing processes and the writing of any

philosophical thesis.

So what does the phrase “the task of philosophy” actually entail? First, understanding philosophy

as a task implies that philosophy is a means to greater goals and not an end in itself. In other

words, we do not do philosophy merely for philosophy’s sake, but use philosophy instead as a

method to achieve certain goals; namely answering the “Big Questions” and resolving practical

problems. 1 Secondly, understanding philosophy as a task probes us to question how this

particular task can be best administered. When one is handed a task, he is expected to perform it

to the best of his ability, but “ability” here can be interpreted in two senses: 1) having a deep

insight into various philosophical issues, 2) explicating one’s findings through the use of

appropriate philosophical language; the former requires one to make astute observations about

1 Philosophy has always been devoted to answering the “Big Questions”, such as “What is the meaning of life?”;

“What is the nature of reality?”; “What is the Good?” etc. Formulating tenable solutions to such “Big Questions” is

comparable to making certain truth claims, but philosophy should not be restricted merely to fulfilling one’s

insatiable thirst for wisdom and knowledge; it should also guide one in resolving practical dilemmas and real

problems. Douglas Soccio offers an apt description of the role of “wisdom” in relation to the task of philosophy, “At

its core, wisdom is reasonable and practical, focusing on the true circumstances and character of each indiv idual.” If

we take wisdom to be the goal of philosophy, and that wisdom appeals to both rationality and practicality, our

understanding of philosophy as a task should ultimately strive towards an integration of these two aspects. Douglas

Soccio, Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy , 7th

edition, Belmont: Wadsworth, 2010, pp. 12.

2

the material world at large, whilst the latter expects him to express his ideas and findings with

clear and convincing arguments. Both of these abilities are essential for the task of philosophy to

be undertaken in an ideal manner.

In the following sections, I shall focus on two main issues surrounding “the task of philosophy”:

1) Outlining the task of philosophy, and 2) Undertaking the task of philosophy.

2. Outlining the task of philosophy

Outlining the task of philosophy is nothing new to the philosophy community, but this should not

deter philosophy students of today from pursuing this topic further. Nicholas Rescher wrote an

illuminating and thought-provoking account of the cognitive task known as philosophy from a

Western perspective in the chapter The Task of Philosophy of his book Philosophical Reasoning:

A Study in the Methodology of Philosophizing. 2 To expound my views on how the task of

philosophy should be characterized, I present a commentary on Rescher’s article which not only

summarizes the author’s main arguments, but also seeks to reevaluate his definition of “the task

of philosophy” from a Chinese philosophical perspective, with the hope of finding common

ground for all world philosophies to pursue their philosophical ventures.

In his article, Rescher takes philosophy to be a “cognitive enterprise”, as a venture in providing

rationally cogent answers to our questions about large-scale issues regarding belief, evaluation

and action. In other words, philosophy must actively involve the use of our rational capacities

and cognitive powers so as to derive the most appropriate course of action in our daily existence.

I am mostly agreeable with Rescher’s take about the role of philosophy in directing our beliefs

2 Nicholas Rescher, “Chapter 1: The Task of Ph ilosophy,” Philosophical Reasoning: A Study in the Methodology of

Philosophizing, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2001, pp. 1-19.

3

and actions, but his later comment about actions being a “subsidiary” to our beliefs (since a

rational creature acts on the basis of its beliefs) deserves further assessment. From the

perspective of Chinese philosophy, especially Confucianism, our beliefs and actions are two

complementary strands of activity that cannot be distinctly separated; most of the time, our

actions (or reactions) influence the way our beliefs are formed, and our educated beliefs would

then serve as the foundation for appropriate actions. In short, we are both acting agents and

rational agents, neither is a precedent or subsidiary to the other. Later on, Rescher argues that

philosophy deals largely with how and whether and why questions, so as to develop a holistic and

comprehensive view about the world at large and how we fit in the wider cosmos. Such a

description underlines the pressing need for philosophy to be seen not simply as a convenient

tool that extricates one from difficult logical quandaries (“what questions”), but as the practical

means by which we comprehend, analyze and evaluate real- life problems in our daily lives,

which in the case of the latter narrows the chasm between the so-called “objective criteria”,

“intersubjective criteria” and “subjective criteria”. 3

Rescher proceeds to discuss rationality as a primary instrument in the undertaking of philosophy.

According to him, we as rational beings reject inconsistencies so as to better comprehend and

understand the world around us, culminating in a coherent, alternative-excluding resolution. This

begs a crucial question, does a philosophizing agent truly need to abandon all alternatives and

discard all contradictions in order to satisfy his rationality? In the complex world that we live in,

3

Clément Vidal’s argues in his paper An Enduring Philosophical Agenda: Worldview Construction as a

Philosophical Method that the objective criteria of philosophical practices are more important than the

intersubjective and subjective ones. This raises an important question: should a philosophical worldview be judged

primarily on how well it fits with the natural sciences, on how it resolves philosophical questions and how it is

devoid of contradictions or anomalies (pursuit of objectiv ity), or should it be judged primarily on how it enriches

one's personal outlook of like and h is social existence? Clément Vidal, “An Enduring Ph ilosophical Agenda:

Worldview Construction as a Philosophical Method,” Cogprints (March 2011): 1-28.

4

aren’t we constantly confronted with different alternatives, contrasting viewpoints and

conflicting ideologies? Again, from the perspective of Chinese philosophy, most saliently in

Daoism and Buddhism, we should neither embrace nor flee from inevitable contradictions;

instead we try to make sense of why and how these contradictions come about, so as to strive for

a kind of transcendent understanding and realization about our limited existence. The Western

preoccupation with accuracy, legitimacy and consistency may serve well in scientific inquiry, but

the problem is not so straightforward when it comes to philosophical inquiry in the practical

context.

This issue deserves greater scrutiny. For example, Rein Raud discusses various aspects regarding

the redefinition of the term “philosophy” in his paper Philosophies versus Philosophy: In

Defense of a Flexible Definition.4 Firstly, he reemphasizes the need for redefining philosophy: 1)

constant redefinitions repudiate essentialist definitions of cultural practices and keep them alive

and productive; 2) an appropriate redefinition should seek to include non-Western traditions.

Secondly, he differentiates between “internal definition” and “external definition”, the former

concerning itself with the characterization of philosophy as a mode of thinking, whist the latter

seeks to describe the mechanisms and functions of philosophy in the sociocultural context.

Thirdly, he offers a more abstract external definition for the role of philosophy in society,

advocating the following criteria: 1) Individuality of thought; 2) Display explanatory power; 3)

Dialogical; 4) Cumulative; 5) Independence from worldly powers; 6) Socially tolerant. He

concludes by arguing that the tradition of Chinese thought satisfies all of the abovementioned

criteria, thus proving its relevance to the philosophical conversation.

4 Rein Raud, “Philosophies versus Philosophy: In Defense of a Flexib le Definiton,” Philosophy East & West 56/4

(October 2006): 618-625.

5

Raud’s first observation is largely plausible, as it takes into account the compatibility and

communicability of different philosophies around the world. His third point is also commendable,

in which the fifth and sixth criteria listed serve to depart from the much-maligned Western

definition of “systemacity”, “reflection” and “rationality”, and focus more on the practical usage

of philosophy. This however, brings me to my criticism of Raud’s “internal definition”. In

defining philosophy as an intellectual activity concerned with conceptual abstraction, how

different is such an “internal definition” from the Western emphasis on “systematicity” and

“rationality”? An over-reliance on the conceptual and linguistic aspects of philosophy seems to

indicate a fundamental shift in the way of thinking/philosophizing: from a practical standpoint

(what philosophy can do for us?) to a theoretical standpoint (what we can do with philosophy?),

of which the latter may be more suited to the Western tradition at the expense of other world

philosophies. I would, therefore, argue that the practical standpoint should serve as the unifying

factor that integrates all world philosophies under a common “internal definition”. The practical

concerns and characteristics of Chinese and Indian philosophies are well known, but much less

have been discussed of Western philosophies. In truth, Western philosophers, past and present,

have always taken a keen interest in the practical aspect of human existence, from Plato’s ideal

notion of the Kallipolis under the rule of philosopher-kings to Aristotle’s virtue ethics; from St.

Augustine’s struggle with the problem of evil to Kant’s moral metaphysics, from Kierkegaard’s

three stages of life to Sartre’s obsession with human freedom, all these great Western thinkers

occupied their philosophical careers with very practical concerns. Their ways of conceptualizing

philosophical problems may be different, their modes of expression may vary, but there is a

significant correspondence that should not be overlooked. At the very least, identifying such a

correspondence allows us to probe the primary question: What can philosophy do for us?

6

In this section, we outlined the task of philosophy as such: Philosophy is a means by which

practical problems in our daily lives can be comprehended, analyzed and evaluated in hope for

better resolution. In this sense, it requires us to exercise our rational capacities and cognitive

powers, while at the same time take into consideration different alternatives, contrasting

viewpoints and conflicting ideologies that exist in the world at large. Furthermore, when

philosophy is identified as a task in the practical context, it indicates a paradigm shift in which

the question about worldviews and philosophy is asked: From “what can we do for

philosophy/worldviews?” to “what can philosophy/worldviews do for us?” Most significantly,

the motivation behind juxtaposing the Chinese perspective with the Western perspective in

outlining of the task of philosophy is not so much to create unnecessary schisms within the

philosophical community, but more to locate a common ground where both Eastern and Western

philosophies can coexist harmoniously: philosophy as a task should be undertaken from a

practical standpoint, immersing itself in the wide array of issues and problems facing the

material world, and attempting to offer sensible and logical solutions for their betterment. When

philosophy as a whole is geared toward this direction, any distinction between Eastern and

Western philosophies becomes redundant, since all in the philosophical community are united

and committed to undertaking this task in its quintessential form – to better the world we live in

through a combination of perceptive insight and rational clarity.

3. Undertaking the task of philosophy

Having outlined the task of philosophy, we turn our attention to how this task should be

undertaken. First, we need to probe the question: Who can and should undertake the task of

philosophy? Is the ideal person to undertake this task the philosophy major who excels in all his

7

philosophy assignments and tests? Or is he the inquisitive man that spends most of his time

questioning, observing and philosophizing? Or is he the philosophy researcher that publishes

philosophical papers conscientiously? In the following, we evaluate these three archetypes based

on our understanding of the task of philosophy. The philosophy major has ample knowledge in

the field of philosophy, but is he able to bridge the chasm between his theoretical know-how and

the practical problems of the living world? The inquisitive man may have accrued great insight

through his astute observations of certain practical issues, but is he able to communicate his self-

obtained insight to others using clear and cogent arguments? The philosophy researcher is

undoubtedly best positioned amongst the three to undertake the task of philosophy, as he is not

only expected to be knowledgeable and insightful regarding philosophical issues, but also

specially trained in writing formal philosophy theses. However, can we confidently say that all

philosophy researchers fit this mold by default of their expertise and training? The answer is

probably not. In other words, it is not so much the position one is presently holding or the work

he is currently assuming that decides his suitability to undertake the task of philosophy; it is what

he does in his position and with his work. If the philosophy researcher is able to effectively use

his theoretical know-how to interpret and explain the practical problems in the living world,

develop deep insight into these issues in the process and finally reproduce his findings in a

cogent and organized manner, he would not only have satisfied the conditions of undertaking the

task of philosophy, but also fulfilled the criterion of “an A-type philosophy researcher”5.

In our analysis regarding who can and should undertake the task of philosophy, there are two

points that require further discussion. First, the need to accrue deep insight into practical

5 蔡耀明，<佛學專業所講究的外文學術資訊關聯的思考與著手的方法>，《承前啟後：兩岸佛教學術研究現

況與教育發展研討會論文專集》（台北：中華佛學研究所，2005 年 10 月），頁 61-62。

8

problems in the world; and second, the need to communicate one’s self-obtained insight to others

using clear and cogent arguments. The rest of the section will be devoted to these two points.

Developing insight requires one to attain a comprehensive and penetrative understanding of the

living world, the living process and the conditions of living beings as a whole, in which a

“question-oriented” approach may be the most adequate option. For example, when faced with a

serious issue such as the rise of xenophobic concerns in society, neither should one jump into

conclusions based on his subjective opinion, nor should he simply follow the majority without

exercising his independent thought. Instead, he should observe the trend carefully and try to

uncover the root cause of the trend by probing questions of gradual sophistication:

Why is xenophobia on the rise?

Is xenophobia an isolated psychological condition or a larger social phenomenon?

If it were the former, is it a product of arbitrary emotional states, or does it point to

serious flaws in human nature?

What is human nature?

By probing these questions in a penetrative manner, one is not only getting closer to the root of

the problem, there is also a greater possibility of developing his own insight into the problem at

hand. To give another example, which form of governance is best for the overall well-being of

society? Similarly, questions of gradual sophistication can be probed to deepen one’s

understanding and appreciation of the issue:

Which type of governance is preferable: authoritarian, anarchy, or something between the

two?

9

Should one simply look at the short-term well-being of society, or should he also adopt a

long-term perspective?

What is the role of government?

Is there a need for government?

Which is more essential to the human condition: social stability or absolute freedom?

Probing these questions does not necessarily mean that one will develop insight, because there

are other factors that should be considered (such as access to information, one’s social and

educational background, one’s personal experience etc.), but a “question-oriented” approach at

the very least forces one to go beyond the peripheries and attack the core of the problem.

Consequently, one can obtain insight into the problem if he is not only able to derive answers to

the more basic questions, but also able to organize all of the questions within a logical and

coherent framework.

Accruing deep insight into practical problems in the world is a fundamental part of undertaking

the task of philosophy, but there remains the need to communicate one’s insight to others, which

concerns the actual writing of a sound philosophy thesis. To illustrate this point, I follow Elijah

Chudnoff’s article A Guide to Philosophical Writing in identifying five main features that

characterize every philosophical thesis6, interspersed with my own reflections and views.

(1) Issue and Purpose

Every philosophy thesis should have a specific issue and purpose. On the one hand, an issue is

understood as a question or controversy responsible for the conversation or discussion; it is the

6 Elijah Chudnoff, A Guide to Philosophical Writing , Harvard Writing Center Guide to Philosophical Writing, 2007.

10

stimulus for what is being said.7 To put it simply, the issue must pose a question that has yet to

be resolved, or needs to be resolved in a more ideal way. The purpose, on the other hand, is

presented in the form of defending some thesis by setting out reasons in favor of it. Furthermore,

the thesis given should always be focused and precise; not only does it allow the author to

narrow down his topic to a more operational scope which calls for meticulous and

comprehensive research, it removes possible vagueness in the argumentation and gives the

reader a clear sense of what is being discussed. Another important point is the need for the author

to take a definite stand on the theses argued for. In other words, philosophy is not merely a

regurgitation of past ideas or analysis of certain obscure terms and statements; it is a

sophisticated and demanding process that compels the author to adopt a clear position on related

issues, and be prepared and equipped to defend his position against all potential challenges. On

the contrary, someone who prevaricates constantly when asked to define his stand can only be

seen as compiling and packaging different ideologies into words that he himself understands, but

this is not philosophy in the proper sense.

(2) Audience

For the task of philosophy to be undertaken in an adequate fashion, the author of any philosophy

thesis should make sure that what he has written is readily intelligible to the audience. In other

words, the author has to consider who he is writing for, and make the necessary adjustments

regarding written expression and degrees of elaboration. For example, if the audience does not

possess the relevant background understanding, the author should avoid using jargon that would

only complicate the reading process. On the other hand, it has to be noted that most philosophy

7 M. Neil Browne, Stuart Keeley, “Chapter 1: The Benefit of Asking the Right Questions.” Asking the Right

Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking . 8th

Ed., Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education, 2007, pp. 16.

11

theses today require the author to address a highly educated audience – philosophy professionals

or researchers in the academic circles, in which case the burden on the author is not so much on

how he should avoid using jargon, but how he should use jargon (define and explain key

terminology) accurately.

(3) Argumentation

Argumentation forms the spine of any philosophy thesis. Not only does it serve as a transition

between the issue and the conclusion, it ensures that the issue at hand is developing in the right

direction, and that the conclusion can be fully validated. To substantiate this point, I refer to T.

Edward Damer’s article What is a Good Argument, where he lists five principles that a good

argument should adhere to.8 I shall summarize the contents of these five principles and offer

some thoughts regarding their proper conceptual relationships.

The first principle is the structural principle, which dictates that a good argument does not use

reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly

assume the truth of the conclusion. An argument is constituted by two or more explicit and/or

implicit claims, one or more of which supports or provides evidence for the truth or merit of

another claim, the conclusion. In other words, there is a fundamental difference between a

premise and the conclusion; the former is the proof, whilst that latter is the proved. Therefore, in

cases where the premise contradicts the conclusion, or that the premise is confused with the

conclusion, the result would be a structurally flawed argument. Another structural flaw occurs

when premises within the same argument are incompatible with one another. Premises are the

building blocks in an argumentative structure, and if building blocks fail to match with one

8 T. Edward Damer, “Chapter 3: What is a Good Argument?” Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to

Fallacy-Free Arguments, 6th

ed., Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009, pp. 30-50.

12

another, the collapse of the entire structure is inevitable. In short, the structural principle outlines

the ideal “form” of a good argument; in this sense, it is the basis of the other principles, because

an argument without a proper “form” is ill-equipped to organize and validate its specific

“contents”.

The second principle is the relevance principle, which states that premises or reasons whose truth

provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion should be used in a good argument. In

other words, the premises should be directly related to the context of the argument, and should

provide others with reasons to believe and accept the merit of the conclusion. Additional

premises may be added to make the relevance of a particular premise more apparent, provided

that they do not infringe upon the non-contradiction principle mentioned earlier. On the other

hand, premises are irrelevant and therefore damaging to the conclusion if they appeal to fallacies

such as common opinion or tradition. From this perspective, the author should be judicious in

choosing premises that are (1) logically tenable, (2) abreast with the times, and (3) independent

of preconceived biases. The relevance principle is the flagship principle amongst the specific

“contents” of a good argument, because it defines the reasonableness, consistency and strength

of the author’s position. It is only when the author’s position is reasonable, consistent and

compelling in itself that it can strive for acceptance by a mature and rational audience.

The third principle is the acceptability principle, which maintains than the author should provide

reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational audience. An important distinction

needs to be made between the term “acceptable” and the term “true”, in which the role of a good

argument is not to establish the absolute truth or make definite truth claims and judgments, but to

convince the rational and mature person that what is argued for should be accepted or recognized

as true. Compared to the relevance principle, the acceptability principle places greater emphasis

13

on the interactions (“argumentative interchange”) between the author and his audience. In other

words, a good argument is not merely a set of claims that fulfills the principles of coherence and

rationality, but it should be able to persuade and convince an educated audience to make proper

judgments.

The fourth principle is the sufficiency principle, which underscores the importance of providing

relevant and acceptable reasons that are sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance

of the conclusion. An argument is valid as long as it has a conclusion that is supported by a prior

claim, but a valid argument is not necessarily a good argument. For a good argument to take

shape, an adequate amount of supporting evidence should be provided as the basis for the final

conclusion. Moreover, the author should be able to assign the proper weight to each piece of

supporting evidence and give priority to the more crucial evidence. I see this particular principle

to be an extension of the relevance principle, in which a good argument must be made up of

more than one and possibly several relevant premises in order for it to be sufficient, and

therefore convincing.

The final principle is the rebuttal principle, which states that a good argument should include an

effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument that may be brought against

it. The key word here is “anticipate”, which implies that the author must have a comprehensive

and profound understanding of his own position – making clear the strengths and weaknesses

within his argument – and make the necessary preparations, which includes reconstructing his

own argument and making implicit premises as explicit as possible. A successful implementation

of the rebuttal principle dictates that an argument can effectively meet the most serious

challenges to its own position, and seriously damage the strongest arguments for the other

position. In other words, the rebuttal principle if administered appropriately serves not only as a

14

defensive mechanism, but also a useful offensive weapon in exposing the incongruities of a

conflicting argument. If the first four principles constitute the necessary conditions for a good

argument, the fifth principle would be the sufficient condition that ensures that an argument is

not only good, but also potentially infallible, because it effectively transforms one good

argument into two good arguments (the main argument and its counterargument).

(4) Narrative

A good narrative creates and fulfills expectations in its audience. It must captivate but at the

same time inform its readers appropriately. Within the narrative of a philosophy thesis, there are

“characters” in the form of claims, distinctions, arguments etc., while it is the “plotline” that

dictates how these “characters” interact with one another in an organized and structured fashion.

As Chudnoff points out aptly, a good narrative order strikes a balance between psychologically

plausible order of discovery and an intellectually satisfying logical-explanatory order. One way

to mediate these two “orders” is the use of the “question-oriented” approach. Asking the big

thematic questions, medium topical questions and small conceptual questions throughout the

thesis’s narrative gives both the author and reader a clear sense as to which direction the

philosophizing process is progressing toward, and how much it has progressed. The reader is not

only psychologically motivated to pursue the author’s line of argument based on this

sophisticated chain of questions, but is also able to participate actively in the process of

intellectual procurement, as the questions are constructed in a logical-explanatory order.

(5) Style

The “style” of a philosophy thesis is very much different from that in a fiction book or

newspaper commentary; it requires the author’s meaning to be clear and precise, and his tone to

15

be forthright and purposeful. In other words, a good philosophy thesis should eradicate all

elements of obscurity (in the explication of one’s thesis) and ambiguity (words or sentences open

to multiple interpretations), and present an argumentation that is both cogent and convincing.

The author also highlights the need to make specific and concrete points instead of general and

abstract statements, which is especially true considering philosophy is tasked with addressing

and solving exact problems, not creating unnecessary problems due to the lack of well-defined

theses.

In this section, we scrutinized five different aspects that should be considered when undertaking

the task of philosophy. Philosophy or philosophical inquiry in its most original state has always

championed the need for constructive and progressive interaction, as epitomized by the likes of

Socrates, Confucius and the Buddha through their dialogues and teachings. Similarly, In order

for the task of philosophy to achieve its goals of persuading others, engendering change and

bringing about positive effects to our daily lives, it has to be presented in a clear, purposeful and

organized way.

4. Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we looked at the task of philosophy from two different but interrelated standpoints:

1) Outlining the task of philosophy, and 2) Undertaking the task of philosophy; the former

outlines the scope and responsibilities of philosophy, whilst the latter discusses the actual

application of such a task. To conclude, we identify three advantages of viewing philosophy as a

“task” that needs to be adequately outlined and undertaken: 1) Revise the misconception that

philosophy merely engages in logical games or abstract thought experiments, which are

theoretically sound but of no practical use. Philosophy as properly outlined and undertaken can

16

and should be useful in the practical context. 2) When philosophy is seen as a task in the

practical context, it suggests a paradigm shift in which the question about worldviews and

philosophy should be asked: from “what can we do for philosophy/worldviews?” to “what can

philosophy/worldviews do for us?” In other words, we as students of philosophy are not captives

of what philosophy coerces us to do; instead we are active participants in the enduring

philosophical agenda that employ the methods of philosophizing and critical thinking to better

our living condition and the world at large. 3) By reevaluating how the task of philosophy should

be outlined and undertaken, we allow for greater openness and inclusiveness in the philosophy

community, one that not only understands and appreciates the significant role played by Chinese

philosophy in the wider philosophical discourse, but also strives toward a common purpose:

undertaking the task of philosophy in its quintessential form – to better the world we live in

through the perfect blend of perceptive insight and rational clarity.

References

Clément Vidal, “An Enduring Philosophical Agenda: Worldview Construction as a Philosophical

Method,” Cogprints (March 2011): 1-28.

Douglas Soccio, Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy, 7th edition, Belmont:

Wadsworth, 2010

Elijah Chudnoff, A Guide to Philosophical Writing, Harvard Writing Center Guide to

Philosophical Writing, 2007.

17

M. Neil Browne, Stuart Keeley, “Chapter 1: The Benefit of Asking the Right Questions.” Asking

the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking. 8th Ed., Upper Saddle River, Pearson

Education, 2007, pp. 15-23.

Nicholas Rescher, “Chapter 1: The Task of Philosophy,” Philosophical Reasoning: A Study in

the Methodology of Philosophizing, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2001, pp. 1-19.

Rein Raud, “Philosophies versus Philosophy: In Defense of a Flexible Definiton,” Philosophy

East & West 56/4 (October 2006): 618-625.

T. Edward Damer, “Chapter 3: What is a Good Argument?” Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A

Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 6th ed., Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning,

2009, pp. 30-50.

蔡耀明，<佛學專業所講究的外文學術資訊關聯的思考與著手的方法>，《承前啟後：兩

岸佛教學術研究現況與教育發展研討會論文專集》（台北：中華佛學研究所，2005 年 10

月），頁 57-83。