Faculty of Arts and Humanities | University of Macau

FAH/DPHIL Lecture Series – "Daoist Wisdom: An Account of Epistemic Humility" by Dr. Christine Tan, Yale-NUS College, Singapore
2025-04-23 17:30 - 19:00 UTC | E21A-3118
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/4sjk6f1d

Abstract
This work draws from Daoist thought to argue that epistemic humility is not only a necessary pre-condition to wisdom but is also sufficiently constitutive of wisdom. Additionally, I argue that going beyond that sufficiency undermines the genuineness of said wisdom. More specifically, both Zhuangzi and Laozi argue that going beyond epistemic humility assumes a context-transcending truth, epistemic justification, or metanormative value which exists, and can be known. In contrast, genuine wisdom understands that no knowledge, truth, or epistemic claim transcends any given context.
I advance three central arguments: First, epistemic humility is incompatible with holding any “belief,” “knowledge,” or “understanding” that is taken to be epistemically justifiable or rational. Second, epistemic humility is sufficient, and more radically, necessarily sufficient, meaning that anything added to it undermines it. Third, epistemic humility necessitates, rather than prevents, engagement and action.

Bio
Dr Christine Tan is a Filipino-born philosopher whose main areas of expertise are Chinese and Comparative Philosophy in general, and Neo-Daoist philosophy in particular. Before joining Yale-NUS College, she did her PhD at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, where she wrote her dissertation titled ‘Freedom as Self-realisation: Zide in the Neo-Daoist Philosophy of Guo Xiang’. Before that, she did her MA and BA at the University of Santo Tomas, Philippines, where her areas of focus were psychoanalysis and post-structuralist philosophy.
Dr Tan has published extensively in Chinese philosophy (with a specific focus on Guo Xiang). Her work has spanned a variety of epistemological themes from classical and medieval Chinese textual analysis to problem-driven treatments of traditionally Euro-centric issues such as freedom and autonomy. This includes published journal articles on Chinese Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. Ultimately, her goal is to push the boundaries for how we understand selfhood, agency, and community from inter-cultural and truly global lenses.

FAH/DPHIL Work-in-progress Seminar - "Collaborating on Interdisciplinary Research: A Case Study in Philosophy & Neurolinguistics" by Mr. Kun Chan Wa
2025-08-20 17:30 - 19:00 | E21a-3121
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/hk0d76q5

Abstract
This presentation is based on a co-authored paper developed through collaboration between philosophers and neurolinguists, exploring the “pursuitworthiness” of experiments in neurolinguistics. The paper investigates whether criteria for pursuitworthiness can be established for experiments in this field and, if so, which factors are most relevant. Drawing on a detailed analysis of research practices and case studies, we propose that pursuitworthiness in this domain should be evaluated along two dimensions: methodological and pragmatic.

In my talk, I will briefly outline the paper’s main argument and, more importantly, reflect on my own role in the project and on the collaborative process. I will discuss how I became involved, the specific contributions I made, and what I learned from working across disciplinary boundaries. By sharing both the substantive outcomes and the behind-the-scenes experience, I aim to show how doctoral students in philosophy can participate in and benefit from collaborative, interdisciplinary research.

Bio
Kun Chan Wa (Kun) is a PHD student in the Department of Philosophy and Religions Studies at the University of Macau. He graduated from University of Saint Joseph with a master’s degree in philosophy, and his research area was on the thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Currently, he is researching the philosophy of causation and philosophy of medicine under the supervision of Professor Nevia Dolcini.

FAH/DPHIL Lecture Series – "Immortality and Human Enhancements From Zhu Xi’s 朱熹 Perspective" by Prof. Jenny Hung, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
2025-08-27 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-G049
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/7pucrfsx

Abstract
The questions of the value of life and the pursuit of immortality have long intrigued philosophers. Recently, with advancements in technology aimed at enhancing human life expectancy, immortality has emerged as a significant topic of discussion. Central to transhumanist philosophy, it represents a radical transformation of human existence driven by scientific and technological progress. Human enhancements—biomedical interventions designed to improve human functioning beyond mere health restoration—are seen as powerful tools for achieving longevity. These enhancements involve biological alterations through pharmaceutical, surgical, or genetic methods.
In this paper, I explore how ZHU Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200), a prominent figure in Neo-Confucianism, would approach the concepts of immortality and human enhancements. I argue that Zhu would likely endorse the pursuit of immortality, provided that such enhancements maintain, or enhance, our ability to act in accordance with moral principles. This analysis seeks to bridge traditional philosophical perspectives with contemporary discussions on the implications of human enhancement technologies.

Bio
Jenny Hung is an assistant professor of philosophy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. She has two PhDs, one in philosophy, another in nanophysics. She investigates the nature of the self from both the Western and Eastern perspectives, aiming to answer the most fundamental questions of human existence, such as: “What are we?” “How do we persist?” She published in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Mind, Philosophical Psychology, Philosophy East and West, Dao, Asian Philosophy, History of Philosophy and Logic, etc. She is now working on two books: Between Buddha-nature and Emptiness: The Peak Era of Chinese Buddhist Philosophy (Oxford University Press) and What am I? Personal Ontology in Chinese Philosophy (under review).

FAH/DPHIL Work-in-progress Seminar - "Self-Misidentification in Higher-Order Theories" by Mr. Chu Kin Lok
2025-09-03 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-3118
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/eab6bban

Abstract
Higher-order (HO) theories of consciousness aim to resolve the “hard problem of consciousness,” arguing that what renders a mental state phenomenally conscious is that it is, or is disposed to be, the object of a HO mental state. While various versions of HO theories of consciousness are widely discussed, some HO theories have been expanded to explain the first-personal and reflexive nature of self-consciousness and its psychopathology, yet these explanations have received little attention. This is unfortunate, since a theory of self-consciousness is essential for a theory of consciousness. In this talk, I mainly discuss Rosenthal’s higher-order thought (HOT) theory of self-consciousness. I argue that his HOT theory fails to explain alleged which-object self-misidentification, a form of misidentification defined by James Pryor as distinct from de re self-misidentification. As a result, his theory fails to explain thought insertion, a pathological condition characterized by which-object self-misidentification. Finally, I extend these arguments to all two-state HO theories, arguing that they, in principle, fail to explain which-object self-misidentification and thought insertion.

Bio
Chu Kin-Lok (Gary) is a PhD student under the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Macau. While continuing his master’s research on self-consciousness and self-disorders in schizophrenia from the perspective of contemporary phenomenology, his PhD project concentrates on various theories of self-consciousness and self-oriented delusions. He is under the supervision of Professor Nevia Dolcini and co-supervision of Professor Benjamin Winokur.

FAH/DPHIL Lecture Series – "Problems of certainty in public life" by Dr. Drew Johnson, University of Oslo, Norway
2025-09-10 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-G049
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/5lvjfwfl

Abstract
There is a crisis of certainty in public life. Epistemic arrogance, closed mindedness, and deep disagreement have a close relationship to certainty, and are especially challenging online due to epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. In order to address these problems, we need to understand how it is rational to relate to certainty. When is it reasonable to be certain, and when not? Is certainty only a danger in public life, or can it be a value? This project addresses these questions by proposing and applying a theory of certainty. This theory is based on recent developments in ‘hinge epistemology’, which holds that belief, doubt, and inquiry are only possible given that we hold some core certainties fixed, despite the fact that those certainties lack rational support. I propose an account, Perspectival Hinge Epistemology, according to which core certainties are determined by individuals’ epistemic perspectives. I identify a form of intellectual humility that is rationally fitting for core certainties. Being intellectually humble about one’s core certainties is recognizing and taking responsibility for the rational groundlessness of that certainty. I argue that cultivating this form of intellectual humility can help address problems of deep disagreement, epistemic arrogance, and closed mindedness.

Bio
Drew Johnson is a philosopher affiliated with the GoodAttention research group at the University of Oslo, where he was a postdoctoral researcher (2022-2024). Before that, he received his PhD in philosophy from the University of Connecticut (2022), and an MA from Northern Illinois University (2015). Drew specializes in epistemology, philosophy of mind, and metaethics. He is currently working on a book about the epistemology of certainty and how to cultivate intellectual humility in order to address problems of certainty in public life. Other research interests include the functions of attention, the epistemology of self-knowledge, and teleosemantic theories of mental content.

FAH/DPHIL Work-in-progress Seminar - "Syncretizing Afterlife Beliefs in Early Medieval China: The Youming Lu and the Buddhist Transformation of Indigenous Cosmology" by Ms. Qiao Yiwen
2025-09-17 17:30 - 19:00 | E21-3121
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/a1xhwfq8

Abstract
The Youming Lu (Stories of Darkness and Brightness), a compilation of works ascribed to Liu Yiqing (403–444) of the Liu-Song dynasty, is examined in this study as a document that illustrates the incorporation of Buddhist and native Chinese ideas about the afterlife in early medieval China. The paper demonstrates how Buddhist concepts, such as karma and rebirth, were localized within Chinese cosmological frameworks, particularly through bureaucratic and familial structures, by closely examining a select group of stories. According to the Youming Lu, the netherworld underwent a transitional period during which it gradually changed from an unspecified and indeterminate realm to a methodically structured system controlled by bureaucratic administration and karmic retribution.

The major themes examined in the study include the blurring of the boundaries between the living and the dead, the localization of Buddhist moral principles and the adaptation of karma into familial and communal ethics. According to the stories, ghosts are active beings whose interactions with the living highlight the importance of ritual effectiveness, moral reciprocity, and the perils of unresolved boundaries between two worlds. Ultimately, the Youming Lu provides a unique perspective on the dynamic interaction of religion, folk beliefs and society in early medieval China. It illuminates the process of cultural hybridization that made the netherworld more understandable and relevant for Chinese audiences. By shedding light on how pre-modern societies navigated conflicting worldviews to create new meaning systems, this research adds to larger conversations regarding the localization of foreign religious concepts and the function of literature in mediating cultural change.

Bio
Yiwen Qiao is currently a second-year PhD student in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies. She received her BA from Bryn Mawr College and her MA from the University of Pennsylvania.

FAH/DPHIL Lecture Series – "Comparative Philosophy Without Method" by Prof. Steven Burik, Singapore Management University, Singapore
2025-10-08 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-3118
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/7mnk1eav

Abstract
I argue that comparative philosophy cannot have one method or even one methodology. I take my cue from two ideas. The first is tied to the famous story of G. E. Moore pointing to the wall of books behind him and saying philosophy was “what these are about.” Moore referred to an entire history of thinking with its own categories, demands, and interests, but more importantly to the impossibility to narrow down philosophy to a particular method or to one way of doing philosophy. My second cue has to do with the definitions of philosophical ‘method’ and ‘methodology.’ Using the different definitions of ‘method’ and ‘methodology’, I claim firstly that comparative philosophy cannot by its very nature have one method, because with ever finer comparisons and ever less generalisations, comparative philosophy is increasingly becoming more site-specific so that it will become impossible to assign any single meaningful identity to it. I claim that assigning such a single identity is something that comparative philosophy should avoid. Secondly, I claim that we do not need a specific methodology for comparative philosophy. I conclude by saying that these requirements should stay as minimal as possible, and that this is the only way comparative philosophy can stay true to its intended openness to diverse ways of thought.

Bio
Steven Burik is Associate Professor in Philosophy at Singapore Management University. He is also the Associate Dean for Student Matters and Alumni Affairs in the School of Social Sciences, and currently holds a Lee Kong Chian Research Fellowship. He holds a PhD in comparative philosophy from the National University of Singapore. His research interests are mainly in comparative philosophy, continental philosophy (Heidegger, Derrida), Chinese philosophy (Daoism), and Critical Thinking. He is the author of The End of Comparative Philosophy and the Task of Comparative Thinking (SUNY Press), and editor of Comparative Philosophy and Method: Contemporary Practices and Future Possibilities, (co-edited with Ralph Weber and Robert Smid, Bloomsbury), which brings together leading scholars thinking about the methodology in comparative philosophy, and has co-authored a textbook in Critical Thinking. Aside from these he has published numerous articles in various journals and books, including Philosophy East and West, Dao: a Journal of Comparative Philosophy, and Comparative and Continental Philosophy.

FAH/DPHIL Conference: Philosophy and New Media
2025-10-13 - 2025-10-15 | E21A-G035 / E21A-3118

FAH/DPHIL: UM DISTINGUISHED VISITING SCHOLAR LECTURE – "Investigating a Philosophical Method" by Prof. Claudine Verheggen, York University, Canada
2025-10-15 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-3118
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/7mnk1eav

Abstract
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophical method of #2 is that of trying to make sense of a philosophical idea by trying to “make the idea real”, that is, to “describe or imagine a situation to which the philosophical idea in question truly applies” (Stroud 1983). I argue, with Barry Stroud, that the method of #2 can be used to rule out reductionist accounts of meaning, but, against Stroud, that it can also be used to rule out the possibility of both private and solitary languages. Moreover, constructive claims about meaning can be generated when the method is applied to the idea of a shared or social language.

Bio
Professor Claudine Verheggen has research and teaching interests in the philosophy of language and related issues in philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and epistemology. These include normativity, objectivity, truth, non-reductionism, and philosophical scepticism. She also have a special interest in Wittgenstein and Davidson. Currently, Professor Verheggen is a Professor of Philosophy at York University, where she has taught since 2006. She has published numerous books, edited collections through presses including Polity, Cambridge University Press, and Routledge. She has also published numerous papers and book chapters in venues such as Oxford University Press, Topoi, The Philosophical Quarterly, Synthese, Metaphilosophy, and elsewhere.

FAH/DPHIL Lecture Series – "Conceptual-Historical Approach to Comparative philosophy: Beyond the Chinese-Western Axis" by Prof. So-Jeong Park, Sungkyunkwan University, Korea
2025-10-22 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-3118
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/7mnk1eav

Abstract
Comparative philosophy has played a role in revitalizing philosophy as a discipline while simultaneously criticizing the presumed universality of Western-centered Philosophy. As the Chinese–Western axis has become dominant in comparative philosophy, the field has moved beyond the early stage of merely juxtaposing similarities and differences between two traditions. Yet the prevailing trend today still tends to interpret ancient Chinese ideas through modern Western frameworks, or to reframe them in terms of contemporary philosophical concerns. This tendency can make Chinese philosophy appear like a static reservoir, instead of a tradition that continues to evolve. I argue that a conceptual-historical approach can help correct this imbalance. By this I mean treating concepts as historically constructed and transformed through ongoing debate and reinterpretation, not as fixed entities. Conceptual revolutions—fundamental shifts that redefined worldviews and symbolic systems—occurred not only in the West, but also across non-Western traditions. Tracing the conceptual histories of East Asian thought allows us to perceive both continuities and ruptures between ancient Chinese philosophy and modern East Asian philosophy. In this way, we can foster cross-cultural dialogue as a living exchange in the present, rather than confining ourselves to comparison between ancient Chinese and modern Western thought.

Bio
PARK, So-Jeong is a Professor of Korean Philosophy at Sungkyunkwan University and serves as the director of Institute of Korean Philosophy and Culture (IKPC), where she leads the K-Academic Expansion Project (KAEP). She has taught Chinese philosophy and cross-cultural philosophy in Singapore and Hong Kong, and her current research interests include Korean Philosophy, Comparative Philosophy, and the Philosophy of Music. Her online courses on Coursera include Introduction to Korean Philosophy and Culture, In Search for the Origins of Korean Philosophy, EKP1: Modernity and the Emergence of Korean Philosophy, EKP2: Formation of Korean Neo-Confucianism, Korean Music, A Philosophical Exploration (collab.) and How to Understand Our Emotions: Seongho’s New Proposal 1 (collab).

Philosophy Forum: Distinguished Scholars Series - 8: "漢語世界與漢語哲學的任務" by Prof. Sun Xiangchen, Fudan University, China
2025-10-24 16:00 - 17:30 | E21A-G049

Philosophy Forum: Distinguished Scholars Series - 9: "To Speak the Unspeakable – The Wisdom of the Unsayable in the Chinese Tradition" by Prof. Karl-Heinz Pohl, Trier University, Germany
2025-10-27 16:00 - 17:30 | Library Auditorium (G012), University Library (E2)

FAH/DPHIL Work-in-progress Seminar - "Beyond Universal Templates: The Three Ethical Indicators (3EIR) and the Art of Contextual Conservation" by Ms. Lao Teng Wai
2025-11-05 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-3118
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/rx3pei7o

Abstract
Properties inscribed under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention face a persistent ethical challenge: reconciling internationally mandated conservation standards with diverse cultural ontologies. This article explores this tension through a comparative analysis of Japan’s Hōryū-ji Temple Complex and Norway’s Urnes Stave Church, two wooden religious structures preserved through different methods rooted in distinct cultures. At Hōryū-ji, cyclical reconstruction embodies the Buddhist principle of impermanence, challenging the Venice Charter’s emphasis on material authenticity. Conversely, Urnes prioritises minimal intervention and the preservation of original fabric, reflecting a Nordic ethic of material authenticity that complicates the Nara Document’s focus on living heritage. Drawing on Wittgenstein’s concept of “family resemblances” and François Jullien’s critique of homogenized universality, this paper underlines the importance of embracing differences and reframes Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) as ethical indicators. To bridge policy and practice, it proposes the Three Ethical Indicators (3EIR): Respect, Referencing, and Reflection, and operationalizes them through the Three Operational Parameters (3OPR): Replacement, Reinforcement, and Regeneration. These frameworks position the Statement of OUV as a living document guiding culturally responsive conservation. The study advocates for a paradigm shift, from rigid adherence to universal norms toward ethically grounded, community-engaged stewardship that honours the irreducible individuality of each site’s heritage.

Bio
Teng Wai Lao is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Macau. She began her studies at Durham University in the United Kingdom: BA Ancient History and Archaeology (2015-2018) and MA International Cultural Heritage Management (2018-2019), in which she has developed interdisciplinary and conceptual skills among the fields in Classics, Archaeology, and Philosophy. Her research interests focus on topics related to culture, particularly in cultural heritage and museum studies, material culture, and cultural identity. She is in the research group of Philosophy of Museum led by Professor Victoria Harrison.

FAH/DPHIL Lecture Series – "The Question of the Way and Errant Wandering: On the Transcultural Entanglement of Lǎozǐ and Parmenides" by Prof. Fabian Heubel, Academia Sinica, Taiwan
2025-11-12 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-3118
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/7mnk1eav

Abstract
In his lectures on the Presocratic philosopher Parmenides from 1932, Martin Heidegger not only speaks about the “question of Being” (Seinsfrage), but also about the “question of the Way” (Wegfrage). This is understandable, because Parmenides distinguishes three ways. I would like to assume that Parmenides and Lǎozǐ ask both the “question of Being” and the “question of the Way”. In the case of Parmenides, Being can be said to take precedence, although the two attach very different, even opposite, meanings to it. For Lǎozǐ, on the other hand, the Way is in the foreground.
For Parmenides, only the first way (the way of Being) is walkable, whereas the second way (the way of Non-being) is not. The third way is a way that ordinary people take, the way of the “double-headed” (δίκρανοι). Heidegger says about them: “they have their heads here and there, and that without noticing the ambiguity and suspecting it”. They go without a way, “in errancy”: “their whole perception is a soon this way, soon that way, a going back and forth, directionless, criss-crossing – πλαγκτός – erring. […] They do not just go in errancy – they are constantly in it and cannot get out of it.”
But what is the errancy of the double-heads? And what is the relation of the three ways in Parmenides to the “Way” (道) referred to by Lǎozǐ? In this talk, I will try to argue that Lǎozǐ defends the third way between being and non-being, by transforming it into a Way that wanders between “being-without” (無/無在) and “being-with” (有/有在).

Bio
Professor Fabian Heubel is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy, Academia Sinica, Taipei. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the Institute of Philosophy, Free University of Berlin. His main research interests include: comparative and transcultural philosophy, Classical and Modern Chinese philosophy, interpretations of Chinese philosophy in Western sinology, Critical Theory, contemporary German and French thought, aesthetics and philosophy of art.

FAH/DPHIL Work-in-progress Seminar - "Can LLMs Outputs Classify as Testimonial-based Beliefs?" by Mr. Lai Hei Wai
2025-11-19 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-3118
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/rx3pei7o

Abstract
With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), scholars are starting to discuss the epistemological problems related to them. Recently, there are literatures that argue on the topic of whether LLMs’ outputs can be classified as testimony. Scholars give arguments that they cannot be classified as testimony by the reason that LLMs do not satisfy varies conditions. This paper introduces and analyize these conditions. And further argues that even if LLMs can satisfy all the said conditions in the future. However, by way they understand the content of their own outputs is fundamentally different from humans. Therefore, we still cannot classify LLMs’ outputs as testimony.

Bio
Lai Hei Wai is a Ph.D. Student in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Macau. He began his studies at Fu Jen Catholic University BA in Philosophy (2009-2014) and MA in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at The University of Saint Joseph (2020-2023). His research interests focus on topics related to epistemology, particularly in the epistemology of testimony.

FAH/DPHIL Lecture Series – "Can family relationships in Ruist traditions be transformed? Reconsiderations of Ruist families from the perspective of the transformative dimension of culture" by Prof. Lauren F. Pfister, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
2025-11-26 17:30 - 19:00 | E21A-G049
Microsoft Teams: https://go.um.edu.mo/7mnk1eav

Abstract
IFamily relationships in Ruist traditions have been regularly linked to specific virtues that distinguish the younger from the elderly, the female from the male, and have often been employed in various historical periods for promoting strongly patriarchal forms of familial relationships. Some Ruist advocates have described these virtues and their related relationships in absolute terms and have declared their eternal validity. Nevertheless, there are a number of perspectives from within Ruist classical works that suggest that there are ways in which some of these relationships might be transformed.

Bio
Lauren F. Pfister is an internationally recognized sinologist and comparative philosophy scholar. He is a Professor Emeritus from the Religion and Philosophy Department of Hong Kong Baptist University, and is currently the Rector of the Hephzibah Mountain Aster Academy, a humanities-based cross-cultural research center located in Colorado, USA. Previously he had served as an Associate Editor of The Journal of Chinese Philosophy. His studies of James Legge’s English translations of The Chinese Classics and The Sacred Books of China have received international attention. In the past decades, he has continued internationally to explore issues and dialogues related to theoretical matters dealing with traditional Chinese culture and its distinctives.

FAH/DPHIL: Philosophy Café
2025-11-27 16:00 - 17:30 | E21A-3118
