English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this article, I suggest a distinct “pluralist” interpretation of Wang Chong’s account while engaging McLeod’s “pluralist” interpretation (McLeod 2011); my interpretation is essentially a substantial extension of my previously suggested general account of truth (Mou 2009) in view of relevant resources in classical Chinese philosophy as well as Wang Chong’s texts. In the following discussion, my strategy is this. First, I will positively suggest one interpretation of Wang’s account and explain how this interpretation is related to a general approach to the philosophical issue of truth, substantive perspectivism. Second, in view of the previous explanation, I will discuss my agreements and disagreements with McLeod, thus giving an engaging analysis of the two interpretations as two distinct pluralist approaches that I render respectively “rooted” and “rootless”. Third, I will give a brief examination of explanatory forces of the two interpretations in several connections.

ROOTED AND ROOTLESS PLURALIST APPROACHES TO TRUTH:TWO DISTINCT INTERPRETATIONS OF WANG CHONG’S ACCOUNT