The ancient Chinese scholars are fond of applying the Yin and Yang diagram to correlate almost everything. This book continues that tradition and uses the model to study other non-“dialectical” theories and models. The major finding qua contribution in this publication is to point out that the four diagrams are equivalent to the BaGua or BaGuaTu (BG), a set of eight ancient China symbolic notations/gossip. Another finding is that dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a non-dialectical/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at best, they must meet half-way. The two major tasks of this book are to, first, apply the author's one-dot theory, which is shored up by the crab and frog motion model, to convert other theories and models as well as studies and, second, apply his theory and model to reinvent some well-known western-derived theories and models and studies, such as game theory. The attempt is to narrow down the gap between the East and the West scholarship/XueShu, broadly defined, making the book of interest to Eastern and Western philosophers and scholars alike.

The ancient Chinese scholars are fond of applying the Yin and Yang diagram to correlate almost everything. This book continues that tradition and uses the model to study other non-“dialectical” theories and models. The major finding qua contribution in this publication is to point out that the four diagrams are equivalent to the BaGua or BaGuaTu (BG), a set of eight ancient China symbolic notations/gossip. Another finding is that dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a non-dialectical/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at best, they must meet half-way. The two major tasks of this book are to, first, apply the author's one-dot theory, which is shored up by the crab and frog motion model, to convert other theories and models as well as studies and, second, apply his theory and model to reinvent some well-known western-derived theories and models and studies, such as game theory. The attempt is to narrow down the gap between the East and the West scholarship/XueShu, broadly defined, making the book of interest to Eastern and Western philosophers and scholars alike.

​This book uses Chinese version of dialectics to present interpretations of ocean governance, international regimes, issues in the South China Sea in general and the Chinese U-shaped line in particular, through the one-dot theory. It especially serves as a tool for non-Chinese researchers and experts interested in analyzing international relations issues from a Chinese perspective. The dialectical one-dot theory, which is a superior model to the dialectical Yin and Yang or the dialectical crab and frog motion model, provides research and findings that more closely mirror reality than do other, non-dialectical approaches and research methods. Further, it can be applied to both the natural and social sciences. The book is divided into three parts — Methodology, Case Studies Related to International Regimes and Non-“International Regimes,” and Issues Related to the U-shaped Line in the South China Sea — with each chapter structured in terms of the one-dot theory. In addition to researchers and experts involved in marine and maritime affairs, this book will also appeal to all readers interested in Chinese Philosophy, International Relations, and Strategic Culture.

This book examines China’s involvement in international governance, international regimes, and globalization. Peter Kien-hong Yu offers a new framework with which to understand ‘international regimes’ and applies it to important Chinese case studies such as arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation; the counter-piracy regime and the environmental issue. Whilst internationally important matters related to such systems are identified, Yu’s discussions attempt to find out whether any particular system works better in relation to China, and asks if not, why not? After examining eight different cases, the author concludes that these regimes are working but there is ample room for improvement and that the Chinese (Communists) for one have to enhance their understanding of international governance and try to export their experience to other parts of the world. International Governance and Regimes will be appeal to anyone interested in International Politics, Chinese Studies, Political theory and International Relations.

Taiwan and the Rise of China examines one of the fast evolving, yet very volatile, fragile and asymmetric, bilateral relations in East Asia. The insightful analyses provided by the experts of China studies should be of great interest to scholars, students and policy makers.

This book illustrates how the one-dot theory, which is a dialectical study, is well suited to describing, explaining and inferring contemporary China’s past, present and future. It argues that since October 1949, the field of contemporary China studies has been dominated by modified and abandoned non-dialectical theories and models. It also challenges selected non-dialectical theories and models which were first generated in the West, such as the game theory and rational (choice) theory. With its emphasis on methodology, the book offers a valuable resource for academics, researchers and practitioners alike with an interest in logically, systematically and coherently unraveling Taiwan’s and mainland China’s contemporary politics and international relations.

In an age defined by divisive discourse and disinformation, democracy hangs in the balance. Let’s Agree to Disagree seeks to reverse these trends by fostering constructive dialogue through critical thinking and critical media literacy. This transformative text introduces readers to useful theories, powerful case studies, and easily adoptable strategies for becoming sharper critical thinkers, more effective communicators, and critically media literate citizens.

This book proposes a novel position in the debate on scientific realism: Modal Empiricism. Modal empiricism is the view that the aim of science is to provide theories that correctly delimit, in a unified way, the range of experiences that are naturally possible given our position in the world. The view is associated with a pragmatic account of scientific representation and an original notion of situated modalities, together with an inductive epistemology for modalities. It purports to provide a faithful account of scientific practice and of its impressive achievements, and defuses the main motivations for scientific realism. More generally, Modal Empiricism purports to be the precise articulation of a pragmatist stance towards science. This book is of interest to any philosopher involved in the debate on scientific realism, or interested in how to properly understand the content, aim and achievements of science.

Many philosophers believe they can gain knowledge about the world from the comfort of their armchairs, simply by reflecting on the nature of things. But how can the mind arrive at substantive knowledge of the world without seeking its input? Michael Strevens proposes an original defense of the armchair pursuit of philosophical knowledge, focusing on “the method of cases,” in which judgments about category membership—Does this count as causation? Does that count as the right action to take?—are used to test philosophical hypotheses about such matters as causality, moral responsibility, and beauty. Strevens argues that the method of cases is capable of producing reliable, substantial knowledge. His strategy is to compare concepts of philosophical things to concepts of natural kinds, such as water. Philosophical concepts, like natural kind concepts, do not contain the answers to philosophers’ questions; armchair philosophy therefore cannot be conceptual analysis. But just as natural kind concepts provide a viable starting point for exploring the nature of the material world, so philosophical concepts are capable of launching and sustaining fruitful inquiry into philosophical matters, using the method of cases. Agonizing about unusual “edge cases,” Strevens shows, can play a leading role in such discoveries. Thinking Off Your Feet seeks to reshape current debates about the nature of philosophical thinking and the methodological implications of experimental philosophy, to make significant contributions to the cognitive science of concepts, and to restore philosophy to its traditional position as an essential part of the human quest for knowledge.