Remembering Mass: Response to Yang Xiaomei

Abstract

I am honored that Professor Yang has lavished such attention on my decades-old argument and I am pleased to respond. I’ve changed. Decades ago when the argument was fresh, I resisted answering critics who misconstrued my argument. Instead, I had a series of long conversations with them, including but not limited to those to whom Professor Yang appeals. I remember the conversations fondly because they started many life-long friendships—particularly with Christoff Harbsmeier, BAO Zhi Ming, Henry Rosemont, Roger Ames, and Angus Graham. All the conversations are rich in my memory but the pivotal one for my current change in strategy was with Christoff (inevitably, over a beer—a tradition we both cherish and repeat at every opportunity). Christoff and I met after he generously invited me to discuss drafts of his article criticizing my “mass noun hypothesis.” I pointed out that he had formulated and criticized a Whorfian version of what was a Quinian (and Wittgensteinian) argument. Although I thought his attack on Whorf weak, I ignored the issue since, for me, he was attacking a straw man, i.e., his own mass noun hypothesis. He responded that if he had misstated my argument, I should respond to him in detail in print otherwise his presentation of my argument “would stand.” I argued that responding would simply consist of my repeating myself; that philosophers and other academics could (and would) read his article and my book for themselves and would see how the two were different. After multiple beers and lengthy vigorous discussion we parted friends agreeing to disagree. In my youth, I cherished more faith in the objectivity of philosophy and the power of reason. Age has made me realistic about the politics of academic discourse. Christoff and I reprised the moment in Amsterdam last November (over beer, of course) and I admitted to Christoff that he had won the bet. Almost all published comments since his Dao (2011) 10:541–546 DOI 10.1007/s11712-011-9237-y