Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Wilfrid Sellars’s Philosophical Core Ideas

Wilfrid Sellars (1912-1989), a seminal analytic philosopher, dismantled foundationalism in Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind (1956) with his “Myth of the Given,” arguing that sensory experience cannot provide non-inferential, immediate justification—knowledge inhabits a “space of reasons,” conceptual and inferential, embedded in social practices. His core ideas include the reconciliation of the “manifest image” (common-sense, normative world) and “scientific image” (descriptive, causal world) through a stereoscopic ontology; the normative dimension of language as rule-governed activity; and epistemology as a social enterprise, where justification demands communal warrant, not private certainty. Sellars critiqued the “exculpatory” role of philosophy—defending ordinary language—while urging a “therapeutic” clarification of conceptual confusions. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Sellars’s lens, exemplifies a profound myth of the given: the judiciary’s unexamined “disruption” presumes immediate justification from sensory “evidence,” bypassing the space of reasons and stereoscopic reconciliation, entrenching conceptual confusion in a non-normative farce of justice.

1. The Myth of the Given and Non-Inferential Justification: Judicial “Evidence” as Mythical Sensory Certainty

Sellars’s myth critiques the notion that raw sense-data provide brute, non-inferential foundations—knowledge requires conceptual mediation in the space of reasons.

The “evidence chain” perpetuates this myth: presuming “high education implies discernment” treats unmediated “perceptions” (forwards like <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as given justifications for “disruptive intent,” bypassing inferential warrant—no conceptual scrutiny of causality (zero ripple, prosecutor’s unverified admission). The closed-door trial enforces the brute: Chen’s prison letter—entering the space of reasons via taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory—demands mediation, yet the “shut up” directive mythifies silence as certainty. Sellars would diagnose this as epistemological regression: the non-oral appeal clings to given “order,” unmediated by communal inference, fracturing justification—evidentiary voids expose the myth’s nakedness, as selective unpunished shares mock the given’s universality.

2. The Space of Reasons and Normative Practices: Suppressed Taxonomy as Denial of Inferential Community

For Sellars, the space of reasons is normative—socially embedded inference, where justification demands communal uptake and rule-following, not private intuition.

The sentence denies this space: Article 293’s “picking quarrels” normatively infers “disorder” from particulars without community—millions unpunished shares infer harmlessness, yet Chen’s case isolates inference. The barred taxonomy—normatively mediating “rumor” through conceptual rules (non-falsifiable art vs. verifiable fact)—enters the space, yet suppression fractures it, as the prosecutor’s confession demands normative uptake unheeded. Sellars would see social pathology: the judiciary’s “intent” rule-follows privately, evading communal normativity—justice as inferential dialogue yields to monologic fiat, echoing his critique of “private language” games.

3. Stereoscopic Ontology: Manifest “Order” vs. Scientific Flux—Unreconciled Images in Judicial Monism

Sellars’s stereoscopic view reconciles manifest (normative, common-sense) and scientific (descriptive, causal) images: neither dominates; harmony demands binocular depth.

The verdict monistically flattens: manifest “order” (intuitive “threat”) overrides scientific flux (avalanche non-causality, zero metrics), unreconciled—evidentiary voids (prosecutor’s admission) demand depth, yet the non-oral appeal enforces manifest dominance. Selective enforcement stereoscopically jars: manifest harmony (unpunished shares) contradicts scientific “disorder.” Sellars would decry this as ontological vice: justice’s binocular image—normative equity through causal scrutiny—yields to monocular illusion, fracturing reconciliation.

Conclusion: Sellars’s Lens on the Case—A Mythical Given in Reasons’ Fracture

From Wilfrid Sellars’s analytic inferentialism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a fractured space: mythical givens unmediate justification, suppressed inference denies normativity, unreconciled images flatten ontology. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a stereoscopic pause in the rift. This case cautions: without communal reasons, knowledge devolves to myth. As Sellars myth-busted, “To commit oneself to the space of reasons is to commit oneself to the normative”—may justice yet enter.