Methodologies and communities in comparative philosophy

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
METAPHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1111/meta.12698
Stephen C. Angle
{"title":"Methodologies and communities in comparative philosophy","authors":"Stephen C. Angle","doi":"10.1111/meta.12698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is considerable disagreement and even confusion over what forms of border-crossing philosophizing are most appropriate to our times. Are comparative, cross-cultural, intercultural, blended, and fusion philosophy all the same thing? Some critics find what they call “comparative philosophy” to be moribund or problematically colonialist; others assert that projects like “fusion philosophy” are intellectually irresponsible and colonialist in their own way. Can we nonetheless identify a distinctive project of comparative philosophy and say why it is important? Based on a broad survey of approaches, this essay offers schematic answers to these questions, clarifies some persistent confusions, and stresses the constitutive gamble that lies at the heart of all comparative philosophy. There are several different ways to do comparative philosophy well; which method to employ depends on the values that motivate and the pragmatic situation that frames one's inquiry, and on the ways in which one or more communities receive and respond to one's contribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":46874,"journal":{"name":"METAPHILOSOPHY","volume":"55 3","pages":"423-439"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"METAPHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.12698","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is considerable disagreement and even confusion over what forms of border-crossing philosophizing are most appropriate to our times. Are comparative, cross-cultural, intercultural, blended, and fusion philosophy all the same thing? Some critics find what they call “comparative philosophy” to be moribund or problematically colonialist; others assert that projects like “fusion philosophy” are intellectually irresponsible and colonialist in their own way. Can we nonetheless identify a distinctive project of comparative philosophy and say why it is important? Based on a broad survey of approaches, this essay offers schematic answers to these questions, clarifies some persistent confusions, and stresses the constitutive gamble that lies at the heart of all comparative philosophy. There are several different ways to do comparative philosophy well; which method to employ depends on the values that motivate and the pragmatic situation that frames one's inquiry, and on the ways in which one or more communities receive and respond to one's contribution.

比较哲学的方法论和社群
对于何种形式的跨界哲学最适合我们的时代,存在着相当大的分歧,甚至混淆不清。比较哲学、跨文化哲学、跨文化哲学、混合哲学和融合哲学都是一回事吗?一些批评家认为,他们所谓的 "比较哲学 "已经奄奄一息,或带有殖民主义色彩;另一些批评家则断言,像 "融合哲学 "这样的项目在智力上是不负责任的,本身就带有殖民主义色彩。然而,我们能否确定比较哲学的独特项目,并说明它为何重要?本文在对各种方法进行广泛调查的基础上,对这些问题给出了示意性的回答,澄清了一些长期存在的困惑,并强调了所有比较哲学的核心所在--构成性的赌博。有几种不同的方法可以很好地进行比较哲学研究;采用哪种方法取决于激励人们进行研究的价值观和实际情况,以及一个或多个社群接受和回应人们贡献的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
METAPHILOSOPHY
METAPHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Metaphilosophy publishes articles and reviews books stressing considerations about philosophy and particular schools, methods, or fields of philosophy. The intended scope is very broad: no method, field, or school is excluded.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信