A Holistic Account of Adequacy Conditions for How to Look at Contraries

IF 1.7 2区社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES

Critical Asian Studies Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.4312/as.2022.10.3.157-179

B. Mou

{"title":"A Holistic Account of Adequacy Conditions for How to Look at Contraries","authors":"B. Mou","doi":"10.4312/as.2022.10.3.157-179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this essay is to give a meta-philosophical and meta-methodological characterization of some central characteristic features comparative philosophy as a general way of doing philosophy through cross-tradition engagement toward world philosophy. This is elucidated by presenting a holistic account of the conditions for maintaining adequate methodological guiding principles for appropriately and effectively considering different approaches to philosophy. This essay is meta-methodological in character: given that comparative philosophy sets out to explore how to adequately look at contraries (especially those from different philosophical traditions, but not limited to them, methodologically speaking), and given the self-reflective philosophical nature of comparative philosophy, exploring adequacy conditions for how to look at contraries is meta-methodological in character but also a significant part of comparative philosophy per se. This meta-methodological exploration in comparative philosophy is neither exhaustive nor exclusive: it is not exhaustive because comparative philosophy as a whole has other substantial contents; it is not exclusive because this suggested account itself is open-ended and can include further adequate conditions that would be complementary to the current set from the holistic vantage point, which is exactly one ending point of this essay.","PeriodicalId":46839,"journal":{"name":"Critical Asian Studies","volume":"98 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.157-179","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

The aim of this essay is to give a meta-philosophical and meta-methodological characterization of some central characteristic features comparative philosophy as a general way of doing philosophy through cross-tradition engagement toward world philosophy. This is elucidated by presenting a holistic account of the conditions for maintaining adequate methodological guiding principles for appropriately and effectively considering different approaches to philosophy. This essay is meta-methodological in character: given that comparative philosophy sets out to explore how to adequately look at contraries (especially those from different philosophical traditions, but not limited to them, methodologically speaking), and given the self-reflective philosophical nature of comparative philosophy, exploring adequacy conditions for how to look at contraries is meta-methodological in character but also a significant part of comparative philosophy per se. This meta-methodological exploration in comparative philosophy is neither exhaustive nor exclusive: it is not exhaustive because comparative philosophy as a whole has other substantial contents; it is not exclusive because this suggested account itself is open-ended and can include further adequate conditions that would be complementary to the current set from the holistic vantage point, which is exactly one ending point of this essay.

查看原文本刊更多论文

如何看待矛盾的充分条件的整体说明

本文的目的是对比较哲学的一些核心特征进行元哲学和元方法论的描述，比较哲学是一种通过跨传统参与世界哲学来研究哲学的一般方式。这是通过对保持适当和有效地考虑不同的哲学方法的适当和有效的方法论指导原则的条件的整体描述来阐明的。本文具有元方法论的性质:考虑到比较哲学旨在探索如何充分看待对立面(特别是那些来自不同哲学传统的对立面，但从方法论上讲并不局限于它们)，考虑到比较哲学的自我反思哲学性质，探索如何看待对立面的适当条件是元方法论的性质，但也是比较哲学本身的重要组成部分。这种对比较哲学的元方法探索既不是详尽的，也不是排他的:它不是详尽的，因为比较哲学作为一个整体还有其他实质性的内容;它不是排他性的，因为这个建议的帐户本身是开放式的，可以包括进一步的充分条件，从整体的有利位置补充当前的设置，这正是本文的一个结束点。

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

Critical Asian Studies AREA STUDIES-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

3.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Asian Studies is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal that welcomes unsolicited essays, reviews, translations, interviews, photo essays, and letters about Asia and the Pacific, particularly those that challenge the accepted formulas for understanding the Asia and Pacific regions, the world, and ourselves. Published now by Routledge Journals, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Critical Asian Studies remains true to the mission that was articulated for the journal in 1967 by the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars.