Commensurability and Difference

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
Geir Sigurðsson
{"title":"Commensurability and Difference","authors":"Geir Sigurðsson","doi":"10.4312/as.2023.11.1.317-333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this explorative paper, I propose that relatively recent trends in Western continental philosophy can provide a much more commensurate access to Chinese philosophy than found in most mainstream Western philosophy. More specifically, I argue that three prominent European philosophical approaches to interpretation can offer meaningful parallels to classical Confucian views of interpretation. These are Paul Ricoeur’s term “distanciation”, Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophy of hermeneutics and, finally, Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive notion of “différance”. While the last two approaches have had their internal clashes, I see them in this specific case as mutually reinforcing by stimulating the continuous reinterpretation of tradition, advancing the view that Western and Chinese philosophies cannot be reduced to the other in conceptual terms, and stipulating that a finalized meaning or interpretation of each is a priori unattainable. In this way, they provide a future opening for—and even integration of—a Chinese-Western philosophical dialogue.","PeriodicalId":46839,"journal":{"name":"Critical Asian Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2023.11.1.317-333","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: 0

Abstract

In this explorative paper, I propose that relatively recent trends in Western continental philosophy can provide a much more commensurate access to Chinese philosophy than found in most mainstream Western philosophy. More specifically, I argue that three prominent European philosophical approaches to interpretation can offer meaningful parallels to classical Confucian views of interpretation. These are Paul Ricoeur’s term “distanciation”, Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophy of hermeneutics and, finally, Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive notion of “différance”. While the last two approaches have had their internal clashes, I see them in this specific case as mutually reinforcing by stimulating the continuous reinterpretation of tradition, advancing the view that Western and Chinese philosophies cannot be reduced to the other in conceptual terms, and stipulating that a finalized meaning or interpretation of each is a priori unattainable. In this way, they provide a future opening for—and even integration of—a Chinese-Western philosophical dialogue.
可通约性与差异性
在这篇探索性的论文中,我提出,相对于大多数西方主流哲学,西方大陆哲学的最新趋势可以为中国哲学提供更相称的途径。更具体地说,我认为三种突出的欧洲哲学解释方法可以提供与古典儒家解释观点有意义的相似之处。它们是保罗•里科的术语“距离”,汉斯-格奥尔格•伽达默尔的解释学哲学,最后是雅克•德里达的解构主义概念“差异”。虽然后两种方法有其内部冲突,但我认为它们在这个特定的案例中是相互加强的,因为它们刺激了对传统的不断重新解释,推进了西方和中国哲学不能在概念上被简化为对方的观点,并规定每个人的最终意义或解释都是先天无法实现的。通过这种方式,它们为未来的中西哲学对话提供了一个开端,甚至是一个融合。
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
Critical Asian Studies AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
29
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.
×
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