Title: Methodological problems in transcultural philosophy: (post)comparative approaches and the method of sublation
Speaker: Jana Rošker
Abstract:
This paper addresses problems encountered by Western scholars working in the field of Chinese philosophy. It begins with a discussion of cross-cultural and transcultural methodologies and highlights some of the most common problems encountered in traditional cross-cultural comparisons in the field of philosophy. Considering the current state of the so-called post-comparative discourses in the field of transcultural philosophy and starting from the notion of culturally divergent frames of reference, it focuses on semantic aspects of Chinese philosophical tradition and demonstrates the need for discursive translations. On this basis, a new post-comparative approach in transcultural philosophical studies of Chinese philosophy is suggested. In the framework of such approaches, I propose the application of an innovative principle based on what can be tentatively called the method of sublation.
In this context, we must take into account that philosophical interculturality is a specific type of communication or interaction between different intellectual, linguistic and cognitive traditions, where the differences in cultures and the corresponding linguistic structures have a decisive influence on the formation of meaning. In this sense, intercultural interactions certainly involve the process of transferring meanings, implications and connotations between different cultures. Nevertheless, numerous current theorists criticize the very notion of interculturality with its problematic embedding in a static and one-dimensional understanding of cultures as fixed “realms,” “spheres,” or “islands.” In such a view, the very idea of culture is defined by a separatist character. Therefore, many contemporary scholars argue instead for a transcultural approach, because the suffix “trans-” contained in the notion of transculturality suggests that it is capable of transcending the boundaries and limits of a fixed and static notion of culture. In this sense, it suggests “the possibility of going beyond the fragmentation and separation of different cultures and philosophies”, thus creating a more inclusive and enriching approach to philosophies.
Western scholars studying Chinese philosophy need to be aware of the fact that classical and traditional Chinese philosophical discourses are embedded in networks of semantic structures that define their concepts, paradigms, and categories. Here, we start from the assumption that different languages and different patterns of thought associated with their individual grammatical structures, different cultures continuously create different frames of reference that assume a determining role in human understanding and interpretation of a given reality. Such networks determine the connotations of each concept, the relations between them, and the overall semantic structure as such. Thus, frames of reference are comprehensive instruments that filter perceptions and create meanings. Different reference frames can lead to different descriptions and interpretations of one and the same objective reality.
Knowledge of the specific frame of reference that has emerged in the historical development of Chinese philosophy is of paramount importance in order to interpret certain concepts and transfer them into the framework of global philosophy. In this context, the methods of discursive translations are of utmost importance. For translations are necessarily also interpretations of the multiple connotations of concepts and categories embedded in different semantic and referential networks. Moreover, translations of different philosophies, belonging to different semantic frameworks, different linguistic structures and different methodological paradigms, can never be limited to merely translating one language into another. They must also involve the “translation” or transposition of different discourses, as well as interpretations of individual textual and linguistic structures, categories, concepts, and evaluation criteria that differ according to sociocultural context.
The transmission of meanings, that is, the transfer of the conceptual connotations of certain concepts from Chinese philosophy to the realm of global philosophy requires a comparative perspective. However, such a perspective also confronts us with numerous problems due to which the model of traditional comparative philosophy has become very controversial in recent years. These problems are not limited to the fact that we are working with a unified methodology built on culturally divergent concrete resources. In my view, the crucial difficulty in cross-cultural comparative philosophy is related to the fact that the “unified methodology” mentioned above is a system underlying one of the philosophies being compared, namely traditional European or “Western” philosophy. There is no third, external methodology that could provide us with objective criteria for comparison. The same applies to the understanding and evaluation of concepts and categories. The cognitive processes in such a transcultural comparative procedure apply one (usually “Western”) philosophical language, even though the material they study is culturally discrete, which means that it is usually written in different languages and based on different patterns of thought. Many traditional comparative methods were based on such a notion of one universal philosophical language.
Based on thorough reflection and analysis of such axiological and conceptual issues inherent in traditional comparative procedures, many scholars have elaborated new methodological tools that could overcome such problematic approaches. Such experimentalisms and new models of transcultural philosophising have been termed post-comparative philosophies. Within the framework of such culturally and conceptually sensitive approaches, I propose a new method for transferring meanings from Chinese to global philosophy, namely the method of sublation. Although the term “sublation” encompasses all three concepts that are crucial to any process of creating something new from the interactions between two or more different objects or phenomena. In this philosophical sense, it has the three connotations of arising, eliminating and preserving. Moreover, the term “sublation” refers to a process rather than a stage, andis therefore much better suited to a more thorough and authentic understanding of many crucial concepts in Chinese philosophy, which is to a great extent rooted in processual paradigms.
It is therefore important to understand that this method is dynamic. This means that it can only evolve in a historical perspective and thus in dialogue with all the positive and relevant aspects of what we have learned from past cross-cultural comparisons. In this talk I will demonstrate the operation and application of the proposed method of sublation. The main aim of this talk is to show that, despite numerous theoretical and methodological difficulties faced by Western (or Western-trained) researchers of Chinese philosophy, the proposed method still incorporates and consciously preserves the crucial function and task of transcultural philosophy, manifested in its crucial aim of overcoming the accidental boundaries imposed by a particular assortment of experiences and gaining insight into realities of possibly greater universality.
Keywords: Chinese philosophy, intercultural philosophy, transcultural philosophy, framework of reference, post-comparative philosophy, method of sublation