ON THE INTERPHILOSOPHICAL SINO-WESTERN DIALOGUE IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Marián Gálik
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava

In the present world of globalization, dialogue and cooperation, it is necessary to follow the Confucian demand of he er bu tong 和而不同 –harmony but not uniformity. As a scholar working in the field of intellectual history, I think that it is necessary to follow this demand in the philosophical realm with the methodology of Comparative Philosophy. I would propose as a Sinologist to do it within the framework of contemporary New Confucianism as the most developed philosophy of the Chinese world today. In my contribution I point out the philosophical views of the most progressive scholars in this realm like Cheng Zhongying, Tang Yijie, Liu Shuxian, Zhao Dunhua,  Mou Bo, the members of the International Society for Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Philosophy (ISCWP), and also other authors outside of Sinology who could help in this respect. Interphilosophical dialogue should be led according to the methodology of Comparative Philosophy. This methodology is up to this time, as I know it, not well elaborated, and certainly it is not as good as the methodology of Comparative Literature. There are of course some interesting and useful instructions by Cheng Zhongying, Jay Goulding, Tang Yijie, et al., and especially by Bo Mou. But Bo Mou’s methodology, according to his own words, provides only “one effective channel by which scholars from different traditions and/or with distinct styles/orientations of doing philosophy carry out international cooperation, constructive dialogue and comparative engagement in studying Chinese philosophy towards world philosophy or doing philosophy in a global context.” Why not to teach from the rich experiences of Comparative Literature?

当今世界中西哲学间的对话

高利克
斯洛伐克科学院

在一个全球化、对话与合作的当今世界，我们有必要遵从孔子“和而不同”的箴言。作为一名从事思想史研究的学者，我认为在哲学领域通过比较哲学的方法论来遵从这一箴言是非常必要的。作为一位汉学家，我提倡在当今中国最发达的哲学即当代新儒学之内遵循这个原则。在我的文章中，将提到该研究领域最杰出的学者的观点，如成中英、汤一介、刘述先、赵敦华、牟博——他们均是“国际中西哲学比较研究协会”的成员；也将涉及汉学之外有助于探讨此问题的其他学者的观点。哲学间的对话应当以比较哲学的方法论为依据。然而，据我所知，这个方法论迄今为止仍未被充分阐明，而且它也确实不如比较文学的方法论那么成熟。当然，成中英、欧阳剑、汤一介等人，尤其是牟博提供了一些有趣而有价值的启发。但牟博的方法，用他自己的话来说，仅仅提供了“一种来自不同传统和/或具有不同风格/取向的学者们在研究面向世界哲学的中国哲学时，或者说在一个全球化语境下考察中国哲学时，可以达成国际合作、建设性对话以及比较研究的有效渠道。”我们为什么不借鉴比较文学的丰富经验呢？