The Dao through the Prism of the Logos: Eurocentrism at the Level of Concepts
https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-6-33-53
Abstract
Despite the declarations about the possibility of rationalities that are alternative to Western European, despite the reasoning about philosophical multipolarity, the multiplicity of ways of thinking, etc., nowadays, the Western European paradigm of rationality (and concepts that corresponds to it), which is derived from Hellenic thought, continues to claim the status of ideological neutrality and transcend any intercivilizational differences. The Western European rationality in all its diversity is now acting as rationality as such. The indispensability of the reference to the Greek conceptual apparatus in contemporary philosophizing manifests itself most openly in the form of comparativism. Thus, there is the focus on carrying out explicit parallels between, on the one hand, the studied non-European intellectual phenomena and, on the other hand, their supposed European counterparts. An example of the cross-cultural and methodologically sound research of the problems of rationality is an analysis of the Dao through the prism of the Logos. The statement of the uniqueness of the Greek Logos does not imply the prohibition of the existence of its original counterparts in the so-called “non-Western” civilizations with an ancient and distinctive culture. The assumption of the existence of their own analogues of the Logos and rationality in various non-European civilizations presumes the most interesting question about the pluralism of rationalities – the question about the existence of rationalities in the past that could be considered as an alternative to the now prevailing Western European standard of rationality.
About the Author
Andrey A. KrushinskiyRussian Federation
D.Sc. in Philosophy, Main Research Fellow
Moscow
References
1. Gadamer H.G. (1950) Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes (Russian translation in: Heidegger’s Paths: Studies of Late Creativity. Minsk: Propylaea, 2007).
2. Gao Minkai & Liu Zhengtan (1958). Xiandai Hanyu Wailaitsu Yanjiu [Study borrowing the words of modern Chinese]. Beijing: Wenzi Gaige Chubanshe (in Chinese).
3. Guenter W. (2003) Heidegger and Laozi: Wu (Nothing) – on Chapter 11 of the Daodejing. Journal of Chinese Philosophy. Vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 39–59.
4. Defoort C. (2001) Is There Such a Thing as Chinese Philosophy? Arguments of Implicit Debate. Philosophy: East and West. Vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 393–413.
5. Defoort C. (2006) Is “Chinese Philosophy” a Proper Name? A Response to Rein Raud. Philosophy: East and West. Vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 625–660.
6. Delaune T. (2015, April 3) The Tao of Heidegger (Presented at the Western Political Science Association 2015 Annual Meeting “Chinese Thought in Comparative Political Perspective Panel”). Las Vegas. Retrieved from http://www.wpsanet.org/papers/docs/The%20Tao%20of%20Heidegger.pdf
7. Derrida J. (1967) Violence et métaphysique: Essai sur la pensée d’Emmanuel Levinas (Russian translation in: Writing and Difference. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proyekt, 2007).
8. Falev E.V. (2008) Heidegger’s Hermeneutics. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia (in Russian).
9. Heidegger M. (1993) The Thing. In: Heidegger M. Time and Being. Moscow: Respublika (Russian translation).
10. Heidegger M. (2006) On the Line. In: The fate of Nihilism. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University Press (in Russian).
11. Krushinskiy A.A. (2013) The Logic of Ancient China. Moscow: Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (in Russian).
12. Lao Tzu (1988). Daodejing. In: Zhuzi Jicheng [Collection of Works of All Wise Men] (vol. 3). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju (in Chinese).
13. Liu F. & Seligman J. (2011) Chinese Logic and Chinese Philosophy: Reconstruction or Integration? The Newsletter. No. 58. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu.2011.1299947/Chinese_logic_and_Chinese_philosophy_reconstruction_or_integration_2011_
14. Liu F., Seligman J., & van Benthem J. (2011) Models of Reasoning in Ancient. Logic. Vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 57–81.
15. Ma L. (2006) Deciphering Heidegger’s Connection with Daodejing. Asian Philosophy. Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 149–171.
16. May R. (1996) Heidegger’s Hidden Sources: East-Asian Influences on His Work. London: Routledge.
17. Mikhaylov A.V. (1993) Instead of Introduction. In: Heidegger M. Works and Thoughts of Different Years. Moscow: Gnosis. (in Russian).
18. Parkes G. (1987) Thoughts on the Way: Being and Time via Lao-Chuang. In: Parkes G. (Ed.) Heidegger and Asian Thought (pp. 105–144). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
19. Pöggeler O. (1992) Neue Wege mit Heidegger (Russian translation: Saint Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’, 2019).
20. Pushkarskaya N.V. (2016) On the Problem of Early Categorical Thinking in Ancient China. Philosophy and Culture. 2016. No. 10, pp. 1430–1441. DOI: 10.7256/1999-2793.2016.10.10407 (in Russian).
21. Safranski R. (1994) Ein Meister aus Deutschland. Heidegger und seine Zeit (Russian translation: Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya, 2002).
22. The I Ching, or the Book of Changes: Richard Wilhelm translation rendered into English by Cary F. Baynes (1950). New York: Princeton University Press.
23. Torchinov E.A. (2000) Carefree Wandering in the World of the Secret and Mysterious: Martin Heidegger and Taoism. In: Religion and Traditional Culture. Collected Scientific Papers (pp. 74–90). Saint Petersburg (in Russian).
24. Qiao Qingju (2014). Zhexue yanjiu fansi: chaoyue “and yi shi zhong” [Retrospective reflections on the study of Chinese philosophy: to overcome (an explanatory model) “to explain the Chinese through the western”]. Zhonggu shehui kesue. 2014. No. 11, pp. 43–62 (in Chinese).
25. Wu Qiuwen (2011). Yi Jing Yu Daodejing [Yi Jing and Daodejing] (vol. 1). Yongkang, Taiwan: Ili Wenhua (in Chinese).
26. Yesenin-Volpin A.S. (1959) Analysis of Potential Feasibility. In: Logical Studies (collected articles) (pp. 218–262). Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR Press (in Russian).
27. Zhang Zhulun (2017). Zhongguo zhexue yu dandai shijie [Chinese philosophy and the modern world]. Zhexue yanjiu. 2017. No. 1, pp. 91–100 (in Chinese).
Review
For citations:
Krushinskiy A.A. The Dao through the Prism of the Logos: Eurocentrism at the Level of Concepts. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2019;62(6):33-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-6-33-53