Methodological and Substantial Arguments Against “Conceptual Eurocentrism”

Abstract

This paper summarized the basic results of the philosophical discussion that was held in the Institute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of Sciences on April 25, 2019. The authors had been the main opponents of Andrey Krushinskiy approach, according to which there are processes of monopolization of discourse domain by the European conceptual apparatus of philosophy in the contemporary Chinese philosophy. In other words, in opinion of Andrey Krushinskiy, this “conceptual Eurocentrism” is the future of every possible attempt of philosophizing in any national philosophical tradition, and there is no possibility to philosophize outside this European philosophical terminology. This approach is to be balanced by two critical arguments, which can be conventionally named as “civilization bound argumentation” (Andrew Paribok) and argumentation ad professionem (Ruzana Pskhu). The first one states that all things which can confirm Krushinskiy approach have extrinsic value, not philosophical or conceptual. And the second one states that the double professionalism, which could include both European approach and the absolute competency in non-European tradition, compared with the level of its representative, is beyond the possibilities of any human mind (exceptional geniuses are excluded). Demonstration of this assertion is accomplished on the base of investigation of Sanskrit by European scholars.