Methodological and Substantial Arguments Against “Conceptual Eurocentrism”
https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-6-54-69
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.
Keywords
philosophy,
civilization approach,
eurocentrism,
Indian philosophy,
rational inquiry,
intellectual history,
philosophy of language,
Sanskrit
Supporting agencies: The publication has been prepared with the support of the RUDN-University Program “5–100.”
About the Authors
Andrew V. Paribok
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor of Institute of Philosophy
Saint Petersburg
Ruzana V. Pskhu
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D.Sc. in Philosophy, Associate Professor of Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Moscow
References
1. Böhtlingk O. (Ed.) (1887) Pāṇini’s Grammatik. Leipzig (in German). Bronkhorst J. (2001a) Indology and Rationality. Asiatische Studien = Etudes Asiatique. Vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 917–941.
2. Bronkhorst J. (2001b) Traditional and Modern Sanskrit Scholarship: How Do They Relate to Each Other. In: Michaels A. (Ed.) The Pandit: Traditional Scholarship in India (pp. 167–180). Delhi: Manohar.
3. Bronkhorst J. (2014) Deviant Voices in the History of Paninian Grammar. Bulletin d’Études Indiennes. No. 32, pp. 47–53.
4. Guha D.C. (2016) Navya Nyaya System of Logic: Basic Theories and Techniques. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
5. Hegel G.W.F. (1993) Lectures on the History of Philosophy (vol. 1). Saint Petersburg: Nauka (Russian translation).
6. Houben J. (2000) Language and Thought in the Sanskrit tradition. In: Auroux S., Koerner E.F.K., Niederehe H.-J., & Versteegh K. (Eds.) History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present (vol. 1, pp. 146–157). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
7. Houben J. (2003) Three Myths in Modern Pāṇinian Studies. Études Asiatiques = Asiatische Studien. Vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 121–179.
8. Kochergina V.A. (1994) Sanskrit Manual. Moscow: Philologia (in Russian).
9. Krushinskiy A.A. (2013) The Logic of Ancient China. Moscow: Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (in Russian).
10. Krushinskiy A.A. (2016) The Logic of Ancient China. The Philosophy Journal. Vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 111–127 (in Russian).
11. Krushinskiy A.A. (2019) The Dao through the Prism of the Logos: Eurocentrism at the Level of Concepts. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. Vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 33–53 (in Russian).
12. Paribok A.V. (2016) The Ultimate Foundation of the Atman Versus Anatman Issue in Indian Philosophy. In: Kirabaev N. & Pskhu R. (Eds.) Philosophical Crossroads of Interaction of Civilizations: Culture and Values:
13. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (in the Frame of the International Scientific and Educational Program “Dialogue of Civilizations: East and West). 27–29 May 2016, Moscow (pp. 19–40). Moscow: PFUR (in Russian).
14. Paribok A.V. (2019) Study on Conceptual Precision and the Limited Applicability of “Truth,” “Theory” and “Practice” to Indian Philosophical Traditions. Proceedings of the 4 th International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities (ICCESSH 2019) (pp. 129–134). Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.
15. Pskhu R.V. (2016) Philosophical Sanskrit and Difficult Process of its Russian Translation. Voprosy filosofii. 2016. No. 3, pp. 80–89 (in Russian).
16. Pskhu R.V. & Kryshtop L.E. (2017) Development of Hermeneutic Ideas in European Philosophy and Specific Features of Philosophical Commentaries in India. Voprosy filosofii. 2017. No. 12, pp. 159–167 (in Russian).
17. Pskhu R.V., Kryshtop L.E., & Paribok A.V. (2019) On the Statement of a Question on Periodization of History of Indian Philosophy. Voprosy filosofii. 2019. No. 1, pp. 146–163 (in Russian).
18. Sharma R.N. (2002). The Aṣṭādyāyī of Pāṇini. In 6 vols. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
19. Smirnov A.V. (2015) Architectonics of Muslim Ethics. In: Smirnov A.V. Logic. Language. Culture. Sense (pp. 459–482). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury (in Russian).
20. Zaliznyak A.A. (1996) A Brief Sanskrit Grammar. In: Kochergina V.A. Sanskrit-Russian Dictionary ( 3rd ed). Moscow: Philologia, 1996 (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Paribok A.V., Pskhu R.V. Methodological and Substantial Arguments Against “Conceptual Eurocentrism”. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2019;62(6):54-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-6-54-69
Email this article 