The article discusses the problems of philosophical geography, philosophical multipolarity, georationality. The debates on these issues are becoming interdisciplinary. Specialists in Eastern philosophies and cross-cultural communications as well as epistemologists, scientific methodologists,  cognitive scholars, synergists became participants of the discussion held at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The problem of Eurocentrism in academic philosophy has become the main topic of discussion. The opponents of the “regional” multipolarity argued that the Western European tradition of rationality was an example of the rationality per se. The proponents, who relied heavily on the ad professionem arguments, advocated multipolarity and demonstrated the irreducibility of the world-pictures, languages and ontologies of philosophical systems. A point of view was expressed that Eurocentrism had an ideological background. The disputants noted that there was need to redefine or clarify such fundamental concepts as logic, rationality, scientific rationality, universalism, processuality. The redefinition of the concept of rationality is for the studies of various types of rationality outside European cultures. Methodologists of science drew attention that the cognitive problems of intercultural communications turned out to be similar to the problems faced by theory of complexity. The analysis of philosophical, logical and other cases in various “zones of exchange” reveals a plurality of directions in the global and local socio-cultural spaces. The panelists raised the question of the role of philosophy in the global world and its responsibility in uniting nations. The authors of the article draw attention to many functions that the Western European conceptual system performs in the formation of philosophical language, mentality and communication. The dynamics of philosophical discussions, the dialogue of the West and the East lead to the clarification of philosophical positions, the emergence of new concepts and meanings as well as the formation of discourses of the future.

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.

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.

The article is a response to the criticism of “conceptual Eurocentrism” expressed in the paper by A.A. Krushinsky at the Round Table on the Geography of Rationality on April 25, 2019. It deals with the main thesis of A.A. Krushinsky that in cross-cultural philosophical studies the Western conceptual matrix currently defines a single conceptual space for all participants, the language of Western philosophy acts as a trans-civilizational language in the world philosophy. The author of the article agrees with the main thesis, however she does not agree with its arguments and two consequences: (a) it is necessary to consider Western rationality as “rationality as such,” and (b) there is no multi-polarity in the current philosophy though there are a lot of traditions of philosophical discourse, which identify and articulate themselves by means of Western conceptuality (that is why we may speak on so-called “philosophical geography” only). The arguments do not stand comparison with the search of future philosophy, conducted now by the world philosophical community. The search is aiming to equality of all philosophical traditions. The article proves that conceptual Eurocentrism is not so much a danger as an objective necessity. Its spread is a manifestation of tendency to creative mutual borrowing of cultural inventions. The tendency always had place, but it was not so obvious in the conditions of preglobal history. The consequences of Krushinskiy’s thesis are refuted by the evidence that the Western philosophers denied to use the concept universal rationality and began studies of the various types of rationality. The author also provides an example of the creative borrowing and use of European concepts “rationality,” “positive knowledge,” “truth,” “scientific method,” “hypothesis” by the Indian philosopher of science B. Seal, who applied these concepts to the Indian material.

The typology of rationality is one of major issues of modern philosophy. In an attempt to provide a typology to Oriental materials, a researcher faces additional problems. The diversity of the Orient as such poses a major challenge. When we say “Oriental,” we mean several cultures for which we cannot find a common denominator. The concept of “Orient” involves Arabic, Indian, Chinese, Turkish and other cultures, and the only thing they share is that they are “non-Western.” Moreover, even if we focus just on Islamic culture and look into rationality in this context, we have to deal with a conglomerate of various trends, which does not let us define, with full confidence, a common theoretical basis and treat them as a unity. Nevertheless, we have to go on trying to find common directions in thought development, so as to draw conclusions about types of rationality possible in Islamic culture. A basis for such a typology of rationality in the context of the Islamic world was recently suggested in A.V. Smirnov’s logic of sense theory. However, actual empiric material cannot always fit theoretical models, and the cases that do not fit the common scheme are interesting per se. On the one hand, examination of such cases gives an opportunity to specify certain provisions of the theory and, on the other hand, to define the limits of its applicability.

Many years the academic community has been discussing issues of a universal metalanguage as the general conceptual framework of modern social and humanitarian research, especially of philosophy. The article questions the claim that the language of Western philosophy was already accepted as a unified tool in the 20^th century. The peculiarities of perception and further application of Western philosophical terminology in Japan in late 19^th – first half of the 20^th centuries are investigated here as a factual evidence base of argumentation. Special attention is given to examples of translation and interpretation of some concepts of Western origin, such as metaphysics, ethics, logic, substance, subject, etc., as observed in the works of eminent thinkers Nishi Amane, Inoue Tetsujiro, Nishida Kitaro, and Watsuji Tetsuro. The paper provides examples of new original concepts (as they did not have Western equivalents) developed by modern Japanese philosophers, such as Kimura Bin, Hiromatsu Wataru et al. The author concludes that the general conceptual framework that modern philosophy operates with is a very dynamic and open system, capable of transforming in different cultural contexts and in keeping with newly emerging issues that require analysis. The article identifies factors that provide philosophical communication between different cultures at the conceptual level, that is, the presence of a common circle of problems and presence of partial overlap between the key concepts. The author poses the problem of the emergence of new approaches and ideas in a situation of “conflicting interpretations,” or incomplete equivalence of similar notions when used by the parties in a dialogue, casting doubt on possibility, necessity and reasonability of exact reproduction of meanings and “complete domestication” in other cultures.

The article discusses the problem of coexistence of different types of rationality, different scientific and linguistic pictures of the world as well as the problem of the adoption by one culture of another culture’s scientific picture of the world with accompanying transformations of the linguistic picture of the world of the recipient culture. The article deals with the experience of mutual research and collision between Western and Chinese traditions, using the example of medical science. The author examines the problem of the transfer of scientific medical knowledge from Western to Chinese culture in the context of a radical mismatch of scientific and linguistic pictures. The articles considers two different approaches to the translation of Western medical terminology into Chinese, developed at different times by English translators Benjamin Hobson and John Fryer. Hobson was focused on harmonizing new terminology with the usual concepts of the world language picture of the recipient. Fryer preferred to introduce new specific terms, artificially created directly for the needs of a new scientific picture of the world. In the field of medical terminology, the first of the two approaches turns out to be more viable, since it is more focused on its “end users” – Chinese doctors who study Western medicine in order to use its methods in their medical practice. Therefore, there is only partial applicability of the approaches, methods and terminology developed in one tradition for the evaluation and development of another tradition.

The article discusses the problem of the formation of philosophical prose in the Persian language. The first section presents a brief excursion into the history of philosophical prose in Persian and the stages of formation of modern Persian as a language of science and philosophy. In the Arab-Muslim philosophical tradition, representatives of various schools and trends contributed to the development of philosophical terminology in Farsi. The author dwells on the works of such philosophers as Ibn Sīnā, Nāṣir Khusraw, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, Aḥmad al-Ghazālī, ʼAbū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī and gives an overview of their works written in Persian. The second section poses the question whether the Persian language proved able to compete with the Arabic language in the field of science. The author examines the style of philosophical prose in Farsi, considering the causes of creation of Persian-language philosophical texts and defining their target audience. The article presents viewpoints of modern orientalist researchers as well as the views of medieval philosophers who wrote in Persian. We find that most philosophical texts in Persian were written for a public who had little or no knowledge of the Arabic language, yet wanted to get acquainted with current philosophical and religious doctrines, albeit in an abbreviated format. The conclusion summarizes and presents two positions regarding the necessity of writing philosophical prose in Persian. According to one point of view, Persian-language philosophical works helped people who did not speak Arabic to get acquainted with the concepts and views of contemporary philosophy. According to an alternative view, there was no special need to compose philosophical texts in Persian, because the corpus of Arabic philosophical terminology had already been formed, and these Arabic terms were widely and successfully used, while the new Persian philosophical vocabulary was difficult to understand.

Among the two (substantial and procedural) rival views on the outside world, preference was historically given to the substantial point of view. The success of Aristotle’s logic was due to the simple substantial ontology built by him. In that logic, the subject is characterized by an instant set of properties. The change of objects leads to the change of properties. The reduction of processes to substances causes a number of problems. The construction of procedural logic should be started with the construction of the most abstract procedural ontology. The main difference of processes from substances is their extension. Each item, as a process, can be considered as a bundle of parallel processes. The relation the individual S has the property P is the main relation in the substantial ontology. In the procedural ontology, one of the main ones is the relation process R is a sub-process of the process Q. This relation is sufficient for the interpretation of the main syllogistic constants. As a result, we get Łukasiewicz syllogistic for reasoning about parallel processes. The extension of the processes allows us to talk about their parts. The second main relation of procedural ontology is the relation process P consists of two successive processes Q and R. If the processes Q and R are successive, it is natural to make use of the relation earlier-later. In procedural ontology, time does not emerge through external postulation but exists within it. In the ontology of processes, one can naturally define the concept of causality, which becomes a logical concept. However, the success of the procedural view of the outside world is only possible if the new ways of reasoning prove to be a more effective tool for intellectual cognitive activity than the existing ones.

This article considers the meaning of the ancient Chinese magic square Luoshu. It is known that this square is the most ancient of this type of squares. The importance of the magic square in the philosophical tradition and in the whole culture of China is large. The ancient understanding of number differs from the modern one by its dual character, combining the features of philosophical symbolism and mathematical constructions. Unfortunately, modern interpretations of the Luoshu as well as other numerical constructions preserved by the Chinese tradition are too often limited to a superficial statement of their symbolic, “numerological” nature, ignoring the effects of the mathematical structure represented by them. At the same time, some scholars strongly emphasize the intuitive aspects of numerology, which do not presuppose accuracy. On the contrary, Leibniz saw in the Chinese binary system of thinking the beginning of an exact universal language. The author, appealing to the concept of A.A. Krushinskiy, analyzes the arithmetic laws of the structure of the square. The article shows that the magic square Luoshu is not a numbers game. Without any doubt, its main meaning lies in the application of arithmetic. Chinese magic square is an illustrative implementation of one of the main features of Chinese language and traditional thinking – its rational and mathematical basis. The Luoshu square is a vivid example of visual constructivism in the Chinese style of thinking. By means of the magic square’s scheme, the procedure of generalization that is a basis of concepts formation is carried out. This procedure uses a mathematical magic square algorithm based on the numerical codes of the five elements. The quinary spontaneous symbolism is rooted in the Chinese traditional culture of thinking and life order.