Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Theory of Interpretation for Comparative and Chinese Philosophy

  • Published:
Dao Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Why should interpretation of conceptual schemes and practices (forms of life) across traditions work at all? In this paper we present the following necessary conditions of possibility for interpretation in comparative and Chinese philosophy: the interpreter must presuppose that there are mutually recognizable human practices; the interpreter must presuppose that “the other” is, on the whole, sincere, consistent, and right; the interpreter must be committed to certain epistemic virtues. Some of these necessary conditions are consistent with the fact that interpretation is not thwarted by the “danger” of relativism or of incommensurability. Some other conditions are suggestive of reorientations of methodologies of comparative and Chinese philosophy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ames, Roger T., and Henry Rosemont. 1998. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bataille, Georges. 2005. The Cradle of Humanity: Prehistoric Art and Culture. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavell, Stanley. 1979. The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality and Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cua, Antonio S., ed. 2003. Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donald. 2001. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2004. Problems of Rationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fingarette, Herbert. 1991. “Reason, Spontaneity, and the Li 禮—A Confucian Critique of Graham’s Solution to the Problem of Fact and Value.” In Chinese Texts and Philosophical Contexts. Essays Dedicated to Angus C. Graham, edited by Henry Rosemont. Chicago and La Salle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, Chris. 2014. “Wandering the Way: A Eudaimonistic Approach to the Zhuāngzǐ.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 13.4: 541–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, Nelson. 1972. Problems and Projects. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, Angus C. 1981. Chuang-Tzu. The Inner Chapters. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 1992. “Conceptual Schemes and Linguistic Relativism in Relation to Chinese.” In Unreason within Reason: Essays of the Outskirts of Rationality, edited by Angus C. Graham. La Salle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, R. E. 1973. “Reference, Meaning, and Belief.” The Journal of Philosophy 70: 439–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. 1995. Anticipating China: Thinking through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Chad. 1983. “Preface: [the section] The Coherent Theory Methodology of Interpretation.” In Language and Logic in Ancient China. http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/ch/L&L1.htm (last access August 1, 2016).

  • ____. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2007. “Prolegomena to Future Solutions to ‘White-Horse Not Horse’.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34: 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2014. “Principle of Humanity vs. Principle of Charity.” In Moral Relativism and Chinese Philosophy: David Wong and His Critics, edited by Xiao Yang and Huang Yong. Albany: State University of New York Press.

  • Huang, Yong, and Xiao Yang. 2014. “Introduction.” In Moral Relativism and Chinese Philosophy: David Wong and His Critics, edited by Xiao Yang and Huang Yong. Albany: State University of New York Press.

  • LePore, Ernest, and Kirk Ludwig. 2005. Donald Davidson: Meaning, Truth, Language, and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Chenyang. 2007. “Li as Cultural Grammar: On the Relation between Li and Ren in Confucius’ Analects.” Philosophy East and West 57.3: 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Lin. 2008. Heidegger on East-West Dialogue: Anticipating the Event. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2014. “A Zhuangzian Response to Heidegger’s Mitsein.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 41.3/4: 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2015. “Thinking with Zhuangzi and Su Shi against Heidegger on Artwork.” Philosophy East and West 65.3: 809–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Lin, and Jaap van Brakel. 2013. “On the Conditions of Possibility for Comparative and Intercultural Philosophy.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 12.3: 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2016. Fundamentals of Comparative and Intercultural Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

  • McLeod, Alexus. 2015. “Replies to Brons and Mou on Wang Chong and Pluralism.” Comparative Philosophy 6.1: 169–184.

  • Rudebusch, George. 2014. “Reconsidering Ren as Virtue and Benevolence.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 40.3/4: 456–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders Jr., Frank. 2014. “Semantics without Truth in Later Mohist Philosophy of Language.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 13.2: 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, Joachim. 2010. “Does the Devil in Hell Have a Form of Life?” In Wittgenstein on Forms of Life and the Nature of Experience, edited by Antonio Marques and Nuno Venturinha. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Huston. 1980. “Western and Comparative Perspectives on Truth.” Philosophy East and West 30.4: 425–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Brakel, Jaap. 2014. “Heidegger on Zhuangzi and Uselessness.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 41.3/4: 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Brakel, Jaap, and Ma Lin. 2015. “Extension of Family Resemblance Concepts as a Necessary Condition of Interpretation across Traditions.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 14.4: 475–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, Bas. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Savigny, Eike. 1991. “Common Behaviour of Many a Kind: Philosophical Investigations Section 206.” In Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: Text and Context, edited by Robert L. Arrington and Hans-Johann Glock. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1969. The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 1974. Philosophical Grammar, edited by Rush Rhees. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 1975. On Certainty, edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 1978. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, edited by G. H. von Wright, Rush Rhees, and G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 1993. “Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough.” In Philosophical Occasions 1912–1951, edited by James C. Klagge and Alfred Nordmann. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2000. Wittgenstein’s Nachlass: Text and Facsimile Version. The Bergen Electronic Edition. Bergen and Oxford: Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen and Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2009a. Philosophical Investigations. 4th ed. Trans. by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, and revised by P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • ____. 2009b. Philosophy of Psychology—a Fragment. 4th ed. Trans. by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, and Joachim Schulte, and revised by P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte.. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Wong, David. 2006. Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2014. “Reply to Hansen.” In Moral Relativism and Chinese Philosophy: David Wong and His Critics, edited by Xiao Yang and Huang Yong Huang. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Philosophy, Renmin University of China, No. 59 Zhongguancun Av., Haidian District, Beijing, 100872, China

    Lin Ma

  2. Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte, KU Leuven, Kardinaal Mercierplein 2, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Jaap van Brakel

Authors
  1. Lin Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaap van Brakel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaap van Brakel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, L., van Brakel, J. A Theory of Interpretation for Comparative and Chinese Philosophy. Dao 15, 575–589 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-016-9522-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-016-9522-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation