Dao

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 151–171 | Cite as

Comparative Philosophy and the Tertium: Comparing What with What, and in What Respect?

Article

Abstract

Comparison is fundamental to the practice and subject-matter of philosophy, but has received scant attention by philosophers. This is even so in “comparative philosophy,” which literally distinguishes itself from other philosophy by being “comparative.” In this article, the need for a philosophy of comparison is suggested. What we compare with what, and in what respect it is done, poses a series of intriguing and intricate questions. In Part One, I offer a problematization of the tertium comparationis (the third of comparison) by examining conceptualizations of similarity, family resemblance, and analogy, which it is sometimes argued can do without a tertium comparationis. In Part Two, I argue that a third of comparison is already required to determine what is to be compared, and insofar as that determination precedes the comparison that tertium may be called “pre-comparative.” This leads me to argue against incomparability and to show how anything can indeed be compared to anything. In Part Three, I relate my arguments to what is today commonly labelled “comparative philosophy.” Finally, I raise some questions of ontology and politics in order to demonstrate the relevance of a philosophy of comparison.

Keywords

Comparative philosophy Intercultural philosophy Tertium comparationis Analogy Family resemblance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agamben, Giorgio. 2009. Signatura rerum: Zur Methode. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  2. Albrecht, Michael. 1985. “Einleitung.” In Christian Wolff, Rede über die praktische Philosophie der Chinesen, Latin and German edition, edited by Michael Albrecht. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  3. Albus, Vanessa. 2001. Weltbild und Metapher: Untersuchungen zur Philosophie im 18. Jahrhundert. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  4. Aquinas, Thomas. 1952. Quaestiones disputatae de potentia Dei / On the Power of God. Westminster: The Newman Press. <http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia7.htm#7:8> (last viewed 21 January 2014)
  5. Aristotle. 1936. Physics. Edited and trans. by David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. ____. 1963. Categories and De Interpretatione. Trans. by J. L. Ackrill. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. ____. 2000. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. and edited by Roger Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bouveresse, Jacques. 1999. Prodiges et vertiges de l’analogie. Paris: Éditions Raisons d’Agir.Google Scholar
  9. Brunswig, Alfred. 1910. Das Vergleichen und die Relationserkenntnis. Leipzig und Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar
  10. Bunnin, Nicholas, and Yu Jiyuan. 2001. “Saving the Phenomena: An Aristotelian Method in Comparative Philosophy.” In Two Roads to Wisdom? Chinese and Analytical Philosophical Traditions, edited by Bo Mou. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  11. Butchvarov, Panayot. 1966. Resemblance and Identity: An Examination of the Problem of Universals. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eco, Umberto. 1992. “Overinterpreting texts.” In Interpretation and Overinterpretation, edited by Stefan Collini. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Elberfeld, Rolf. 1999. “Überlegungen zur Grundlegung ‘komparativer Philosophie’.” Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie 24.2: 125–154.Google Scholar
  14. Engels, Friedrich. 1968. “[Konspekt über] ‘Das Kapital’ von Karl Marx. Erster Band.” In Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels: Werke, vol. 16. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Fleming, Jesse. 2003. “Comparative Philosophy: Its Aims and Methods.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 30.2: 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foucault, Michel. 1983. This Is not a Pipe. Trans. by James Harkness. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. ____. 2002. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Frege, Gottlob. 1960. The Foundations of Arithmetic. 2nd rev. ed. Trans. by J. L. Austin. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  19. Glock, Hans-Johann. 1996. A Wittgenstein Dictionary. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman, Nelson. 1972. “Seven Strictures on Similarity.” In Problems and Projects. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  21. Halbfass, Wilhelm. 1985. “India and the Comparative Method.” Philosophy East and West 35.1: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heil, John. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holenstein, Elmar. 1998. Kulturphilosophische Perspektiven. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Husserl, Edmund. 1901. Logische Untersuchungen—Zweiter Theil: Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  25. Johnston, Ian. 2010. The Mozi: A Complete Translation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kant, Immanuel. 1800. Logik: ein Handbuch zu Vorlesungen. Edited by Gottlobb Benjamin Jäsche. Königsberg: bey Friedrich Nicolovius.Google Scholar
  27. ____. 1992. Lectures on Logic. Trans. and edited by J. Michael Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lane, Melissa. 2009. “Comparing Greek and Chinese Political Thought: The Case of Plato’s Republic.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 36.4: 585–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lloyd, Geoffrey (G.E.R.). 2004. Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections: Philosophical Perspectives on Greek and Chinese Science and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Locke, John. 1997. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Roger Woolhouse. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  31. Markosian, Ned. 1998. “Simples.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76.2: 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marx, Karl. 1962. Das Kapital. Band 1. In Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels: Werke, vol. 23. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Moore, George Edward. 1953. Some Main Problems of Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Moore, Samuel, and Edward Aveling, trans. n.d. “Synopsis of Capital.” <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/1868-syn/ch01.htm> (last viewed 19 January 2014).
  35. Mou, Bo. 2010. “On Constructive-Engagement Strategy of Comparative Philosophy: A Journal Theme Introduction.” Comparative Philosophy 1.1: 1–32.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy, Timothy, and Ralph Weber. 2010. “Confucianizing Socrates and Socratizing Confucius: On Comparing Analects 13:18 and the Euthyphro.” Philosophy East and West 60.2: 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Musil, Robert. 1990. “Mind and Experience: Notes for Readers Who Have Eluded the Decline of the West (1921).” In Precision and Soul: Essays and Addresses, edited by Burton Pike and David S. Luft. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Panikkar, Raimundo. 1988. “What is Comparative Philosophy Comparing?” In Interpreting Across Boundaries: New Essays in Comparative Philosophy, edited by Gerald James Larson and Eliot Deutsch. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Petrus Hispanus. 1972. Tractatus called afterwards Summulae logicales. Edited by Lambertus Marie de Rijk. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  40. Reding, Jean-Paul. 2004. Comparative Essays in Early Greek and Chinese Rational Thinking. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  41. Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo. 2002. Resemblance Nominalism: A Solution to the Problem of Universals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Russell, Bertrand. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schenk, Günter, and Andrej Krause. 2001. “Vergleich.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, edited by Joachim Ritter, Karlfried Gründer, and Gottfried Gabriel, vol. 11. Basel: Schwabe Verlag.Google Scholar
  44. Smid, Robert W. 2009. Methodologies of Comparative Philosophy: The Pragmatist and Process Traditions. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  45. Thiel, Christian. 2004. “tertium comparationis.” In Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, vol. 4, edited by Jürgen Mittelstraß. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
  46. Weber, Ralph. 2013. “‘How to Compare?’—On the Methodological State of Comparative Philosophy.” Philosophy Compass 8.7: 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ____, and Garrett Barden. 2010. “Rhetorics of Authority: Leviticus and the Analects Compared.” Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 64.1: 173–240.Google Scholar
  48. Wiggins, David. 2001. Sameness and Substance Renewed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophische Untersuchungen /Philosophical Investigations. 2nd ed. Trans. by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. ____. 1965. The Blue and Brown Books. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  51. Wolff, Christian. 1981. “Von den fruchtbaren Begriffen.” In Gesammelte Werke, 1. Abt. Deutsche Schriften, vol. 21.2. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
  52. ____. 1985. Rede über die praktische Philosophie der Chinesen, Latin and German ed. Edited by Michael Albrecht. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  53. Wong, David B. 2002. “Reasons and Analogical Reasoning in Mengzi.” In Essays on the Moral Philosophy of Mengzi, edited by Liu Xiaogan and Philip J. Ivanhoe. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  54. Zhang, Xianglong. 2010. “Comparison Paradox, Comparative Situation and Interparadigmaticy: A Methodological Reflection on Cross-Cultural Philosophical Comparison.” Comparative Philosophy 1.1: 90–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.URPP Asia and EuropeUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations