比较哲学中的根据问题

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES Critical Asian Studies Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.4312/as.2022.10.3.225-239
M. Ott
{"title":"比较哲学中的根据问题","authors":"M. Ott","doi":"10.4312/as.2022.10.3.225-239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In comparative philosophy, there arises the problem of ground for comparison. Qualitative comparison is based on a certain qualitative ground for comparison, e.g., weight. Quantitative comparison brings more clarity into the qualitative comparison, introducing discrete and homogeneous units: how much does it weigh? How much does it cost? Both qualitative and quantitative comparison start from a ground that is already given and clear; they simply apply it to the case at hand (Is this one heavier than the other? If so, by how much?). In other—and more interesting—cases, the common ground is obscure: we have the feeling that A and B can be compared, but how exactly? The inability to immediately proceed to application creates a tension, and this opens the intensive dimension of comparison. The intensity has two sides: obscure and clear. The obscure side has its articulations, but they interpenetrate each other. Our task is to unfold, unravel, unpack. Then we will bring something to clarity where the elements do not interpenetrate so much but are juxtaposed (in different qualities and quantities). This will give rise to new tensions and new unfolding. The obscure articulations do not resemble the clear ones, and their unfolding is a creative process.","PeriodicalId":46839,"journal":{"name":"Critical Asian Studies","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Problem of Ground in Comparative Philosophy\",\"authors\":\"M. Ott\",\"doi\":\"10.4312/as.2022.10.3.225-239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In comparative philosophy, there arises the problem of ground for comparison. Qualitative comparison is based on a certain qualitative ground for comparison, e.g., weight. Quantitative comparison brings more clarity into the qualitative comparison, introducing discrete and homogeneous units: how much does it weigh? How much does it cost? Both qualitative and quantitative comparison start from a ground that is already given and clear; they simply apply it to the case at hand (Is this one heavier than the other? If so, by how much?). In other—and more interesting—cases, the common ground is obscure: we have the feeling that A and B can be compared, but how exactly? The inability to immediately proceed to application creates a tension, and this opens the intensive dimension of comparison. The intensity has two sides: obscure and clear. The obscure side has its articulations, but they interpenetrate each other. Our task is to unfold, unravel, unpack. Then we will bring something to clarity where the elements do not interpenetrate so much but are juxtaposed (in different qualities and quantities). This will give rise to new tensions and new unfolding. The obscure articulations do not resemble the clear ones, and their unfolding is a creative process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Asian Studies\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Asian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.225-239\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.225-239","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在比较哲学中,出现了比较依据的问题。定性比较是基于一定的比较的定性基础,例如,重量。定量比较使定性比较更加清晰,引入离散的和同质的单位:它有多重?多少钱?质的比较和量的比较,都是从既有的明确的根据出发的。他们只是把它用在手边的箱子上(这个比另一个重吗?如果是的话,是多少?)在其他更有趣的情况下,共同点是模糊的:我们感觉A和B可以比较,但具体如何比较呢?无法立即进行应用创造了一种紧张感,这打开了比较的密集维度。这种强度有两个方面:模糊和清晰。隐晦的一面有它的表达,但它们是相互渗透的。我们的任务是展开、拆解、拆封。然后,我们将把一些东西弄清楚,这些元素并不相互渗透,而是并列(以不同的质量和数量)。这将引起新的紧张和新的发展。模糊的发音不像清晰的发音,它们的展开是一个创造性的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Problem of Ground in Comparative Philosophy
In comparative philosophy, there arises the problem of ground for comparison. Qualitative comparison is based on a certain qualitative ground for comparison, e.g., weight. Quantitative comparison brings more clarity into the qualitative comparison, introducing discrete and homogeneous units: how much does it weigh? How much does it cost? Both qualitative and quantitative comparison start from a ground that is already given and clear; they simply apply it to the case at hand (Is this one heavier than the other? If so, by how much?). In other—and more interesting—cases, the common ground is obscure: we have the feeling that A and B can be compared, but how exactly? The inability to immediately proceed to application creates a tension, and this opens the intensive dimension of comparison. The intensity has two sides: obscure and clear. The obscure side has its articulations, but they interpenetrate each other. Our task is to unfold, unravel, unpack. Then we will bring something to clarity where the elements do not interpenetrate so much but are juxtaposed (in different qualities and quantities). This will give rise to new tensions and new unfolding. The obscure articulations do not resemble the clear ones, and their unfolding is a creative process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Asian Studies
Critical Asian Studies AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Critical Asian Studies is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal that welcomes unsolicited essays, reviews, translations, interviews, photo essays, and letters about Asia and the Pacific, particularly those that challenge the accepted formulas for understanding the Asia and Pacific regions, the world, and ourselves. Published now by Routledge Journals, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Critical Asian Studies remains true to the mission that was articulated for the journal in 1967 by the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars.
期刊最新文献
A “Forgotten” Massacre: The Battle of Thakhek in Laos, 1946 From Bizarre Encounters to Native Strangeness: Indigenous Otherness and Insider-Outsider Interactions in Indonesia Hindutva, OBCs and Koli Selfhood in Western and Central India Forest Reserves as Frontiers of Indigeneity: Semai Orang Asli Investments of Work, Cultural Use and Identity in the Bukit Tapah Forest Reserve The Politics of Misalignment: NGO Livelihood Interventions and Exclusionary Land Claims in an Indonesian Oil Palm Enclave
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1