扬弃中国关系主义

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES Critical Asian Studies Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.4312/as.2022.10.3.81-104
Jana S. Rošker
{"title":"扬弃中国关系主义","authors":"Jana S. Rošker","doi":"10.4312/as.2022.10.3.81-104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to bring into the global ethics debate concrete alternative models of specific relational ethics developed in the context of Sinic traditions that have not yet been widely introduced into Western scholarship or integrated into the framework of global discourses on ethics and morality. Although much research has been done on certain elements and aspects of such ethical models, there have been no concrete attempts to incorporate them into a global axiological framework that could have helped humanity develop strategies for solving the current global crises we face.\nThe paper first provides a critical overview of the conceptual history, specific characteristics, and social relevance of relationism. It then addresses the question of how relational ethical models could be integrated into the value system of contemporary global ethics without reproducing the still dominant normativity of Western epistemology and its corresponding axiology. After highlighting some problems related to the methodology and structure of traditional models of comparative philosophy and ethics, the author suggests that this integration of relationism into the general framework of global ethics could be done by applying a new method, which can be tentatively called the method of transcultural philosophical sublation. Starting from different frames of reference that define the basic tenets of modern Western and traditional Chinese axiology, the author demonstrates the application of this method on the example of different conceptions of the human self.","PeriodicalId":46839,"journal":{"name":"Critical Asian Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sublating Sinic Relationism\",\"authors\":\"Jana S. Rošker\",\"doi\":\"10.4312/as.2022.10.3.81-104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper aims to bring into the global ethics debate concrete alternative models of specific relational ethics developed in the context of Sinic traditions that have not yet been widely introduced into Western scholarship or integrated into the framework of global discourses on ethics and morality. Although much research has been done on certain elements and aspects of such ethical models, there have been no concrete attempts to incorporate them into a global axiological framework that could have helped humanity develop strategies for solving the current global crises we face.\\nThe paper first provides a critical overview of the conceptual history, specific characteristics, and social relevance of relationism. It then addresses the question of how relational ethical models could be integrated into the value system of contemporary global ethics without reproducing the still dominant normativity of Western epistemology and its corresponding axiology. After highlighting some problems related to the methodology and structure of traditional models of comparative philosophy and ethics, the author suggests that this integration of relationism into the general framework of global ethics could be done by applying a new method, which can be tentatively called the method of transcultural philosophical sublation. Starting from different frames of reference that define the basic tenets of modern Western and traditional Chinese axiology, the author demonstrates the application of this method on the example of different conceptions of the human self.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Asian Studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Asian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.81-104\",\"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.2022.10.3.81-104","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: 1

摘要

本文旨在将在中国传统背景下发展起来的具体关系伦理的具体替代模型引入全球伦理辩论,这些模型尚未被广泛引入西方学术或纳入全球伦理和道德话语的框架。尽管对这些道德模式的某些要素和方面进行了大量研究,但还没有具体的尝试将它们纳入一个全球价值论框架,从而帮助人类制定解决当前我们面临的全球危机的战略。本文首先对关系主义的概念历史、具体特征和社会相关性进行了批判性概述。然后,它解决了如何将关系伦理模型整合到当代全球伦理的价值体系中,而不复制西方认识论及其相应的价值论的仍然占主导地位的规范性的问题。在强调了传统比较哲学和伦理学模式的方法论和结构存在的一些问题之后,作者提出,将关系主义纳入全球伦理学的总体框架可以通过一种新的方法来实现,这种方法可以暂时称为跨文化哲学扬弃方法。作者从界定现代西方和中国传统价值论基本原则的不同参照系出发,以不同的人类自我概念为例,论证了这种方法的应用。
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
Sublating Sinic Relationism
This paper aims to bring into the global ethics debate concrete alternative models of specific relational ethics developed in the context of Sinic traditions that have not yet been widely introduced into Western scholarship or integrated into the framework of global discourses on ethics and morality. Although much research has been done on certain elements and aspects of such ethical models, there have been no concrete attempts to incorporate them into a global axiological framework that could have helped humanity develop strategies for solving the current global crises we face. The paper first provides a critical overview of the conceptual history, specific characteristics, and social relevance of relationism. It then addresses the question of how relational ethical models could be integrated into the value system of contemporary global ethics without reproducing the still dominant normativity of Western epistemology and its corresponding axiology. After highlighting some problems related to the methodology and structure of traditional models of comparative philosophy and ethics, the author suggests that this integration of relationism into the general framework of global ethics could be done by applying a new method, which can be tentatively called the method of transcultural philosophical sublation. Starting from different frames of reference that define the basic tenets of modern Western and traditional Chinese axiology, the author demonstrates the application of this method on the example of different conceptions of the human self.
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