245DOI: 10.4312/as.2024.12.2.245-270 Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation: Introducing a New Methodology for Research in Chinese Phi- losophy from the Perspective of Transcultural Comparisons Jana S. ROŠKER*2 Abstract In this article, I will introduce and describe my current research work, which centres on re-interpreting Chinese philosophy by implementing an innovative approach suitable for transcultural philosophical comparisons. To commence this undertaking, I was com- pelled to address certain issues, leading me to seek a novel methodology for transcultural research. This article will begin by briefly addressing the still existing general problems of transcul- tural philosophical comparisons. I will then examine the recent and current landscape of research in the field of Chinese comparative philosophy, with a specific focus on emerging paradigms referred to as “post-comparative” approaches. In the latter part of this paper, building upon a concise overview of my previous research findings, I will elucidate the current stage of development of the method of sublation. Furthermore, I will provide a theoretical framework outlining the subsequent phases of investigation. Keywords: sublation, methodology, post-comparative research, Chinese philosophy, com- parative philosophy Preporod kitajske filozofije s pomočjo metode sublacije: predstavitev nove me- todologije za raziskovanje kitajske filozofije z vidika transkulturnih primerjav Izvleček V tem članku bom najprej predstavila in opisala svoje trenutno raziskovalno delo, ki se osre- dotoča na reinterpretacijo kitajske filozofije z uporabo inovativnega pristopa, primernega za transkulturne filozofske primerjave. Kot sinologinja sem se pri svojem raziskovalnem * Jana S. ROŠKER, Professor of Sinology, Department of Asian Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Email address: jana.rosker@ff.uni-lj.si Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 245 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 246 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation delu namreč nenehno srečevala z mnogimi problemi, povezanimi z metodološko proble- matiko medkulturnih raziskav. Le-ta me je privedla k iskanju novih metodoloških rešitev za primerjalne transkulturne študije. Članek se prične s kratkim opisom še vedno obstoječih splošnih problemov na področju medkulturnih filozofskih primerjav, nadaljuje pa se s predstavitvijo nedavnega in trenut- nega stanja raziskav na področju kitajske in primerjalne filozofije, s posebnim poudarkom na trenutno nastajajočih paradigmah, ki so znane kot »postprimerjalni« pristopi. V zadnjem delu tega članka bom na osnovi kratkega pregleda svojih dosedanjih razisko- valnih izsledkov predstavila trenutno stopnjo razvoja metode sublacije. Poleg tega bom v njem vzpostavila nov teoretski okvir za nadaljnje faze raziskovanja. Ključne besede: sublacija, metodologija, postkomparativne raziskave, kitajska filozofija, primerjalna filozofija Introduction Against the bleak backdrop of a globalized but increasingly fragmented world, to- day’s academia has a crucial role to play in developing and promoting new models of exchange that can foster a more stable and interconnected global community that embraces and values diversity. This is especially important given the current state of the world, where issues such as social and political divisions, economic inequality, and environmental degradation are increasingly pressing. By imagin- ing, crafting, and advocating for new models of exchange, academia can play an important role in addressing these challenges and working towards a more just and equitable world. Therefore, the main objective of the proposed method is to enhance and promote the exchange of ideas and knowledge between different cultures and traditions by elaborating and improving existing models for intercultural comparisons of dif- ferent theories embedded in the domains of different cultures. In this regard, my primary goal is to improve and complete various elements and approaches of the so-called transcultural philosophical sublation which has been tentatively elabo- rated and schematically demonstrated in my previous research (see e.g., Rošker 2020; 2021; 2022a; 2022b). To provide context for this endeavor, I will begin by examining the key issues related to traditional forms of ideational exchange be- tween Europe and East Asia, especially China. When European and, more generally, “Western” scholars engage with the so-called “Eastern” philosophical traditions, their interpretations are often embedded in the cognitive frameworks of their own cultures – that is, the cultures in which they were born and educated. As a result, their understanding of the various ideational Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 246 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 247Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 traditions tends to be Eurocentric and inextricably linked to the intellectual her- itage of their own sociohistorical backgrounds, without fully accounting for the multiple and complex differences in culturally divergent patterns of philosophi- cal language and thought.1 All these problems occur in any type of intercultural research, which is always embedded in the diverse cultural backgrounds of the subject and the object of interpretation. As such, it is by no means coincidental that—without a thorough reflection of cultural characteristics which defines any particular culturally conditioned subject matter in the realm of intercultural re- search—all histories of ideas and all cultural discourses are ethnocentric. In such an unreflected ethnocentric view, one’s own people “historically stand for civiliza- tion and its achievements, whereas the otherness of the others is a deviation from these standards” (Rüsen 2004, 62‒63). In this sense, Eurocentrism as a formally and informally institutionalized discourse, which represents a psychological foun- dation and a central approach of Orientalism, is simply a form of ethnocentrism, one among many others. Nevertheless, and the same as Orientalism as such, Eu- rocentrism is also a discourse of power. Since the colonial era, it is therefore more influential than most of the other ethnocentrisms. It is an approach, based upon a “higher” position of economic and political supremacy, which is the result of specific social, ideational, and historical developments. Although the economic and partly political rise of Asia in recent decades has shifted the global politi- cal landscape, the lingering effects of colonialism continue to shape intercultural discourse, including in philosophy. The reason for this persistence lies in the his- torical development of modernization, which began in Europe and subsequently spread worldwide. This history has led to the present state of globalized interna- tional relations, in which the standards and criteria used in theoretical analysis are primarily determined by Western or European principles. This is no accident, but rather the result of the historical and cultural context in which modernization took place. This process also brought about a “modernization” of knowledge and created an asymmetrical relationship between the two sides, in which European indifference to Asia and Asian interest in Europe were anything but balanced. 1 The issue of the legitimacy of non-European philosophies is a highly relevant topic in this context. In recent years, there have been ongoing debates and discussions about whether traditional East Asian thought, particularly Chinese thought, should be considered as a form of philosophy. These debates have been quite intense and have been entered into from multiple perspectives. Due to the complexity of the issue, it may not be possible to address it fully within the limited scope of this project proposal. However, readers who wish to gain a deeper understanding of these controversies can find an in-depth examination of the topic, including some crucial arguments in favour of rec- ognizing Chinese thought as philosophy, in the prologue of my book Interpreting Chinese Philoso- phy: A New Methodology, published by Bloomsbury Academic in 2021. The prologue is titled “Chi- nese Philosophy: Fact or Fiction?” and provides a comprehensive overview of the topic, shedding light on the different perspectives and arguments surrounding the problem. Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 247 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 248 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation Defining Central Concepts In order to gain a deeper (and much needed) understanding of non-Western phil- osophical theories, it is necessary to acknowledge and move beyond these Euro- centric perspectives and instead approach them using their own unique method- ologies. This project posits that Western epistemology is just one of many ways to understand the world, and aims to present and critically evaluate the various methodological approaches used in transcultural philosophical research. If they want to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the focal issues, scholars working in the field of comparative philosophy must try to overcome any poten- tial divergencies in thought and intellectual history between different philosoph- ical traditions. In my investigation of new modes of interpretation that could arise from applying the method of sublation, I therefore proceed from the presumption according to which different philosophical discourses from various traditional cultures are, inter alia, products of different (culturally conditioned) paradigms, or of theo- retical frameworks deriving from divergent cultural and linguistic environments. Western researchers who work in the field of non-Western thought and philos- ophy still tend to lack a conscious reflection of the analytical and interpretative procedures they are applying. These procedures are usually the results of particular (and specifically Western) historical developments and the associated, emblematic social orders and structures. Much too often such techniques and the correspond- ing methodological apparatus prove themselves to be misleading and dangerous. Notions, ideas, categories, and concepts, which have been shaped in a certain so- ciocultural or ideational context, can hardly be simply transferred into other, dif- ferently structured cultural or traditional contexts. Numerous concepts that work well in a processual paradigm that is typical of Chinese and most traditional East Asian philosophies make absolutely no sense (or are simply invalid) in a static formal-logical framework. The dynamic para- digm which underlies the dominant East Asian streams of thought causes many problems for most Western scholars, who are not trained in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean conceptual history. Here we must consider the subtle but significant differences between cross-cul- tural, intercultural, and transcultural approaches. While the term cross-cultur- al is the most general and refers to the comparison or study of different cul- tures, interculturality (especially philosophical interculturality) is a specific type of communication or interaction between different intellectual, linguistic, and cognitive traditions in which differences in cultures and corresponding linguistic structures decisively influence the shaping of meaning. In this sense, intercultural Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 248 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 249Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 interactions certainly involve the process of transferring meanings, implications, and connotations between different cultures. Nevertheless, numerous current the- oreticians (e.g., Welsch 1999) criticize the very notion of interculturality with its problematic embeddedness into a static and one-dimensional understanding of cultures as fixed “realms”, “spheres”, or “islands”. In such a view, the very idea of culture is being defined by a separatist character. Therefore, many contemporary scholars advocate a transcultural approach instead, for the suffix “trans-”, which is included into the notion of transculturality, proposes that it is able to transcend the borders and limits of a fixed and static idea of culture. In this sense, it suggests the possibility to step beyond the very fragmentation and separateness of various cultures and philosophies. As such, a transcultural view of cultures enables us to gain a multi-perspective attitude, which implies inclusion rather than an exclu- sion or isolation. Transcultural approaches to the study of intercultural phenom- ena—including philosophical concepts, categories, and methodologies—help us overcome obsolete, static, and fixed concepts of culture. This does not imply, how- ever, that there is no culture. Cultures, the same as their various elements, such as customs, religions, rituals, symbols, or languages, are still real things. Just like different languages, they all belong to dynamic, historically grown and constantly changing entities without fixed limitations. In such a dynamic image of different cultural-linguistic traditions there is no place for cultural essentialism, nor for any static and durable individual or group identities that are based upon a “cultural substance”. What this image shows is only that we are formed in different, but always concrete symbolic, linguistic and epistemological worlds. On such bases people have throughout history produced a series of different forms of knowledge, which are connected with the world and Earth itself in different ways and through diverse, specific multifaceted relations that cannot be measured only with the criteria of linear progress of modern sci- ence and technology. Only an insight into the existence of such heterogeneity will allow us to resolve the tensions between reality and understanding. Transcultural Comparisons: Theoretical Models, Paradigms, and Frameworks of Reference Against this background, I start from a critical problematization of traditional in- tercultural exchanges and, within this framework, focus on theoretical models of comparison. In recent years not only the methods but even the very concept of com- parative philosophy have become somewhat controversial. Many researchers (e.g. Griffiths 2017, 473; Ouyang 2018, 244) believe that comparison is an elementary Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 249 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 250 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation function of any form of genuine philosophical thinking. It is doubtless true that our reasoning is based upon contrasting between different phenomena, ideas, forms and concepts. Such principles underly and guide the elementary procedures of human perception and interpretation of the external world. In such models, of course, com- parison is more than simply juxtaposing certain elements of comprehension and identifying similarities and differences between them. It is a much more complex procedure, but one that is also increasingly seen as problematic because it involves several serious methodological problems. These problems are especially troublesome in the field of transcultural philosophies, i.e., when comparing different philosophi- cal schools or currents of thought that originated in different cultural traditions and are embedded in frames of reference that differ from one another. The development of transcultural sublation as a method of comparison is there- fore based on the assumption that comparative philosophy requires different methodological approaches than philosophical studies that focus exclusively on one philosophical system or a single tradition of thought. If it aims to go beyond their respective limitations and produce a unifying discourse that valorizes both comparata, it must take into account possible incommensurabilities between dif- ferent traditional contexts and the semantic or referential frameworks in which they were developed. Even the very relationship between comparative methods and the objects of comparison themselves is highly problematic, because in such procedures we employ a unified methodology built on culturally discrete mate- rial. On the basis of such assumptions, Rafal Banka (2016, 605) explains why it is important to treat the material of philosophical comparisons as arising from culturally discrete linguistic and conceptual contexts. However, the problems regarding comparative philosophy go even further, par- ticularly regarding comparisons of Chinese and Euro-American philosophies. They are not limited to the fact that we work with a unified methodology which has been built upon culturally divergent concrete resources (ibid.). In our view, the crucial difficulty in intercultural comparative philosophy is linked to the fact that the abovementioned “unified methodology” is a system underlying one of the philosophies under comparison, namely the traditional European or “Western” one. There is no third, external methodology that could provide us with objective criteria for comparison. In other words, the tertium comparationis is part of one of the comparata. The same is true for understanding and evalu- ating concepts and categories. The cognitive processes in such a transcultural comparative procedure apply one (usually “Western”) philosophical language,2 2 In this context, the notion of a “philosophical language” is applied in the widest sense. It encom- passes a broad range of elements including terminology, concepts, and specialized vocabulary. This language is used not only to convey specific philosophical ideas, but also to reflect the complexity Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 250 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 251Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 even though the material they investigate is culturally discrete, which means that it is usually written in different languages and relies on different thought patterns. Numerous traditional comparative methods were based on such an idea of a universal philosophical language, referring not only to the specific disciplinary terminology, but also (or even more) to the concepts and categories used and expressed in it. These theories are united in the assumption that there can in principle be an “impartial” (Shen 2003, 357) language in which compar- ative or intercultural philosophy can be conducted. In contrast to such views, we agree with Ma Lin and Jaap van Brakel (2013, 298), who argue that different cultures produce different philosophical languages. However, a single language is not necessary for intercultural philosophical dialogue and comparative phi- losophy to work. In addition to the awareness of the lack of such an “ideal language”, we must also be aware of the supposition that any coherent philosophical comparison should not be limited to the level of paralleling and describing differences and common- alities of different abstract entities, for philosophical comparisons, more often than not, separate and connect at the same time what are very likely or unlikely pairs of, or entire sets of, comparata (“that which we set out to compare”) (Chakrabarti and Weber 2016, 2). Hence the usual understanding of comparative philosophy as a simple one-dimensional discourse which erects meaningful bridges between different traditions, and creates new possibilities for “intercultural dialogues”, is naïve and outdated. Based on thorough reflection and analysis of such axiological and conceptual is- sues inherent in traditional comparative methods, many scholars have elaborat- ed new methodological tools that could overcome such problematic approach- es. Such experiments and new models of transcultural philosophizing, based on a thorough awareness of the problems described above, have often been called post-comparative philosophies.3 Another problem that arises in traditional intercultural comparisons is related to the fact that many of their authors have not recognized the significant role that referential frames and discursive translations play in this context. and nuance of the concepts being discussed. It includes not only abstract and technical terms, but also the categorical framework used to understand and explore ideas such as the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality. Additionally, it is specific to certain branches of philosophy such as meta- physics, epistemology, and ethics. 3 At this point it should be mentioned that some scholars use the term post-comparative differently. Ralph Weber, for example, uses it to refer to a certain stage of the comparative process itself. See, for instance, Weber (2014, 162). Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 251 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 252 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation By applying different languages and different patterns of reasoning that are linked to their individual grammatical structures, different cultures continuously create different frameworks of reference. However, understanding the basic structure and applying the concepts included in these frameworks is not an issue limited to transcultural philosophies, and not even to transcultural studies in a wider, more general sense. In fact, what we are confronting here is a universal phenomenon, which has been discussed by a broad range of Western theoreticians (e.g. Lakatos, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Quine, etc.). The Chinese analytical philosopher Fung Yiu- ming from Hong Kong reminds us in this context of the well-known example of the relation between Newton’s and Einstein’s theories: even though both of them were written in Indo-European languages, and although they apply the same con- cepts and notions, they are in practice mutually incompatible (Feng 1989, 123). Because they represent different referential frameworks, the functions and seman- tic connotations of the same notions applied in them are also different. Frames of reference are an important aspect in theoretical frameworks, as they serve to organize and structure the concepts and terms within it. These frames of reference act as relational semantic networks, which define each term and estab- lish the connections between them. By doing so, they shape the overall composi- tion and structure of the theory, making it a comprehensive and coherent system of knowledge. Such frameworks of reference therefore assume a defining role in human under- standing and interpretation of a given reality. In this context, it is important to note that this defining role not only pertains to the meaning of particular notions, but also to their mutual relations. As such, referential frameworks are comprehen- sive tools that filter perceptions and create meanings. Different referential frames can lead to different descriptions and interpretations of the same objective re- ality. This is also the reason why transcultural research can sometimes produce misunderstandings between different cultures instead of eliminating or at least diminishing them. The greater the historical, semantic, structural and axiological differences between two languages and cultures, the more likely the occurrence of such misunderstandings. However, the existence of different frames of reference does not at all mean that different culturally conditioned philosophical worldviews are incommensurable. The basic structures of the human perception of reality are universal, as is the hu- man capacity to generate language and thought. In this respect, our commonalities far outweigh the culturally conditioned differences in the general understanding of our existence. While there may be culturally specific variations in how people understand and interpret their experiences, these differences do not necessarily Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 252 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 253Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 hinder our ability to understand one another. Recognizing and acknowledging the existence of culturally conditioned frames of reference is important, but it should not be taken as a barrier to mutual understanding between people and societies. On the contrary, they are bridges that connect us in ways that reduce the possi- bility of mutual misunderstanding. Nevertheless, in order for these connections to be productive it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the fundamen- tal principles that underlie the frames of reference of all the philosophies being considered. These questions are crucial for both understanding and interpreting Chinese and wider East Asian philosophies, and they play an important role in creating a di- verse and comprehensive global philosophy that includes non-Western concepts and perspectives. Reliable and intelligible interpretations require discursive trans- lations, which are based on a thorough understanding of the original texts, as well as their historical and social contexts, to ensure a hermeneutically sound and analytically flawless transfer of content. They must be able to convey the multiple connotations of concepts and categories across different semantic and referential networks. In other words, such “discursive translations” of different philosophies belonging to different semantic frames, different linguistic structures, and dif- ferent methodological paradigms can never be limited to merely rendering one language into another. They must also involve the transfer of different discourses, as well as interpretations of individual textual and linguistic structures, categories, concepts, and values that differ according to sociocultural contexts. In this work, which relies on both analytical and hermeneutic methods, researchers often en- counter a discrepancy between the etymological and functional understanding of a given expression. In some cases the same notion may even be understood completely differently, depending on the general socio-historical context of the different societies in which it appears (see Rošker 2012). Towards a New Approach Based on the awareness of the above problems and the need to develop meth- odologies that allow for genuine transcultural exchange and dialogue, the main goal of my current research is to develop an appropriate methodology for further, less culturally biased intercultural (post-)comparative studies, which could lead to new understandings of reality. Such a culturally sensitive approach aims to transcend the limitations of traditional comparative methodologies, which often rely on one-dimensional mechanisms and simplistic evaluations based solely on similarities and differences of the comparata. Instead, it should allow for a more Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 253 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 254 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation nuanced and holistic understanding of the cultural contexts and perspectives be- ing compared, without being constrained by fundamental biases or deep-rooted prejudices. In other words, the methodology of post-comparative philosophical sublation I am developing in my current research is not solely based on identifying common- alities and differences between different philosophical systems or theories, but should rather lead to a deeper understanding and new insights into the underly- ing content of the comparison through the increased exchange of knowledge and ideas. What I am aiming at is a theoretical model for philosophical comparison that will enable scholars working in Chinese and comparative philosophy to shape new forms of philosophical theory, rather than being limited to the simple results of one-dimensional comparisons. This implies working on a theoretical model that will enable (and create the conditions for) new forms of philosophizing root- ed in new paradigms of transcultural knowledge exchange. Such exchanges can potentially lead to innovative ideas through the application of new or upgraded methods. I believe that the improved and accomplished method of transcultural philosophical sublation can enable researchers in the field of transcultural phi- losophy to gain new insights and provide new explanations for the particular re- search questions that underlie the comparisons they are working on. The develop- ment of foundational elements for such new methodological approaches can also be facilitated through the creation of new paradigms and principles that form the basis of the method of sublation. These paradigms and principles will be explained in more detail in the subsequent sections of this paper. The proposed method of transcultural philosophical sublation is a new approach that is still under development and will be substantially improved and completed during the ongoing research. The application of the sublation method needs to be extensively tested and verified on a larger number of cases, including the contrastive conceptual analyses of numerous ideas, systems, and procedures from the compari- son between particular East Asian and European theories. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the method’s applicability and potential. In this way I am able to explore uncharted territories of transcultural philosophy, in order to offer a preliminary, but comprehensive and substantiated analysis of the sublation method. In a more general and fundamental sense, my main goal is to improve and promote the transcultural exchange of knowledge and ideas, because I believe that it is high time to balance the above-mentioned epistemo- logical asymmetry in intercultural studies and global exchanges. In this regard contemporary Chinese and East Asian philosophy deserves spe- cial attention from a European perspective, because through the reception and Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 254 23. 04. 2024 10:46:13 255Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 transformation of Western sources (which it was actually forced to do two centu- ries ago) it has accumulated a transcultural potential that philosophy in Europe has yet to develop. This fact is of immense importance not only for the global exchange of knowledge, but also for Europe and our efforts to free it from the relics of its colonial history, which often still block its understanding of differ- ent cultures and the deeper levels of their traditional discourses. Indeed Europe, composed of different cultures that use different languages and have developed in different historical traditions, urgently needs to find a way to reflect self-critically on the notion of its own heterogeneous cultural identity. Therefore, better knowl- edge of transcultural interactions is important not only for Europe’s international relations at the global level, but also internally, i.e. with regard to the interactions between individual European countries. Before going into the novel approach intrinsic to the method of transcultural philosophical sublation, let us briefly examine the current state of the field under consideration. This domain is characterized by vigorous debates and a continuous quest for inventive methods and approaches. As previously highlighted, various issues and deficiencies persist within conventional methods of intercultural com- parative philosophy, encompassing both formal and substantive inconsistencies. Given these challenges, I will propose some fresh, “post-comparative” approaches designed to address and resolve these issues. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that these new approaches remain the subjects of ongoing scholarly debates within the realm of transcultural comparative philosophy. State-of-the-art in the Proposed Field of Research and Relevant Problems “Transcultural philosophy” is a relatively new approach with continuously evolving principles and patterns of thought. It began with Eduardo Valera’s construction of its methodological foundations (Valera 1972a; 1972b), and in the following dec- ades it has also increasingly been applied in the framework of philosophical dia- logues between different cultures.4 Vytis Silius (2020, 275), for instance, highlights that transcultural philosophies rest on a cluster of interrelated ideas and concepts, focusing thereby on the dynamic (i.e., transitional and transforming) elements of cultures and ideas. In this context, he upgraded Pablo Blitstein’s approach, who critically examined the problems linked to the static ontology of culture, empha- sizing that transculturality “assumes that everything moves and changes; it posits 4 See, for example, Fredericks (1988, 299‒315), Nielsen (1995, 803‒35), Siegel (1999, 387‒409), Heubel (2011, 584‒601), Heubel (2020, 211‒30), Lee (2013), Dai (2020) and many others. Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 255 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 256 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation that stasis is only the momentary interruption of motion, and that the actual flows of persons, things, and ideas across the world prevent the definitive consolidation of any boundaries” (Blitstein 2016, 139). Hence, in the framework of transcultural philosophy all terms make sense only as relational, and not as essential notions,5 describing fundamentally static and stable phenomena (Silius 2020, 274). Within the framework of such an understanding of culture and transculturality, numerous interesting and significant approaches have also been developed in the narrower area of comparison between Western and East Asian philosophies and ideas. Since this area also represents the focus of our project-related work, we will concentrate our presentation of the relevant background literature on the main works that have been of great importance for the development of the discourse in question. In this particular field of research, the search for an applicable, effective, and cre- ative post-comparative model of philosophizing has resulted in several new the- oretical presumptions and proposals for new approaches and methods, mostly based upon or following Robert Neville’s distinction between objectivist and nor- mative approaches (Neville 2001). Already in 1987, David Hall and Roger Ames aimed to demonstrate to research- ers “whose scholarly sensibilities have been formed in the West what they must acknowledge about their own traditions before they can engage Chinese think- ers constructively” (Frisina 2016, 563). Purushotyama Bilimoria (2000), on the other hand, emphasized that any new methods we seek to employ should offer us a means of surpassing the very othering entailed in such processes, remaining therefore a “disturbing presence” for mainstream postcolonial cultures and the corresponding modes of thought. Proceeding from the goal of “de-essentializing” intercultural philosophy, Ma Lin and Jaap van Brakel (2013, 298) suggest that we should consciously follow the crucial procedures defining contemporary humanities and apply the principle of mutual attunement (Ma and Van Brakel 2016, 12). Li Chenyang aims to further develop the positive aspects of comparative philosophy by deepening the under- standing of specific philosophies, thereby enhancing our ability to do creative phi- losophy, and he emphasizes the importance of understanding cultural patterns in intercultural philosophy (Li 2016, 534). In the search for the most suitable and 5 Transcultural language then speaks about how we see ourselves in the Other. Such a reciprocal vi- sion of different entities of the relation between the self and Other has been expressed in many phe- nomenologies arising from very different intellectual traditions, starting with the traditional African concept of ubuntu, through the Confucian virtue of humaneness (ren), to those of the contemporary Euro-American phenomenologies that are based on Heidegger’s idea of the Being-with (Mitsein). Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 256 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 257Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 achievable method in this context we cannot ignore the approach elaborated by Arindam Chakrabarti and Ralph Weber. Proceeding from the need for a “philos- ophy of comparison” (Weber 2014) that could surpass the limitations of a mere “comparative philosophy”, and provide new theoretical grounds for creating new transcultural philosophies, their analyses resulted in the idea of “fusion philoso- phy” (Chakrabarti and Weber 2016, 2). In order to exceed the limitations and fix the inconsistencies of traditional comparative philosophy, they suggested its ap- plication as an inventive method of transforming simple comparative approaches. In fact, the “fusion philosophy” method has also been proposed and advocated by several other scholars. Among the more radical “fusionists” are Mark Siderits (2023, xi), who claims that comparative philosophy has been superseded by what he terms fusion philosophy, Graham Priest (2015, 55), Owen Flanagan (2020, 23) and perhaps Bo Mou.6 Chakrabarti and Weber highlight that this method surpasses the customary comparative attitudes, and implies a completely different methodology, which is based on and results in a new transcultural mode of phi- losophizing. What this proposed method suggests is a philosophical comparison in the sense of a new form of philosophical theory rather than a simple compar- ison of (different) philosophies. In other words, it is a new form of philosophiz- ing and not merely a method, based on identifying differences and similarities in various philosophical systems. Indeed, Chakrabarti’s and Weber’s proposal offers us a “sound and ambitious definition” (Coquereau 2016, 152) for new forms of transcultural post-comparative philosophy. However, irrespective of the discrete content of this methodological proposal, which is significant and will doubtless contribute to the emergence of a new shift in the construction of new models of transcultural philosophies, it is precisely this “definition”—or, in other words, its naming—which is somewhat troublesome. These problems have been critically analyzed by different theoreticians, for instance by Michael Levine (2016) and others, and among alternative approaches we should mention the “philosophy of confluence” (Kirloskar-Steinbach, Ramana, and Maffie 2016) and “synthesis phi- losophy” (Dewey, Radhakrishnan, and Santayana 1951; for an upgraded version, also see Deutsch 2002). In September 2022 and January 2023, a special double issue to this topic was also published in this journal (Vol. 10, issue 3, and Vol. 11, issue 1). The issue was entitled Transcultural (Post)Comparative Philosophy. The first part of the dou- ble issue (https://journals.uni-lj.si/as/issue/view/782) was subtitled Methods and 6 See Mou Bo (2022a, 5). Although Bo Mou never explicitly uses the term or refers to “fusion phi- losophy”, some scholars believe that what he calls the “constructive-engagement strategy of com- parative philosophy”, or CECP for short, is at times sufficiently similar to fusion philosophy to warrant the same appellation (see Levine 2016, 3). Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 257 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 258 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation Approaches. It dealt mainly with purely theoretical and methodological issues, but also proposed some innovative practical approaches. The second part of this dou- ble issue (https://journals.uni-lj.si/as/issue/view/810) dealt with more concrete examples or demonstrations of the theory presented in the first. The contribu- tions in this volume contrastively analyze philosophers, theories, methods, and exchanges between East Asian and European philosophical discourses. The subti- tle of the volume is therefore Philosophical Dialogues between Asia and Europe: from Plotinus to Heidegger and Beyond. Many internationally renowned and influential scholars in the field of Asian and comparative philosophy contributed their works to this double issue, such as Eric S. Nelson (2023), David Chai (2023), Steven Burik (2022), Bo Mou (2022b), Hans-Georg Moeller (2022), Dimitra Amaran- tidou and Paul J. D’Ambrosio (2022), Robert A. Carleo (2022), Li Chenyang (2022), Jaap van Brakel and Ma Lin (2022), Fabian Heubel (2023), Geir Sigurðs- son (2023), Jay Hetrick (2023), Abe Hiroshi (2023), and Vytis Silius (2022), to name just a few. Sublation Method – Research Background and General Description The method was first introduced in one of my recent monographs, Interpreting Chinese Philosophy: A New Methodology (Rošker 2021) and further discussed in my paper “Chinese and Global Philosophy: Postcomparative Transcultural Ap- proaches and the Method of Sublation” (Rošker 2022a) published in Dao: A Jour- nal of Comparative Philosophy. The method has been demonstrated through various contrastive analyses and further developed through presentations at international academic conferences, invited guest lectures, and publications in high-impact fac- tor journals. The sublation method has attracted significant attention in the international aca- demic community. It has been extensively presented in book reviews of the afore- mentioned monograph (e.g. DeLapp 2023; Ditrich 2022), widely discussed at several conferences and symposia, and featured in a series of interviews. In a post-comparative context, our understanding cannot remain limited to ob- jective normative standards, but is necessarily also shaped by the historical, con- ceptual and even social contexts in which the objects of our inquiry are embed- ded. Therefore, the philosophy of sublation with its dynamic relational structure, its broad discursive context, and its consideration of the referential frameworks underlying our investigations,7 is only one among many different approaches 7 All these abovementioned features of the sublation method will be explained in greater detail and further elaborated in the upcoming section. Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 258 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 259Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 defining new transcultural philosophical research. In the broad and rich arena of transcultural methodologies, it simply represents one of the many possible ways to reconcile different philosophical approaches, forms and contents. It is a method which can transform inspiration to contemplation, thereby helping us to shape new ideas and to gain new forms of knowledge and understanding. It is thus well worth being further developed, improved and upgraded. The sublation approach has demonstrated its potential, but for it to be suitable for widespread use in international (post-)comparative studies, it needs to be supplemented with com- prehensive additional materials and research. This will enhance its capabilities and make it applicable to a wider range of research scenarios. Given the keen interest in the initial drafts of this innovative approach, the sublation method undoubted- ly warrants dedicated elaboration and further research to establish itself and gain widespread recognition as a valuable and inventive approach that addresses cer- tain inconsistencies in traditional comparative systems. Therefore, in the near fu- ture, my research will center on advancing, enhancing, and finalizing this method, along with introducing it to a broad spectrum of international scholars engaged in the study of comparative intercultural philosophy. But how does this method function, and what are its fundamental characteristics? Despite the complexity that makes it challenging to describe its foundational structure and how it functions in a concise manner, I will attempt to outline its operation in the following sections. The method of transcultural (post)compar- ative sublation is a novel dialectical method aimed at enhancing our compre- hension of diverse philosophical ideas, theories, and principles originating from different cultural traditions. It aims to facilitate the development of innovative ideas and theories based on this foundation. Its primary objective is to foster a productive dialogue among various ideas, philosophical currents, and intellectual traditions, leading to fresh insights through this exchange. The term “sublation” itself is, of course, derived from Hegelian dialectics, yet it diverges significantly from it in various aspects. To highlight these differences it is important to note that the sublation method is rooted in dynamic paradigms of processual philosophy. It veers away from adhering to the formal laws of identity, contradiction, and the excluded middle. Unlike the conventional Hegelian model, it does not yield an entirely new, distinct, qualitatively different synthesis as the fusion of two opposing ideas engaged in dialectical interaction. In contrast, the zenith of this process manifests in a pivotal stage termed “subla- tion”, encompassing a transformative shift that can be understood as sublation in a narrower context. Although merely one among the eight constituent phases of this method, this stage is of paramount importance. It emerges from the tension Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 259 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 260 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation inherent in the comparata and engenders a decisive shift, propelling our cognition toward fresh and innovative insights. Precisely within this context lies what could arguably be considered the most significant and decisive divergence that sets sublation dialectics apart from the Hegelian model. The phase of sublation, which pushes us toward a shift in per- spective and consequently a new idea, distinguishes itself markedly. Unlike the Hegelian framework, this phase is not a product of automatic structural principles governing our thought processes. Instead, sublation’s transformative shift emerges autonomously and creatively through the unfettered subjectivity of the individual employing the method. However, this subjective shift does not stand alone as the sole function of human subjectivity within the sublation method. It also assumes a critical role in several preceding phases. For example, it is our subjectivity that determines what should be discarded and what should be retained in the process of our dialectical com- parison. Similarly, subjectivity guides decisions on how and where the comparata can complement each other. Now some people might interject by contending that such a method lacks scientific rigor due to its absence of objectivity, rendering it seemingly arbitrary. Critics could also argue that its outcomes lack universal validity. However, when looking into these objections more deeply we must recall that, from a Heideggerian perspective, even the act of thinking itself lacks a truly scientific nature. According to Heidegger, “science does not think” (Heidegger 1954, 4). A scientific theory that merely vali- dates existing states of affairs lacks the capacity to engender novelty or to foster pos- itive change in the world. This resonates with the Marxist critique of philosophy—a critique that advocates for the discipline to transcend its role as a mere interpreter of the world and instead embrace its potential as an agent of transformation. In this context, the sublation method transcends the boundaries typically assigned to the operations of scientific methodologies in a fundamental sense. Sublation, much like philosophy itself, occupies a space that is simultaneously scientific and unscientific. It conforms to scientific principles through its logical coherence, sys- tematic structure, and verifiability at each operational step. However, it surpasses the confines of scientific methods as it operates as a tool of thought woven into the fabric of free, autonomous, and often temperamental human subjectivity. Nonetheless, the sublation method remains inherently dialectical, although this dialectic does not adhere exclusively to the Aristotelian or Hegelian models. Instead, it refers to dialectics in a broader context as a method of thought and discernment. It arises from a dialogical or contrastive engagement, where two Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 260 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 261Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 distinct ideas, theories, or systems of thought are brought into confrontation and mutual evolution. Sublation encompasses a dynamic and process-oriented method of dialectical interaction involving two or more comparata. These comparata manifest within diverse philosophies, philosophical systems, discourses, paradigms, or ideas. The method comprises eight distinct yet interconnected phases. Progressing through the initial six phases is relatively straightforward, as we more or less adhere to the designated steps. During this procedure, we move into the unique phases defined by family resemblances, construct relational research inquiries, discern similarities, differences, referential frameworks, and shortcomings, and identify prospects for potential mutual enhancements between the comparata. However, in the subsequent seventh phase—the phase where we apply subla- tion in its narrower sense, the sublation that signifies a transformative shift from preexisting knowledge to novel ideas—we must grapple with the tension arising from a sequence of preceding contrastive analyses and the quest for coherently woven interpretations. This tension, resulting from the preceding analyses and in- terpretations of the mostly contrasting elements, serves as a catalyst for generating fresh ideas, novel insights, or intriguing avenues for further exploration. For a clearer comprehension of the entire process that leads to this crucial stage, I will now offer a concise description of all eight phases of the dialectical develop- ment inherent in the method of sublation. The Eight Phases In its basic structure, the sublation method can be implemented in eight distinc- tive phases, which are summarized below: I. Relational research question (enabling conceptual comparisons) II. Similarities (in the framework of family resemblances) III. Differences (within similarities) IV. Linkages (of differences) to referential frameworks and paradigms V. Identifying insufficiencies (elimination) VI. Mutual complementarities (preservation) VII. Sublation (shift) VIII. New insight (uplifting our ideas to a new, higher level) Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 261 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 262 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation These phases constitute dynamic components within an ever-evolving process, wherein each phase builds upon and enhances the insights gained from the preceding one. The overall trajectory is characterized by accumulation and refine- ment. Let us now move onto a more comprehensive description of each phase: I. We start from a particular philosophical problem or idea that was treated in two (or more) distinct philosophical discourses under consideration. To initiate our investigation, we formulate a research question that is not merely fixated on comparing isolated concepts, but instead emphasizes the establishment of rela- tionships among them. This relational approach opens up possibilities for engag- ing in conceptual comparisons and going deeper into the nuances of the problem. Such an approach allows us to transcend a superficial analysis that solely focuses on identifying disparities or similarities between concepts. Instead, we embark on a journey of intellectual exploration, allowing us to uncover the varied connections between various philosophical perspectives. II. After carefully selecting the comparata that deal with the chosen research ques- tion, our next step is to identify the similarities in how these comparata address the question. During this phase, where we analyse and compare the treatment of the question in different comparata, the concept of family resemblance becomes an invaluable tool. By acknowledging the fluid and context-dependent nature of categories, we can approach transcultural comparisons with heightened sensitivity and refrain from imposing a rigid framework from one comparata onto another. In this second phase, we aim to uncover and examine the similarities that emerge in the elaborations of the comparata under observation, despite their diverse cul- tural backgrounds. Moreover, the concept of family resemblance prompts us to consider the contextual nature of categories and avoid the presumption of a fixed or exclusive understanding. It encourages us to explore the nuanced meanings and associations carried by concepts within their respective cultural and historical contexts. As we engage in this comparative analysis, we can more easily map out the network of connections and associations among the concepts, uncovering pat- terns, divergences, and interactions. When engaging in (post-)comparative phi- losophy in particular, the concept of family resemblances allows us to focus on the shared similarities and interconnectedness of concepts in a broader, relational way, rather than attempting to find universal definitions or essential characteristics. III. In the third step of the sublation method, we engage in the process of iden- tifying differences within similarities in how our comparata treat a philosophical research question. This might initially seem paradoxical or counterintuitive, but it becomes possible through a nuanced analysis that explores the subtleties and unique perspectives within each philosophical discourse. To begin with, while Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 262 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 263Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 two philosophies may share a basic position towards a common research ques- tion, they often approach it from different angles or employ distinct frameworks, methodologies, or conceptual lenses. These differences manifest in the various in- terpretations, emphasis, or underlying assumptions that each philosophy brings to the table. By closely examining the treatment of the research question in each philosophy, we can uncover subtle variations in how they conceptualize and ap- proach the problem at hand. These differences may arise from disparities in his- torical contexts, cultural influences, philosophical traditions, or the perspectives of individual philosophers. This process of identifying differences within similarities demands a comprehensive and open-minded analysis that transcends a simplistic binary of agreement or disagreement. It necessitates a deep understanding of the underlying philosophical concepts, the historical context of the discourses, and the subtleties of philosophical arguments. IV. In the subsequent phase of the sublation process, we establish connections between the identified differences within the treatment of the research question in different philosophies and the diverse referential frameworks that underlie the perspectives being compared, including the distinct paradigms by which they are defined. This enables us to identify the various basic paradigms under which the research question has been treated by each of the comparata. As we have seen before, these frameworks are semantic networks that serve as the intellectual scaffolding upon which the philosophies are built, providing the basis for their conceptualization and analysis. When examining the differences within the treat- ment of the research question, we explore how these dissimilarities align with or reflect the underlying referential frameworks of the respective philosophical theories or ideas. By analysing the foundational principles, theoretical orienta- tions, or epistemological and ontological assumptions within each discourse, we can discern the roots of these divergent perspectives. This process involves a deep dive into the philosophical traditions, historical contexts, and intellectual herit- age that have influenced the development of each comparata. We consider how the philosophies draw upon different schools of thought, engage with varying philosophical paradigms, or integrate distinct conceptual frameworks to shape their respective perspectives on the research question. Connecting the identified differences with the referential frameworks allows us to uncover the relationship between the philosophical paradigms underlying these frameworks and the treat- ment of the research question. In this way we might gain a clearer insight into how these paradigms influence the interpretation, analysis, and conceptualization of ideas within each discourse. Moreover, this part of the procedure illuminates how the chosen paradigms implicit in the referential frameworks shape the rea- soning, argumentation, and theoretical contributions of each comparata. Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 263 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 264 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation V. Building upon this foundation, our next step involves identifying and examin- ing the inadequacies present in each of the approaches we have investigated. These weaknesses become apparent through a contrastive perspective that highlights the differences and their connection to the referential frameworks underlying the philosophical theories under scrutiny. By juxtaposing and comparing the various philosophical approaches, we gain a clearer understanding of their limitations and shortcomings. This process allows us to critically assess the elements or aspects within both comparata that have proven ineffective or unproductive in addressing the primary research question and generating novel insights within the realm it explores. In this phase of the sublation process, we aim to eliminate those as- pects that hinder the satisfactory resolution of the research question or are simply redundant. By identifying and eliminating these unproductive or displaced ele- ments, we can refine our understanding and focus on the more constructive and fruitful components within each approach. This step enables us to shed light on the gaps, contradictions, or methodological weaknesses that may exist within the investigated approaches. By revealing these insufficiencies, we create an opportu- nity for intellectual growth and the generation of new knowledge. VI. Moving into the sixth phase, our focus turns towards mutual complementari- ty, aiming to combine the preserved productive elements from each comparatum while simultaneously compensating for the eliminated elements. This process of mutual complementarity allows us to explore uncharted territory and gain fresh insights into the treatment of the philosophical question under examination. By bringing together the productive elements that have withstood critical assessment, we harness their potential and seek to integrate them in a synergistic manner. This integration involves reconciling and synthesizing the preserved elements from each comparatum, taking into account their inherent strengths and compatibili- ty. Through this process of mutual complementarity, we unlock new possibilities and paths of exploration. By combining the strengths of the preserved productive elements and compensating for the eliminated elements, we can transcend the limitations of individual comparata and uncover novel approaches to addressing the focal philosophical question. Ideally, the resulting framework benefits from the en- riched perspective and integration of diverse insights. It goes beyond the confines of any single comparatum, incorporating a more comprehensive and multi-faceted understanding of the research question. The interplay between the preserved and the compensated elements opens new perspectives and contributes to a more com- prehensive exploration of the philosophical problem we are dealing with. VII. Following the sixth phase, a significant shift emerges in the seventh, and as these constructive elements of both (or all) comparata converge and mutually fulfil one another, a transformative process unfolds. This transformative phase can be Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 264 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 265Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 understood as a form of sublation in a narrower sense. This sublation phase is driv- en by the inherent tension between the synthesized unity of combined elements and the distinct perspectives and conceptual boundaries found within each indi- vidual comparatum. Rooted in the elimination of insufficiencies, the preservation of productive elements, and their mutual fulfilment, this phase propels our think- ing towards the discovery of new ideas or insights into the fundamental nature of the initial research question. VIII. Sublation, which manifests as a pivotal shift occurring in the seventh phase, marks a critical turning point in the overall process. It serves as the foundation for the eighth and final phase, which holds the potential for novel discoveries and the expansion of our intellectual horizons. This transformative phase relies solely on the inspirations provided by the comparata, the very sources that ignited our deep curiosity through their similar yet distinct approaches to solving the initial philosophical problems. This curiosity, guided by the process of sublation, has the potential to propel our thinking through the logically coherent phases of the entire process, leading us to an unexplored realm of potential discoveries. The eighth phase is thus characterized by the pursuit of knowledge expansion and the development of new ideas. In essence, the sublation process, coupled with the inspirations derived from the comparata, propels us towards new intellectual landscapes. It fosters an environ- ment where curiosity flourishes and logical coherence guides our exploration. Here, it is important to emphasize that, in contrast to the Hegelian model, the sublation method is not a rigid apparatus that proceeds automatically, linearly, and hierarchically from one stage to another. This process is not controlled by any transcendent or divine power like the absolute spirit. A significant characteristic of the sublation method is its subjective nature. The individual engaging with the method must maintain an open mind throughout the entire process. The methods, procedures, and outcomes of the analyses are always subject to our own choices, as long as those choices adhere to a reasonable degree of coherence. Conclusion Collectively, these phases can be viewed as a productive dialogue between two distinct ideas or philosophies originating from diverse cultural contexts. This di- alogue takes shape as a dialectical perspective, yielding more than mere small talk. Irrespective of the novel insights that surface upon the culmination of any dialogue, the conversation itself stands as a potentially enriching confrontation. From this engagement, we can glean valuable lessons on the art of addressing and Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 265 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 266 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation attentively engaging with the Other. In this process, we cultivate the capacity to remain receptive in our responses to the perspectives we have encountered and absorbed from our interlocutor. In my view, it is sublation that empowers our thinking to execute such trans- formative shifts, engendered by diverse viewpoints concerning identical questions. Sublation can thus serve as a methodology that can elevate our ideas to higher levels, granting us the capability to transcend the confines of and transit through existing horizons and unveil novel perspectives. This paper was written with the modest hope of illustrating to both myself and its readers one of the many poten- tial approaches to achieving this. I am acutely aware that the sublation method, which holds a special place in my heart, is not the only way to uncover fresh perspectives or foster new ideas through the comparative, dialogical, and dialectical examination—or encounter—of cul- turally distinct philosophies or systems of thought. It is a method that resonates with me and has proven effective, potentially offering assistance to fellow scholars who share a similar approach. However, it stands as merely one among various paths that can facilitate thinking—all following distinctive routes, all contributing to the same aim. The journey toward novel knowledge is inherently multifaceted, achievable through the diverse contributions of many individuals engaging in a pluralistic manner. However, it is always through collective action and creation, by gazing upon new, shared horizons, that this endeavour unfolds. Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) in the framework of the research core funding Asian Languages and Cultures (P6-0243) and in the scope of the research project ( J6- 50208) New Theoretical Approaches to Comparative Transcultural Philosophy and the Method of Sublation. References Amarantidou, Dimitra, and Paul J. D’Ambrosio. 2022. “Philosophy Pizza: On the Possibility of Trans-Cultural Pizzas and/or Philosophy.” Asian Studies 10 (3): 183‒99. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.183-199. Banka, Rafal. 2016. “Psychological Argumentation in Confucian Ethics as a Methodological Issue in Cross-Cultural Philosophy.” Dao: A Journal of Com- parative Philosophy 2016 (15): 591‒606. Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 266 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 267Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 Bilimoria, Purushotyama. 2000. “A Subaltern/Postcolonial Critique of the Com- parative Philosophy of Religion.” Sophia 39 (1): 172‒73. Blitstein, Pablo A. 2016. “Sinology: Chinese Intellectual History and Transcul- tural Studies.” Transcultural Studies 2016 (2): 139. Burik, Steven. 2023. “Deconstruction of a Dialogue: Creative Interpretation in Comparative Philosophy.” Asian Studies 11 (1): 221‒43. https://doi. org/10.4312/as.2023.11.1.221-243. Carleo III, Robert A. 2022. “The Gongfu Approach to Teaching and Doing Chi- nese Philosophy across Cultures.”  Asian Studies  10 (3):13‒38. https://doi. org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.13-38. Chai, David. 2023. “Martin Buber and Daoism on Interhuman Philosophy.” Asian Studies XI (1): 245‒66. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2023.11.1.245-266. Chakrabarti, Arindam, and Ralph Weber. 2016. “Introduction.” In Comparative Philosophy Without Borders, edited by Arindam Chakrabarti, and Ralph We- ber, 1‒33. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Coquereau, Elise. 2016 “From Comparative Philosophy to Fusion Philosophy.” Journal of World Philosophies 2016 (1): 152. Dai Yuanfang, ed. 2020. Transcultural Feminist Philosophy: Rethinking Difference and Solidarity Through Chinese – American Encounters. Lanham: Lexington Books. DeLapp, Kevin M. 2023. “Rošker, Jana S., Interpreting Chinese Philosophy: A New Methodology.” Teaching Philosophy 46 (1): 114‒17. Deutsch, Elliot. 2002. “Comparative Philosophy as Creative Philosophy.” APA Newsletter on Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophy 2 (1): 23–26. Dewey, John, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and George Santayana. 1951. “On Phil- osophical Synthesis.” Philosophy East and West 1.1 (1951): 3. Ditrich, Tamara. 2022. “Rošker, Jana S., Interpreting Chinese Philosophy: A New Methodology.” Dao 21 (4): 655–60. Feng, Yaoming (Fung Yiu-ming) 馮耀明. 1989. Zhongguo zhexuede fangfa lun wenti 中國哲學的方法論問題 (The Methodological Problems of Chinese Phi- losophy). Taibei: Yunchen wenhua shiye. Fredericks, James. 1988. “The Kyoto School: Modern Buddhist Philosophy and the Search for a Transcultural Theology.” Horizons 15 (2): 299‒315. Griffiths, Devin. 2017. “The Comparative Method and the History of the Mod- ern Humanities.” History of Humanities 2 (2): 473‒505. Hall, David, and Roger Ames. 1987. Thinking Through Confucius. New York: SUNY. Hetrick, Jay. 2023. “Deleuze and the Kyoto School II: Ethico-Aesthetics.” Asian Studies 11 (1): 139‒80. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2023.11.1.139-180. Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 267 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 268 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation Flanagan, Owen. 2020. “Cross-cultural Philosophy and Well-being.” In Natural- ism, Human Flourishing, and Asian Philosophy: Owen Flanagan and Beyond, edited by Bongrae Seok, 227‒47. London: Routledge. Frisina, Warren G. 2016. “Thinking Through Hall and Ames: On the Art of Comparative Philosophy.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 2016 (15): 563‒74. Heidegger, Martin. 1954. Was heisst denken? Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Heubel, Fabian. 2011. “Kant and Transcultural Critique: Toward a Contemporary Philosophy of Self-Cultivation.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38 (4): 584‒601. ———. 2020. “Within the Spinning Stillness of the Present.” Asian Studies 8 (3): 211‒30. ———. 2023. “Being Between: Comparative and Transcultural Philosophy.” Asian Studies 11 (1): 15‒25. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2023.11.1.15-25. Hiroshi, Abe. 2023. “Heidegger and Watsuji on Community: A Philosophical Counterpoint of West and East.” Asian Studies 11 (1): 207‒17. https://doi. org/10.4312/as.2023.11.1.207-217. Kirloskar-Steinbach, Monika, Geeta Ramana, and James Maffie. 2016. “Introduc- ing Confluence: A Thematic Essay.” Confluence: Journal of World Philosophies 1 (November). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/iupjournals/index.php/confluence/ article/view/513. Lee, Ming-Huei. 2013. Konfuzianischer Humanismus – Transkulturelle Kontexte. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Levine, Michael. 2016. “Does Comparative Philosophy Have a Fusion Future?” Confluence: Journal of World Philosophies 2016 (4): 1‒30. Li, Chenyang. 2016. “Comparative Philosophy and Cultural Patterns.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 2016 (15): 533‒46. ———. 2022. “Chinese Philosophy as a World Philosophy.” Asian Studies 10 (3): 39‒58. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.39-58. Ma, Lin, and Jaap van Brakel. 2013. “On the Conditions of Possibility for Com- parative and Intercultural Philosophy.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philos- ophy 2013 (12): 297‒312. ———. 2016. Fundamentals of Comparative and Intercultural Philosophy. New York: SUNY. ———. 2022. “Manifest Quasi-Universals and Embedding Conceptual Clusters: The Case of Qíng 情.” Asian Studies 10 (3): 127‒56. https://doi.org/10.4312/ as.2022.10.3.127-156. Moeller, Hans-Georg. 2022. “Before and After Comparative Philosophy.” Asian Studies 10 (3): 201‒24. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.201-224. Mou, Bo. 2022a. “Comparative Philosophy as a General Way of Doing Phi- losophy through Cross-Tradition Engagement toward World Philosophy.” Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 268 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 269Asian Studies XII (XXVIII), 2 (2024), pp. 245–270 Comparative Philosophy 13 (2): Article 5. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/ comparativephilosophy/vol13/iss2/5. ———. 2022b. “A Holistic Account of Adequacy Conditions for How to Look at Contraries: How Cross-Tradition Engagement in Philoso- phy Is Possible.” Asian Studies 10 (3): 157‒79. https://doi.org/10.4312/ as.2022.10.3.157-179. Nelson, Eric S. 2023. “Martin Heidegger and Kitayama Junyū: Nothingness, Emp- tiness, and the Thing.” Asian Studies 11 (1): 27‒50. https://doi.org/10.4312/ as.2023.11.1.27-50. Neville, Robert Cummings. 2001. “Two Forms of Comparative Philosophy.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 2001 (1): 1‒13. Nielsen, Greg. 1995. “Bakhtin and Habermas: Toward a Transcultural Ethics.” Theory and Society 24 (6): 803‒35. Ouyang, Xiao. 2018. “Rethinking Comparative Philosophical Methodology: In Response to Weber’s Criticism.” Philosophy East and West 68 (1): 242‒56. Priest, Graham. 2015. “Fusion and Confusion.” Topoi 34 (1): 55‒61. Rošker, Jana S. 2012. “Cultural Conditionality of Comprehension: The Perception of Autonomy in China.” In Reinventing Identities = Dangdai Zhongguo Shen- fen Chongjiande Yuyan Yunyong: The Poetic of Language Use in Contemporary China, edited by Cao Qing, Tian Hailong, and Paul Chilton, 24‒42. Tianjin: Nankai daxue chuban she. ———. 2020. “Chinese Philosophy, ‘Postcomparative’ Approaches and Transcul- tural Studies: A Reply to Vytis Silius.” Asian Studies 8 (3): 305‒16. https:// doi.org/10.4312/as.2020.8.3.305-316. ———. 2021. Interpreting Chinese Philosophy: A New Methodology. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. ———. 2022a. “Chinese and Global Philosophy: Postcomparative Transcultural Approaches and the Method of Sublation.” Dao: a journal of Comparative Philosophy 21 (1): 1‒18. DOI: 10.1007/s11712-022-09823-1. ———. 2022b. “Comparing Logical Paradoxes through the Method of Subla- tion: Hui Shi, Zeno and the ‘Flying Arrow Problem’.” Asian Studies 10 (2): 299‒312. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.2.299-312. ———. 2022c. “Sublating Sinic Relationism: On a Winding Path from Transcul- tural to Global Ethics.” Asian Studies 10 (3): 81‒104. https://doi.org/10.4312/ as.2022.10.3.81-104. Rüsen, Jörn. 2004. “How to Overcome Ethnocentrism: Approaches to a Culture of Recognition by History in the Twenty‐First Century.” History and Theory 43 (4): 118‒29. Shen, Vincent. 2003. “Some Thoughts on Intercultural Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 2003 (30): 357‒72. Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 269 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14 270 Jana S. ROŠKER: Re-inventing Chinese Philosophy through the Method of Sublation Siderits, Mark. 2023. Personal Identity and Buddhist Philosophy: Empty Persons. London: Ashgate. Siegel, Harvey. 1999. “Multiculturalism and the Possibility of Transcultural Edu- cational and Philosophical Ideals.” Philosophy 74 (3): 387‒409. Sigurðsson, Geir. 2023. “Commensurability and Difference: A Hermeneutic-De- constructive Engagement with Chinese Philosophy.” Asian Studies 11 (1): 317‒33. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2023.11.1.317-333. Silius, Vytis. 2020. “Diversifying Academic Philosophy.” Asian Studies 8 (2): 257‒80. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2020.8.2.257-280. ———. 2022. “Translation as a Philosophical Method: A Postcomparative Take on the Universality-Particularity Tension.”  Asian Studies  10 (3): 59‒80. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.59-80. Valera, Eduardo Pérez J. 1972a “Toward a Transcultural Philosophy (I).” Monu- menta Nipponica 27 (1): 39‒64. ———. 1972b “Toward a Transcultural Philosophy (II).” Monumenta Nipponica 27 (2): 175‒89. Weber, Ralph. 2014. “Comparative Philosophy and the Tertium: Comparing What with What, and in What Respect?” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Phi- losophy 2014 (13): 151‒71. Welsch, Wolfgang. 1999. “Transculturality-The Puzzling Form of Cultures To- day.” In Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World, edited by Mike Featherstone, and Scott Lash, 194‒213. London: Sage. Azijske_studije_2024-2_FINAL.indd 270 23. 04. 2024 10:46:14