The article is devoted to the philosophy of the well-known ancient Chinese sage Confucius paying attention to the Western misunderstandings of it. The fundamental differences between Chinese and Western civilizations, the problem of transcendence, and different attitude towards history are discussed in the text. Being neither a religion nor a philosophy in the strict Western sense of the word, Confucian thinking still finds its parallels among Western philosophies. The article faces the phenomenological task to discover concrete modes of awareness, their active engagements, and their correlate contents that are sufficiently broad and founding to cut across diverse disciplinary and cultural phenomena. This brief essay is a step in that direction with explicit commitment to Confucian explication and continuity of Chinese civilization. Despite variations and different levels of interpretation, a common context between Confucius and Western philosophical trends may be found.
Boundaries. The Challenges of Intercultural Dialogue.” Relearning to be Human for Global Times: Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations edited by Shaobin Bian Washington DC Council for Research in Values and Philosophy To be published
Kearney, Richard. 2007. “Paul Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Translation.” Research in Phenomenology 37 (2007): 147-159. 10.1163/156916407X185610 Kearney Richard 2007 “Paul Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Translation.” Research in Phenomenology 37 2007 147 159
Koster, Willem de, and Jeroen van der Waal
Heidegger, M., 1996. Being and Time. Tr. Joan Stambaugh. SUNY Press.
Hegel, G. W. F., 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit. Tr. A. V. Miller with Analysis of the Text and Foreword by J. N. Findlay. Oxford University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F., 1991. The Encyclopaedia Logic (with the Zusätze) (Part I of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Scineces with the Zusätze). A New Translation with Introduction and Notes by T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting, and H. S. Harris. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis
The following comment attempts to expand Böhme’s „Perspectives of Kulturwissenschaft“ from a cultural anthropological viewpoint. It argues for the reflection on a Eurocentric bias of Kulturwissenschaft (termed Kulturbrille by Franz Boas), specifically its fundamental narrative of modernity, as well as its prevalent preference for the semiotic sign. Using participant observation as an illustration, the comment suggests to first critically examine the various notions of modernity from the perspective of the ‚other‘ (usually imagined to exist outside modernity); secondly, to complement the preoccupation of Kulturwissenschaft with semiotics and reprensentations of the mind by the phenomenological dimension of human experience and the body (‚Leib‘), in order to increase the discipline’s analytic potential.