This paper summarized the basic results of the philosophical discussion that was held in the Institute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of Sciences on April 25, 2019. The authors had been the main opponents of Andrey Krushinskiy approach, according to which there are processes of monopolization of discourse domain by the European conceptual apparatus of philosophy in the contemporary Chinese philosophy. In other words, in opinion of Andrey Krushinskiy, this “conceptual Eurocentrism” is the future of every possible attempt of philosophizing (...) in any national philosophical tradition, and there is no possibility to philosophize outside this European philosophical terminology. This approach is to be balanced by two critical arguments, which can be conventionally named as “civilization bound argumentation” and argumentationad professionem. The first one states that all things which can confirm Krushinskiy approach have extrinsic value, not philosophical or conceptual. And the second one states that the double professionalism, which could include both European approach and the absolute competency in non-European tradition, compared with the level of its representative, is beyond the possibilities of any human mind. Demonstration of this assertion is accomplished on the base of investigation of Sanskrit by European scholars. (shrink)

The article is a response to the criticism of “conceptual Eurocentrism” expressed in the paper by A.A. Krushinsky at the Round Table on the Geography of Rationality on April 25, 2019. It deals with the main thesis of A.A. Krushinsky that in cross-cultural philosophical studies the Western conceptual matrix currently defines a single conceptual space for all participants, the language of Western philosophy acts as a trans-civilizational language in the world philosophy. The author of the article agrees with the main (...) thesis, however she does not agree with its arguments and two consequences: (a) it is necessary to consider Western rationality as “rationality as such,” and (b) there is no multi-polarity in the current philosophy though there are a lot of traditions of philosophical discourse, which identify and articulate themselves by means of Western conceptuality (that is why we may speak on so-called “philosophical geography” only). The arguments do not stand comparison with the search of future philosophy, conducted now by the world philosophical community. The search is aiming to equality of all philosophical traditions. The article proves that conceptual Eurocentrism is not so much a danger as an objective necessity. Its spread is a manifestation of tendency to creative mutual borrowing of cultural inventions. The tendency always had place, but it was not so obvious in the conditions of preglobal history. The consequences of Krushinskiy’s thesis are refuted by the evidence that the Western philosophers denied to use the concept universal rationality and began studies of the various types of rationality. The author also provides an example of the creative borrowing and use of European concepts “rationality,” “positive knowledge,” “truth,” “scientific method,” “hypothesis” by the Indian philosopher of science B. Seal, who applied these concepts to the Indian material. (shrink)

The article discusses the problems of philosophical geography, philosophical multipolarity, georationality. The debates on these issues are becoming interdisciplinary. Specialists in Eastern philosophies and cross-cultural communications as well as epistemologists, scientific methodologists, cognitive scholars, synergists became participants of the discussion held at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The problem of Eurocentrism in academic philosophy has become the main topic of discussion. The opponents of the “regional” multipolarity argued that the Western European tradition of rationality was (...) an example of the rationality per se. The proponents, who relied heavily on the ad professionem arguments, advocated multipolarity and demonstrated the irreducibility of the world-pictures, languages and ontologies of philosophical systems. A point of view was expressed that Eurocentrism had an ideological background. The disputants noted that there was need to redefine or clarify such fundamental concepts as logic, rationality, scientific rationality, universalism, processuality. The redefinition of the concept of rationality is for the studies of various types of rationality outside European cultures. Methodologists of science drew attention that the cognitive problems of intercultural communications turned out to be similar to the problems faced by theory of complexity. The analysis of philosophical, logical and other cases in various “zones of exchange” reveals a plurality of directions in the global and local socio-cultural spaces. The panelists raised the question of the role of philosophy in the global world and its responsibility in uniting nations. The authors of the article draw attention to many functions that the Western European conceptual system performs in the formation of philosophical language, mentality and communication. The dynamics of philosophical discussions, the dialogue of the West and the East lead to the clarification of philosophical positions, the emergence of new concepts and meanings as well as the formation of discourses of the future. (shrink)