MOU, BO

English

San Jose State University

Comparative Philosophy 3.2 (2012)  EDITOR 
Comparative Philosophy Volume 3, No. 2 (2012): 1-2 
Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 
www.comparativephilosophy.org 
 
 
EDITOR’S WORDS 
 
 
To implement the constructive-engagement emphasis of the journal Comparative 
Philosophy in a more straightforward and engaging way, the current issue features a 
special section entitled “Constructive Engagement Dialogue”. It consists of two 
“Author-Meets-Critic” sub-sections and includes articles from seven authors and 
critics, respectively on two recent publications: Kristie Dotson’s “How is this Paper 
Philosophy?” [Comparative Philosophy, vol. 3, no. 1 (2012): 3-29] and Mohammad 
Azadpur’s Reason Unbound: On Spiritual Practice in Islamic Peripatetic Philosophy 
[SUNY Press, 2011],
1
 both of which are more or less provocative but philosophically 
engaging and have aroused healthy discussion in the field. 
Dialogue for critical engagement has been emphasized in philosophy, as being 
open to reflective criticism is one defining character of philosophical exploration. No 
matter what specific form it takes in various philosophical traditions (say, either in a 
Socratic elenchus form in ancient Greek philosophy or in a bian (辨/辯) form in the 
pre-Han Chinese philosophy), and no matter how one characterizes and implements 
(a variety of) justification, various forms of philosophical dialogue share the same 
spirit: it is not merely an intellectual game but is intended to enhance dialogue 
participants’ understanding and treatment of their jointly concerned issues or topics of 
philosophical significance and value via critique and justification. It has thus 
possessed the character of engendering change in the direction of constructive 
cooperation and joint contribution, as addressed by Donald Davidson concerning 
Socratic elenchus method in this way: 
 
…there are two vital aspects of the Socratic dialectic which transcend the mere attempt to 
convict a pretender to knowledge of inconsistency. One is that both participants can hope 
to profit; the other is that unlike a written treatise, it represents a process which engenders 
change….There can be a great difference between a dispute involving people who 
understand each other well, and an exchange in which achieving mutual understanding is 
a large part of the problem. But there is even greater chasm between an exchange viewed 
as a situation in which the participants have clear concepts whether or not they use the 
same words to express those concepts, and an exchange seen as a process in which the 
concepts themselves come into focus. A written discussion veils this distinction almost 
completely. Writing reduces the number of active interpreters to one, the reader, thus 
                                                 
1
 Earlier versions of the author’ and critics’ writings on Reason Unbound were presented at an 
“Author-Meets-Critic” session, American Philosophical Association Pacific Division 2012 meeting 
(3
rd
 April 2012, Seattle, USA). 
2 
 
Comparative Philosophy 3.2 (2012)                                                                                             EDITOR 
eliminating the interaction of minds in which words can be bent to new uses and ideas 
progressively shaped.
2
 
 
Davidson’s ending point in the foregoing citation is not to deny that philosophical 
writings can be effectively involved in a philosophical dialogue but to address one 
important aspect of its spirit: all participants in a reflective dialogue, whether the 
authors, critics or readers in this case, are expected to be open-minded and sensitive 
to critiques and distinct approaches so as to progressively and jointly shape and refine 
ideas that contribute to our understanding and treatment of the issues or topic under 
examination. In the above sense, the engaging discussion presented in this issue is a 
beginning of the dialogue, rather than its ending; it invites further interaction, 
reflection, critique and constructive contributions from the readers’ part as well as 
from the current authors’ and critics’ parts. 
  Indeed, the constructive-engagement exploration in comparative philosophy not 
only intrinsically demands, but also can significantly enhance and effectively 
implement, the foregoing crucial character of philosophical dialogue, specifically 
speaking, and philosophical exploration, general speaking: distinct approaches and 
resources from different philosophical traditions, whenever they are constructively 
relevant and contributing, can provide broad visions, complementary perspectives, 
and other valuable or even indispensable resources in need for philosophical dialogue 
to enhance our understanding and treatment of various objects of study in 
philosophical exploration
3
 (they can be jointly concerned through appropriate 
philosophical interpretation and from a broader philosophical vantage point). The 
point can be vividly captured via a poetic adage by Su Shi, an ancient Chinese poet in 
the Song Dynasty: “One can’t recognize the genuine facets of Lushan Mountain, just 
because one has oneself caught in the midst of this very mountain.”4 
 
 
 
Bo Mou 
July 2012 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2
 Donald Davidson (1994), “Dialectic and Dialogue,” in G. Preyer et al., eds., Language, Mind and 
Epistemology (Kluwer), 432. 
3
 The identity of a (genuine) object of study in philosophy is understood broadly: whether it is a 
naturally produced object in physical reality, or an object in social reality, or an abstract object out of 
theoretic construction, or a ‘linguistic’ object which are introduced linguistically, or an object of 
philosophical inquiries as an issue or topic in philosophy, which are referentially accessible and 
critically communicable among participants in philosophical dialogue. 
4
 The sentence (“不識廬山真面目﹐只緣身在此山中” in its Chinese original) is from Su Shi (蘇軾)’s 
poem “Inscription on the Wall of Xilinxi Temple” (《題西林寺壁》) (my translation). 


VOL 3 NO 2 EDITOR\u27S WORDS

SJSU ScholarWorks

Comparative Philosophy 3.2 (2012)  EDITOR Comparative Philosophy Volume 3, No. 2 (2012): 1-2 Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 www.comparativephilosophy.org   EDITOR’S WORDS   To implement the constructive-engagement emphasis of the journal Comparative Philosophy in a more straightforward and engaging way, the current issue features a special section entitled “Constructive Engagement Dialogue”. It consists of two “Author-Meets-Critic” sub-sections and includes articles from seven authors and critics, respectively on two recent publications: Kristie Dotson’s “How is this Paper Philosophy?” [Comparative Philosophy, vol. 3, no. 1 (2012): 3-29] and Mohammad Azadpur’s Reason Unbound: On Spiritual Practice in Islamic Peripatetic Philosophy [SUNY Press, 2011],1 both of which are more or less provocative but philosophically engaging and have aroused healthy discussion in the field. Dialogue for critical engagement has been emphasized in philosophy, as being open to reflective criticism is one defining character of philosophical exploration. No matter what specific form it takes in various philosophical traditions (say, either in a Socratic elenchus form in ancient Greek philosophy or in a bian (辨/辯) form in the pre-Han Chinese philosophy), and no matter how one characterizes and implements (a variety of) justification, various forms of philosophical dialogue share the same spirit: it is not merely an intellectual game but is intended to enhance dialogue participants’ understanding and treatment of their jointly concerned issues or topics of philosophical significance and value via critique and justification. It has thus possessed the character of engendering change in the direction of constructive cooperation and joint contribution, as addressed by Donald Davidson concerning Socratic elenchus method in this way:  …there are two vital aspects of the Socratic dialectic which transcend the mere attempt to convict a pretender to knowledge of inconsistency. One is that both participants can hope to profit; the other is that unlike a written treatise, it represents a process which engenders change….There can be a great difference between a dispute involving people who understand each other well, and an exchange in which achieving mutual understanding is a large part of the problem. But there is even greater chasm between an exchange viewed as a situation in which the participants have clear concepts whether or not they use the same words to express those concepts, and an exchange seen as a process in which the concepts themselves come into focus. A written discussion veils this distinction almost completely. Writing reduces the number of active interpreters to one, the reader, thus                                                  1 Earlier versions of the author’ and critics’ writings on Reason Unbound were presented at an “Author-Meets-Critic” session, American Philosophical Association Pacific Division 2012 meeting (3rd April 2012, Seattle, USA). 2  Comparative Philosophy 3.2 (2012)                                                                                             EDITOR eliminating the interaction of minds in which words can be bent to new uses and ideas progressively shaped.2  Davidson’s ending point in the foregoing citation is not to deny that philosophical writings can be effectively involved in a philosophical dialogue but to address one important aspect of its spirit: all participants in a reflective dialogue, whether the authors, critics or readers in this case, are expected to be open-minded and sensitive to critiques and distinct approaches so as to progressively and jointly shape and refine ideas that contribute to our understanding and treatment of the issues or topic under examination. In the above sense, the engaging discussion presented in this issue is a beginning of the dialogue, rather than its ending; it invites further interaction, reflection, critique and constructive contributions from the readers’ part as well as from the current authors’ and critics’ parts.   Indeed, the constructive-engagement exploration in comparative philosophy not only intrinsically demands, but also can significantly enhance and effectively implement, the foregoing crucial character of philosophical dialogue, specifically speaking, and philosophical exploration, general speaking: distinct approaches and resources from different philosophical traditions, whenever they are constructively relevant and contributing, can provide broad visions, complementary perspectives, and other valuable or even indispensable resources in need for philosophical dialogue to enhance our understanding and treatment of various objects of study in philosophical exploration3 (they can be jointly concerned through appropriate philosophical interpretation and from a broader philosophical vantage point). The point can be vividly captured via a poetic adage by Su Shi, an ancient Chinese poet in the Song Dynasty: “One can’t recognize the genuine facets of Lushan Mountain, just because one has oneself caught in the midst of this very mountain.”4    Bo Mou July 2012                                                      2 Donald Davidson (1994), “Dialectic and Dialogue,” in G. Preyer et al., eds., Language, Mind and Epistemology (Kluwer), 432. 3 The identity of a (genuine) object of study in philosophy is understood broadly: whether it is a naturally produced object in physical reality, or an object in social reality, or an abstract object out of theoretic construction, or a ‘linguistic’ object which are introduced linguistically, or an object of philosophical inquiries as an issue or topic in philosophy, which are referentially accessible and critically communicable among participants in philosophical dialogue. 4 The sentence (“不識廬山真面目﹐只緣身在此山中” in its Chinese original) is from Su Shi (蘇軾)’s poem “Inscription on the Wall of Xilinxi Temple” (《題西林寺壁》) (my translation). 

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&amp;context=comparativephilosophy

VOL 3 NO 2 EDITOR\u27S WORDS

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

San Jose State University

SJSU ScholarWorks