"Pasaulinės filosofijos" projektai Honolulu komparatyvizmo sąjūdyje: kritinis pjūvis

LTRašysiu apie vieną apibrėžtą filosofinę tradiciją, skaičiuojančią bene aštuntąjį gyvavimo dešimtmetį. Kodėl renkuosi „tik vieną" - šitai netrukus paaiškės iš konteksto, tačiau įvado gale priežastis taip pat išvardysiu atskirais punktais. Toji tradicija-jokiu būdu ne mokykla! - tai Honolulu lyginamosios filosofijos sąjūdis, kurio savitumą, kūrybingumą bei, tai ne mažiau svarbu, ilgaamžiškumą iš esmės laidavo ir tebelaiduoja trys įstaigos: Havajų universiteto Filosofijos katedra, Rytų ir Vakarų filosofų konferencijos ir žurnalas Philosophy East and West [p. 112].

ENThe article analyzes ideas of "a world philosophy" formulated by the members of the Honolulu movement of comparative philosophy. This intellectual movement came about through the close cooperation of three institutions: the Department of Philosophy of Hawaii University, the scholarly journal Philosophy East and West, and the East-West Philosophers' Conferences. The Movement achieved significant scientific results and attracted the attention of humanistic scholars all around the world. The accomplishments of the Honolulu movement of comparative philosophy are placed at the forefront of contemporary humanities. The movement constitutes the exact historical context, the center of intellectual activity, where the ideas of "a world philosophy" were generated and discussed in a most thorough fashion and from many different perspectives. The following conclusions were drawn: The idea of "a world philosophy" can be discussed logically, semantically, and phenomenologically only if it is treated as a cluster concept that has to be analyzed in its basic units of meaning. There are six distinguishable meanings of "a world philosophy" that are used by the Honolulu movement of comparative philosophy: (a) a world philosophy as philosophical syntheticism; (b) a world philosophy as philosophical universalism; (c) a world philosophy as a pathos of mutual meeting and reconciliation; (d) a world philosophy as a pathos of mutual complementation and enrichment; (e) a world philosophy as a comparative historiography of ideas; (f) a world philosophy as philosophical cosmopolitanism. The idea of "a world philosophy" in its search for different models of philosophical dialog between the cultures of the East and the West most often stumbles, but in doing so it guards against many philosophical pitfalls. Thus, this seemingly negative outcome of a world philosophy becomes a positive theoretical achievement and it can properly be understo.The failure of philosophical syntheticism teaches us not to generalize, not to project unity where it is absent, and especially to avoid creating it artificially. The East and the West are rather confusing, vague cultural categories. So much so that it is far better to speak about individual geographical locations than about abstract cultural clusters. Philosophical syntheticism as a conception is ungrounded and as a project is impossible to implement. The failure of philosophical universalism teaches us not to confuse empirical findings from the common foundations of all cultures with the aprioristic concept of such a common foundation, which perhaps could be justified and applied in the political context of "building a common future", but hardly has any philosophical support. Philosophical universalism - under the name of "a world philosophy" - as it is stated by the Honolulu movement of comparative philosophy is unfounded. The pathos of mutual meeting and reconciliation as well as the pathos of mutual complementation and enrichment teach not to confuse two very different functions of the mind - feeling and reasoning - that (depending on which one dominates) give very special shades of meaning of words such as "enrichment," "complementation," "meeting," "understanding," "reconciliation," and "agreement." Otherwise, philosophy, which is the art of thinking par excellence, sinks into or rises to the level of aesthetic perception where the main role is given to feelings of liking and proper emotional environment rather than to arguments. Both these pathoses are laudable as moral attitudes, but this is exactly why they are pre-philosophical and irrational attitudes, that is, non-theoretical and non-scientific.The comparative historiography of ideas teaches us to resist the temptation toward a simple descriptive approach to the past and preserve a living theoretical relation with existing reality through the direct existential experience of it. The comparative historiography of ideas is desirable as a means of education, as a methodological introduction to the diversity of ways of thinking that are found in both native and foreign cultures. Still, it should not be confused with philosophizing proper, which is different in its theoretical perspective and the construction of meanings. Philosophical cosmopolitanism, which perhaps signifies the most pragmatic sense of "a world philosophy," teaches us not to stay at the level of general hermeneutical principles, to be open to other traditions and ways of thinking; not to be satisfied with the shallow rhetoric of comradery, empathy, mutual good-will, and other pleasant gestures of friendship. Philosophical cosmopolitanism protects us from that illusory activity of the mind called intellectual provincialism, when one system of signification is uncritically supplanted by another one in an aborted attempt to understand the other; when the process of understanding the other is but a process of self-repeating and self-enforcing. Still, philosophical cosmopolitism does not guarantee any positive philosophical outcomes. It is certainly necessary to cultivate and spread philosophical cosmopolitanism, that is, intellectual openness to atypical forms of thinking, but only in order to overcome the barriers of communication and ultimately begin what is a philosophical discussion of a philosophical issue. Cast in retrospective, the relation of the "old" world philosophy and the "new" comparative philosophy demonstrates that the so- called theoretical break in comparative philosophy separating the present endeavors of the Honolulu movement from those of the past is overstated. [...].