比较哲学方法论国际会议征稿启事
来源：会议讲座
作者：
时间：2007-12-11
比较哲学方法论国际会议征稿启事
国际中西哲学比较研究学会（ISCWP）将于2008年6月6日至9日期间于北京大学举办“比较哲学方法论――建设性交锋-交融”的国际会议。继2004年及2005年成功举办“戴维森哲学与中国哲学――建设性交锋-交融”和“塞尔哲学与中国哲学――建设性交锋-交融”之后，此次会议是此学会第三次举办这个系列的国际会议。协办方为北京大学哲学系暨外国哲学研究所。
尽管中西比较哲学已经取得了不少重要进展，但是一直未完全解决方法论的问题。如何克服语言、文化和思想方法的异质性，使中西哲学的比较研究不限于异同点的列举，而成为具有自己的哲理生命的、严格的和创造性的独特思想探讨，还是一个充满了各种可能的挑战性的问题。但另一方面，我们也看到历史上和现实中有成功的跨文化的哲学比较，比如佛学与道家及儒家的建设性交锋-交融，莱布尼兹、海德格尔、罗姆巴赫等人的研究。全球化的趋向也在要求我们在这方面有实质性进展。因此我们亟须辨清，不管是通过理论讨论还是案例分析，方法论上的什么弊端在阻碍我们取得中西哲学比较的更大成就？为什么有的比较探索就比较成功？我们能从其他的比较事业――比如比较语言学、比较宗教学、比较文学、比较法学等――学到什么？以下是一些具体的问题提示：
＊ 如何建设性地理解中西哲学的可比性？
＊ 比较哲学如何成为严格意义上的哲学研究，甚至是创造性的哲学研究？
＊ 从跨文化的翻译事业中可能获得什么方法论上的教益？
＊ 反思以往的哲学比较――包括本学会已举办的两次“建设性交锋-交融”的会议――中的方法论成败教训。
＊ 如何建设性地看待比较哲学中不同的方法论倾向和强调重点之间的关系？
＊ 比较哲学与其他学科的比较研究的关系。
等等。
论文用中文或英文撰写均可，但要附加另一种文字的摘要。提交的中文论文长度约6000字（摘要不超过300字），英文论文约3000字（摘要不超过150字）。请将论文电子版（以MS Word附件形式）寄往：张祥龙（xlzhang@phil.pku.edu.cn），Steve Angle: sangle@wesleyan.edu, 或陈德荣: rogerchen203@hotmail.com。
论文将由一学术小组审读，决定其参加会议的资格。提交论文的最后时间为：2008年1月15日。通知论文是否接受的最后时间为：2008年3月15日。如果论文被接受，提交修改本的最后时间为2008年5月10日。
Call for Papers
The 3rd ISCWP International “Constructive Engagement” Conference:
The Methodology of Comparative Philosophy
Place: Peking University, Beijing, China
Time: June 7-8, 2008
Initiator & Academic Organizer:
International Society for Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Philosophy (ISCWP)
Conference Host:
Department of Philosophy & Institute of Foreign Philosophy, Peking University, China
Co-sponsors:
Department of Philosophy & Institute of Foreign Philosophy, Peking University, China;
Center for Comparative Philosophy, San Jose State University, USA
Working Languages: English, Chinese.
Theme:
Comparative philosophy has recently been developing in diverse and challenging ways — perhaps more so than other comparative disciplines such as comparative linguistics, comparative literature, or comparative religion. Comparative philosophy is a very promising and dynamic approach to doing philosophy, but there is still much room for it to mature further. One important reason for this may be found in the methodologies of comparative philosophy. Because such methodologies are closely related to philosophical thinking itself, we meet serious difficulties in overcoming heterogeneities of languages, cultures, and the ways of thinking. Thus at least initially, a dissertation dealing with either Confucius or Aristotle appears to have more possibilities for success than one dealing simultaneously with both thinkers. However, not only have there been significant comparative efforts in philosophy — such as the introduction of Buddhism into China or the cases of Leibniz and Heidegger — but also a new trend of globalization demands such efforts. We need to inquire therefore, on both a theoretical level and via case analyses, into what methodological inefficiencies may have hindered us from achieving more in comparative philosophy? Why did some comparative efforts become so fruitful? What can we learn from other comparative approaches? Etc.
The following are some possible issues (only for your reference):
? What approaches to the comparability between Chinese and Western philosophy are most constructive?
? Comparative studies and creative thinking in philosophy. How should we think about the relation between doing comparative philosophy and simply doing philosophy?
? Methodological lessons learned from cross-cultural translations.
? Reflection on the methodologies of previous work in comparative philosophy; possibly including those employed in the ISCWP's two previous major projects concerning Chinese and Western philosophy (i.e., “Davidson's Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy” and “Searle's Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy”).
? How can we constructively look at the relation between distinct orientations, focuses, and methodological approaches in comparative philosophy?
? Comparisons between comparative philosophy and other comparative approaches to human knowledge.
Submission of Papers:
Papers (in either English or Chinese, together with abstracts) for consideration may be submitted electronically (as a MS Word attachment) to: Xianglong Zhang: xlzhang@phil.pku.edu.cn, or Steve Angle: sangle@wesleyan.edu, or Derong Chen: rogerchen203@hotmail.com.
All submitted papers will be judged by the review team. Submitted papers should be approximately 3000 words (10-12 pages), to be presented comfortably in about 30 minutes; their abstracts will be less than 150 words. The deadline for submission for consideration is January 15, 2008. Notifications of the acceptance decision will be sent out no later than March 15, 2008. If the paper is accepted, the deadline for final version is May 10, 2008.
国际中西哲学比较研究学会（ISCWP）将于2008年6月6日至9日期间于北京大学举办“比较哲学方法论――建设性交锋-交融”的国际会议。继2004年及2005年成功举办“戴维森哲学与中国哲学――建设性交锋-交融”和“塞尔哲学与中国哲学――建设性交锋-交融”之后，此次会议是此学会第三次举办这个系列的国际会议。协办方为北京大学哲学系暨外国哲学研究所。
尽管中西比较哲学已经取得了不少重要进展，但是一直未完全解决方法论的问题。如何克服语言、文化和思想方法的异质性，使中西哲学的比较研究不限于异同点的列举，而成为具有自己的哲理生命的、严格的和创造性的独特思想探讨，还是一个充满了各种可能的挑战性的问题。但另一方面，我们也看到历史上和现实中有成功的跨文化的哲学比较，比如佛学与道家及儒家的建设性交锋-交融，莱布尼兹、海德格尔、罗姆巴赫等人的研究。全球化的趋向也在要求我们在这方面有实质性进展。因此我们亟须辨清，不管是通过理论讨论还是案例分析，方法论上的什么弊端在阻碍我们取得中西哲学比较的更大成就？为什么有的比较探索就比较成功？我们能从其他的比较事业――比如比较语言学、比较宗教学、比较文学、比较法学等――学到什么？以下是一些具体的问题提示：
＊ 如何建设性地理解中西哲学的可比性？
＊ 比较哲学如何成为严格意义上的哲学研究，甚至是创造性的哲学研究？
＊ 从跨文化的翻译事业中可能获得什么方法论上的教益？
＊ 反思以往的哲学比较――包括本学会已举办的两次“建设性交锋-交融”的会议――中的方法论成败教训。
＊ 如何建设性地看待比较哲学中不同的方法论倾向和强调重点之间的关系？
＊ 比较哲学与其他学科的比较研究的关系。
等等。
论文用中文或英文撰写均可，但要附加另一种文字的摘要。提交的中文论文长度约6000字（摘要不超过300字），英文论文约3000字（摘要不超过150字）。请将论文电子版（以MS Word附件形式）寄往：张祥龙（xlzhang@phil.pku.edu.cn），Steve Angle: sangle@wesleyan.edu, 或陈德荣: rogerchen203@hotmail.com。
论文将由一学术小组审读，决定其参加会议的资格。提交论文的最后时间为：2008年1月15日。通知论文是否接受的最后时间为：2008年3月15日。如果论文被接受，提交修改本的最后时间为2008年5月10日。
Call for Papers
The 3rd ISCWP International “Constructive Engagement” Conference:
The Methodology of Comparative Philosophy
Place: Peking University, Beijing, China
Time: June 7-8, 2008
Initiator & Academic Organizer:
International Society for Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Philosophy (ISCWP)
Conference Host:
Department of Philosophy & Institute of Foreign Philosophy, Peking University, China
Co-sponsors:
Department of Philosophy & Institute of Foreign Philosophy, Peking University, China;
Center for Comparative Philosophy, San Jose State University, USA
Working Languages: English, Chinese.
Theme:
Comparative philosophy has recently been developing in diverse and challenging ways — perhaps more so than other comparative disciplines such as comparative linguistics, comparative literature, or comparative religion. Comparative philosophy is a very promising and dynamic approach to doing philosophy, but there is still much room for it to mature further. One important reason for this may be found in the methodologies of comparative philosophy. Because such methodologies are closely related to philosophical thinking itself, we meet serious difficulties in overcoming heterogeneities of languages, cultures, and the ways of thinking. Thus at least initially, a dissertation dealing with either Confucius or Aristotle appears to have more possibilities for success than one dealing simultaneously with both thinkers. However, not only have there been significant comparative efforts in philosophy — such as the introduction of Buddhism into China or the cases of Leibniz and Heidegger — but also a new trend of globalization demands such efforts. We need to inquire therefore, on both a theoretical level and via case analyses, into what methodological inefficiencies may have hindered us from achieving more in comparative philosophy? Why did some comparative efforts become so fruitful? What can we learn from other comparative approaches? Etc.
The following are some possible issues (only for your reference):
? What approaches to the comparability between Chinese and Western philosophy are most constructive?
? Comparative studies and creative thinking in philosophy. How should we think about the relation between doing comparative philosophy and simply doing philosophy?
? Methodological lessons learned from cross-cultural translations.
? Reflection on the methodologies of previous work in comparative philosophy; possibly including those employed in the ISCWP's two previous major projects concerning Chinese and Western philosophy (i.e., “Davidson's Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy” and “Searle's Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy”).
? How can we constructively look at the relation between distinct orientations, focuses, and methodological approaches in comparative philosophy?
? Comparisons between comparative philosophy and other comparative approaches to human knowledge.
Submission of Papers:
Papers (in either English or Chinese, together with abstracts) for consideration may be submitted electronically (as a MS Word attachment) to: Xianglong Zhang: xlzhang@phil.pku.edu.cn, or Steve Angle: sangle@wesleyan.edu, or Derong Chen: rogerchen203@hotmail.com.
All submitted papers will be judged by the review team. Submitted papers should be approximately 3000 words (10-12 pages), to be presented comfortably in about 30 minutes; their abstracts will be less than 150 words. The deadline for submission for consideration is January 15, 2008. Notifications of the acceptance decision will be sent out no later than March 15, 2008. If the paper is accepted, the deadline for final version is May 10, 2008.