A Holistic Account of Adequacy Conditions for How to Look at Contraries

How Cross-Tradition Engagement in Philosophy Is Possible


  • MOU Bo San José State University, Department of Philosophy, United States




comparative philosophy, cross-tradition engagement in philosophy, holistic account, methodological guiding principles (adequate and inadequate ones), methodological perspectives (eligible and ineligible ones)


The aim of this essay is to give a meta-philosophical and meta-methodological characterization of some central characteristic features comparative philosophy as a general way of doing philosophy through cross-tradition engagement toward world philosophy. This is elucidated by presenting a holistic account of the conditions for maintaining adequate methodological guiding principles for appropriately and effectively considering different approaches to philosophy. This essay is meta-methodological in character: given that comparative philosophy sets out to explore how to adequately look at contraries (especially those from different philosophical traditions, but not limited to them, methodologically speaking), and given the self-reflective philosophical nature of comparative philosophy, exploring adequacy conditions for how to look at contraries is meta-methodological in character but also a significant part of comparative philosophy per se. This meta-methodological exploration in comparative philosophy is neither exhaustive nor exclusive: it is not exhaustive because comparative philosophy as a whole has other substantial contents; it is not exclusive because this suggested account itself is open-ended and can include further adequate conditions that would be complementary to the current set from the holistic vantage point, which is exactly one ending point of this essay.


Download data is not yet available.


Allinson, Robert E. 1998. “Complementarity as a Model for East-West Integrative Philosophy.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 25 (4): 505–17.

Allinson, Robert E. 2003. “Hegelian, Yi-Jing, and Buddhist Transformational Models for Comparative Philosophy.” In Comparative Approaches to Chinese Philosophy, edited by Bo Mou, 60–85. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Confucius (Kong Zi 孔子). The Lun-Yü《論語》(The Analects).

Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. 1995. Anticipating China, Thinking Through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture. Albany: SUNY Press.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (1807) [1967]. The Phenomenology of Mind (Phänomenologie des Geistes). Translated by J. B. Baillie. London: Harper & Row.

Lau, D. C., transl. and intro. 1983. Confucius: The Analects. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Ma, Lin, and Jaap Van Brakel. 2016. Fundamentals of Comparative and Intercultural Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.

Mou, Bo. 2001. “An Analysis of the Structure of Philosophical Methodology: In View of Comparative Philosophy.” In Two Roads to Wisdom?: Chinese and Analytic Philosophical Traditions, edited by Bo Mou, 337–64. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.

———. 2010. “On Constructive-Engagement Strategy of Comparative Philosophy.” Comparative Philosophy 1 (1): 1–32. http://www.comparativephilosophy.org.

———. 2020. Cross-Tradition Engagement in Philosophy: A Constructive-Engagement Account. New York and London: Routledge.

Plato. 1995. “Euthyphro.” In Classics of Western Philosophy, edited by Steven M. Cahn (4th edition), 28–40. Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett.

Rošker S., Jana. 2021. Interpreting Chinese Philosophy: A New Methodology. London: Bloomsbury.

Yi-Jing (I-Ching)《易經》. The Chinese original text on which the relevant parts are primarily based:《周易譯註》(The Zhou-Yi: Paraphrase and Annotation). 1989. Paraphrased and annotated by Huang Shouqi 黃壽祺, and Zhang Shouwen 張壽文 (上海古籍出版社). A Chinese-English bilingual version of the Yi-Jing text:《周易》(Book of Changes). 1882. Translated and annotated by James Legge. Oxford University Press. Edited and paraphrased by Qin Ying 秦穎, and Qin Sui 秦穗 湖南出版社. 1993. Chinese Text Project. n. d. https//ctext.org.




How to Cite

Mou, B. (2022). A Holistic Account of Adequacy Conditions for How to Look at Contraries: How Cross-Tradition Engagement in Philosophy Is Possible. Asian Studies, 10(3), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.157-179