The Problem of Ground in Comparative Philosophy

Quality, Quantity, Intensity

Authors

  • Margus OTT Tallinn University, Estonia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.225-239

Keywords:

comparative philosophy, qualitative comparison, quantitative comparison, tension, intensity, obscure ground, interpenetration, juxtaposition, clarity, re-obscuring, groundlessness

Abstract

In comparative philosophy, there arises the problem of ground for comparison. Qualitative comparison is based on a certain qualitative ground for comparison, e.g., weight. Quantitative comparison brings more clarity into the qualitative comparison, introducing discrete and homogeneous units: how much does it weigh? How much does it cost? Both qualitative and quantitative comparison start from a ground that is already given and clear; they simply apply it to the case at hand (Is this one heavier than the other? If so, by how much?). In other—and more interesting—cases, the common ground is obscure: we have the feeling that A and B can be compared, but how exactly? The inability to immediately proceed to application creates a tension, and this opens the intensive dimension of comparison. The intensity has two sides: obscure and clear. The obscure side has its articulations, but they interpenetrate each other. Our task is to unfold, unravel, unpack. Then we will bring something to clarity where the elements do not interpenetrate so much but are juxtaposed (in different qualities and quantities). This will give rise to new tensions and new unfolding. The obscure articulations do not resemble the clear ones, and their unfolding is a creative process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bernstein, Richard J. 1991. “Incommensurability and Otherness Revisited.” In Culture and Modernity: East-West Philosophic Perspectives, edited by Eliot Deutsch, 85–103. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

DeLanda, Manuel. 2002. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London, New York: Continuum.

———. Philosophy and Simulation. The Emergence of Synthetic Reason. New York: Continuum.

Deleuze, Gilles. 1994. Difference and Repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.

Garcia, Tristan 2018. Life Intense. A Modern Obsession. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 2010. Science of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heidegger, Martin. 2012. Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Houlgate, Stephen. 2006. The Opening of Hegel’s Logic: From Being to Infinity. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

Kangas, David. 2007. Kierkegaard’s Instant. On Beginnings. Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Kierkegaard, Søren. 1962. Philosophical Fragments or A Fragment of Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1991. “Incommensurability, Truth, and the Conversation between Confucians and Aristotelians about the Virtues.” In Culture and Modernity. East-West Philosophic Perspectives, edited by Eliot Deutsch, 104–22. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Ott, Margus. 2019. “Deleuze and Zhuangzi: Actualization and Counter-Actualization.” Asian Studies 7 (1): 315−35.

———. 2020. “Deleuzian (Re)Interpretation of Zhu Xi.” Asian Studies 8 (2): 281−310.

———. 2021. “Constraint and li, work and qi: Deacon and Zhu Xi.” Chinese Semiotic Studies 17 (2): 237−54.

Simondon, Gilbert. 1989. Individuation psychique et collective. Paris: Aubier.

Weber, Ralph. 2014. “Comparative Philosophy and the Tertium: Comparing What with What, and in What Respect?” Dao 13 (2): 151–71.

Weber, Ralph, and Arindam Chakrabarti. 2016. “Introduction.” In Comparative Philosophy without Borders, edited by Ralph Weber, and Arindam Chakrabarti, 1–33. London-New York: Bloomsbury.

Downloads

Published

02.09.2022

How to Cite

Ott, M. (2022). The Problem of Ground in Comparative Philosophy: Quality, Quantity, Intensity. Asian Studies, 10(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.3.225-239