1 Intercultural Philosophy and the Phenomenon of Migrating Texts and Traditions William Sweet1 Recently, there has been much discussion of the relation of philosophy and culture and, particularly, of the bearing of culture on philosophy. For example, one finds today the thesis that philosophies emerge from their cultures, and can never stand independently of them. This thesis is, of course, by no means uncontroversial and it is not universally accepted, but it is nevertheless widely held. If this thesis is true, however, it raises a question – and that is about philosophy ‘across’ cultures. If philosophical traditions cannot be separated from the cultures in which they originate, can there be an ‘intercultural’ or ‘comparative’ philosophy? By ‘intercultural’ or ‘comparative’ philosophy, I do not mean to refer to a particular content or approach to philosophy, but simply the explicit activity of drawing on or engaging philosophies originating from outside one’s culture or traditions, in the process of carrying out one’s own philosophical work. It is not so much – as Paul Masson‐Oursel writes, concerning what he called “la philosophie comparée” – “the general examination of the ways in which human beings of all races and cultures reflect upon their actions and act upon their reflections.”2 “It is perhaps closer to what British and Indian philosophers in the early and mid 20th century, such as Alban Widgery, P.T. Raju, and – most famously – Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, described the view that there is “a common platform” from which philosophical reflection is to begin – for example, certain common interests and aspirations of humanity – and the search for some transcultural “integrative approach” or “integrated” outlook.3 In what follows, I discuss a matter related to that I take to be central to the possibility of intercultural and comparative philosophy – and this is what I call the phenomenon of ‘migrating texts and traditions.’4 This claim of ‘migration’ of texts or traditions, from one culture to another, is not a uniquely philosophical one; indeed, we have comparative literature, cross‐cultural or comparative religions, and intercultural or global ethics, in which it seems we are dealing with the same or similar phenomena. But our understanding of this phenomenon is important. For if there is no genuine migration, then the 1 Past‐President, Canadian Philosophical Association. [email protected] 2 Paul Masson‐Oursel, “True Philosophy is Comparative Philosophy,” Philosophy East and West, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1951), pp. 6‐9, at p. 6. 3 P.T. Raju, Introduction to Comparative Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banardidass, 1992), pp. 295; 300. 4 For a more detailed discussion of issues, examples, and implications here, see William Sweet (ed.), Migrating Texts and Traditions (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2009). 2 project of an intercultural or comparative philosophy or ‘engaging’ philosophies outside of one’s own – or even communication among philosophical traditions – seem to be undermined. What I propose to do here is start by outlining some putative instances of migrating texts and traditions, and then identifying some challenges to this phenomenon. To respond to these challenges, I briefly consider some additional examples of ‘migration,’ and make some inferences about what they indicate about the general claim. This will, I believe, allow us to address the challenges, to see something of when and why texts and traditions migrate – and when and why they do not – but also to draw some implications for intercultural philosophy. 1. ‘Migrating’ Texts and Traditions 1.1. The Phenomenon It is obvious – indeed, undeniable – that philosophical texts and traditions from one culture have been found in very different cultures and intellectual milieus. For example, consider the presence of (Indian) Buddhist philosophy in China, Korea, and Japan – and more recently in North America and Europe. Thus, from an ‘original’ Buddhism in India, we not only have the development of ‘schools’ (the two major schools being Mahayana and Theravada), but a ‘migration’ – a spread of this Buddhism throughout Asia, and a number of further divisions (within Mahayana), such as Tibetan and East Asian (including Pure Land and Chan/ Zen) in Japan and China, and Seon in Korea. Many philosophies originating in the west seem similarly to have ‘migrated’ east and south – they have been introduced, and it would seem have been integrated and appropriated, into non‐ western cultures and traditions (e.g., in Africa, in the Indian sub‐continent, and in China and Japan). As examples here we can think of the introduction of British philosophy (e.g., empiricism, utilitarianism, but also idealism) into India in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the introduction of hermeneutics and post modern thought into Asia. (Thus, we are not surprised to find the use and the translation of texts by H.‐ G. Gadamer and others (e.g., J. Derrida, G. Deleuze, and M. Foucault] into various Asian languages, particularly Chinese. Yet another example of this phenomenon – and it is by far from a recent one – is the extent of the work of the great ‘orientalists’ and Indologists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such as Max Müller (1823‐1900). Müller’s translations and editions of the major texts of the great Asian religious traditions, in the 50 volume “Sacred Books of the East” (published by Oxford University Press, 1879‐ 1910), provided an introduction and access to the ‘East’ for a large number of western scholars, and 3 contributed not only to philology, but also to the development of philosophy, religious studies, and the like. Finally, of course, one finds philosophies and philosophical texts from one part of the west (e.g., the United States) being introduced into another part of the west (e.g., Russia or France). Here, we might think of texts of political philosophy, such as that of John Rawls, being introduced into France and translated into French – or, conversely, texts of French philosophy, such as those of Jacques Derrida, being found in the Anglo‐American world, and translated into English. 1.2. Explanation The preceding examples not only illustrate that there has been a migration of philosophical texts and traditions, but suggest that most – if not all – philosophical texts can, in principle, migrate. The explanations for the occasion of such a migration are, however, varied. a. Why this ‘migration’ occurs sometimes admits of a simple historical or sociological explanation. Indirectly or semi intentionally, through war and colonialization, through religion and evangelization, through general cultural contact (e.g., travel, media [particularly, the internet], higher education, and art), and through commercial relations and globalization, and so on, one sees the transmission of (philosophical) texts and traditions from one culture into another. For example, classical Greek philosophical texts translated into Syriac (in the 6th century) and into Arabic (in the 9th and early 10th centuries), followed, respectively, the close of the School of Athens in 529, and the interests of the Caliph al‐Ma’mun (786‐833) in the accumulation of not only medical but scientific texts of all kinds. And colonialism by Britain and France, in the 18th and 19th centuries, led to the establishment of European‐model educational institutions in Africa, Asia (especially India), and Canada. Not only were the organization and curriculum European, but the texts for the courses were largely European as well. And thus British and French philosophy came to be read and studied at some distance from their ‘home.’5 Of course, the principal aim of colonialisation, trade, missionary work, and the like was not the transmission of philosophies – but it is not implausible that some leaders would have seen philosophy as providing an intellectual justification and support for colonial, economic, or missionary activity. 5 There are, of course, many ways in which texts came to be present. For instance, the phenomenon of the international offices of major European presses, such as the Oxford University Press, which had offices in close to a dozen countries – from Hong Kong and Karachi to Cape Town, London, and Toronto. Texts also spread when scholars, coming [or returning] from overseas, simply happen upon new academic work. 4 b. There are, however, other explanations for the introduction of philosophical texts and traditions into different cultures – i.e., cases where such an introduction was deliberate. One case is that where those within a culture or tradition believe the philosophical work from another answers or addresses their questions in some way. Here, we might think of the influence of western philosophy, broadly construed, in Japan starting during the late Meiji period and continuing into the early 20th century. Part of the Meiji ideology was to pursue a policy of modernization in order to strengthen Imperial rule and provide the means of limiting further intervention from western countries. This included not only understanding and drawing on the science, technology, and military prowess of the West, but understanding western philosophies and, as appropriate, drawing on them in developing Japanese thought. Some scholars, such as Nakajima Rikizo6 (中島力造; 1858‐1918), left Japan to study in the West – Rikizo attended Yale University, receiving a PhD on Kant in 18897. With his return to Japan we find not only the emergence of ethics as an academic discipline in country, but the introduction of European philosophical idealism.8 Rikizo was, of course, just one – though one of the first – of the wave of Japanese thinkers at the turn of the 20th century who attempted to engage and draw from German, British, and American philosophy. And so we find, in some of the early writings of another of the major philosophers of modern Japan, Nishida Kitarô (西田幾多郎; 1870‐1945), an interest in introducing certain key texts and traditions of the west – such as those of the British idealist, T.H. Green – and in using Green’s philosophy as a means of reinforcing the Japanese ideal of dedication to the collectivity.9 6 Rikizō Nakajima (1858‐1918), Saikin rinri gakusetsu no kenkyū, [On ____ ethical theory], (Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten, 1919).