In “Global Knowledge Frameworks and the Tasks of Cross-Cultural Philosophy,” Leigh Jenco searches for the conception of knowledge that best justifies the judgment that one can learn from non-local traditions of philosophy. Jenco considers four conceptions of knowledge, namely, in catchwords, the esoteric, Enlightenment, hermeneutic, and self- transformative conceptions of knowledge, and she defends the latter as more plausible than the former three. In this critical discussion of Jenco’s article, I provide reason to doubt the self-transformative conception, and also advance (...) a fifth, pluralist conception of knowledge that I contend best explains the prospect of learning from traditions other than one’s own. (shrink)

In this essay I argue that recent philosophical attempts to ‘modernise’ Confucianism rehearse problematic relationships to the past that – far from broadening Confucianism’s appeal beyond its typical borders – end up narrowing its scope as a source of scholarly knowledge. This is because the very attempt to modernise assumes a rupture with a past in which Confucianism was once alive and relevant, fixing its identity to a static historical place disconnected from the present. I go on to explore alternative (...) means of situating past thought to present inquiry, by examining a debate among early 20th-century Chinese intellectuals over the value of their past heritage in a modern age. Their diverse responses undermine the certainty of a singular or persistent Chinese past, enabling a creative presentism that encourages deliberate filiation with alternative ‘tracks’ of past practice and thought. (shrink)

How is cultural otherness any different from the historical otherness already found in our existing canons of thought? This essay examines an influential Chinese conversation that raised a similar question in struggling with its own parochialism. Claiming that all “Western” knowledge originated in China, these Chinese reformers see the differences presented by foreign knowledge as identical to those already authorizing innovation within their existing activity of knowledge-production. Noting that current academic theory-production treats the otherness of past authors in a similar (...) way, I argue that we must broach something like a China-origins claim if we are to see typically marginalized thought as part of what disciplines our thought, rather than serves simply as its target of inclusion. Doing so, we blur self/foreign binaries and enable future innovation of thought on radically new terms. (shrink)

This introduction to the special issue explains why political theorists should be interested in Confucianism and what we have to gain by considering Confucian learning in its broader historical and political contexts.

This special issue addresses the diverse ways the past may be used and perceived in different places for political purposes. Noting that histories of political thought have traditionally reproduced the parochial exclusions of the discipline, contributors to this special issue consider how the past matters for political thought and from a global perspective. This mandate does not entail the assumption that there exists some singular global vantage point from which historical ideas might be assessed or that Euro-American concerns and experiences (...) should be projected ever more broadly across the world’s pasts. Rather, these contributors directly engage the globally diffuse, intellectually substantive confrontations of past with present, of tradition with modernity, and of heritage with necessity that erupted as thinkers in diverse societies grapple with the specific dilemmas of their time and place. (shrink)

As rapid economic development brings increasing uncertainty in East Asia, interest in a new version of republicanism, termed iscalled neo-Roman republicanism, is growing across the region. Conceptualized as liberty as non-domination, this new form of republicanism has inspired not only Western but also East Asian political theorists. However, neo-Roman republican ideas in Northeast Asian countries continue to face serious conceptual and political challenges, which scholarly literature on both republicanism and on East Asian politics has largely failed to confront. This book (...) addresses these challenges by surveying the latest theoretical contributions to the studies of republicanism in Western countries and the latest interpretations of how republicanism, including both communitarian republicanism and neo-Roman republicanism, has been appropriated in countries in East Asia. In particular, it deals with the key question of whether liberty as non-domination can work in non-Western contexts where the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy, such as moral individualism and value pluralism, do not predominate. Across three sections, the chapters first provide a conceptual overview of republicanism as a global political theory, they then consider how republicanism has historically been received, resisted, and translated into East Asia., and Ffinally, they examine how historically informed possibilities fit with the emergent needs of contemporary Northeast Asian societies. Overall, the contributors show that republicanism is an always-ongoing project, whose terms must be interpreted and translated into the various communities they inform. Normative considerations about whether or how republicanism applies in East Asia cannot be divorced from historical and empirical approaches which consider the various ways in which republican ideals reflect the realities of life there. Dealing with the issue of republicanism from a new, comparative perspective, this book will have broad appeal to students and scholars of Asian studies, comparative political theory, political philosophy, sociology, and history. (shrink)