Interpretation (not translation) and philosophical traditions. Methodological observations

Abstract

The starting point of the article is the statement that there is the need for self-defense, not uncommon when presenting intercultural philosophy to a wider audience, as questions of cultural incommensurability inevitably arise. In this res­pect there may be asked some questions which should be taken into consideration: Is comparative philosophy legitimate? Is intercultural philosophy valid? Is any type of global philosophy possible? Are the cultural, terminological, and perspectival differences simply too great? In order to begin to deal with these issues, the suggestion here is made that focusing on translation as such is not the best approach, insofar as translation seeks to convey philosophical content across (or trans) boundaries in a manner that often seems to imply a one-to-one correspondence of terms and furthermore that there are distances between cultures too great to be traversed. Meanwhile, it is argued that interpretation which focuses primarily on the “inter” – the space in between – and not on cultural chasms or conceptual correspondences avoids these problems and provides a framework for pluralistic, multi-point growth like a rhizome. It can be recognized that the convergence of thinking pointed out in this paper implies some remaining distance, and that this distance is something perfectly normal. In response to this problematic, G. Deleuze, F. Guat­tari, F. Wim­­mer, and R. Ames variously and diversely show, what really matters in the growth of philosophy are results. Does fostering an intercultural conversation in a way that both attends to convergent growth and respectfully preserves the very real differences do anything to grow and generate genuine philosophical content? This is the measure, incommensurability aside.