History of Philosophy Not Like Philosophy: How to Read an Ancient Chinese Text
This article presents a philosophical and methodological remark on the paper of A. Krushinskiy “Subject, Space, Time: How to Read Ancient Chinese Text” at the Round Table on the project “Geography of Rationality” (Moscow, RAS Institute of Philosophy, March 31, 2020), which gives an alternative explanation for the appearance of translations and studies of unsatisfactory quality in modern Russian sinology. A. Krushinskiy attributes this to the fact that authors of these unsatisfactory works do not take into account the specifics of reading ancient Chinese texts, namely, ignoring the methodological theory of V. Spirin according to which ancient Chinese texts reveal additional semantic content, if read nonlinearly. The present article points that this is not due to ignoring the particular methodological achievements of V. Spirin, but because of the general methodological attitudes of authors writing about ancient Chinese philosophy. The article distinguishes three types of general methodological attitudes: “sophistic” (when material from the history of philosophy is used for the author's self-realization), “philosophical” (when material from the history of philosophy is used to solve a particular philosophical problem) and “historical” (when the description of material from the history of philosophy is the end in itself). It also shows methodological differences between these types that affect the style and methodology of scholars. The article pays special attention to the description of the general regulatory principles of the historian of philosophy, i.e. 1) accuracy in ‘modernization', ‘actualization' and ‘comparative method'; 2) moderation in ‘universalizations' and ‘author's interpretations'; 3) distinction between ‘subjects' of historical philosophical material (author/s, text, tradition); 4) special attention to contradictions and uncertainties in it; and 4) understanding that for a historian of philosophy ‘true” is ‘admissible'. It is concluded that problems with translations and studies of unsatisfactory quality arise mainly when authors consciously or unconsciously confuse these three general methodological attitudes in their texts and thereby mislead readers.