What Is Comparative Philosophy? Definition, Benefits, Examples

Comparative philosophy investigates philosophical issues by comparing various schools of thought from different cultures. At COMPARE.EDU.VN, we help you explore the depths of this approach, providing clear comparisons and insightful analysis. Discover the rich tapestry of global philosophical traditions and gain a broader perspective on fundamental questions, enhancing your decision-making skills by evaluating diverse viewpoints.

1. Understanding Comparative Philosophy

Comparative philosophy, also known as cross-cultural philosophy, is a unique branch of philosophy. Philosophers in this field explore philosophical problems. They do this by comparing different cultural, linguistic, and philosophical traditions. Comparative philosophy often compares modern Western traditions (like American and Continental European philosophy) with classical Asian traditions (like Chinese, Indian, or Japanese philosophy). However, it also uses materials from Islamic, African, and classical Western traditions (like Judaism, Christianity, and Platonism).

It is crucial to distinguish comparative philosophy from area studies philosophy and world philosophy. Area studies philosophy focuses on a single region. Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, and African philosophy are examples. Area studies philosophers may not compare their region’s ideas with those from outside it.

World philosophy is an attempt to create a comprehensive philosophy. It considers different philosophical writings and traditions from around the world. It tries to weave them into a coherent world view. World philosophy builds on comparative philosophy, but comparative philosophy does not have to become world philosophy. A comparative philosopher may work on specific topics or with a few philosophers. The goal is to gain clarity on a particular issue. Those creating a world philosophy often incorporate other traditions, but the voice of the “other” may not be fully expressed.

2. The Historical Journey of Comparative Philosophy

Comparative philosophy as a cross-cultural discipline is relatively new. Its roots lie in the Western world’s growing awareness of different traditions, especially Asian ones, in the 18th century. Much of the work from this time does not align with the definition of comparative philosophy described earlier. Jonathan Spence (1998) notes that early Western philosophers’ treatments of China, such as Hegel’s, cannot be considered true comparative philosophy. They lacked serious engagement with Chinese perspectives.

The situation in Asia was different. Cultural traditions frequently interacted and clashed. Buddhism spread from India and Central Asia to China in the early centuries CE. This sparked a long tradition of philosophical responses from Confucian and Daoist thinkers. These responses were often critical, but some were appreciative. All were at least implicitly comparative. Over the next two thousand years, Chinese Buddhism evolved through dialogue between foreign and local traditions. Confucianism and Daoism also developed similarly during this period. Similar patterns of dialogue between local traditions and Buddhism occurred in Korea, Japan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. Parallel patterns emerged among other players in India. This long history of cross-cultural dialogue and willingness to engage with different perspectives led to important early comparisons of Eastern and Western philosophies. These came from non-Westerners responding to Western ideas. Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950) and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975) were prominent Indian voices in the early 20th century. They presented Indian philosophical ideas and compared, contrasted, and fused Eastern and Western philosophy and religion. In Japan, Nishida Kitaro’s An Inquiry into the Good (1911) critically and creatively incorporated Western philosophy and religion from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective. This continues today in the work of the Kyoto School, notably Keiji Nishitani and Masao Abe.

The University of Hawaii hosted the first East-West Philosophers’ Conference in 1939. This was partly due to the rise of comparative studies in 19th-century Anglo-European intellectual history. Since then, comparative philosophy, area studies philosophy, and world philosophy have grown and influenced each other. However, comparative philosophy is still developing its role and function within philosophy and area studies.

Mainstream Western philosophy has been slow to embrace comparative philosophy. Philosophy departments rarely include it in their curricula. Comparative philosophers often struggle to publish in mainstream journals. In 1996, Bryan Van Norden wrote an “Open Letter to the APA,” complaining about the segregation of comparative subjects from mainstream philosophical journals. Van Norden pointed out that scholars of comparative philosophy were often directed to area studies journals or journals focused on specific philosophical traditions. Few journals are specifically comparative. Philosophy East and West and Dao: A Journal in Comparative Philosophy are exceptions, but Dao focuses on a limited area of comparison.

The Society of Asian and Comparative Philosophy now holds sessions at the annual meetings of the American Philosophical Association, the American Academy of Religion, and the Association of Asian Studies. The Association of Asian Studies has published a monograph series featuring works in Asian philosophy or philosophy examined from a comparative perspective since 1974. Some presses, like the State University of New York Press and Lexington Books, have book series dedicated to comparative philosophy. Examples include Varieties of Ethical Reflection: New Directions for Ethics in a Global Context, edited by Michael Barnhart (2003), and Self as Person in Asian Thought, edited by Roger Ames, Wilmal Dissanayake, and Thomas Kasulis (1994).

Most introductory philosophy courses used to focus on the Western tradition, especially Anglo-European classics. Now, there are more resources for introducing students to philosophy in a comparative way or that allows for comparative philosophical work.

3. Challenges in Comparative Philosophy

3.1 Avoiding Chauvinism

Martha Nussbaum (1997) warns against biases that can affect comparative analysis. Comparative philosophers should avoid these biases.

Descriptive chauvinism occurs when one recreates another tradition in their own image. This involves reading a text from another tradition and assuming it asks the same questions or provides answers in a similar way to one’s own tradition. For example, philosophers who interpret Confucius as a virtue ethicist like Aristotle need to be careful. David Hall and Roger Ames (1995) argue against translating the Chinese text Zhongyong as The Doctrine of the Mean. They believe it does not pursue virtue analysis in practical reason in the same way as Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

Normative chauvinism is the tendency to believe that one’s own tradition is superior. If others are different, they are seen as inferior or wrong. Philosophers should hold defensible and credible views. However, the criteria for this decision can be tradition-dependent. If a philosopher is unwilling to reconsider their criteria in light of another tradition, they may be engaging in normative chauvinism. For example, some philosophers might dismiss Zhuangzi’s antirationalism because it does not meet their evidential standards. A common form of normative chauvinism is the belief that philosophy must be done in a certain way (e.g., through ratiocinative argument). Many philosophy departments in Europe, Britain, and America have not considered including courses in comparative philosophy or area studies philosophies. They do not see these traditions as doing “real philosophy.” This is similar to someone hearing Indian music and dismissing it as not “real music” because it sounds different from Western music. In these cases, the concept of a “philosophical work” or “musical work” differs across traditions. However, each tradition offers intellectually robust and meaningful examples.

3.2 Resisting Skepticism

Normative skepticism may not be seen as a vice by all philosophers, even though Nussbaum identifies it as one. It involves describing the views of different philosophers and traditions without judging their merit. Some philosophers teaching the history of Western philosophy never critically evaluate a thinker’s claims. However, many believe that some views are less defensible than others, and some are simply wrong. This applies not only to thinkers within Western philosophy but also to cross-cultural comparative philosophy. Not all Western philosophy is correct, and neither are other traditions. Some Buddhist, Indian, Confucian, Daoist, and Islamic views should be challenged. Sometimes they will be found lacking based on cross-cultural standards or internal inconsistencies. Being a comparative philosopher does not mean uncritically accepting other traditions simply because they are different. It is not a form of Romanticism that sees philosophical traditions from other cultures as always right or preferable to Western philosophy. Nor does comparative philosophy require suspending all critical judgment. It is based on the premise that conversation across traditions will eliminate flaws and confirm truths. Philosophical viewpoints can differ dramatically. It is not always clear how one might be preferable to another on philosophical grounds. Developing grounds for deciding among views is a key task of comparative philosophy.

3.3 Overcoming Incommensurability

David Wong (1989) discusses how philosophical traditions can be incommensurable. One type of incommensurability is the inability to translate concepts from one tradition into another. Another is that philosophical models differ so fundamentally that it is impossible for advocates to understand each other. Wong argues that some forms of life may be so different from a person’s experience and philosophical tradition that they cannot see the merits of another view. A third type of incommensurability is that traditions differ on what counts as evidence and grounds for decision-making. This makes it impossible to judge between them. There is no common or objective criterion to justify preferring one set of claims over another, let alone one entire tradition over another. Wong suggests learning about the other tradition as a solution. This involves each philosopher influencing the other’s way of seeing. The goal is to understand how the other philosophical tradition is tied to a life that humans have found satisfying and meaningful.

Philosophers who realize that critical work is essential to the comparative project often see traditions as rivals. Alasdair MacIntyre (1991) explores this issue. He argues that after the initial stage of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, an accurate representation of the other tradition emerges. Then, the task becomes showing which tradition is rationally superior. One tradition may acknowledge its inferiority based on its own internal standards. When the resources to correct these inadequacies are not available within the tradition, those holding the flawed view may shift their allegiance to the tradition that has those resources or explains the failure of the previous system. MacIntyre believes this can happen even if the two traditions share no philosophical beliefs or methods. That is, even if they are completely incommensurable. In situations where comparative philosophers engage in rational debate with those from another tradition, MacIntyre says each philosopher must view their own standpoint as critically as possible, admitting the possibility of error. However, he also believes that any comparison of views must be made from a specific standpoint. There is no neutral ground. This is what he means when he says that comparative philosophy eventually becomes the comparison of comparisons.

MacIntyre considers whether comparative philosophy involves choosing between traditions or engaging in rational debate. Addressing a potential objection to his views, he acknowledges that he may be presupposing a Western conception of rational order not found in Chinese thought. He states that this is his standpoint and he cannot do otherwise. This describes how some comparative philosophers work, but it is not true for all. Many comparative philosophers (like those in the bibliography) do not see their work as enabling a decision between rival theories. They see it as a conversation where philosophical progress is made and all traditions are altered in the resulting narrative.

3.4 Avoiding Perennialism

The difficulty of commensurability is not the only challenge. Many comparative philosophers mistakenly overlook that philosophical traditions have a present as well as a past. Classical texts are formative and provide the basis for much of a tradition’s distinct evolution. However, philosophers cannot focus solely on them. As scholars of any philosophical tradition know, all traditions are evolving. They are not static or monolithic. They have tensions with other traditions and internal conflicts. The point at which a comparative philosopher enters another tradition is crucial. They must understand why a particular view is held and that it is only one view among others possible within that tradition. For example, if one wants to study Chinese moral culture, what should they focus on? Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, or the Marxist critique of all three? And with what aspects of their own tradition will they compare Chinese moral culture? Deontology, utilitarianism, or Aristotelianism?

4. The Future of Comparative Philosophy

One might argue that comparative philosophy does not exist as a distinct sub-discipline. All philosophical work is comparative. Philosophers routinely compare the work of different thinkers with others or with their own ideas. They require a thorough understanding of all significant views on a question before agreeing. Each view must be tested against others. This is inherently comparative. For example, comparing Hume’s and Locke’s discussions of personal identity involves comparison. Comparing Confucius’ views on morality with Aristotle’s is not fundamentally different from comparing Aquinas’ and Aristotle’s views on the same subject. Furthermore, comparing Descartes’ epistemology and truth theory to Hegel’s involves comparison. Some philosophers argue that the two approaches are so different that they are incommensurable. That is, they lack a common basis for comparison. Comparison is fundamental to philosophy, and the thought worlds being examined may be incommensurable even within the same cultural stream. Descartes and Hegel may have incommensurable views on truth, just as Buddhism’s approach to human problems differs greatly from Pragmatism’s.

Comparing Aristotle with Confucius on morality may differ only in degree from comparing Aristotle and Aquinas. However, as Alfred North Whitehead pointed out, a difference in degree can become a difference in kind. Even if the differences between comparing thinkers within the Western tradition and comparing a Western thinker with one from India are not fundamental, the degree of difference can be significant. No formal rule can distinguish these types of comparisons. There are similarities between comparing philosophical ideas across traditions and comparing them within the same tradition. Comparative philosophers working cross-culturally reveal the dramatic and philosophically significant differences between these comparative approaches through their work.

Comparative philosophy does not aim to create a synthesis of philosophical traditions (as in world philosophy). It aims to create a different kind of philosopher. The goal is to learn a new language, a new way of talking. The comparative philosopher does not simply inhabit the standpoints of the traditions they draw from. They inhabit a new, emerging standpoint that differs from all of them. This allows for a new way of seeing the human condition.

5. Find Your Philosophical Compass at COMPARE.EDU.VN

Are you struggling to navigate the vast landscape of philosophical thought? Do you find it challenging to compare different schools of thought and make informed decisions? At COMPARE.EDU.VN, we understand these difficulties and offer a solution.

We provide detailed and objective comparisons of various philosophical concepts, traditions, and thinkers. Our platform helps you:

Objectively compare different philosophical viewpoints.
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
Understand complex ideas through clear and concise explanations.
Make informed decisions based on comprehensive information.

Don’t let the complexities of philosophy hold you back. Visit COMPARE.EDU.VN today and start your journey toward deeper understanding and better decision-making.

Our services are available at 333 Comparison Plaza, Choice City, CA 90210, United States. Contact us on Whatsapp at +1 (626) 555-9090. Visit our website at COMPARE.EDU.VN.

6. References and Further Reading

6.1 General Comparative Philosophy

Allen, Douglas, ed. Culture and Self: Philosophical and Religious Perspectives, East and West. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.
Ames, Roger, ed. The Aesthetic Turn: Reading Eliot Deutsch on Comparative Philosophy. Chicago: Open Court, 1999.
Ames, Roger and Wilmal Dissanayake. Self and Deception: A Cross Cultural Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
Ames, Roger, Joel Marks, and Robert Solomon. Emotions in Asian Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Ames, Roger, Wilmal Dissanayake, and Thomas Kasulis. Self as Image in Asian Theory and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
Ames, Roger, Wilmal Dissanayake, and Thomas Kasulis. Self as Person in Asian Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.
Ames, Roger, Wilmal Dissanayake, and Thomas Kasulis. Self as Body in Asian Theory and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Ames, Roger and J. Baird Callicott, eds. Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Barnhart, Michael. Varieties of Ethical Reflection: New Directions in Ethics in a Global Context. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2003.
Bonevac, Daniel and Stephen Phillips, eds. Understanding Non-Western Philosophy: Introductory Readings. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing, 1993.
Blocker, H. Gene. World Philosophy: An East-West Comparative Introduction to Philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.
Carmody, Denise and John Carmody. Ways to the Center. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2001.
Clarke, J. J. Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter Between Asian and Western Thought. London: Routledge, 1997.
Davidson, Donald. “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme.” In Relativism: Cognitive and Moral, eds. Jack Meiland and Michael Krausz (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1982): 66-81.
Deutsch, Eliot. Introduction to World Philosophies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.
Deutsch, Eliot and Ron Bontekoe, eds. A Companion to World Philosophies. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Dilworth, David. Philosophy in World Perspective: A Comparative Hermeneutic of the Major Theories. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Fleischacker, Samuel. Integrity and Moral Relativism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992.
Hackett, Stuart. Oriental Philosophy: A Westerner’s Guide to Eastern Thought. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979.
Hershock, Peter, Marietta Stepaniants and Roger Ames, eds. Technology and Cultural Values: On The Edge of the Third Millennium. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003.
Inada, Kenneth, ed. East-West Dialogues in Aesthetics. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo, 1978.
Larson, Gerald James and Eliot Deutsch, eds. Interpreting Across Boundaries: New Essays in Comparative Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. “Incommensurability, Truth, and the Conversation Between Confucians and Aristotelians about the Virtues.” In Culture and Modernity: East-West Philosophic Perspectives, ed. Eliot Deutsch (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991): 104-123.
Masson-Oursel, Paul. Comparative Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2000.
Matilal, Bimal. “Pluralism, Relativism, and Interaction between Cultures.” In Culture and Modernity: East-West Philosophic Perspectives, ed. Eliot Deutsch (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991): 141-161.
Mohany, Jitendra. “Phenomenological Rationality and the Overcoming of Relativism.” In Relativism: Interpretation and Confrontation, ed. Michael Krausz (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1989): 326-339.
Nussbaum, Martha. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Parkes, Graham, ed. Heidegger and Asian Thought. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987.
Parkes, Graham. Nietzsche and Asian Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Putnam, Hilary. “Truth and Convention: On Davidson’s Refutation of Conceptual Relativism.” In Relativism: Interpretation and Confrontation, ed. Michael Krausz (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1989): 173-182.
Raju, P. T. Introduction to Comparative Philosophy. Reprint ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1997.
Reynolds, Frank, ed. Religion and Practical Reason: New Essays in the Comparative Philosophy of Religions. Albany: State University of New York, 1994.
Rorty, Richard. “Solidarity or Objectivity?” In Relativism: Interpretation and Confrontation, ed. Michael Krausz (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1989): 35-51.
Scharfstein, Ben-Ami. A Comparative History of World Philosophy: From the Upanishads to Kant. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
Solomon, Robert and Kathleen Higgins. World Philosophy: A Text with Readings. New York: McGraw Hill, 1995.
Solomon, Robert and Kathleen Higgins, eds. From Africa to Zen: An Invitation to World Philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1993.
Van Norden, Byran. “An Open Letter to the APA.” Proceedings and Addresses of the APA. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association, 1996.
Wong, David. “Three Kinds of Incommensurability.” In Relativism: Interpretation and Confrontation, ed. Michael Krausz (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1989): 140-159.

6.2 Chinese-Western Comparative Philosophy

Ames, Roger and Joseph Grange. John Dewey, Confucius and Global Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
Carr, Karen and Philip J. Ivanhoe, eds. The Sense of Antirationalism: The Religious Thought of Zhuangzi and Kierkegaard. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2000.
Hall, David and Roger Ames. The Democracy of the Dead: Dewey, Confucius and the Hope for Democracy in China. Chicago: Open Court, 1999.
Hall, David and Roger Ames. Anticipating China: Thinking Through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Kjellberg, Paul and Philip J. Ivanhoe, eds. Essays in Skepticism, Relativism and Ethics in the Zhuangzi. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
Li Chenyang, ed. The Tao Encounters the West: Explorations in Comparative Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Mou Bo, ed. Comparative Approaches to Chinese Philosophy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Press, 2003.
Neville, Robert. Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000.
Spence, Jonathan. The Chan’s Great Continent: China in Western Minds. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.
Yearley, Lee. Mencius and Aquinas: Theories of Virtue and Conceptions of Courage. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990.

6.3 Indian-Western Comparative Philosophy

Halbfass, Wilhelm. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.
Matilal, Bimal and Jaysankar Shaw, eds. Analytical Philosophy in Comparative Perspective: Exploratory Essays in Current Theories & Classical Indian Theories of Meaning. London: Kluwer Publishing, 1985.
McEvilley, Thomas. The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. New York: Allworth Press, 2002.
Radahkrishan, S. The Concept of Man: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Ed. P. T. Raju. Columbia, MO: South Asia Books, 1999.
Rafique, M. Indian and Muslim Philosophies. Columbia, MO: South Asia Books, 1988.
Tuck, Andrew. Comparative Philosophy and the Philosophy of Scholarship: On the Western Interpretation of Nagarjuna. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

6.4 Japanese-Western Comparative Philosophy

Franck, Frederick, ed. The Buddha Eye: An Anthology of the Kyoto School. New York: Crossroads, 1991.
Abe, Masao and William Lafleur, eds. Zen and Western Thought. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989.
Loy, David. Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
Nishida, Kitaro. An Inquiry into the Good. Trans. Masao Abe and Christopher Ives. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.
Nishida, Kitaro. Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview. Trans. David A. Dilworth. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1987.
Nishitani, Keiji. Religion and Nothingness. Trans. Jan Van Bragt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

6.5 Other Comparative Philosophy

An, Ok Sun. Compassion and Benevolence: A Comparative Study of Early Buddhist and Classical Confucian Ethics. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1998.
Taylor, Mark. Journeys to Selfhood: Hegel and Kierkegaard. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.

7. Comparative Philosophy: FAQs

7.1 What is the primary goal of comparative philosophy?

The primary goal is to foster a deeper understanding of philosophical issues. It does this by examining them through the lens of different cultural and intellectual traditions, not aiming for synthesis but for enriched perspectives.

7.2 How does comparative philosophy differ from the history of philosophy?

While the history of philosophy often focuses on the development of ideas within a single tradition, comparative philosophy actively compares and contrasts ideas across different traditions. It looks for similarities, differences, and potential areas of dialogue.

7.3 What are some common pitfalls in comparative philosophy?

Common pitfalls include descriptive chauvinism (imposing one’s own framework on another tradition), normative skepticism (avoiding critical evaluation), incommensurability (assuming traditions are impossible to compare), and perennialism (treating traditions as static).

7.4 What skills are important for a comparative philosopher?

Important skills include linguistic abilities, cultural sensitivity, critical thinking, and the ability to understand and articulate diverse philosophical viewpoints.

7.5 How can comparative philosophy be applied to contemporary issues?

Comparative philosophy can offer insights into contemporary issues by providing different cultural perspectives on ethics, politics, social justice, and environmental concerns, fostering more inclusive and nuanced solutions.

7.6 What role does translation play in comparative philosophy?

Translation is crucial but also a potential source of error. Comparative philosophers must be aware of the nuances of language and the potential for cultural biases to be introduced during translation.

7.7 How does the study of comparative philosophy benefit individuals?

It broadens perspectives, encourages critical thinking, enhances intercultural understanding, and promotes intellectual humility, fostering a more open-minded and informed approach to life.

7.8 What are the main areas of focus in comparative philosophy today?

Current areas of focus include comparative ethics, comparative metaphysics, comparative epistemology, and comparative political philosophy, often exploring topics such as justice, identity, and the nature of reality across different traditions.

7.9 How does COMPARE.EDU.VN support the study of comparative philosophy?

COMPARE.EDU.VN provides resources for comparing different philosophical viewpoints, offering detailed analyses and objective evaluations to help individuals understand and make informed decisions.

7.10 How can I get started with comparative philosophy?

Start by exploring introductory texts, engaging with diverse philosophical traditions, and developing your critical thinking and intercultural communication skills. Websites like compare.edu.vn can provide valuable resources and comparisons to guide your learning.