Cover Image
QR Code

ON JULLIEN’S REPLY TO BILLETER’S CRITIQUE: MOVING BEYOND THE CARTESIAN COGITO AS A METHODOLOGICAL CONCERN.

François Jullien’s research, which encompasses European philosophy and sinology, has been questioned by the sinologist Jean François Billeter in a specific publication that triggers the reply of the former. I delve into Jullien’s reply with reference to the contingency of European thought, whose Car...

Full description

Published in:Problems / Problemos pp. 65 - 75
Main Author: Carpanini, Francesco
Format: Article
Published: Vilnius University 2016 Supplement
Subjects:
Chinese philosophy
Cartesianism (Philosophy)
European philosophy
China studies
François, Jean
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
Summary:François Jullien’s research, which encompasses European philosophy and sinology, has been questioned by the sinologist Jean François Billeter in a specific publication that triggers the reply of the former. I delve into Jullien’s reply with reference to the contingency of European thought, whose Cartesian cogito represents somehow the very point of divergence in the debate. The main goal of this paper is to clarify how the sentence I think, therefore I am turns out to be a fundamental methodological concern in Jullien’s research. His reflection about the Cartesian cogito leads him to question the possibility of a pure act of thinking in order to explore how European thought and Chinese thought exploit the diverse features of their languages as intellectual resources.
François Jullieno tyrinėjimus, apimančius Europos filosofiją ir sinologiją, vienoje publikacijoje kvestionavo Jean François Billeter, išprovokuodamas pirmojo atsakymą. Šiame straipsnyje gilinamasi į Jullieno atsakymą ir kontingentiškumu pasižymintį europietišką mąstymą, kurio karteziškasis cogito reprezentuoja diskutuojančių nuomonių išsiskyrimo tašką. Pagrindinis šio straipsnio tikslas yra paaiškinti, kaip sakinys „Mąstau, vadinasi, egzistuoju“ pavirsta fundamentaliu metodologiniu interesu Jullieno tyrinėjimuose. Jo samprotavimai apie karteziškąjį cogito verčia jį kvestionuoti grynojo mąstymo akto galimybę siekiant ištirti, kaip europietiškas mąstymas ir kiniškas mąstymas naudojasi skirtingomis savųjų kalbų, kaip intelektinių išteklių, savybėmis.