Polylog

The term polylog describes the concept of intercultural philosophizing .

According to Franz Martin Wimmer , two aspects have to be taken into account when speaking of cultures in philosophizing . The first is that cultures are organized and systematic areas that people live in and that cultures compete with one another. The second aspect to be considered is that since modern times cultures have been directed outwards, oriented globally.

Wimmer understands the project of intercultural philosophizing as fundamental questions that make it possible to arrive at binding insights and to make them “expressible”. This includes criticizing and changing the previously prevailing ways of thinking. The concepts and systems of European / Occidental philosophizing prove to be contingent, their universal claim can no longer be justified.

The concept of the polylog

Wimmer now asks what philosophy should do in this context. It should clarify the importance of cultural traditions for today and tomorrow, from which the further questions arise: What should the shape of the polylogue look like, within what limits is it practicable and what results it can lead to. These questions lead to different levels of impact of one or more cultures on one or more other cultures.

One-sided central influence

A → B and A → C and A → D

With a one-sided central influence there is only one-sided communication in which A, B, C, D are declared as barbaric. The goal of this communication is the expansion of A and the disappearance of B, C and D. This type of communication can be called civilization. B, C and D do not influence each other.

One-sided and transitive influence

A → B and A → C and A → D and B → C

A is again the dominant component here and still regards the others as barbaric. B is to C as A is to everyone else and ignores D, just as C and D ignore each other. A dialogic communication is just as unnecessary here as in the first approach.

Mutual partial influence: the level of dialogue

A↔B and A → C and A → D via: A↔B and A → C and A → D and B → C up to: A↔B and A↔C and B↔C and B↔D and A → D

In this approach, all others are no longer barbaric for A, but exotic. In addition, a selective cultural adaptation process takes place in the models. B, C and D are also increasingly seeing themselves as exotic. There is an increasing philosophy here.

Mutually complete influence: the level of the polylog

A↔B and A↔C and A↔D and B↔C and B↔D and C↔D

A communicative exchange takes place here between every culture. That means everyone is exotic to everyone. That is the shape of the intercultural polylogue and an intercultural philosophy. The question now arises as to which option philosophizing has in the polylog. Wimmer gives four examples from history that come close to the polylog, only three of which will be explained here:

1. The first example is the chain poem from Japan. The poem is composed by several people, always referring to the text of the previous one, which is then continued and changed. The resulting poem is the result of the entire group. The aim of the poem is to create something together as a group while eliminating conflicts, tensions and hierarchies. 2. The tea ceremony, also from Japan, is the second example. The tea ceremony is a form of tea drinking that is organized according to rules, whereby the tea is also prepared according to precise rules. During the ceremony you get rid of your weapons and there is no enmity or hierarchy here either. During the ceremony, people talk about simple things such as flowers or landscapes that can be seen in pictures. Difficult topics are excluded during the ceremony. The tea ceremony is intended to promote freedom and justice in being together.

No philosophical polylogue is given in any of the examples, but these traditional forms give an idea of what it might look like. The first example is not a philosophical polylogue, but a collaborative art form. Areas of conflict are excluded in the tea ceremony.

Franz Martin Wimmer gives another example that should lead to practical philosophical questions.

The "case" of Julián Tzul

This is a Guatemalan Indian who surprised a Brujo when he cursed him and his children; he then killed him. It is worth mentioning that, according to the Indian, the man who was killed was responsible for the death of his wife before that. So, from his point of view, he acted out of self-defense. Since the Spanish conquest of South America, Spanish law has been in force there, which does not take into account the traditions and view of the world as the Indians have. The court sentenced Julian Tzul to prison, ignoring the aspect of self-defense.

According to Wimmer, three groups of questions can be derived from this example:

Is there any other possibility than that a progressive society has a uniform legal system? What would this alternative look like?
Is it possible that there are facts in a uniform legal system that are both prohibited and non-prohibited? How should different worldviews and conceptions affect a legal system?
Is there a cross-cultural term for justice? Which concept of justice comes closest to a pluralistic social culture? To what extent must consideration be given to the culture-related beliefs? When should limits be set on tolerance and what are the arguments used to justify these?

Wimmer does not provide the answers to these questions, but points out that it is not easy to find such answers, but that ways should be found that could lead to answers. In this search, the differences in traditions, which make a philosophy between cultures necessary, should not be ignored. Philosophy has always tried to find answers in the field of ontology, epistemology and ethics independently and independently of its own culture. The problem with today's philosophy is that one culture, namely the European one, has asserted itself and established itself as scientific.

Rule for practice

Wimmer says that the philosophy between cultures should be developed in relation to the possibilities of a monocultural-universalistic or a multicultural-separatist philosophy. In this context, he formulates a rule for practice:

Do not consider any philosophical thesis to be well founded if only people from a single cultural tradition were involved in the creation.

He assumes that observing this rule would already lead to changes in behavior in politics, science, communication and publication. Furthermore, Wimmer says of the rule that it does not state which philosophical theses are well founded. He mentions three points of criticism that could be raised against this rule:

It could be that one culture recognizes an obvious fact, while several other cultures do not.
That agreement of several is not a sufficient point of reference for questions of philosophy.
Another objection could be that the Occidental tradition does not need such a rule,

because the arguments and critical clarifications practiced in the occidental philosophical tradition, as they are carried out through the whole time of its history and again and again in every generation, [...] are sufficient to avoid any one-sidedness.

Regarding the first point of criticism, Wimmer says that he fails to recognize that the rule is designed for practice and thus disregards the research character that consists of finding the same content. The second objection does not apply because the rule says nothing about what is criticized. Regarding the third position, Wimmer says that the relevance of this dispute should not be underestimated, but that “preliminary perspective decisions” cannot be ruled out, alluding to imperialism, the history of emancipation and nationalism. The philosophical European tradition with its basic concepts must deal with other traditions and their basic concepts.

Polylogue and Theology

The philosopher and Germanist Martin A. Hainz has put forward a speculative attempt at the metaphysical polylogue, namely that creation as such is conversation - he finds this moment of textualization among other things. a. with Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock and Friedrich Hölderlin (“Since we have been talking / and can hear from each other.”) and Ferdinand Schmatz as well as others.

literature

Martin A. Hainz: Creation - a polylogue? On a theological-poetic problem, among others with and with Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock and Ferdinand Schmatz. In: Weimar Contributions , No. 53 · 1, 2007, pp. 67–88
Ders .: Intentio scripturae? On Revelation and Scripture, at Klopstock and in Derrida's Kafka reading. In: TRANS · Internet magazine for cultural studies, No. 16/2005
Franz M. Wimmer: Intercultural Philosophy. An introduction. Vienna: Wiener Universitätsverlag 2004
Ders .: Theses, conditions and tasks of intercultural philosophy In: polylog. Journal for intercultural philosophizing 1 (1998), 5–12. [1]

Web links