31.10.2012 Views

PHILOSOPHIE - Association internationale des professeurs de ...

PHILOSOPHIE - Association internationale des professeurs de ...

PHILOSOPHIE - Association internationale des professeurs de ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

AIPPh Documentation Leus<strong>de</strong>n 2009<br />

(© Münnix 2003, 181)<br />

Perspectivism has often been un<strong>de</strong>r suspicion to be inevitably relativistic. But as we see,<br />

this is not necessarily the case. What has to be discussed in intercultural philosophy<br />

however – besi<strong>de</strong> other important topics - are issues of truth and tolerance and ways of<br />

thinking. (see Münnix 2003)<br />

5. Un<strong>de</strong>rstanding Otherness: “Intercomprehension”<br />

Are we able to un<strong>de</strong>rstand differences not only about the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of humans but also<br />

about the cosmos they live in? Misun<strong>de</strong>rstandings are normal, but may be dangerous.<br />

Taking different perspectives from one’s own habits of seeing the world may not be as<br />

easy as <strong><strong>de</strong>s</strong>cribed above.<br />

Thomas Nagel’s famous essay on what it may be like to be a bat illustrates that even if<br />

we can <strong><strong>de</strong>s</strong>cribe every brain process of bats scientifically, we will never know what it is<br />

like to be a bat from the insi<strong>de</strong>. The inner subjective si<strong>de</strong> of consciousness will never be<br />

reached from outsi<strong>de</strong>, other minds are not fully accessible. There are similarities, but<br />

also enough differences which will remain foreign. And we often tend to project our own<br />

categories and interpretation schemes into the foreign consciousness, which may even<br />

cause greater misun<strong>de</strong>rstandings.<br />

Let me give three examples:<br />

1. A historical anecdote, the so-called “Valladolid controversy” (Latour, in Robertson-von<br />

Trotha, 2007, 44f) shows clearly that it is naive and ethnocentric to assume that<br />

enemies or people from different cultures agree in baseline principles: The Spanish<br />

conquistadores held to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> whether or not Indians had souls susceptible of being<br />

saved (they might habe been something like wild animals). (In his essay about<br />

inhabitants of the New World, who were even supposed to be cannibals, Montaigne<br />

ironicaclly <strong><strong>de</strong>s</strong>cribes uncivilized people as those who do not wear breeches at all!).<br />

On the other si<strong>de</strong> Indians were engaged in a no less important <strong>de</strong>bate; namely whether<br />

or not Spaniards had bodies or were some sort of spriritual beings - like Gods. “It was<br />

not to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> whether Spaniards had souls, so much was obvious. In their cosmos all<br />

entities share the same fundmantal organisation: A licuri palm, a peccary, a priranha,<br />

the macaw: Each has a soul, a language, and a family life mo<strong>de</strong>lled on the pattern of<br />

28

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!