Japanese Aesthetics as Intercultural Double Bind

Adam Loughnane’s paper examines the conditions for
intercultural philosophical discussion. He claims that some
commitments of Japanese aesthetics have the potential to
expand the Western conception of philosophy and important
philosophical concepts. But this potential cannot be
fulflled, Loughnane argues, unless Western philosophers
are able to bracket certain of their deep commitments.
Primary among those requiring bracketing is the idea
that while art is a perfectly good subject of philosophical
inquiry, it is not itself a way of doing philosophy. Seeing the
artist as a philosopher (Loughnane’s case in point is Sesshū
Tōyō) is a means for bracketing other deep metaphysical
assumptions, like the idea that art is set apart from nature,
that color and form are essential to art, and that art is the
expression of a substantive self. Loughnane does not
argue, however, that Western philosophy ought simply
to negate its commitments. Rather, there is a particular
double bind faced by the philosopher who wants to engage
in intercultural encounter. One can choose to remain
within the methodological norms of one’s own tradition,
thus rendering encounter impossible. Or one can reject
those commitments, thereby opening oneself to cultural
appropriation or a false neutrality. Loughnane suggests
that precisely this double bind is a productive condition for
intercultural philosophical encounter and ought not to be
solved so much as engaged with.