托马斯·墨子刻(Thomas A.Metzger)指出,中国政治思想的解释者们必须在两个目标之间取得一种平衡:对背景和文化连续性的强调,以及对批判性反思和真理的强调。通过与他的著作和方法论的对话,本文展开了两个主要的论点。首先,笔者认为从罗伯特·布兰登(Robert Brandom)那里借用来的一种理解“话语”(discourse)和“约定”(commitment)的方式比墨子刻自己的方法论更为成功地应对了他所提出的可贵目标。其次,笔者区分了比较研究中的两种策略,也即对“包容性背景”(inclusive context)的强调以及对“分化”(disaggregation)的强调。文章建议,必须谨慎地运用我通过“分化”所标识的方法,人们应当始终清楚地意识到墨子刻所极力向我们表明的主张,进而掌握比较哲学的“分化”这一方法论策略。 Thomas A. Metzger pointed out that the interpreters of Chinese political thought must strike a balance between two goals: the emphasis on context and cultural continuity, and the emphasis on critical reflection and truth . Through dialogue with his writings and methodologies, this article opens two main arguments. In the first place, I think the one borrowed from Robert Brandom’s understanding of “discourse” and “commitment” is more successful than Mozi’s own methodology His response to the noble goal he proposed. Second, the author distinguishes two strategies in comparative studies, namely, the emphasis on “inclusive context” and “disaggregation.” The article suggests that we must be careful to apply the method I identified through “differentiation ”, and people should always be clearly aware of Mozi’s insistence on showing us, and then master the comparative philosophical “differentiation” method Strategy.