International Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 52, No. 3, Issue 207 (September 2012) pp. 303–314 DOI: 10.5840/ipq201252335 Understanding Traditional Chinese Philosophical Texts Philip J. Ivanhoe ABSTRACT: The descriptive aim of this essay is to sort out and distinguish among some different hermeneutical approaches to Chinese philosophical texts and to make clear that the approach that one employs carries with it important implications about the kind of intellectual project one is pursuing. The primary normative claim is that in order to be doing research in the ield of traditional Chinese philosophy, one must make a case for one’s interpretation as representing philosophical views that have been held by Chinese thinkers and that making such a case is a distinctive type of intellectual activity analogous to making a case in a court of law. In addition to this conceptual or methodological point, I argue that the interpretation of Chinese philosophical texts should make clear and take into account the special role that commentary has played throughout the tradition. Those who interpret the Odes must not undermine the meanings of lines by their readings of terms or the overall sense by their readings of lines. One must seek for the overall sense by way of one’s own thoughts; this is how to grasp what is said. —Mengzi 5A4 INTRODUCTION 1 I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT AN argument about how philosophers should approach the challenge of interpreting traditional Chinese philosophical texts. As should become clear in the course of my remarks, what I have to say about the conceptual issues regarding such work is applicable to the interpretation of philo- sophical texts from other traditions and times as well, though this is not something I will pursue on this occasion. 2 My aim, in this part of my essay, is to sort out and 1 Thanks to Erin M. Cline, Eric L. Hutton, Michael R. Slater, Justin Tiwald, and Bryan W. Van Norden for comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this essay. Thanks also for the comments and suggestions made by members of the Global Asias 2 conference held at Pennsylvania State University on 4–5 November 2011 and to the sponsors of that event. 2 For a magisterial treatment of the general topic of the history of philosophy, which has particularly insightful things to say about the nature and proper approach to reading philosophical texts, see Jorge J. E. Gracia, Philosophy and Its History: Issues in Philosophical Historiography (Albany NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1992). For a competing but equally insightful analysis, see Daniel Garber, “Does History Have a Future: Some Relections on Bennett and Doing Philosophy Historically” in Doing Philosophy Historically, ed. Peter H. Hare (Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books, 1988), pp. 27–43. Garber’s notion of “disinterested history” is similar to what I call “reconstructing the historical meaning”; he offers clear and