CfP: ODIP Online Dictionary of Intercultural Philosophy

CALL FOR PAPERS: ODIP: Online Dictionary of Intercultural Philosophy

ODIP in cooperation with ALAFI invites entries on topics related to intercultural philosophy.

ODIP offers brief and understandable definitions of non-Western philosophical terms. It aims to promote a shift from Comparative Philosophy to World Philosophy enabling a genuine plurality of knowing, doing, and being human. It collects key-concepts from several regions and presents those concepts in a succinct fashion. It is meant to be an inspiring and stimulating resource for philosophers who aim to expand their horizons and think interculturally.

ALAFI (Latin-American Association for Intercultural Philosophy) aims to promote open, plural, cosmpolitan and intercultural practices in philosophy, in Latin America in particular and in the hispanic-lusophone circuit in general.

Submissions are normally between 200 and 1000 words long (up to 3500 words for historical entries on philosophical schools and movements such as “Comparative Philosophy”). Submissions should be sent either in English or have an English translation attached. Submissions in Portuguese and Spanish are in particular accepted and promoted, provided they come with an English translation (Submissions will be edited and do not need to come in perfect English).

All submissions are peer reviewed. Preferably, entries explain concepts and terms, but in certain cases, entries on philosophers or books will also be accepted. All entries will be published with the author’s name. Entries must present bibliographical references for further reading at the end of the text.

On the ‘Call for Entries’ ( page you will find a list of terms. These are just suggestions. Entries on other relevant terms are welcome.

Send to:

The copyright stays with the authors.

Deadline for submissions: June 5th 2020

One reply

  1. I think there’s an important danger and an important opportunity for such a project.

    A danger is that (partly because of its interest in what’s recognized as distinctive to the respective focus cultures, hence what’s old and long-studied) the project will focus too much on very old specialist terms, even or especially ones that are essentially bound up with cosmological and religious views that a good philosopher or intelligent well-educated person anywhere should know or at least can know to be false—as if a dictionary of Western philosophy focused too much on such terms as.

    four humors
    unmoved mover
    holy will
    chain of being
    The Absolute

    An opportunity is suggested to me by Christoph Harbsmeier’s point that Western or Anglo philosophers’ concern to define such terms as “know” and “good” may have the effect of holding professional philosophy everywhere hostage to what may be merely accidental features of the English language.

    A project like ODIP has the opportunity to collect, for each focus culture, articles on (a) terms of everyday language (generally not English) that are playing important roles today in philosophy done in those cultures (even if there has not been sustained discussion among philosophers about what they mean), and/or (b) terms that are sort of like but not exactly like the terms the analytic philosophers focus on.

    Such terms may deserve extended treatment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.