Abstract

In this essay, I analyze Steven Burik’s recent comparisons of Heidegger, Derrida, and Daoism to explore two problems in comparative thought. The first concerns metaphysics: Is metaphysics a bad thing—or even an avoidable thing? The second concerns language: Is there any danger in focusing on language—in losing the forest of philosophy for the trees of the language in which it is conducted? These questions orbit a more basic one: What is the goal of comparative philosophy? In part one, I sketch Burik’s views on the nature and goals of comparative thought and his arguments for the usefulness of Heidegger, Derrida, and Daoism for pursuing these goals. In part two, I address three problems stemming from the book