Comparative and Continental Philosophy was founded on the conviction that the traditional boundaries governing the exercise of philosophical thinking have been unduly constrained, and that for far too many, the constraints have been strangling. This exacting stranglehold has wrested the life from other conceptions of philosophical content and their styles of execution. Poets, playwrights, and writers of other scripts have been banished from philosophy’s republic. Rather than the nature of philosophical activity becoming one of philosophy’s most consequential and vital questions—questioning that would continuously open up new horizons of thought—the discipline has too often settled narrowly into traditional habits that reflect power imbalances, cultural arrogance, and the haughty assumption that philosophy is best reduced to how the chosen ones have practiced it. But was this philosophia’s initial intent? In Book 1 of the Metaphysics (982b 13), Aristotle educates us about the nature of philosophizing, of doing philosophy: “For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greatest matters...” (McKeon 1992, 261). To philosophize is to be committed to the slow, deliberate, and measured evolution of thinking. Nonetheless, overcoming power disparities, cultural presumptions, and the besotted thinking that anything the privileged philosophical class does is irrefutably what constitutes philosophy has seemed a sardonically slow process. The lagging strides toward openness, acceptance, and inclusion have resulted in the perception that what those others are doing is something other than philosophy. And this outcome has been habitually executed with exclusion, derision, and/or outright dismissal. From its inception, Comparative and Continental Philosophy has committed itself to providing accessibility for readers from a range of disciplines and to presenting its content in thought-provoking styles—those favoring creative performance alongside customary philosophical allocutions. While moored in the open-region of the mother discipline, the journal’s founders wished to create a welcoming alcove for Continental philosophers to think outside the parameters of their probable practice. Starting originally with Asia as its focus region, the journal aspired to extend the East-West comparative axis to also include the NorthSouth axis—and progress has been made. With our eyes set ultimately on more nuanced, distinct coordinates falling in between these axes on philosophy’s compass, we “wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greatest matters”; and so, another aspiration is now in place. As part of Comparative and Continental Philosophy’s ongoing experiments in widening the parameters of philosophical discourse, we invited Jason Mohaghegh to serve as guest editor of this issue. He is a philosopher whose works have been exemplary in opening new figures and locations of thought, as well as lifting up unexpected voices (including poets) as philosophical provocations. In so doing, he has also broadened the avenues for entering into contemporary Arabic and Persian philosophical discourses. In this special issue, Mohaghegh continues his experiments, this time by bringing together eight authors and enclosing them within the restraints of a metaphorical “soundproof room,” each accompanied by a single figure of thought. The constraints become paradoxical as they fail to limit simply, but rather give rise

中文翻译：

---

编者序：最伟大事物的狭隘领域

比较哲学和欧陆哲学建立在这样一种信念之上，即控制哲学思维实践的传统界限受到了不适当的限制，而且对太多人来说，这些限制一直在扼杀。这种严格的束缚已经从哲学内容的其他概念及其执行方式中夺走了生命。诗人、剧作家和其他剧本的作家已被驱逐出哲学的共和国。哲学活动的本质并没有成为哲学最重要和最重要的问题之一——不断开辟新思想视野的问题——该学科往往狭隘地适应反映权力不平衡、文化傲慢、以及认为哲学最好归结为被选中的人如何实践它的傲慢假设。但这是哲学的最初意图吗？在《形而上学》第一卷 (982b 13) 中，亚里士多德教导我们进行哲学思考的本质：他们最初对明显的困难感到疑惑，然后一点一点地推进，并在最大的事情上陈述困难……”（McKeon 1992, 261）。哲学化就是致力于缓慢、深思熟虑和有节制的思维演变。尽管如此，克服权力差异、文化假设以及认为特权哲学阶层所做的任何事情都无可辩驳地构成哲学的痴迷思想，似乎是一个可笑的缓慢过程。在开放、接受和包容方面的滞后导致人们认为其他人正在做的不是哲学。而这个结果已经习惯性地被排斥、嘲笑和/或彻底解雇。从一开始，《比较与大陆哲学》就致力于为来自不同学科的读者提供可访问性，并以发人深省的风格呈现其内容——那些有利于创造性表现和习惯性哲学叙述的风格。当停泊在母学科的开放区域时，该杂志的创始人希望为大陆哲学家创造一个受欢迎的壁龛，让他们在可能的实践范围之外思考。最初以亚洲为重点区域，该杂志希望将东西比较轴扩展到也包括南北轴——并且已经取得了进展。随着我们最终将目光投向哲学指南针上这些轴线之间更细微、更清晰的坐标，我们“最初对明显的困难感到疑惑，然后一点一点地推进，并在最重要的问题上陈述困难”；因此，现在有了另一个愿望。作为比较和大陆哲学在扩大哲学话语范围方面正在进行的实验的一部分，我们邀请 Jason Mohaghegh 担任本期的客座编辑。他是一位哲学家，他的作品在开辟新的人物和思想位置方面堪称典范，并提出了意想不到的声音（包括诗人）作为哲学挑衅。这样做时，他还拓宽了进入当代阿拉伯和波斯哲学话语的途径。在这期特刊中，Mohaghegh 继续他的实验，这一次将八位作者聚集在一起，将他们关在一个隐喻的“隔音室”的限制内，每个人都伴随着一个思想形象。约束变得矛盾，因为它们不能简单地限制，而是引起