We may describe Li Zehou and Henry Rosemont as examples of philosophers whose not just “compare.” Yet, there is a specific sense in which Li ‘s texts may still appear as “Chinese philosophy” and Rosemont’s as “American.” This causes difficulties which Jana Rošker’s paper meditates on. The thinkers discussed in this volume might be “beyond comparison,” but distinctive cultural elements remain. Many “comparative” interpretations of Li Zehou, Rošker argues, are methodologically Western, but are still informed by traditional Chinese ideas. Specifically, she describes how Li Zehou interacts with Kant. Li’s work as a “process of transforming the empirical into the transcendental can be seen as a kind of synthesis of empiricism and rationalism.” This is, of course, problematic. Rošker summarizes: “Kant’s system is completely incompatible with Li Zehou’s philosophy.” However, the latter still engages productively with the former through what Rošker calls the process of “the sublation of philosophy.” If we respect differences and understand comparisons in this way, we better understand both Li’s thought and comparative philosophy.