5 ms·
The author addresses your exact point in the article. "Others might argue against renaming on the grounds that it is unfair to single out philosophy: We do not
by whack 11y ago
The author addresses your exact point in the article.
"Others might argue against renaming on the grounds that it is unfair to single out philosophy: We do not have departments of Euro-American Mathematics or Physics. This is nothing but shabby sophistry. Non-European philosophical traditions offer distinctive solutions to problems discussed within European and American philosophy, raise or frame problems not addressed in the American and European tradition, or emphasize and discuss more deeply philosophical problems that are marginalized in Anglo-European philosophy. There are no comparable differences in how mathematics or physics are practiced in other contemporary cultures."
"This is not to disparage the value of the works in the contemporary philosophical canon: Clearly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with philosophy written by males of European descent; but philosophy has always become richer as it becomes increasingly diverse and pluralistic. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) recognized this when he followed his Muslim colleagues in reading the work of the pagan philosopher Aristotle, thereby broadening the philosophical curriculum of universities in his own era. We hope that American philosophy departments will someday teach Confucius as routinely as they now teach Kant, that philosophy students will eventually have as many opportunities to study the “Bhagavad Gita” as they do the “Republic,” that the Flying Man thought experiment of the Persian philosopher Avicenna (980-1037) will be as well-known as the Brain-in-a-Vat thought experiment of the American philosopher Hilary Putnam (1926-2016), that the ancient Indian scholar Candrakirti’s critical examination of the concept of the self will be as well-studied as David Hume’s, that Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), Kwazi Wiredu (1931- ), Lame Deer (1903-1976) and Maria Lugones will be as familiar to our students as their equally profound colleagues in the contemporary philosophical canon."
The point the article is making is that ancient Asian/MiddleEastern philosophy contains numerous theories and teachings that are just as profound as those found in ancient Greek philosophy. Hence why their diminished representation is a problem worth fixing. Do you feel otherwise? Do you think that philosophical theories such as Confucianism and the Bhagavad Gita are not worthy of being taught alongside ancient Greek philosophy?
- actionwords 11y agoDo you think that philosophical theories such as Confucianism and the Bhagavad Gita are not worthy of being taught alongside ancient Greek philosophy? yes.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kolbe 11y agoNo, the authors acknowledge this counterargument, but they do not offer a substantial refutation of it. They try to confuse their readers by equating a historical examination of philosophy with philosophy itself. id=whatshisface is correctly addressing how this argument applies to philosophy.
- Avshalom 11y agoWhathisface is arguing from unsupported assertion as much as TFA is.
- Chris2048 11y agoWhathisface is commenting on an article. You expect a counter article? I think the original article has a higher burden of evidence for supporting it's claims.
- Avshalom 11y agoNot from whathisface no, but that wasn't a response to whathisface. It was a response to Kolbe who chose whathisface's assertion over TFAs assertion without evidence or even really additional argument.
- Scarblac 11y agoHistory of philosophy is a major part of all philosophy programs, and the list of topics that are discussed in the non-history topics are those that were discussed by the old European philosophers.
- jessriedel 11y ago> History of philosophy is a major part of all philosophy programs Right or wrong, modern philosophers at top universities would claim that they teach history of philosophy for the same modest reason that physicists learn about Newton: so they can get some context about how various ideas developed and the reason for conventions. Analytical philosophers generally resist about having to teach history of philosophy. > the list of topics that are discussed in the non-history topics are those that were discussed by the old European philosophers. What topics discussed by non-European philosophers do you think are neglected? Yes it's hard to imagine there isn't bias in topic selection, but then this needs to be addressed by convincing modern researchers that whatever non-European ideas are better on their merits, not by studying modern non-European philosophy as a separate topic.
- twoodfin 11y agoIt's interesting to me that they don't play out any motivating examples, and instead just browbeat the reader with names and dates. I think it would have been a much more effective piece if, for example, they'd presented a philosophical argument of Lame Deer's[1] or explained how the "Flying Man" thought experiment could inform our reading of Descartes[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fire_Lame_Deer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fire_Lame_Deer [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_man
- dwaxe 11y agoThe article's point is very well-made. During my two-year-long stint as a philosophy major at Berkeley, at least two courses spent absurd lengths of time on the vagary specificities of Descartes' cogito which, while important, could have easily been a place to at least peer into other traditions' basic arguments over the existence of a soul, like Avicenna's Flying Man or the concepts of Gautama Buddha. The fact that these myriad connections between genetically unrelated traditions are never drawn is the real travesty. American philosophy would be much more creative if it wove non-European traditions into its historical tapestry.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Chris2048 11y ago> wove non-European traditions into its historical tapestry History is fixed, and if we're making new history, I'd sooner do away with this kind of philosophical thought altogether. Academia may well study theology, it needn't produce it.
- s_q_b 11y agoFirst, you pose a false dichotomy. The cultural origin of ideas from any school of thought, whether Asian, African, or European schools of thought has absolutely no bearing on whether they are true. All Universities should seek to teach the truth. Therefor, the cultural backgrounds of the author is irrelevant, except to the extent it forms a background to understand the author's ideas. Also, we already call it "Continental Philosophy" as opposed to "Analytical Philosophy." If she wants to call it "European Continental Philosophy," who cares? It's flatly wrong, since as she rightly points out, Arab and Asian philosophy have had profound influences on Western thinkers throughout history. Also, has she not taken a philosophy course lately? Aristotle through Kant is pretty much considered a given, or go back to the survey level. Every one of the concepts she mentioned will be in any survey course of global philosophy, as simply as if she plucked them from such a syllabus. People really pushing the limits are digging deeply into the Muslim Great Age, in particular Ibn Khaldun and his school of thought (since the great works of Ancient Greece came back to Europe through their preservation in Muslim libraries and schools), or off attempting to create a precise definition of "utility." Finally, I hate this type of nonsense PC battle about names. It distracts from real honest to God issues of economic and social diversity: an overhaul of the unequal justice system, an end to police brutality, restrictions on the use and duration of criminal records, redistribution of capital from the the top 1%, equal pay for equal work, and immigration reform all come to mind.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nutheracc 11y agoSounds like we're confusing philosophy as investigation with philosophy as a way of living.
- hosh 11y agoI'm curious, how so? I've always considered the investigation with philosophy worthless without it as a way of living. Is distinguishing between the two useful?
- plaidturtle 11y agoI've only taken three philosophy classes in college so I'm by no means an expert. However, the distinction I see between philosophy as a study and philosophy as a way of life is that the latter is a consumer version of the previous. In philosophical discipline, we talk about the nature of things. For example, "what does it mean to be virtuous", "what is the fundamental mechanics behind what is good and bad", "how do we logically conclude that we exist", "can logic be trusted". While these discussions might seem frivolous and too-up-in-the-air, these are essential questions. Laws are a derivitive of philosophy. Today's understanding of human rights started from Immanuel Kant. The power dynamic between the state, private sector, and th people is explored by Foucault. Aristotle talks about what is the nature of the good life. Our current laws and society is heavily influenced by John Stuart Mil. On the other hand, philosophy as a way of life is like a bumper sticker. It's like saying "we should be kind to others to have a good life", or "do what makes you happy". These can be derived from philosophical texts but are stupidlfyingly simplified. If these philosopher could say what they wanted to say in a sentence, instead of writing a long book about it, they would have done so. So I think while philosophy as a way of life is very practical (since people don't have to really investigate it and just believe it), it is to some extent a dumbed down version, that lacks the backbone of hard philosophy (because it lacks the proof and arguments behind such ideas). The purpose of philosophy is not to give someone a lifestyle or life advice like a self-help book, it is to arrive at fundamental truth as hard as 16+26=42. Now whether that it is successful is a hard question to answer. But life style and life advice is a derivitive of the truth. That's the distinction.
- camelNotation 11y agoThey acknowledge it, but they fail to address it. The fact is, if most academic philosophers around the world are largely focused upon the works of the Euro-Americans instead of non-European philosophers, then it stands to reason that the others were simply inferior, less useful, incomplete, or less impressive. Otherwise, they are implying that the academic rigor of an entire field of study is tainted by cultural bias - the very thing that academic structures are designed to counter. That is a bold claim and would require far more than an article like this (which is essentially just a complaint, not an actual counter argument) to justify.
- shanacarp 11y agoI don't think they failed to address it at all. They were pointed about what is taught is what you write about - and in a publish or perish environment, if you only teach western thought, you only publish thoughts based on western though. In no way does what is published force advancement. So if I wanted to see if the buddhist concept of Samudaya (the origination of Dukkha, which is translated as pain, but is much more encompassing than that) helps resolves the ongoing issues between Platonic Realism and Nominalism, I'm going to be sh*it out of luck in terms of readers and people to help me along if no one teaches about Samudaya. Hence problematic