4 ms·
They 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-Ame
by camelNotation 10y ago
They 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 10y 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