Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#41

Post by hyperpape »

bnegreve wrote: post #8

I'm not sure this logic makes any sense. Science is also very euro-centric, yet most of us here would argue that science is among the most objective disciplines out there.

It's addressed in the article. They specifically address this point, and argue that philosophy is different, because there are distinctive traditions and approaches in non-western philosophy that nonetheless are recognizably doing philosophy in the same sense as European and American philosophers.

In contract, there are Chinese physicists and Chinese mathematicians, but they're doing math and physics the same way that Europeans and Americans do it.

Edit: made this non-snarky. Sorry for that.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#42

Post by twoodfin »

whack wrote: post #26
whatshisface wrote: post #9

It feels like the author has missed the point of philosophy entirely. If some Chinese philosophical paper is very good, it should be evaluated on its merits and folded in to an appropriate course for that topic. Philosophers believe at least, that they are doing work more along the lines of mathematics than underwater dance (that is, searching for truth). Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in num…

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 address…

It'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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_man

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#43

Post by laretluval »

applecore wrote: post #28
cousin_it wrote: post #14

(deleted)

> I wholeheartedly support the noble desire to give things their proper names. It's ironic that the Rectification of Names is central to the philosophy of Confucius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names

This is commonly misunderstood. The Confucian Rectification of Names is not about altering the names we use to better conform with reality, but rather about altering reality to better conform to the names we use. A very different approach than Western linguistic and political philosophy.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#45

Post by krutulis »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #30
whatshisface wrote: post #9

It feels like the author has missed the point of philosophy entirely. If some Chinese philosophical paper is very good, it should be evaluated on its merits and folded in to an appropriate course for that topic. Philosophers believe at least, that they are doing work more along the lines of mathematics than underwater dance (that is, searching for truth). Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in num…

Is the author perhaps thinking of something more like "history of philosophy"? What you say about philosophy being more like mathematics is true, and as far as I can see, going forward philosophy is just philosophy, and it would be silly to label it with nations and cultures. But looking backwards, the path that brought different cultures to the table, that got them thinking about the nature of things, is quite diffe…

Yes, I agree. The history of philosophy is an important part of philosophy, not all of philosophy. I studied the subject nearly 30 years ago and can only recall the history courses as having a decisive Western bias (though not a monopoly). I believe all the courses were correctly labeled, and I can remember at least one embarrassed explanation that other traditions could not be included.

I am curious how the bias might affect topics like contemporary epistemology, logic, or the philosophy of science or of mathematics?

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#46

Post by lr4444lr »

imgabe wrote: post #20

Why do people feel the need to dictate to others what they should do? The authors of this piece are professors of philosophy. If they feel that teaching non-Western philosophy is crucially important and offers substantial advantages that cannot be obtained by studying only Western philosophy, then why don't they just simply teach non-Western philosophy . All the advantages they presume to exist by doing so will surel…

Because the argument they're making (which is valid, but I don't agree with it) is that lumping all of non-Western humanity under such a homogenous label still gives "Western" (i.e. Eurocentric) philosophy an undue weighting. The implicit assumption I disagree with is that this constitutes disproportionate representation due to the population size covered or even culture and breadth of ideas - regardless of how complex or relevant the literature is to whatever unstated agendas there are.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#47

Post by marcus_holmes »

twoodfin wrote: post #27

I'm trying to struggle through the linked discussion of Kwasi Wiredu, and it's not encouraging. http://www.iep.utm.edu/wiredu/ Indeed, terms such as reflective integration and due reflection offer the critical spaces for the theoretical articulation of something whose existence has not yet been concretely conceived. ... This reading gives an entirely different perspective on acts and themes of resistance as panoptica…

I totally object to this deliberately obscure style of academic writing. Having to re-read a sentence five times to decipher it doesn't make the author sound intelligent, it makes me suspect the author has nothing substantial to say.

I'm working on my PhD now, and deliberately avoid citing papers with this style. I haven't got the time or energy to wade through pages of bullshit obscurity searching for nuggets of insight.

I realise it's a fashion amongst academics, designed to separate them from the ignorant masses. It's working, but I don't think that's a good thing.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#49

Post by Malarkey73 »

relaxatorium wrote: post #11
physicalist wrote: post #4

Let's replace philosophy with medicine and the BS becomes apparent. So called Non-western philosophy is often a misnomer - it's actually religion.

So by this logic are we also removing Augustine, Aquinus, Decartes, Kant and the dozens of other canonical western philosophers whose arguments were substantially religious in nature? I suppose we could, but this leaves a pretty thin curriculum.

And forget Plato and ~half of Greek Philosophy.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#50

Post by tomp »

relaxatorium wrote: post #11
physicalist wrote: post #4

Let's replace philosophy with medicine and the BS becomes apparent. So called Non-western philosophy is often a misnomer - it's actually religion.

So by this logic are we also removing Augustine, Aquinus, Decartes, Kant and the dozens of other canonical western philosophers whose arguments were substantially religious in nature? I suppose we could, but this leaves a pretty thin curriculum.

Admittedly I only studied philosophy in high school, but according to the version of Categorical Imperative that I was taught, Kant's philosophy was highly rational and almost perfectly logical.
Post reply on HN