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

91–100 of 208 posts

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

#91

Post by adrianratnapala »

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…

I am not sure that philosophers believe they are doing work like mathematics -- and if they do then they a wrong. Philosophy inevitably involves teaching of traditions (see below). But universities and indeed the word "philosophy" are historically tied to the western tradition.

Philosophy students study study particular thinkers and the traditions in detail. And rightly so: theirs words are open to importantly varied interpretation. Students need to read read Plato because even today professors have non-trivial arguments about what he meant and how to apply the ideas.

So it is forgivably hard for philosophy to see beyond the western tradition it grew up in. But it is unforgivably dumb to try and justify the Euro-centrism by an by an false analogy to science.

I if a student is learning classical mechanics, she needn't read Principia Mathematica, and it doesn't matter what Newton was thinking when he wrote it. What matters is how you do physics today -- the various interpretations that physicists put on it can wait for some advanced course.

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

#93

Post by vlehto »

cholantesh wrote: post #84
vlehto wrote: post #33

They wish to include non-European traditions of philosophy into academic philosophy. "Jay L. Garfield is - - the author of “Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy.” Bryan W. Van Norden is -- the author of “Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy.”" "Give us more money. We like money."

This is akin to saying that when E.O. Wilson argues fervently that natural selection is real, he is not to be trusted because he is employed as a biologist.

E.O. Wilson might be right despite having wested interest. I just felt it might be appropriate to hilight such interest.

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

#94

Post by sageikosa »

Scarblac wrote: post #74
sageikosa wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What became Philosophy was first delineated by the Hellenic Greeks. It was a pursuit of the literate as an alternative to the waning gods of the masses. There are certainly other schools of thought on what things are, how they should be considered, how being should act, how societies should organize and what people should admire and strive for; but not all of those are philosophical.

Or they are actually philosophical, but organized into completely different topics than the ancient Greeks did, and therefore not considered "real philosophy" by all the departments that still just only study the same topics the Greeks did.

So what makes something philosophical?

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

#95

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by borkxs »

shadowfox wrote: post #37
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…

> Why do people feel the need to dictate to others what they should do? I rather see this as advocacy. If you strongly feel the need for change, you have to do that in addition to simply doing what they themselves can do. People do it all the time. Take a look at open source advocacy for example.

Then I can understand why people seem to be finding what you call advocacy a bit grating. Because if it isn't a dictate, what exactly is the desired outcome?

Imagine this piece does its job and convinces a lot of people. "Indeed! We need more multicultural philosophy departments!" Now it's a policy debate. Which departments? Which coursework? Do we need to hire and fire to make this change? The question becomes: HOW WILL WE ALLOCATE RESOURCES DIFFERENTLY TO MAKE THIS CHANGE HAPPEN? Do we need to cut government funding from public schools that don't meet some percentage curriculum requirement?

The logical endpoint WOULD BE a dictate even if the op-ed is "just advocacy" right now.

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

#97

Post by scelerat »

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…

When I was in college I got the impression that professional (i.e. US academic) philosophy had standards of rigor, such that areas more generally considered philosophy -- French existentialism, for example -- weren't so in their domain. It seemed that some wanted to make a distinction between philosophy, psychology, and literary theory/critique.

I've got no opinions either way, but it sounds like someone needs to define what is meant by "philosophy."

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

#98

Post by ricksplat »

sageikosa wrote: post #54
tokai wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in number theory" You underestimate postmodernist literary theorists.

Too much obsession on 1, not enough on 0.

I thought our numbers were of Arabic origin?

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

#99

Post by adrianratnapala »

Scarblac wrote: post #68
krutulis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mig…

The very idea that something like logic is part of philosophy is Western, I think. The ancient Greek philosophers studied logic, and therefore modern Western philosophers still do. I don't think people with an African or Chinese or whatever background would even consider that a natural part of the subject. They probably would consider other topics that are not included in our philosophy programs.

I'd put it the other way around. Philosophy is a Greek word, and the collection of subjects it encompasses is part of a tradition inherited from the Greeks (as similar think applies to Religion and the Romans).

However, other people do have the same concerns, though they might package it differently. So logic is hard to escape and was studied everywhere, but whether it was studied alongside Grammar, Metaphysics or Mathematics -- well that could vary a bit.

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

#100

Post by scelerat »

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…

When I was in college I got the impression that professional (i.e. US academic) philosophy had standards of rigor, such that areas more generally considered philosophy -- existentialism, for example -- weren't so in their domain.

I've got no opinions either way, but it sounds like someone needs to define what is meant by "philosophy."

Post reply on HN