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

111–120 of 208 posts

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

#111

Post by dominotw »

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?

They are not passing a law or advocating passing a law. so there is no 'dictation.

>hen why don't they just simply teach non-Western philosophy.

They do. Go to their homepages and look at the courses they teach. (eg: http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/110syllabus.pdf)

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

#112

Post by clavalle »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #79
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…

>Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in number theory. There are strong cultural biases that show up in the history of mathematics. For instance the English mathematics community preferred Newton's notation over Leibniz due to a Anglocenteric bias in English mathematics community despite Newton's notation being clearly inferior. As wikipedia says: >"The priority dispute had an effect of separating…

>How do we choose which ones to teach?

Which one leads to a richer vein of further research?

Which one makes better predictions?

Which one finds more applications?

Diversity and scope can be important only so far as they improve the systems in terms of scientific validity.

Your arguments are exactly the ones used by creationists for the purpose of making that internally consistent system seem as valid as the theory of evolution.

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

#113

Post by return0 »

keiferski wrote: post #57

The underlying problem (which wasn't mentioned at all in this essay) is that contemporary philosophical education is a confusing mix of two things: 1. Ideas on particular "universal" topics, like politics, ethics, metaphysics, and so on. We can call this "philosophy." 2. What certain people thought about said ideas. We can call this "history of thought." Should there be a wider variety of cultures in #2? Of course. B…

> a philosophy startup.

That sounds like a very different kind of startup.

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

#114

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

There's a part of philosophy that is more like mathematics than underwater dance -- or perhaps more closely, literary criticism -- but it's only a small part (it used to be a large part, but then most that part became "natural philosophy", and from there "science"; what's left as philosophy is mostly formal logic and building creative models for interpreting the world and/or morality, held together -- usually -- with formal logic.)

And actual academic programs in philosophy often have a distinct Euro-American (with a dash of Middle Eastern, primarily attached to the Abrahamic faith traditions) cultural bias.

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

#115

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

#116

Post by mc32 »

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…

Somehow I feel like if philosophy departments took Confucianism to heart, the NYT would start rolling around uncomfortably.

On the other hand, how diversified are philosophy departments in Chongqing, or Beijing? Should we push them to match the NYTs expectations?

We all start with seeing things from our own perspectives and understanding (as does the NYT itself) and when we get done with that if we have the desire we can delve into less exposed areas. Should we be pushed into it? I dunno. Maybe when were one big massive global culture which has destroyed local uniqueness.

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

#117

Post by Chris2048 »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #79
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…

>Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in number theory. There are strong cultural biases that show up in the history of mathematics. For instance the English mathematics community preferred Newton's notation over Leibniz due to a Anglocenteric bias in English mathematics community despite Newton's notation being clearly inferior. As wikipedia says: >"The priority dispute had an effect of separating…

The value added here was one culture dropped its inferior notational difference. There was no clear "cross-pollination", as each culture preferred its own notation, until reform came along.

What is the equivalent in philosophical cross-pollination? Are some philosophies going to be dropped in favour of better ones? This doesn't even happen withing a lot of western cliques.

The nearest equivalent to notational reform I can think of is terminology/lexical reform, maybe, though there are a lot of ambiguities that confound this (in contrast to mathematics). In fact, it might even imply that anglo-centrism is a good thing, due to the standard common language.

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

#118

Post by adrianratnapala »

a_humean wrote: post #103
adrianratnapala wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"I am not sure that philosophers believe they are doing work like mathematics" As someone with a postgraduate background in Philosophy I can say that, within at least the Western Analytic (mostly anglophone) tradition, that many do in fact think exactly that and I would tend to agree. Many Philosopher see their closest relations reside in Mathematics and to a lesser extent the hard sciences. They prize deductive reas…

Well then I stand corrected on what philosophers (at least analytic ones) believe. I even agree that mathematics is the closest thing to Analytic philosophy. But it is still very telling that in your third para, you list names instead of theorems.

And you are right to do so, for the reasons I explained in my post above.

When you talk of current research, then sure, you talk of modern philosophers. But that's still studying a tradition: just the latest versions of it. When teaching students you reach further back in time (just as maths students learn ancient theorems rather than modern ones).

The conceptual barriers to entry that you say face Asian contributions are a consequenceof the whole discipline having learned more Aristotle than Kongzi in philosophy 101. Because the 101 class (in any field) is what sets the terminology and background assumptions behind even modern research.

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

#119

Post by EthanHeilman »

clavalle wrote: post #112
EthanHeilman wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in number theory. There are strong cultural biases that show up in the history of mathematics. For instance the English mathematics community preferred Newton's notation over Leibniz due to a Anglocenteric bias in English mathematics community despite Newton's notation being clearly inferior. As wikipedia says: >"The priority dispute had an effect of separating…

>How do we choose which ones to teach? Which one leads to a richer vein of further research? Which one makes better predictions? Which one finds more applications? Diversity and scope can be important only so far as they improve the systems in terms of scientific validity. Your arguments are exactly the ones used by creationists for the purpose of making that internally consistent system seem as valid as the theory o…

>Your arguments are exactly the ones used by creationists for the purpose of making that internally consistent system seem as valid as the theory of evolution.

Science is different than Mathematics in that science must be both internally and externally consistent.

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

#120

Post by kps »

ricksplat wrote: post #98
sageikosa wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much obsession on 1, not enough on 0.

I thought our numbers were of Arabic origin?

Indian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hindu–Arabic_nu...

Europe most likely adopted them via al-Khwarizmi's On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, naming them ‘Arabic’ after the perceived origin of the author (actually he was Persian) rather than ‘Hindu’ after the title.

Post reply on HN