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

Their response is nothing but shabby sophistry. The search for philosphical truth is not remotely comparable to the ad-hoc as-needed approach used to develop mathematics and physics. Non-European mathematical traditions have developed distinctly to serve their own particular needs in relation to problems not raised, framed, or addressed in the American or European tradition.

-----

Point being, their argument is not a very strong response to the critique it purports to address.

Not so much obscure as it is vague. And vague often disguises bullshit.

I think there are a number of things going on here:

I think much of what the article is dancing around the entire time is that most philosophers/philosophy departments do not think this other philosophy is good/worth teaching.

Philosophy departments do not teach the Bible, they do not teach Ayn Rand. Both have some barely tangential relation to philosophy but are not particularly deep so as to even be worth reading as far as philosophy goes. I think the authors are trying to force philosophy departments to make this tacit claim they have always made silently out loud -- that Confucius, say, is just not as deep as Kant or Hegel.

Also primarily the history of philosophy is a conversation. In order to understand Nietzsche/Kierkegaard, you need to put them in context as responses to Hegel. They use technical Hegelian terms to craft their theories and responses, which you need to spend time grokking before you can make sense of anything that follows. Why do we cover Descartes' cogito rather than the floating man? Well, partially because it is better (he wrote it second, after all). But more importantly because of the hundreds of years of conversation that follows it as a jumping off point, because of the hundreds of brilliant philosophers it allows you to read, now in-context.

And philosophy tends to define the framework that all intellectual activity in a culture takes place. If you're interested in new theories and ideas in psychology, look to philosophy about a century prior and you'll find every single one lined up and argued exhaustively. A lot of the work of philosophy is to understand and challenge the way our culture thinks about things. Mencius would be very relevant when you try to understand Chinese culture, not so much ours. So in this sense the authors are correct I think, that some part of philosophy has this end goal of understanding the history and future of western thought and culture, for which non-western thought is a tangential oddity.

"Philosophers believe at least, that they are doing work more along the lines of mathematics than underwater dance (that is, searching for truth)"

Thinking that you can search for truth while ignoring how most of the world thinks about and addresses these issues is like thinking you can study urban planning without traveling to other towns. While there are some schools of thought that take such a tightly analytic view of philosophy those represent only a single strain of philosophy, and a highly Western continental one at that.

It is worth mentioning that Descarte thought he was doing just this kind of rational searching free of all philosophical conceptions but, for him, the proof of God's existence was obvious as a rational axiom using the same methods as his cogito. I think most of us in the more secular setting of hacker news would consider that portion of his rationalism to be the product of his cultural background.

Just as travel expands your understanding of where you are from, engaging with many traditions of thought is one of the only ways to actually become aware of the assumptions and biases inherent in your own.

I agree with the author given the author has cited specific works that sometimes predate the European works and some that they themselves probably discussed.

The Confucius one got to me in college as I learned about him in a world religion class instead of philosophy. I mean, here's a guy or group whose writings were so profound that they can lead you to business success or happiness in 2016. Gets almost no attention outside of jokes that make him look like an idiot. I like messing with people in the South by talking about how the "Good Book" says (insert Confucius quote). They'll correct me about what Jesus really said only to have me point out I was talking about a different author that came before him and was doing it for non-religious reasons. Blows their minds. Instead of him, my philosophy class taught me a mix of stuff that's practical (eg Empiricism, Skepticism) and stuff I'd have to use PCP to benefit from. Hmmm.

I find the Flying Man experiment interesting, too, given I've done the same one. At least the initial thoughts. I did it after I had fallen from a high place. It felt so peaceful as if I was suspended in air with a light breeze with the world moving past me. The ground interrupted the peace. Aside from that, I do recall introspecting on how it looked and felt from my perspective vs what actually happened. I knew there were psychological lessons or something to learn from the experience. Turns out, a Persian my philosophy class didn't know about thought up the same thing before 1,000AD. Probably fell off a building or something, too. ;)