What they are suggesting, offering non-western philo courses in philosophy departments, just moves the divide within the department but doesn't remove it. Philosophy courses are centered around problems and should be independent of culture. Are there philosophical problems that exist in the east but not the west?
If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
161–170 of 208 posts
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#162It 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…
Out of curiosity, what are some of the propositions that are universally agreed to be true in philosophy? Something akin to arithmetic and basic algebra, say?
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#163Earlier 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…
I realize you are replying to part of the discussion but your comment seems to be a nice point in support of the original article and I would like to see if you agree.
You mention one strand of western philosophy, "the Western Analytic (mostly anglophone) tradition" that believes its work is most closely related to math but then also point out that, while practitioners from that school are open to participation from non-westerners, they often face "conceptual and not just large linguistic barriers" at engaging with such contributions.
You seem to be saying that there may be value in these contributions but that we lack the cultural framework to understand and engage with them. If that is true, even though this is the portion of philosophy most consciously focused on mathematics-like deductive reasoning, doesn't that suggest an insufficiency in our current programs and perhaps argue that we need to expand our coverage if we are going to engage with practitioners in a global field?
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, it wasn't "clearly inferior" historically. Liebniz' arguments why it was valid were heavily based on infinitesimals and monadology, which were not known at the time to be valid. (In fact, many of Liebniz' arguments weren't valid, although the conclusions turned out to be.) Secondly, if biases exist, one need not argue for diversity in order to achieve it. Liebniz notation didn't win because someone argu…
> Liebniz notation didn't win because someone argued that anglos were biased and diversity was needed, it won because mathematical arguments demonstrated it was better. > Unfortunately the authors of this piece don't actually make that latter argument. Is this to imply there is a more-correct philosophy? I have no formal training in philosophy but I feel that to claim one philosophy is objectively better than another…
Yes, there is. Modern philosophy is judged by it's intellectual consistency, the simplicity and intuitiveness of it's underlying principles, and how those underlying principles lead to conclusions that make sense.
Many philosophical traditions simply don't measure up. That's not a crack at non-western traditions, most western traditions have also been discarded due to being nonsense. Quite a few more probably should be but are kept alive for non-intellectual reasons.
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#165It 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…
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.
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, how so? I've always considered the investigation with philosophy worthless without it as a way of living. Is distinguishing between the two useful?
I've only taken three philosophy classes in college so I'm by no means an expert. However, the distinction I see between philosophy as a study and philosophy as a way of life is that the latter is a consumer version of the previous. In philosophical discipline, we talk about the nature of things. For example, "what does it mean to be virtuous", "what is the fundamental mechanics behind what is good and bad", "how do…
That's interesting. I've been reading an medieval Indian philosophy called non-dual Shaiva Tantra. The philosophy, or called the View, is only one part of it. The practice of philosophy and the way of life is not separated from the View, and yet it also addresses those fundamental questions that you are talking about with the Western philosophers. There is no dumbing down.
A large part of it is that, in the non-dual Shaiva Tantra tradition, there is a extensive experiential component to it. Someone who merely believes in a philosophy has not yet embodied the philosophy. Philosophical investigation is a crucial stage towards embodying the philosophy.
There is a Western philosophy that is also experiential. It's called alchemy. Here, the truths that were developed are considered the second of three stages of transformation. The last stage is plunging those principles back into the messiness of life, until the philosopher is a living embodiment of the philosophy. This last stage is called the "red stage", where the philosophy is tested in life and further distilled over and over again until it becomes alive once again.
So I'm not sure I buy your argument on that distinction. It seems more to me what you are saying is insufficiently applying and practicing the principles and fruits of philosophical investigation.
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#167They 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."
Or "We put our work where our mouth is", proof that they follow their own advice and have relevant expertise.
How does "European and American Philosophy" differ from "Western Philosophy" versus "Eastern Philosophy", the latter of which they seem to specialise.
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 bia…
I 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
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#169It 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…
my understanding is that they are intellectually separated, hence the problem
Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is
#170It 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…
>Consider two axiomatic systems with different starting axioms. They are both internally consistent but may differ widely. How do we choose which ones to teach? Is diversity and scope important to building an objective perspective?
If we want to evaluate the axioms, you better teach both.
Internal consistency is just that - internal to that system. Metaphilosophy would want to judge both, but if you never teach both, how would you judge?