What's your take on the recent NYTimes article advocating diversification in philosophy departments in the west?

but were rejected on the grounds that they were Chinese or Indian?

I am quite sure that it is NOT the case that "philosophers are rejecting arguments on the basis of where they were first thought up." In fact, I do not think the problem is to do with Eastern philosophy being routinely rejected at all (for whatever reason, even considerations of validity.) Rather, the problem is that such texts are largely not even considered in the first place. Not only do academic institutions often make only the most minimal effort to engage with the Eastern canon, worse yet, they are rarely properly endowed, especially in terms of faculty, to adequately do so.

The Western tradition is not predominant simply because it is the consensus that it is superior in validity or soundness, but rather because it is superior in familiarity, at least for the people in charge of deciding what is available to study. If the education of your staff is not philosophically diverse, than neither will the education of their students be.

Now, that is why I think there is such an absence of diversity. Whether I think there should be more diversity is an entirely separate discussion. I see where you're coming from when you say that what we consider valuable for a study of the History of Philosophy should be separate from Philosophy itself. However, how should that distinction be made? Yes, one should evaluate the substance of each argument put forth, as opposed to who put it forth, where, or its significance. But how exactly does one do that objectively, seeing as philosophy is so void of consensus? Basically, I'm wondering what qualifies something for inclusion into a study of philosophy proper?

Surely, to consider Eastern texts valuable to the study of philosophy only to the extent that they follow the Western tradition is somewhat unfair. So to suggest that it "match the philosophical community's standards of reasoning" seems problematic, as those standards of reasoning are themselves Western (insofar as they are derived from the Western tradition), and the philosophical community to whom Eastern philosophers must appeal are thoroughly Western in orientation.

Many would make the argument, myself included, that what we generally refer to as "Eastern" philosophy is valuable not only to the history of philosophy, but philosophy itself, certainly to at least an equal extent as "Western" philosophy. I don't see why the value of Eastern philosophy differs so markedly between the two areas of inquiry - I've also considered it equally crucial to, butignored in, both.

Nobody specializes in French Physics - because that would be dumb.

Yes, but everyone is familiar with the contributions of French physicists, because their achievments are invariably taught and highly valued. Conversely, while Chinese Philosophy need not be a specialty itself, the contributions of Chinese philosophers should not be as ignored as they are now. As you mentioned, a racial or geographic qualification for a discipline like philosophy is just silly. What is important, in the end, is that works of Chinese philosophy are incorporated into various fields fairly, where they have something important to say (and they very often do.) The form that that incorporation takes is pretty irrelevant.

I do believe that a name change is in order, however, because the name of a discipline should obviously match the education provided. We can both agree that "Western Philosophy" and "Philosophy" are not synonymous? If so, then we can agree that we should stop treating them as such.

Any university which purports to give an education in philosophy but only gives one in Western philosophy is lying to its students and giving them an incomplete education. An undergraduate looking for a general understanding of philosophy must be given such an education, period. If you don't provide it, fine, but at least be clear with what you will provide - a general education in Western philosophy. Don't call it "philosophy" I feel ripped off when the service provided is not the service promised, and that happens so often at universities, where they just take it for granted that "philosophy" is just "western philosophy." It is a very common problem which has frustrated me to no end. So, for both the purpose of clarity and fairness, they should either be more specific with their names, or more general with their content.

Similarily, we don't lament the absence of specialists in Chinese philosophy simply because, as mentioned above, if you have staff that value a non-Western tradition, it is more likely that non-western traditions will be incorporated into your education, which is more desireable.

/r/askphilosophy Thread Parent