Out of Europe

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Out of Europe

Post by Philosophy Now »

Peter Adamson wants us to recategorise philosophies.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/116/Out_of_Europe
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Out of Europe

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Philosophy Now wrote:Peter Adamson wants us to recategorise philosophies.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/116/Out_of_Europe
He is dead wrong.
Philosophy ought not ever adopt eastern mysticism and Theology as if it were philosophy - it aint.
RickLewis
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Out of Europe

Post by RickLewis »

I doubt whether he'd argue with that - he wouldn't want that any more than he would want philosophy to adopt Western mysticism or theology.

(Though having said which, we do of course study St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in university philosophy courses...)
Justintruth
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Out of Europe

Post by Justintruth »

Philosophy Now wrote:Peter Adamson wants us to recategorise philosophies.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/116/Out_of_Europe
It is of the nature of philosophy that it cannot be defined geographically or historically. Perhaps a better approach would be to critique the content of the philosophy taught, and where deficiencies exist, and where ideas have been presented already that had they been heeded would have adressed the deficiency, then condemn the pholosopher and if he already has tenure at least check credentials better in the future.

For example it amazes me at how many philosophers are tenured yet have no evidence of having had what is descrbed as Satori in zen theory. Some experience of enlightenment, no matter how descrbed should be exposed in the resume. Don't mistake my point. If an applicant thinks enlightenment is hogwash based on some criteria that hold water fine. But never to have experienced it? And then to claim one is capable of philosophy? Or to critique it without experience? Perhaps if the philosopher is a vary narrow specialist it would be ok.

It also amazes me to see philosophers hired that have not mastered both the continental and analytic traditions. Forget Islamic, Hindu, and Chinese. Philosophers are not even completely trained in the Western European traditions. And yet they are routinely hired that way.

Deep dysfunction in the academy. I think it could be cured by some kind of core curicula?

Dont mistake my point. If a philosopher had very narrow views and thought only logic was relevant or something and could defend his position in a way that took on all the other traditions in a way that showed he was aware of them and was demonstating their flaws fine. We want philosophers to draw conclusions but only once the have been exposed to the traditions not in a historical sense but with a view to seeing what they contribute to philosophical understanding. We dont need inventories of historically what was believed when, but we need to understand philosophy itself and mine the tradition for relevant ideas and philosophical viewpoints that open genuine perspectives and light the way forward.

Leaving out something relevant in the tradition is just bald incompetence. Being unexposed to the tradition should be just disqualifying.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Out of Europe

Post by Impenitent »

"my truth is not your truth" - B. Lee

-Imp
Post Reply