Are Philosophy courses too Eurocentric?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FlikTheBlue

When I was in college I did take a logic class which was taught by a professor in the philosophy department. Most of the classes that the philosophy department offered, however, were not about pure logic. Instead they focused on European philosophers, starting with Socrates and Plato and moving up to modern philosophers like Kant and Sartre. From what I remember there isn’t anything that would make Kant, Camus, Sartre, etc. any more “scientific” than philosophers from other cultures. On the other hand, I think the lack of classes in philosophy of non Western cultures is probably due to not having enough professors educated in those philosophies, and not due to overt racism.

I agree, its academic inertia. Particularly a eurocentric academic inertia.

Why is the Iliad and the Odyssey so central to literature while Romance of the Three Kindgoms and the Journey to the West not?

Why are the moral philosophies of the western philosphers so much more valid than the moral philosophers of the east?

AFAICT its inertia. But for some reason, the schools in China seem to be teaching the western classics alongside the Chinese classics and drawing lessons from both while we only read the western classics.

[madsircool]

Because their is no definitive version of ROT3K. The story was altered to support the political climate of the day. And the message that loyalty to the Dynasty was a more important virtue than just rule is anathema to Western thought. Its a great read. At least the first 2/3 are.

[UDS]

@madsircool

Because their is no definitive version of ROT3K. The story was altered to support the political climate of the day. And the message that loyalty to the Dynasty was a more important virtue than just rule is anathema to Western thought. Its a great read. At least the first 2/3 are.

You think western thought doesn’t get altered to support the political climate of the day? You think the messages offered by western thinkers are never anathema?

It’s a fundamental mistake to think that we only study philosophy (or anything else) if we’re already sure we’re going to like it or agree with it. We study it to find out whether we agree or disagree with it and, in either case, why.

I agree with Damuri. Western philosophy departments mostly offer courses in western philosphy because, mostly, that’s what western philosophy professors have studied. One of the downsides of being the globally dominant culture is that you have less exposure to/familiarity with cultures that are not your own than do people from less dominant cultural backgrounds, who will be more familiar with your culture than you are with theres. So they end up being cosmopolitan and you end up being (relatively) insular.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@UDS

Western philosophy departments mostly offer courses in western philosphy because, mostly, that’s what western philosophy professors have studied.

And, a lot of what philosophers do is react to, argue with, expand upon, or critique what earlier philosophers have said. Eastern philosophy is a separate conversation.

“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” -Alfred North Whitehead

[nani]

Religious studies departments regularly encompass traditions from around the world while making it clear that calling all of those traditions “religions” is not always helpful. I don’t see why philosophy departments couldn’t do the same. There shouldn’t be such high walls between departments like philosophy and area studies anyway.

[madsircool]

@UDS

You think western thought doesn’t get altered to support the political climate of the day? You think the messages offered by western thinkers are never anathema?

It’s a fundamental mistake to think that we only study philosophy (or anything else) if we’re already sure we’re going to like it or agree with it. We study it to find out whether we agree or disagree with it and, in either case, why.

I agree with Damuri. Western philosophy departments mostly offer courses in western philosphy because, mostly, that’s what western philosophy professors have studied. One of the downsides of being the globally dominant culture is that you have less exposure to/familiarity with cultures that are not your own than do people from less dominant cultural backgrounds, who will be more familiar with your culture than you are with theres. So they end up being cosmopolitan and you end up being (relatively) insular.

It was the text itself that was altered. Actions by some historical figures ended up attributed to others. Also, magical characters were introduced into basically a historical novel. Thus, there is no definitive text to study. Moss Roberts has done a great job trying to reconcile the various texts and the history into a single huge volume.

[UDS]

@madsircool

It was the text itself that was altered. Actions by some historical figures ended up attributed to others. Also, magical characters were introduced into basically a historical novel. Thus, there is no definitive text to study. Moss Roberts has done a great job trying to reconcile the various texts and the history into a single huge volume.

So what? The fact that a text has been altered or adapted doesn’t mean that it is deprived of all philosophical interest or significance.

[madsircool]

@UDS

So what? The fact that a text has been altered or adapted doesn’t mean that it is deprived of all philosophical interest or significance.

Its not a work of philosophy. Its an historical novel in the tradition of King Arthur. It is viewed as basically a childs work by many Chinese.

[T.M]

I studied a course on theology at college, while based on Christian religion the purpose of the course was not to convert you to Christianity but to teach you to approach religion with an open none dogmatic mind the purpose being that you were seeking truth and understanding The course gave me a mind tool that helps me look at subjects from many directions. I think that Philosophy is taught in the same way to give you a mind tool that enables you to seek truth without bias to expand the limits of your knowledge be it Eastern or Western Philosophy the same mind tool allows you to explore both it does not restrict you.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@madsircool

Because their is no definitive version of ROT3K. The story was altered to support the political climate of the day. And the message that loyalty to the Dynasty was a more important virtue than just rule is anathema to Western thought. Its a great read. At least the first 2/3 are.

I never read the novel, I only ever played the video game but I assume the video game was fanatically faithful to the book (I saw the book(s) once and I told myself I would just wait for the movie).

The impression I got from the game is that ROT3K was about a struggle between a just ruler Liu Bei and a despotic tyrant Cao Cao. The power that comes from loyalty (Zhang Fei, Zhege Liang, Guan Yu). The fallibility of heroes (Zhang Fei). The value of wise counsel (Zhege Liang). The importance of a good video card that doesn’t explode every time there is a cutscene. And eating your eye if someone shoots it with an arrow is the best way to tell your mom you love her.

I am assuming that Koei was faithful to the original hostirical text.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms (video game series)

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@madsircool

Its not a work of philosophy. Its an historical novel in the tradition of King Arthur. It is viewed as basically a childs work by many Chinese.

Really?

Classic Chinese Novels

“The Four Great Classical Novels[1] of Chinese literature are the four novels commonly regarded by Chinese literary criticism to be the greatest and most influential of pre-modern Chinese fiction.”

“They are among the world’s longest and oldest novels[2] and are considered to be the pinnacle of China’s achievement in classical novels, influencing the creation of many stories, plays, movies, games, and other forms of entertainment throughout East Asia, including China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.”

[FlikTheBlue]

@Kobal2

Do tell me a quick recap of the history of China.

I don’t know about philosophy, 'cause I snored, but history as it is taught is hugely euro-centric, too. Everybody knows SPQR and Caesar, most people vaguely recall Anne Boleyn or Charlemagne. But Cao-Cao, Mansa Musa, Suleiman or Nobunaga : it’s blank stares all the way down. Hell, even Slavic history is a no-show, and they’re European (quick, who is John III Sobieski and what’d he do ?) !

Don’t get me started on literature and the arts. Michaelangelo ? Great dude, everybody knows the Sixtine. Zhang Zeduan ? Is that a video game or something ?

I had to look up the acronym SPQR just now. Thanks to video games, my guess is that more young Americans are familiar with Nobunaga and possibly even Cao Cao than they are with Anne Boleyn or Charlemagne.