4 added 12 characters in body
source | link

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses. The narrowness persists through generations of philosophers because we already have so much to keep us busy.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy fitseven could fit into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? If so, it would be challenging to add Chinese ideas to an anglophone philosophy course without spending much of the course preparing students on foundational Chinese ideas. The philosophies might be very difficult to put in conversation on some topics. At least some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses. The narrowness persists through generations of philosophers because we already have so much to keep us busy.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy fits into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? If so, it would be challenging to add Chinese ideas to an anglophone philosophy course without spending much of the course preparing students on foundational Chinese ideas. The philosophies might be very difficult to put in conversation on some topics. At least some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses. The narrowness persists through generations of philosophers because we already have so much to keep us busy.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy even could fit into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? If so, it would be challenging to add Chinese ideas to an anglophone philosophy course without spending much of the course preparing students on foundational Chinese ideas. The philosophies might be very difficult to put in conversation on some topics. At least some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

3 added 262 characters in body
source | link

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses. The narrowness persists through generations of philosophers because we already have so much to keep us busy.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy fits into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? SomeIf so, it would be challenging to add Chinese ideas to an anglophone philosophy course without spending much of the course preparing students on foundational Chinese ideas. The philosophies might be very difficult to put in conversation on some topics. At least some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses. The narrowness persists through generations of philosophers because we already have so much to keep us busy.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy fits into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? Some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses. The narrowness persists through generations of philosophers because we already have so much to keep us busy.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy fits into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? If so, it would be challenging to add Chinese ideas to an anglophone philosophy course without spending much of the course preparing students on foundational Chinese ideas. The philosophies might be very difficult to put in conversation on some topics. At least some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

2 added 109 characters in body
source | link

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses. The narrowness persists through generations of philosophers because we already have so much to keep us busy.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy fits into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? Some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy fits into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? Some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

Great question. This will be an incomplete and potentially unsatisfying answer, and I will be interested to see other answers, but here are five answers to start with:

  1. There is a historical-sociological sense in which Philosophy, narrowly construed, is a phenomenon of Greek culture and the cultures it influenced. It's a Greek word describing a distinctly Greek cultural activity which influenced and was adopted by many later cultures. But not, I believe, Chinese culture. Just as the word "religion" doesn't apply terribly well to Chinese religion, "Philosophy" at least in this narrow, historical sense, might not be the best way to describe the Chinese intellectual traditions. In other words, one could say that Chinese philosophy has not historically been taught in anglophone philosophy courses because it is not—in this narrow sense—actually philosophy.
  2. That said, many American philosophy departments do teach Chinese philosophy courses. Others do not, but Chinese philosophy is not ignored by American philosophy departments, and I believe it's taught in some Australian ones. I don't have a good perspective on European and Latin American and other departments.
  3. But I recognize that your question was about it being taught in courses not in department curricula. I think a big reason for this is inertia—not ignorance per se, in so far as professors are necessarily ignorant of most knowledge, but simply our tendency to keep on teaching a single, already enormous and expanding tradition. That results from professors not having learned, or not having learned much, about Chinese philosophy, and so not adding it to courses. The narrowness persists through generations of philosophers because we already have so much to keep us busy.
  4. But that raises a question about how well Chinese philosophy fits into the existing philosophy courses. Does it conceptualize things in such a different way that it is actually quite hard to place Chinese ideas in debate or discussion with Anglophone philosophy, even if one spends time becoming knowledgeable about the tradition? Some of what I've read suggests that this might be so, but here I plead ignorance!
  5. Finally, I believe there are questions central to anglophone philosophy which Chinese philosophy neither asks nor answers. (I would be delighted to be shown wrong about this.) And so, anglophone philosophy courses on these topics cannot incorporate Chinese philosophy even if more anglophone professors were expert at Chinese philosophy and eager to teach it. For instance, I'm interested in what the best definition of causation is that gives us some guidance about how to reliably distinguish it from correlations. It's a core question in anglophone philosophy. Philosophers teach whole courses on it. I'm not aware of Chinese philosophy asking or answering it.

With all that said, I have long thought that anglophone philosophy could benefit from further engagements not only with Chinese philosophy but also with Indian and other traditions. And there are certainly philosophers currently, actively working on establishing those conversations. So perhaps our ignorance will be diminished somewhat!

1
source | link