Question Why in the western hemisphere are most text books only engaged with western thought, and very few with a mixture of both western and eastern? I am taking a class now that only focus is to prescribe to the western view, this is all the course reading consist of. For me this causes a great gulf, because of the dominance of European thought. Not even Confucious is mentioned on any of the reading, this really is paradoxical.....

Accepted:
June 14, 2010

Comments

Good question. This is indeed unfortunate. I believe most (if not all) philosophers in the English-speaking world today will have at least one other language, though I wager that for the majority of us that other language is not Asian (in my case my other languages are Greek and French). This need not impair a philosopher taking on Asian themes (I have taught philosophy of religion in English in Hong Kong), but some of us are reluctant to claim (to use your example) expertise or a deep grounding in Confucianism without being able to read Chinese. The two philosophers on my campus who specialize in Indian thought both know Sanskrit. As for the rest of us, not knowing the languages may not be a good excuse (maybe I should learn Chinese). And as more and more Asian (and African and Arabic) texts are being translated with commentaries, philosophy in the classroom is likely to be more global in the future. We are already seeing a concerted effort at more global coverage in all the new encyclopedias of philosophy (Routledge, Thomson / Macmillan, etc). But it also must be said that western and eastern philosophy is so complex and substantial that it is difficult in one or even in three entry level classes to cover the main figures. In some schools, philosophy departments will just have one course in Asian philosophy, but a number of schools regard that as too confining and will (typically) offer a course in Chinese philosophy and one in Indian philosophy. And then what about Islamic philosophy? My point is that just western philosophy is already a pretty titanic undertaking and for those of us in the west it is a good start. Shouldn't we set out to understand ourselves and our history and traditions first and then study others (perhaps this way we can be more self-conscious of when we encounter important challenges to what we regard as standard)? So, I entirely sympathize with your frustration and can report that the state of play in philosophy is shifting. But there are reasons for thinking it is not bad to begin with the west in the west, and then move out to Asia, Africa, philosophy in the Arab world, philosophy in South America.