Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto

by Bryan W. Van Norden, Jay L. Garfield (Foreword)

Are American colleges and universities failing their students by refusing to teach the philosophical traditions of China, India, Africa, and other non-Western cultures? This biting and provocative critique of American higher education says yes. Even though we live in an increasingly multicultural world, most philosophy departments stubbornly insist that only Western philosophy is real philosophy and denigrate everything outside the European canon. In Taking Back Philosophy, Bryan W. Van Norden lambastes academic philosophy for its Eurocentrism, insularity, and complicity with nationalism and issues a ringing call to make our educational institutions live up to their cosmopolitan ideals.

In a cheeky, agenda-setting, and controversial style, Van Norden, an expert in Chinese philosophy, proposes an inclusive, multicultural approach to philosophical inquiry. He showcases several accessible examples of how Western and Asian thinkers can be brought into productive dialogue, demonstrating that philosophy only becomes deeper as it becomes increasingly diverse and pluralistic. Taking Back Philosophy is at once a manifesto for multicultural education, an accessible introduction to Confucian and Buddhist philosophy, a critique of the ethnocentrism and anti-intellectualism characteristic of much contemporary American politics, a defense of the value of philosophy and a liberal arts education, and a call to return to the search for the good life that defined philosophy for Confucius, Socrates, and the Buddha. Building on a popular New York Times opinion piece that suggested any philosophy department that fails to teach non-Western philosophy should be renamed a “Department of European and American Philosophy,” this book will challenge any student or scholar of philosophy to reconsider what constitutes the love of wisdom.

Genres: Philosophy, China, Nonfiction, Cultural, Theory

248 pages, Paperback

Published December 5, 2017

Reviews

[Christopher Porzenheim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I imagined I would just start this book last night, but instead I was compelled to finished it in one sitting. Van Norden’s Taking Back Philosophy: A Cultural Manifesto argues in a convincing, sharp, and yet charitable tone, that teaching philosophy non multi-culturally is disadvantageous to us all and even downright non philosophical.

Van Norden urges us to return to the way of Socrates and Confucius. The way of approaching others and the world in wonder. The way of learning by discussing with diverse others how best we can all live well. The way that we only know is being done well when some start to worry if we might be 'corrupting the youth.'

Unlike Van Norden, many people who write about philosophy offer a murky, abstract, or no definition of philosophy. Or worse yet, they quip that what philosophy is is a philosophical question. Or even more ridiculously, that philosophy is something only Greeks and those influenced by them could do, because the word ‘philosophy’ comes from Greek.

Van Norden will have none of this chicanery. He doesn't mince words. He doesn't evade us in an inky cloud. He respects us too much. To his credit, Van Norden gives us a clear definition of what he thinks philosophy is that we can openly agree or disagree with:

“Philosophy is dialogue about problems that we agree are important, but don’t agree about the method for solving, where ‘importance’ ultimately gets it sense from the question of the way one should live.”

This is why philosophy should be studied multiculturally. Not because of what one critic of Van Norden called the 'ooshy gooshy need to pretend every culture is equally advanced.’ But, because philosophy can only be of best use to us when it offers differing voices with different assumptions from different traditions. Because then, and only then, will it be allowed for the greatest amount of people with differing assumption to disagree, talk with, and learn from each other about how to solve problems, especially the most important one of all, which is what it means to live a good life.

Van Norden argues that philosophy dies when we create walls around our own traditions to protect them from other traditions. For we all have assumptions that blind us, and what the study of multicultural philosophy does is to make our assumptions more obvious by showing that other people and cultures do not share them. In a very real sense, all the assumptions we make come from some philosopher or another, whether or not we know this. We are therefore already already doing philosophy whether or not we realize it, or even do philosophy well.

As Van Norden memorably put in in an enjoyable rant of his:

“Do you think that the purpose of life is to make the most of your intelligence and contribute to your community? You’re an Aristotelian. Do you think there is no purpose to life except for the one each of us chooses for herself? You’re an existentialist. Do you think that morality has to be explained psychologically, by our emotions and other motivations? You’re a Humean. Do you think that what is right is to do whatever produced the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people? You’re a utilitarian. Do you think that there are some actions that are intrinsically wrong and must never be done, even if they would result in desirable consequences? You’re a Kantian. Do you think that government is designed to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty and property? You’re a Lockean. Do you think that government must protect our freedoms, but wealth inequality is justifiable only insofar as it benefits those most in need? You’re a Rawlsian. Do you think that much of religious belief can be justified by philosophy? Please say hello to my friend Thomas Aquinas. Do you think we can legitimately have religious belief even though most it must be accepted on faith? Go hang out with my buddies Pascal and Kierkegaard. Do you believe that religion is superstition that has had a largely negative influence on the world? Read Bertrand Russell or J.L. Mackie. Or do you dismiss philosophy as nothing but rationalizations for the will to power or structure of domination? Enjoy Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, and Foucault. (Oops! They’re philosophers too!) The question is not whether philosophy is important you. It already is. The only question is whether you choose to become self-aware and critically reflective about the philosophical beliefs you hold.”

We do philosophy better when we know what our influences and assumptions are. We do philosophy even better when we are able to (as Van Norden himself does) make our our assumptions respectfully clear to others. We simply blind ourselves to different and perhaps better questions and answers about how we might live well when we ignore or disparage philosophy.

This is why Van Norden repeats again and again that the study of philosophy is not incompatible with living well, whether that means something practical, spiritual, or financial for you. Even if you are a scientist who ignorantly despises philosophy as impractical, such as Neil Degrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking, you need philosophy just as much of the rest of us, because as Einstein himself argued:

“So many people today -and even professional scientists- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -in my opinion- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a seeker after the truth.”

Or take the words of Schrodinger who (like Einstein also) won a Nobel Prize in physics:

“The scientific picture of the real word around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”

Philosophy helps us do everything better when we do it right, and the only reliable way to do it wrong is to exclude learning from others because we assume we are correct, especially if it’s just because they look or sound different. In other words, the only way to always do bad philosophy is when we ignorantly argue against the multicultural learning and teaching of ‘others’ philosophies. If we aren't worried about corrupting the youth, and inspiring them with questionable ideas about what it means to live well, we aren't doing philosophy right.

Van Norden's writing is, as a rule, crisp and precise. His manifesto works as a fine introduction to Chinese philosophy and the study of philosophy more generally. I recommend Van Norden's manifesto to anyone who has ever been interested in studying ‘Non Western philosophy’ and does not know where to begin or feels worried about being disparaged for doing so. Van Norden will equip you with all the arguments you need to make rigid and reactionary defenders of any 'traditional' canon look like the silly pedants they are. Van Norden might even make you laugh too, and what more can you want out of a work on philosophy trying to help you live better?

[Guillermo Fernandez · Rating 4 out of 5]

In January 2017, students from SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) launched a campaign called "Decolonise our minds" with the aim of drawing attention to the fact that a school focused in African and Asian studies holds a Philosophy Curriculum formed almost exclusively by white European authors. Although the intention was simply to make a call for the diversification of the study program, the reception in the British media was hostile and biased, accusing the students of wanting to remove all white thinkers from the program and of questioning philosophers that laid the foundations of our society. SOAS was originally created in 1916 to teach to future colonizers the language, history, laws, and customs of the countries to which they were being posted by the colonial enterprise, as a means to strengthen Britain’s presence in these colonies. According to the results of the aforesaid enterprise, it would be said that we do not know if, for lack of enthusiasm of the students or the poor preparation of the teaching staff, this attempt was not very satisfactory. Obviously (and fortunately) the circumstances have changed and today SOAS has an international and multiracial student body, and its mindset and objectives are very different. However, the radical rejection found in the press and in many academics throughout the UK seems to show an intellectual racism that we would like to believe was eradicated.

The claim of the students was obviously not to remove white philosophers from the syllabi but to make room for more thinkers from Asia, Islam, and Africa, something that sounds quite unquestionable considering the kind of institution that SOAS represents. At the same time, the students aim to discuss white canonical authors with a different approach that situates them in a particular historical and social background and reflects the colonial legacy. It is evident that due to the socio-historical context we must remain open to accept and understand certain characteristics of each epoch. For instance, it would be useless to try to re-read the philosophy or history of Greece and Rome pretending that there were no radical differences between the situation of both sexes. When Plato or Aristotle talk about citizens they refer only to free men, neither women nor slaves nor children are included in the lot. Does this undermine the idea of democracy as the government of the people? Possibly not, but still it is convenient to keep in mind the context in which the ideas are formulated. The same can apply to authors rooted in the religious tradition, or those for whom only Europe deserved the qualification of civilization and the rest were simply savages. Within this group, we find one of the most important Philosophers, Immanuel Kant. In Friedrich Christian Starke’s edition of Kant’s Menschenkunde oder philosophische Anthropologie from 1831, Kant speaks of four “races” as follows:

1) The people of America are ineducable. They have no motivation; because they lack emotion and passion. They are not amorous and, therefore, are not fecund. They rarely speak, do not caress one another, they don’t plan ahead, and are lazy.

2) The Negro race, one could say, is exactly the opposite from the Americans; they are completely emotional and passionate, extremely lively, talk incessantly, and are vain. They are educable but only as servants (i.e., they accept training). They have much motivation, are also sensitive, fear snakes, and do many things out of honor.

3) Hindus have motivation, but they have a high degree of serenity, and they all look like philosophers. Nevertheless, they tend both to great rage and to love. They are educable to a high degree, but only in the arts, not in the sciences. They are incapable of abstraction. A great Hindu is one who has achieved much through deception and has lots of money. The Hindus have reached their potential; they will never achieve anything more even though they have begun to achieve much through education.

4) The White race possesses all motivations and talents …[1]

Reading the words of Kant discloses a much broader and deeper debate, one beyond the geographical origin of the thinkers, but related to their ethical stances. What do we do with the work of authors who showed deeply problematic ethical or political positions on fundamental issues? In philosophy, it is difficult not to think of Heidegger and his indiscriminate flirtations with Nazism, but Sartre himself remained loyal to the Stalinist dictatorship in Russia far beyond what could be considered reasonable and excused first Stalin and then Mao’s purges. Knut Hamsun showed clear support to the Nazis, Louis-Ferdinand Celine demonstrated her anti-Semitism in both his writing and his life, Henry Miller was a misogynist and Truman Capote terribly nasty, Alfred Hitchcock used to behave cruelly with actresses, Roman Polanski is involved in some dark cases that took him to court, and lately Woody Allen is in the center of a turmoil of accusations and judgments. The list is never-ending and we may ask how ethical it is to appreciate the artistic work or the intellectual legacy of an author when his behavior is at least questionable?

If reflecting on the value system or the personal attitudes of a certain artist or public figure can strongly condition the way you see his or her work, this is still more accentuated when the character in question is a philosopher who works with ideas, values ​​and ethical and moral positions. It is difficult to separate private and public works in such cases, and that is why it is fundamental that the study approach is always critical and guarantees complete and detailed information, as well as opinions that contrast the considered as the most canonical ones. The study of philosophy should not be based merely on studying authors and memorizing and understanding their ideas, but should mainly be the construction of a theoretical grounds that allows us to refute these authors, if necessary, to study them and against them, discuss and filter, creating our own thinking system. That is why I reject the idea of ​​censoring books, authors, or ideas, however controversial they may be and I rather believe in education as the tool to navigate and choose for ourselves. Having said that, I find the demand to study Asian, African, Native American, Islamic authors perfectly legitimate and to eliminate all traces of thought that originated civilizations such as Egyptian, Chinese, Arabic, or Indian utterly absurd in a discipline like Philosophy that seeks to understand the world.

In this context, Bryan W. Van Norden’s book Taking back philosophy: A multicultural Manifesto (Columbia University Press, 2018) is a relevant contribution to the debate. The origin of the book was in an article that James L. Garfield and Bryan Van Norden wrote for The New York Times after a conference in minorities in Philosophy hosted by the University of Pennsylvania and organized by graduate students was boycotted by the Philosophy Department showing a profound disinterest for non-Western Philosophy. The intention of Garfield and Van Norden was always to provoke and to stimulate debate, and thus, their main proposal was to change the name of the Philosophy Departments that do not include any of the considered least taught philosophies for Department of Anglo-European Philosophy, affirming that this name would be infinitely more adjusted and describes more accurately what is taught in them. The high number of comments received and the content of them, highly defensive and self-exculpatory, made Van Norden, professor of oriental philosophies and renowned expert in Chinese philosophy initiate the writing of the book.

In the book, different parts are distinguished: the first part is dedicated to analyse why the philosophy of Asia, Africa, or Native American has no place in the curriculum of the departments of philosophy. Curiously, trying to eliminate all traces of Asian and African philosophy is, in fact, impossible, since the origin of philosophy in Greece is only a convention, very convenient to classify Philosophy as something exclusively European but false nonetheless. It is not possible to ignore the reality that the first philosophical currents emerged much earlier in Africa and India, and complex texts on Ontology and Metaphysics were written in India while in Europe we were chasing each other with a big wooden club. Van Norden blames modern philosophers of kantcentrism and hegelcentrism, both tendencies that inevitably conduct to Eurocentrism. Before Enlightenment and despite the enormity of distances, the difficulties to travel, and the lack of mediums to disseminate knowledge, it is easier to find influences of non-European schools of thought and observe some sort of exchange. However, the Kantian revolution originated a current of navel-gazing and intellectual white supremacism. Probably the most radical assertion in the book is the one that connects the exclusion of non-Western philosophies not with intellectual issues but with racist postures. Van Norden clarifies that one does not need to be racist to help to perpetuate racist positions. Thus, assuming that practically all the Philosophy professors would declare themselves as non-racist their rejection to open the debate about curriculums has a racist outcome. This is closely connected with the widespread belief that not committing wrongdoing means living a just life, but on multiple occasions, the omission, the lack of action about something unfair, the washing of Pontius Pilate's hands are the source of many injustices

The second part focuses on what are the merits that make these philosophies deserve a place and be considered worthy of, at least, the same treatment and study as their Anglo-European sisters. Also, different mechanisms are offered to make this incorporation possible, even if it is a gradual one. Van Norden uses many examples from Chinese Philosophy since that is his field of expertise, those in which he understands Chinese thinkers contributions are probably more lucid than Western ideas. In the last part of the book, Van Norden offers a general reflection of Philosophy as a subject and why is necessary to include it in any kind of studies. He defends a philosophy that works as a framework to all types of knowledge and that helps to analyze texts, and write our own and uses multiples examples to explain why not only philosophers need philosophy.

One of the methods that Van Norden uses to demonstrate the rigidity and mustiness of the Western academy is to question ideas that modern European Philosophy takes for granted by comparing them with the unprejudiced acumen of other philosophies. For example, the assumption that the universe is composed of distinct individual entities accepted as an axiom and claimed by both Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes is usually considered as the orthodoxy of Western Philosophy. However, Buddhist metaphysics and particularly Nagarsena (150 BCE) describes the world as formed of transitory states and properties which depend on other state and properties. So the individual distinction is something we accept as given but it is not in the substances themselves but they are only mere designations or names that simplify our lives and no being is there to be found behind them.

Likewise, Thomas Hobbes considered the father of political philosophy, see human beings as egoist and self-interested. This characteristic leads to confrontations and so people become enemies and the natural conclusion is a permanent state of war. This situation is for Hobbes ideal for the creation of governments that provide the coercive power that maintains the status quo under the fear of punishment. Citizens give up their rights to the government in exchange for protection. Unlike Hobbes, Confucius endorses a philosophy of Virtue instead of one of punish. He relies more purely on human nature and gives people the benefit of choosing their actions and trying to pursue a life of virtue. For Confucius punishment and repression only conduces to new forms of avoiding to evade the laws but convincing citizens of pursuing a life of Virtue is a nobler path which does not recurr to fear or repression to guarantee order. Other thinkers like Mengzi or Mencius (372–289 BC), Cheng Yi (1033–1107), or Zhu Xi (1130–1200), are also studied comparing their ideas with important thinkers from the West in fields such as ethics, metaphysics, or ontology.

The book offers a remarkable set of examples of the East-West philosophical debate and even finds time to discuss Trump and his passion for big walls, as seems inevitable in any book published in the US in the last months. In my opinion, the book makes a notable vindication of diversity in the academic world and also of Philosophy as a field that can not be dismissed as an old discipline, but on the contrary can be more relevant and decisive than ever. In addition, the book serves as a bridge to access other books that are generally found outside mainstream thought circuits, which is always well received. The request to incorporate more philosophers from different latitudes in the curriculum does not respond to a simple question of quotas, for the simple fact of having thinkers representing all continents, rather is based on the value of these philosopher's work and the relevant contribution they can do in the formation of students. From universities and centers of learning, the call to study more broadly and deeply should never be questioned but celebrated with joy and that is exactly what Bryan Van Norden and the campaign Decolonise our minds in SOAS are doing.

[1] Menschenkunde oder philosophische Anthropologie. Friedrich Christian Starke, hrsg. Leipzig: Die Expedition des europäischen Aufssehers, 1831.

I received a copy for a review from Columbia University Press through Net Galley.

[Jon Stout · Rating 4 out of 5]

A few years ago, I came across an article in The Stone column of the New York Times which I thought important enough to pass along to friends. “If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is” argued that philosophy as taught in the United States was limited to Anglo-American and European traditions, rather than being universal enough to include philosophy from throughout the world, such as Indian and Chinese. This argument resonated with my Peace Corps friends, as well as with my teacher friends, who had gone from teaching “Western Civilization” to teaching “Classics of World Literature.”

Bryan Van Norden, who along with Jay Garfield wrote the opinion piece, has gone on to extend the argument at book length. He points out numerous incidents of the parochialism in Anglo-European academia which rationalize excluding non-European sources from intellectual discussion, with examples ranging from Hegel to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to Cambridge philosopher G.E. Moore.

Van Norden offers specific examples of philosophical thinking, from Buddhist, Confucian, Taoist and Vedantist sources, which address the philosophical issues we think of as characteristic of the western tradition. He points out that some western philosophers have indeed been influenced by non-western sources. He broadens the argument from academic bias to include the anti-intellectual bias of much of society in general. He uses the term LCTP (less commonly taught philosophies) to include not only Asian traditions, but also African, Native American, Latin American, as well as feminist, LGBTQ, and others.

The author concludes with defining philosophy (itself an old philosophical activity) in such a way as to be tradition-neutral: philosophy is “dialogue about methodologically unsolved but important questions.” The goals of philosophical dialogue are “presenting arguments and clarifying alternatives,” as well as “providing substantially new perspectives or answers to questions.” I find Van Norden’s argument not only culturally liberating, but also personally inspiring.

[Sharad Pandian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book of importance to current academic philosophy, because it exposes the emperor's nakedness quite definitively.

It's made up of 5 chapters, with the 1st, 2nd, and 5th being excellent and I agree with just about everything argued for there. Unfortunately, I think chapter 3 raises a serious objection that Van Norden doesn't quite address, and chapter 4 should never have been published in this volume. I deal with all of this in detail below.


I. Why this book is great

I think the book succeeds in arguing for its central thesis in Chapters 1 and 2- that as long as philosophy departments see themselves as engaged in the pursuit of universally applicable truths, the exclusion of non-Western traditions is indefensible by their own lights.

He offers three arguments for this.

1. Many texts from other intellectual traditions fall squarely within the kinds of definitions offered for "philosophy". After all, the ancient Chinese philosophers engaged in subtle argumentation and theory construction just as much as any of the ancient Greeks, so it isn't clear why only the Greeks are considered special.

2. Even if we think that philosophy as is understood today originated in ancient Greece, the kinds of questions that arose and are still discussed today are seen as important by themselves at this point. And there are many actual debates within Chinese philosophy that have direct bearing on their Western counterparts, so there's not just an abstract possibility of relevance but a real relationship that should be explored.

3. the exclusion of non-Western texts isolates and alienated those who don't come a Western background, keeping away talented non-Western kids from philosophy.

Reason #2 is especially important and Van Norden does an admirable job of pointing out real debates in contemporary Western philosophy that could benefit from input from Chinese philosophers, and gives arguments from metaphysics, political philosophy, and ethics to showcase this. He points out that Western metaphysics and political philosophy both start off by assuming the primary unit of salience is the individual, and consequently spend an inordinate amount of time on puzzles about how bigger wholes made up of discreet individuals come and stay together, with regard to both metaphysical "substances" and political communities. In contrast, Chinese philosophers start with a picture of human beings where connections to others are important aspects of who a person is. Therefore it isn't considered particularly mysterious how communities of multiple individuals adhere, since it is seen as commonsensical that there is both an individual and collective aspect of identity.

If anything Van Norden under-emphasizes how ingrained these assumptions are to Western philosophy. While its true that Hobbes theorizes about how selfish individuals come together, these basic assumptions find their way into the theorizing of modern theorists like Rawls too (who justifies it on the grounds that minimal assumptions make the theory more plausible). And then Martha Nussbaum will argue against Rawls in Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership that the people "signing" the social contract don't have to be that same as those whom the social contract "protects". In an incredibly circuitous route, the assumptions of the Chinese philosophers make an appearance again.

In additions, the stance that others form a constitutive part of our selves, and that therefore we shouldn't assume atomistic individualism as basic is argued for by Michael Sandel in his Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Charles Taylor is celebrated for pointing out that we need others to build our sense of self, and Mary Midgley will insist that "understanding is fitting into context".

I take these examples to support both the idea that the West can learn from Eastern traditions, and that there is massive overlap in the themes explored in multiple traditions.

On a personal note, as someone who grew up in India and studied in Singapore, although I always found Western political philosophy more interesting in its relevance to modern institutions, I always found its assumption of atomistic individualism deeply implausible regarding my own experiences. I completely see why others of similar backgrounds may turn away from such philosophizing, if they see nothing that speaks to them.


II. An unanswered objection

One place that Van Norden doesn't quite respond to an objection adequately is regarding Allan Bloom's argument from his The Closing of the American Mind. According to this, it is important not just to provide young people with classics to read, but that a person first be tutored in a particular intellectual tradition for them to cultivate an identity rooted in specific particularities of their own, before they can engage meaningfully with others. Interestingly, Van Norden repeatedly points out positively that the current Chinese president Xi Jinping is trying to get China excited about Confucianism (even if it sometimes involves a superficial reading of the classic texts). Bloom might endorse Xi Jinping as participating in a philosophical project like his own, where a specific tradition is first taught, and only then students exposed to other texts.

I think this objection is important because for the most part Van Norden assumes that philosophy is right to consider itself as some general activity of the mind seeking universal truths. However, this position itself seems somewhat Cartesian, with a view-from-nowhere. If we thought that the Chinese were right that constitutive identities are important, then there really would be a need to inculcate people into a particular tradition first, and so Van Norden's call for egalitarianism of cultural texts right from the beginning for everyone might be pernicious.

Moreover, Van Norden himself seems to think that "There is more than one “great conversation” in the world, and more than one way to furnish a soul," so its not clear what his response can be to someone who argues for different parts of the world teaching their own local philosophical traditions extensively first, and only then teaching about others. I suppose, Van Norden could still argue that we would still need teachers of other traditions eventually even in this narrative, but his argument would be blunted.

This objection is particularly effective against Van Norden because he later defines philosophy as:

We are doing philosophy when we engage in dialogue about problems that are important to our culture but we don’t agree about the method for solving them...where “importance” ultimately gets its sense from the question of the way one should live.

If what is considered important varies by culture (even if with overlap), then according to this definition, what will be considered philosophy will itself vary culture by culture. So a position like Bloom's gets even more plausible.

(For my part, I think Western philosophy departments and perhaps Chinese ones have a special obligation to be diverse today because they have hoarded wealth and prestige to the point where non-Western students are forced to attend them if they want to have a real shot at a job. So sure, in an ideal world of fair distribution of wealth and influence, different philosophy departments can focus on their own local traditions, but hey, we don't live there. But note that this kind of reasoning does require ditching the self-conception of academic philosophy as engaging in a pristine and hermetic intellectual enterprise, and instead recognizing that philosophy exists amidst unfair distributions of power)


III. The parts of the book that were...meh (this is somewhat nitpicky)

Unfortunately, apart from all the really well-argued stuff, there's also a section that tries to defend philosophers from its haters. Apart from the fact that a lot of this is not new and a staple of any philosophy professor's spiel to first-year undergrads, it relies on a central equivocation.

"Philosophy" can be taken to refer to at least three distinct things:
1. Modern academic philosophy
2. The activity of the greats of the philosophical cannon that concerned themselves with thinking about how we should lead our lives.
3. The layperson's act of thinking philosophically

I think it's completely fair to think that there are links and similarities between all three, with maybe #1 and #2 being considered enhancements or systematized versions of #3. But I think all three are still distinct. However, Van Norden treats them as pretty much the same in the course of his argument.

For example, he points out that philosophy majors score very high in standardized testing and that they end up making a lot of money, which both seem very specific to #1. But he also criticizes #1 for obsessing with trivial puzzle solving instead on focusing on the big questions of importance, like how humans should live. But what if it is precisely this puzzle solving that helps students develop their minds in ways that help them score high in the LSAT? You don't have to think this is true, but its possibility shows that #1 and #2 do come apart.

In addition, there seem to be something vaguely anti-intellectual in this insistence that all philosophy needs to be concerned with fundamental questions of how we should live. As someone who thinks curiosity is a natural and fundamental impulse, I don't think philosophy needs to obsessively care about the question of how we should live in any explicit or systematic way to be considered legitimate.

(Also unrelated, in an effort to show that conservatives are paranoid, Van Norden points out that their regular predictions about how social progress will bring about the end of the world never come to pass. This is true, but this also seems somewhat unfair because there really were radical movements on the left, whose fruition would have brought about the worst of conservative predictions. So while its true for example that "Gays and lesbians...are happily integrated into [marriage]", we shouldn't forget that there was a fad in the 80s and 90s of radical queers denouncing marriage (check out Lee's Edelman's No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive for a particularly out-there version of this). Similarly, today's young people are increasingly supporting socialism and getting rid of gender entirely, which even if good, are still radical. So portraying conservative concerns as being entirely rooted in delusion isn't completely fair, because the left has always had loud utopian voices seeking to upend the world. To ignore this and give a revisionist history of conservatism vs. homogeneous centrism was out of place in an otherwise nuanced book.)


IV. Coming back to why this book is great

Even with all these issues, it should be remembered that the central thesis in section I above has been ably defended, and so the book is great just because of that.

But in addition, this is also a really well-written book because it is accessible, funny, and surprising. For example, after a few pages of some deeply uncharitably readings of Western philosophers, he goes:

My mainstream philosophical colleagues are champing at the bit to point out that I have taken these selections from Plato and Aristotle out of context. The allegory of the cave is part of a complex and subtle epistemological and ethical project. Aristotle’s poetic comment about pleasure comes at the end of a tightly argued discussion, and must be interpreted in the light of his nuanced view of properties. You’re quite right. But perhaps now you can understand my frustration with those who treat Chinese philosophy as nothing but context-less koans or fortune-cookie platitudes.

This is a hilarious way of making his point. And after a relatively dense section where he pinpoints the precise arguments and authors in Chinese philosophy with relevance to contemporary Western debates, Van Norden goes:

However, this chapter discusses subtle and complex issues in only a few pages, so I would be surprised if you found nothing you want to challenge. In fact, if you have no questions or objections, I’m disappointed in you.

I love this, this reminds me of all the best teachers I've had- possessing the ability to challenge you with new content but also inviting you to outmaneuver them right back. He's right that philosophy is one of the few places where a "hermeneutic of faith" is still practiced, and he makes his own argument (for the most part) with charity, patience, and humour, making it an academic philosophy text which is actually both insightful and enjoyable.

At the end of it all, the emperor's clothes have been revealed to be non-existent, and the farcical nature of a discipline which claims to pursue objective and universal truth while strangely managing to ignore the vast majority of intellectual traditions becomes undeniable.

That's not to say that all the questions have been answered by Van Norden, I've even pointed out some questions above. It is also unclear how much diversity will a department need to have for fairness, and if this will vary depending of contextual factors (probably). But I for one also look forward to the new comparative studies that will inevitably rise when different traditions are allowed to meet. For example, Franklin Perkins' fascinating paper, The Greatest Mistake, argues that one reason modern Science didn't take off in China was the coherent and reasonable metaphysics employed there, unlike the then unwarranted claims to the possibility of knowledge made by Christian Europeans. This is a (possible) pattern invisible without alternative traditions to learn from and contrast, and who knows how many more patterns are out there, waiting to be discovered. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, “he who knows only his own philosophical tradition knows little of that."

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book’s introduction and first chapter argue against a Eurocentric philosophical perspective and for the incorporation of non-Western (i.e. Indian, Chinese, African, and Indian-American) into the body of philosophical thought. The resistance to this type of argument has been fierce according to the author, thus illustrating the depth of bias in the way that philosophy is understood.

The Earth is round and presumably other cultural and philosophical traditions have a point of view about the self’s place within a larger cosmic context, including ethics and what it means to live a good, virtuous life. Studying non-Western thoughts and practices provides insights on universal themes (similar issues and treatments across all cultures), but they also provide a healthy perspective on Western philosophy, including the implicit if not explicit racism that is involved (white, Western is sophisticated; non-white, non-Western is primitive). (1)

Had the author left his book there, it would have been excellent. Unfortunately, most of the rest was a defense of philosophy as a profession against those who question its value and the author comes across as its petulant defender. For him, philosophy is the queen of knowledge from which the sciences evolved. That’s one way of putting it. The other is to say it is that the sciences decided to get real and left unreal philosophical cogitation behind. Van Norden persists with his philosophical superiority argument by denigrating those who question it – those with mere “B.A.’s in political science,” or Hawking and deGrasse Tyson (the “edu.tainer”) who, unlike Einstein and Schrodinger, were not Nobel Prize winners. (2) The author admits up front that his publisher wanted him to write something “cheeky,” but I found his writing manner off-putting.

The author’s philosophical perspective is quasi-religious. It’s about the “hermeneutics of faith” (his term), with its Biblical overtones. It’s about Socratic dialogue that, from an alternative point of view, comes across as one-way monologues and intellectual bullying that is anything but an honest dialogue. Socrates had his agenda. His truth was about an eternal and divine realm from which all else, including especially, this material world, is secondary. Socrates was a mouthpiece for Plato’s mystical and religious worldview, as expressed in Plato's full body of work (the dialogues), including inconveniently and seldom mentioned, the Laws that implemented Plato’s divine mission on earth. (3)

Van Norden mentions Einstein and Schrodinger because they refer to the philosophical implications of modern physics. He references these figures to justify his claim that philosophy is the highest of intellectual endeavors since these physicists ask philosophical questions, but the questions they ask are about as far away from the concerns of academic philosophy as one could get. Einstein and Schrodinger are about this world materiality – how it works and its underlying form and the ultimate fate of the cosmos. As opposed to Van Norden’s metaphysics, their philosophical questions emerge from a this-world science, not in lieu of it. So, to add to the Van Norden theme in his first chapter, a following chapter could have been written about philosophy’s need, as a discipline, to incorporate the philosophical implications of sciences for their profession. This includes physics and cosmology for sure, but also biological being and the universal forms that lie within us and not, Plato-like, lie beyond. (4)

(1) A good part of the Western philosophical tradition seems infected with claims about eternal truth, which means there can be little tolerance for alternative perspectives that smack of relativism.

(2) “It is tempting to point out that the two scientists I have quoted who praise philosophy, Einstein and Schrodinger, each won the Nobel Prize in physics, while neither of the two scientists I have quoted who disparage philosophy has won one. However, that would be a snarky observation to make, so I won’t do it.”

(3) Van Norden refers, favorably, to Martin Luther King’s comment that Plato’s Republic was right up there with the Bible as his favorite books. This is not a surprise given the close association between Plato’s writings and Christian writings just a few centuries later. It might be argued that the theocratic tendencies seen today are extensions of Plato’s thought – the Socratic mission, the Laws, early and current Christian evangelism, Augustine’s The City of God, and Pico’s The Oration of Man, etc.

(4) For example, James Maffie’s book on Aztec philosophy is not just a non-Western perspective. It is about an all-pervasive energy stream that is at odds with Van Norden’s Platonic and other-worldly perspective with its eternal stasis and that is more akin to Schopenhauer’s Will, Freud’s energy model, and the impersonal energy of Tao. For life, the question is where does this energy come from if not biology and evolution and physics? That is not discussed, but this is the value of looking at philosophy from an interdisciplinary, as well as a non-Western, approach.

[Tom Burdge · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book isn't great, I wish it was.

First, what it gets right. I strongly agree with Van Norden that less commonly taught philosophies (for instance feminist, continental, africana, Chinese) should be taught at a much higher rate in English speaking philosophy departments. Van Norden and Garfield's New York Times Article had already provided enough argument to justify this conclusion. I decided it would be wrong to give this review less than 3 stars, given that I agree with the central aim of the book.
Furthermore, Van Norden is a foremost expert in Chinese Philosophy, so his outline of Chinese philosophy's relevance to critical issues in analytic and English speaking philosophy is excellent.

However, I have some significant issues with the book. I do worry that I might come across as being "too woke" for a philosophy book that seems to be advocating some things I agree with, but this is still what i think.
i. Van Norden's chapter on wall building in philosophy doesn't quite work as an analogy. Like Van Norden, I don't like Trump and I don't like walls in philosophy. But eurocentrism within philosophy hardly seems like something that can be located in the rise of the right in the last decade or so; its an injustice that has been a central part of 'western' philosophy for hundreds of years. The comparison almost underplays the issue in philosophy
ii. The author is quite light in talking about the people whom the changes he recommends would affect. He only very briefly mentions how the comparative lack of ethnic diversity on philosophy courses might be influenced by the nationality of the philosophers studies. At no point does he make use of testimony from students of colour, or (I think) even contemporary philosophers of colour.
iii. At various point the author talks about how the 'free market' will correct certain things on its own. This seems like a very odd view to hold in a book written about an instance of failure of free market forces
iv. Why is there a warrior in armour on the cover? This seems to invoke quite an Orientalist image that is unhelpful to an attempt to be more inclusive and welcoming of a geographically wider breadth of people and philosophy.
V. The final chapter is quite odd. It's meant to serve as a defence of philosophy as something to study, but includes multiple side tracks about lazy and rich students who 'smoke "weed"'
Vi. Issues of diversity and multiculturalism are rather more complicated than Van Norden suggests in this book. It does initially sound great to recommend that philosophy departments 'diversify' to include a broader breadth of philosophy. This recommendation's significant oversight is ignoring why the geographic chauvinism has been allowed to happen; philosophy in western departments is overwhelmingly valued by white people. The eurocentric problem will persist even when a department makes genuine attempt at 'diversification' because white habitus (an all white environment) means what is valued is what satisfies specifically white values. For instance, the least radical parts of Fanon end up being taught, and only the parts of Buddhist philosophy that are relevant to analytic philosophy of mind. The author's ignoring of issues such as this borders on the naive.
(^This is my most complex criticism and likely the most controversial. I'm always interested to hear peoples' thoughts)

[Derek Hopper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Back in 2016 the professor of Chinese philosophy Bryan Van Norden and Jay Garfield wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times entitled “If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is“. The headline was clever in a cynical, clickbaity way: ostensibly the authors were suggesting that philosophy departments rename themselves departments of “Anglo-European” philosophy to better convey their ethnocentricity, but in reality the headline was a leftist dog whistle, accusing whole departments of racism.

Anyway, the article led me to read this book: “Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto“, which expands on the ideas put forward in the op-ed. As far as philosophy goes Van Norden makes a very compelling argument, and it’s clear that many detractors of the idea of diversifying philosophy curricula in the west are profoundly ignorant of non-western thinkers.

To accusations that Chinese or Indian philosophy “aren’t real philosophies” Van Norden asks a series of hypnotically convincing semi-rhetorical questions:

“I would ask Pigliucci (or the ghost of Scalia) why he thinks that the Mohist state-of-nature argument to justify government authority is not philosophy. What does he make of Mengzi’s reductio ad absurdum against the claim that human nature is reducible to desires for food and sex? Why does he dismiss Zhuangzi’s version of the infinite regress argument for skepticism? What is his opinion of Hanfeizi’s argument that political institutions must be designed so that they do not depend upon the virtue of political agents? What does he think of Zongmi’s argument that reality must fundamentally be mental, because it is inexplicable how consciousness could arise from matter that was nonconscious? Why does he regard the Platonic dialogues as philosophical, yet dismiss Fazang’s dialogue in which he argues for and responds to objections against the claim that individuals are defined by their relationships to others? What is his opinion of Wang Yangming’s arguments for the claim that it is impossible to know what is good yet fail to do what is good? Does he find convincing Dai Zhen’s effort to produce a naturalistic foundation for ethics in the universalizability of our natural motivations? What does he make of Mou Zongsan’s critique of Kant, or Liu Shaoqi’s argument that Marxism is incoherent unless supplemented with a theory of individual ethical transformation? Does he prefer the formulation of the argument for the equality of women given in the Vimalakirti Sutra, or the one given by the Neo-Confucian Li Zhi, or the one given by the Marxist Li Dazhao?”

This series of questions alone seemed a convincing enough argument to me that there is space for Chinese and Indian philosophy in the western academy. It is obvious that a dialogue between multiple traditions would be possible, just as Aristotle complemented medieval Christian thought. But Van Norden lets himself down when he writes at the start of the book that white people are soon going to be a minority in the US and that if they want people to be interested in the field they need to start diversifying. After illustrating why these other philosophies deserve a place at the table he falls back on a “diversity for diversity’s sake” argument, which to me is as weak as arguments get. Give me meritocracy or give me death.

He is often uncharitable and needlessly catty. He accuses Immanuel Kant—an 18th century oddball genius who almost never left his little hometown—of being a racist, making the word even more meaningless than it already is. Yet a chapter or two later he excuses the 20th century Continental philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer’s reluctance to embrace non-western thought as “part of the limited cultural horizon in which the philosopher came to maturity.”

Probably the weirdest part of the book is when he brings up Bristol Palin, suggesting that her falling pregnant as a teenager is a motherly flaw on the part of Sarah Palin. A teenager being named in a book about philosophy because of her mother’s unpopularity among American liberals goes beyond any editor’s request for something “cheeky”. Bizarrely this occurs about twenty pages after he quotes Ezekiel 18:20: “The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity”.

By sheer coincidence I watched a TED talk given by Peter Singer just a few days before I read this book. At the start of the video Singer shows the audience video footage of a 2 year old girl in China being run over by a van. Strangers walk past her bloodied body before another vehicle runs over her. Singer informs us that the girl succumbed to her injuries on the way to the hospital.

Van Norden describes Hobbes’ pessimistic vision of human nature as “not just ugly”, but also “demonstrably mistaken”. He quotes the 4th century BCE Chinese philosopher Mengzi, who believed the opposite of Hobbes, that “humans all have hearts that are not unfeeling toward others”:

“Suppose someone suddenly saw a child about to fall into a well: everyone in such a situation would have a feeling of alarm and compassion—not because one sought to get in good with the child’s parents, not because one wanted fame among their neighbors and friends, and not be- cause one would dislike the sound of the child’s cries. From this we can see that if one is without the heart of compassion, one is not a human.”

Clearly the men who walked past the little girl dying on the street were human. Perhaps Mengzi wouldn’t have thought so but then modern biology leaves no room for sophistry. So our options are that a) Marxism destroyed the Confucian ethics that dominated Chinese life for millennia, which is an argument I’d entertain, or that b) Hobbes was right about people after all.

Finally, I didn’t enjoy the parochial attacks on Trump and the Republicans in general. Van Norden’s argument was one that should stand the test of time, but an obsession with American conservatives in certain sections spoiled parts of it for me. I enjoyed his scathing attacks on the anti-intellectualism in American politics, which were fair and accurate. But very little venom was aimed at the academics who dismiss his request for diversity, perhaps because American humanities departments are overwhelmingly Democrat/leftist.

Despite all my criticisms the book is extremely well-written, and above all truly enjoyable to read. I agreed with almost everything presented in the book but would have preferred less Trump. The hysteria surrounding that man’s presidency is mind-bogglingly annoying. I can’t even begin to imagine what it must be like to live in the US.

[Biblio Curious · Rating 5 out of 5]

It begins with the cheekiest chapter worthy of the most gasps since The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. The main point of both these books is, don't be Eurocentric. But that's where their similarity ends.

In a mere 150 pages, Norden takes us on a journey starting with the very, very basics of Asian culture. He basically starts us off with, yes, they use chopsticks. He breaks down the study of philosophy & calls it by what is commonly studied over here "Anglo-Euro Philosophy" His arguments to support this are what make this book very relative.

I firmly believe that Eastern Philosophy is every bit as rich, complex & worthy of respectable study as Western Philosophy. So I found Norden's early arguments laugh out loud comical. I had no idea a prominent Anglo-Euro Philosopher didn't know Confucius had sleeves but would loudly proclaim Confucianism unworthy of philosophical study and that it belongs in the World Religions Department, not a Philosophy one. Norden clearly says to claim Chinese Philosophy inferior based on barely reading the Chinese equivalent of Socrates to be, well, foolish & nearsighted. He spends pages basically listing the History of Chinese Philosophers for us & their key topics in bite sized fortune cookie bits for our easy readability.

Am I oversimplifying what this book set out to accomplish? Yes, because that's only the 1st 10 pages of the 1st chapter. The rest is less comical, he gets down to business and stops poking fun at us.

As a whole, his arguments are clear with plenty of endnotes for our convenience. And he concludes with the very worthy arguments that liberal arts are crucial & need us today more than ever, philosophy as a whole can benefit from conversing across traditions and there's even more schools of philosophy that he hasn't mentioned including: Africana, Native American and those that largely emerged from the Anglo-European ones -- Feminist, LGBTQ, Continental, Islamic, Jewish, Christian & Latin American.

This is just a lengthy summary of the book's arguments so there is plenty more to discover in these mere 150 pages of arguments & almost 50 pages of endnotes. I recommend it for current students at colleges & universities, high schoolers hoping to attend higher education and welders who share a fabulous chapter with philosophers.

A link to an article that's responsible for this book's publication. Apparently there's a reddit too because well, philosophers will talk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/op...

[Jessica Zu · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ll give it a 10 star if I can. it totally revamped the way I see philosophy and myself … I am legitimately a philosopher! as defined by Prof. Van Nodern: philosophy is about addressing methodologically unresolved but important questions …
I am a kick-ass philosopher!

[Elena K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Strong case for why philosophy departments in the US should expand their hermeneutics of faith to non Anglo-European philosophies

[Hawkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

great book, readable, and expands philosophy.

[Robert Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable little rant.

[Kristofer Petersen-Overton · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s a pity this book even has to be written because the central argument is painfully obvious, intellectually and morally. Van Norden aptly demolishes the hubris of (overwhelmingly white male) academic philosophy in the first couple of chapters, including the lame responses to the original NY Times op-ed (Nicholas Tampio’s Aeon piece in particular). But then the book winds down into a rather broad defense of the humanities and philosophy in particular. I’m not sure anyone reading this book agrees with Marco Rubio or Ben Carson on this topic... so the second half struck me as a little beside the point. I think it would have made more sense to instead address curricular issues directly. Why is philosophy of all fields specifically so deeply parochial? And what is to be done about it? He mentions early on that change will likely come from students and not faculty... I think that’s probably correct, but the idea is never fleshed out. Perhaps a chapter on pedagogical methods would have been useful - some discussion of tangible measures educators can take right now towards decolonizing their syllabi.

[Kerry Pickens · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author debates that academia focus only on Western philosophy, and refused to acknowledge that Eastern (and Middle Eastern for that matter) philosophy is militantly ignored. The reason for this is based on White Privilege, and in my honest opinion also influenced by Christianity. The other philosophy's are more interwove with the culture's religious beliefs such as Buddhism and Judaism. The other factor may be that Western thinking is based on deduction, and Eastern thinking on synthesis. The college curriculum may contain courses on Eastern literature or religion but you will find even fewer courses on Jewish literature or religion. This is an interesting fact since the deniers ignore that these cultures existed thousands of years before the Western culture. Aboriginal and African culture as a philosophical basis is largely ignored by academia as well.

[GONZA · Rating 4 out of 5]

What is the multicultural philosophy? Is it true that the "real philosophers" where only to be found in the western world? Then what about Confucius and the Chinese philosophy`? Can we say that there is a dialogue going on between the different traditions? And what about the Indians? And what does LCTP means? To this and some other questions the author tries to answer in a clear way to show how important it is not to consider philosophy only the "usual" one.

THANKS TO NETGALLEY FOR THE PREVIEW!

[Geertje · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pleasant read. The writing style is incredibly light, but Van Norden still manages to get every point across clearly and concisely. Van Norden offers a nice variety of examples and theories from LCTP (Less Commonly Thought Philosophy), mostly Chinese or otherwise Eastern Asian, and highlights how universities ought to integrate non-Western thinkers in their curriculum.

Van Norden is very concerned with education and politics in the US, so the book is very US-centred. That would not have been a problem for me if not for the fact that his opinions on US politics often felt irrelevant to or even detracted from his thesis, for me. Some jabs at conservatives felt unnecessary (how is the passage on how anti-LGBT conservative professor Allan Bloom may have died on AIDS relevant at all, apart from an out-of-place kind of Schadenfreude?).

In chapter 4 Van Norden defends the value of philosophy in the context of anti-intellectualism in the US - a nice self-congratulatory read as a philosophy student. But what struck me is that he defends this part while hardly ever referring to LCTP at all! Hence, I felt that this book is a bit unsure about what it wants to be: is it a manifesto for more integration of LCTP in curricula (I'm fully convinced on this part) or is it a manifesto about the value of philosophy in education and life in general? And if it is both, why not integrate these two theses with one another? Despite of my confusion over this, I thought this was a very breezy read that has stimulated me to seek out more LCTP of my own.

[Jonah Dunch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Van Norden's book is a lively exhortation to make philosophy a cosmopolitan enterprise. Not since reading Plato's Apologia as a teen have I felt so energized to study and change philosophy--and through it, the world--for the better.

That said, it's not perfect. (If I could, I'd give it a 4.7, but I'm rounding up.) In Chapter 4, Van Norden trots out some of the more tired arguments against philosophy's detractors: Other disciplines started in philosophy! Newton called himself a natural philosopher after all! Neil deGraase Tyson is a Doctor of Philosophy! Philosophy majors get jobs, actually, and look at all these accomplished philosophy majors!

(And oddly enough, Van Norden mainly uses Western examples when supporting philosophy in public life. This makes sense since at this point he's exclusively addressing an American context--but even so, returning to his East Asian examples would have bolstered the book's general target.)

Thankfully, these points are confined mostly to passing remarks, and stronger arguments carry the chapter.

The final chapter uses moving examples to highlight philosophy's importance to human life across geography and history. I finished it feeling inspired by Van Norden's vision of public-facing, multicultural philosophy in our contemporary globalized moment. Long live the way of Socrates and Confucius!

[Hasti · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess I kind of misunderstood what the book was gonna be. I personally thought it was gonna be a book full of different multi cultural philosophies to compare and support or like discuss- But it is actually about why multi cultural (There was mostly written about Chinese philosophy but the point was all philosophies) philosophies should also be teached and discussed more.

The feels like an discussion, which I like, and even though it wasn't what I expected it to be, I still give it 3 starts because I like the intend of the book and agree.

[Hasti · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess I kind of misunderstood what the book was gonna be. I personally thought it was gonna be a book full of different multi cultural philosophies to compare and support or like discuss- But it is actually about why multi cultural (There was mostly written about Chinese philosophy but the point was all philosophies) philosophies should also be teached and discussed more.

The feels like an discussion, which I like, and even though it wasn't what I expected it to be, I still give it 3 starts because I like the intend of the book and agree.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a stirring and highly accessible book in defense of liberal arts education, philosophy in particular, and the tremendous importance of expanding the commonly taught philosophical canon beyond Anglo-European sources. Many of the examples draw from Chinese philosophy, since that is the author’s specialty, but a variety of other traditions are considered as well.

Also has some good examples demonstrating what a jerk Antonin Scalia was, lest we forget.

[Brian LePort · Rating 5 out of 5]

A robust defense of the legitimacy of philosophy outside of the “western” canon that’s intends to ruffle some feathers but equally a robust defense of philosophy itself against its detractors (e.g. Hawking; deGrasee Tyson). Very readable. Wrestles with philosophical questions but also does meta-philosophy about philosophy.

[Dee Michell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Regretting I wasn't a philosophy major now...loved Van Norden's inclusive approach. The fabulous Alain de Botton might not have gone out on his own if he'd had Van Norden as a teacher, and I might have hung in with more philosophy than I did.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A highly readable introduction to the (until now largely ignored) potential for individual and social enrichment if we would expand the curriculum of philosophy programs, and of the liberal arts generally, to include "less commonly taught philosophies." With a cute joke about Erwin Schrodinger.

[Neal Javia]

Need of the hour!

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is rare that a philosopher manages to get their point across clearly and concisely. This book is a standout as the author does exactly that.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

cookies

[Eric Bottorff · Rating 3 out of 5]

100% on board with the message, but think the author had trouble expanding the argument for a whole book. Nonetheless wish every philosopher would read this.

[r · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Let me repeat the central point: Most professional philosophers have neither studied nor taught, nor considered creating positions for those who do study or teach, nor considered giving centrality in the philosophy curriculum to any philosophy pursued in any non-Western culture. Nonetheless, everyone in our profession who has studied or taught this material seriously agrees that there is a massive body of philosophically sophisticated, well-argued, and important work in non-Western philosophical traditions. Moreover, scholars who have studied this literature agree that it is of the same kind of PhilosoPhy pursued in the West, and that it addresses similar issues, albeit with distinct perspectives, and that it offers distinctive arguments and positions.
“It follows that ignoring this work is both epistemically and morally reprehensible.”