My impression is that national pride infuses university education in Europe in a way that is not found in American universities. There are foundational courses, and then there are electives. It's difficult to argue Emerson, James, Peirce and Dewey are foundational.
I also think Americans resist being shown that they are "Americans." Imbued with the myth of "individualism," we resist such characterizations. I imagine US philosophy depts are having a hard enough time without requiring undergrads to take a course in "American" philosophy.
I do think our current national crisis is causing Americans to reckon with context: a national soul-searching about how we abided the disavowal of our own history for so long. Perhaps a collective shadow-ownership will help us to own the integral contexts we treat as immaterial.
Isn’t it mind-boggling that you can get a BA in philosophy in the United States and not read Emerson, James, Peirce and Dewey? In France everyone has to read Descartes and Bacon. In Scotland they read Hume with pride. I find it mind-boggling.
Well if you think topically rather than historically
That’s interesting think about place in relation to how our first universities were formed and Boston is our first philosophical city. And New England more generally. Place also matters for the development of African American philosophy.
That's you just finding a way out of how critical I am about the hegemony of the position you are endorsing. I think you are objectively wrong about that, and would challenge that reading of how you first intended influence.
That's a very good reason to read them. If we appreciated the humanities & saw philosophy for the form of literature it is, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But bc y'all want philosophy to be as close to science as possible, it's never a form of literature.
No, Peirce is not with you. Insofar as the ideas have an impact on the consensus of a community of inquiry...then yes. If that's how you see math. Philosophy is wisdom for acting and living in the world. It's not about theoretical capture, but about improving our lives.
Now, we're talking. William James Studies just had a special issue on the relation between Peirce and James. I understood comm as a community of scientific experts, so yeah. I also think that it's not just a hypothetical test, but how he saw himself in relation to others.
I see what you're saying (I did my undergrad thesis on Peirce) but I think it's more a function of downstream influence: you kind of need Descartes and Hume to make sense of any contemporary discussion in LEMM and the American pragmatists haven't had that influence unfortunately
Maybe we mean different things by ‘influence’ here. The percentage of philosophers working in the analytic tradition is much much higher than those who don’t in the Anglo-sphere (which has the most unis per capita) and even a fair bit higher on the European continent.
Continental figures have probably had more influence on the humanities generally, but your original post was about what’s taught in phil departments specifically
It’s less taught but there’s a chicken-and-egg issue here. The best way to get more people interested in it is for professional philosophers to themselves become interested in the ideas, as they will then voluntarily teach it. But the best way to get professionals interested isn’t to insist they teach it prior to any interest in it
[Growing up in India, I realized that the lack of trust, irrationality, magical thinking, absence of creativity, tyranny, immorality, and economic backwardness are connected. You cannot change any of these in isolation, which is why changing society is virtually impossible.] - JB
Libertarian Autobiographies containing a chapter by me is out. "The values Westerners take for granted as universal are conspicuous by their absence outside the West. Once these values have slipped away, it could take a few millennia to build back..."
I didn't know what "families" meant until I arrived in the UK, even though mine was already among the better ones in India. Indians have no love for each other, just envy and hatred. Relationships are mutually exploitative. Any group of two people has one person too many.
That is how you see things when you have lived outside India for long. The biggest reason is actually Indians, who are indifferent, greedy, lustful, self-centered, amoral, and apathetic, not only with those outside their families & their community but even within their families.
The biggest reason for Indian Poverty being a major problem today is INDIFFERENCE, APATHY AND WORTHLESS AND BRAINLESS LEADERSHIP
There is no bigger lie than the happy Hindu family. The only reason why families even tolerate each other is because of HUF law. Otherwise the norm is to poison, burn, chop, strangle and bury family members. Both in reality and metaphorically
It is the caste logic which connects this subcontinental consciousness. We are ontologically savage adjacent. By evoking racial locations, mere bhai, you cannot absolve the Hindus. Their biggest and most fatal contribution is the caste logic. So bro, its all about Hindus.
It's got nothing to do with Hindus per say
It's a brown people issue. Brown people in the UK or US act exactly the same way. Similarly, Pak and BD folks are exactly the same
Only a few brown people can rise above this
Notice how they're all pushing the blame to someone else
The Western countries & East Asia have the culture of integrity and ingenuity. I am originally from a country that was never colonized by the West. I can confidently say that without Western ideas & values, the world will be a poorer place.