What the guy on the left is saying (which everyone else on the stage just glosses over--and to be fair he is being very indirect and not too clear--using a lot of passive voice--because he's trying to be generous) is that, of course, Indian, Chinese, or Islamic philosophy should be studied...just like Plato and Aristotle are studied, i.e. as part of history of philosophy. His argument, which seems pretty sound, is that, within analytic philosophy (which just IS philosophy in the Anglo-American realm), if these other traditions have potentially valid insights worthy of being considered, then these insights can be framed in the form of logical arguments just like any other argument, and the fact that they come from a particular tradition is just as irrelevant as what town some analytic philosopher happened to grow up in. The other three on the stage, in contrast, see the analytic tradition as just "white, male, Eurocentric" trying to pass itself off as the default so it's no wonder they don't respond to his larger point. These speakers could sit on that stage for days and they'll just keep going around in circles because Williamson says philosophy is essentially a scientific endeavor (science minus testing of empirical data = analytic philosophy) whereas for the other three, a la Derrida, philosophy is essentially literature or, worse, rhetoric.
@MrTadabat5 жыл бұрын
So, ii's not about 'decolonizing' -whatever that means- but about getting genetic recognition without a substantial contribution to science.
@tankgrief10315 жыл бұрын
Do you think they mean De-colonialising? Damn this Western thought that landed men on the moon.
@Dahir3215 жыл бұрын
The title of the video would inevitably bring trolls and idiots as shown by the majority of comments.
@billiecrouse80025 жыл бұрын
What crud are these con-artists trying to pull off.