Eurocentrism and Chinese philosophy Flashcards
(25 cards)
What is the main question posed in Week 16?
The central question is whether ‘Chinese philosophy’ can truly be called philosophy in the same way as Western traditions. This challenges the Eurocentric assumption that philosophy is inherently Western and asks us to rethink what counts as philosophical thinking.
What is Carine Defoort’s main argument in her article?
Defoort highlights a tension: either we stretch the definition of philosophy to include Chinese thought and risk distortion, or we exclude it and risk reinforcing Eurocentrism. She doesn’t offer a definitive answer but urges cautious, context-sensitive engagement.
Why is calling Chinese thought ‘philosophy’ potentially problematic?
Applying the term ‘philosophy’ might force Chinese texts into Western categories like logic or metaphysics, ignoring the cultural context and original intentions—similar to translating poetry and losing its rhythm and nuance.
What are the risks of excluding Chinese thought from philosophy?
It suggests that only Western thought qualifies as rational or philosophical, perpetuating a colonial mindset. It’s like saying only oil paintings count as ‘art’, while ignoring calligraphy or sculpture.
What middle ground does Defoort propose regarding Chinese philosophy?
She suggests understanding Chinese thought on its own terms first, analyzing how it behaves like philosophy (e.g., in ethical or metaphysical reasoning), rather than immediately categorizing it.
What did Hegel claim about non-European philosophy?
Hegel argued that no philosophical knowledge exists in the Orient or Africa, reinforcing a Eurocentric narrative of intellectual superiority that justified colonial hierarchies.
How did Kant reflect Eurocentric thinking in his philosophy?
Kant claimed the ‘white race’ had reached the highest form of humanity and that the Chinese lacked understanding of moral concepts, embedding racist ideas into philosophical foundations.
What was Heidegger’s stance on non-Western philosophy?
Heidegger claimed that philosophy is inherently Greek, denying that Indian or Chinese traditions were philosophical—equating European being with philosophical essence.
Why is Derrida’s view controversial in this debate?
Although Derrida questioned metaphysics, he still claimed China had ‘thought’ but not ‘philosophy’, showing how deeply ingrained the Western monopoly on philosophy can be—even among critics.
What sparked renewed debate on Chinese philosophy in the 2000s?
Derrida’s 2001 comment in China—that China had no philosophy—provoked strong reactions, leading to a major debate among Chinese scholars on the legitimacy of their philosophical tradition.
What were Hu Shi’s contributions to the history of Chinese philosophy?
Hu Shi sought to show that ancient Chinese schools—like Confucianism and Daoism—contained seeds of logic and science, aiming to prove that China too had philosophy in the Western sense.
What was Feng Youlan’s alternative approach to Chinese philosophy?
Feng Youlan emphasized Chinese philosophy’s unique features, like its emphasis on self-cultivation, and argued that it complements rather than mirrors Western traditions.
How did Hu Shi and Feng Youlan differ in their strategies?
Hu Shi tried to prove Chinese thought matched Western categories (logic, science), while Feng Youlan acknowledged China’s difference and framed it as a strength—an independent contribution.
What is ‘self-cultivation’ in Chinese philosophy?
Self-cultivation refers to the practical, ethical pursuit of becoming a sage. Unlike speculative Western metaphysics, it focuses on living well—a bit like Stoicism but more integrated into daily life.
What are some arguments against the term ‘Chinese philosophy’?
Critics argue that reading ancient texts as philosophy distorts their meaning by isolating them from their broader literary, historical, or religious contexts and forcing Western categories upon them.
What do critics suggest we do instead of calling it philosophy?
They propose returning to the texts themselves, avoiding misleading Western labels, and situating Chinese texts in their full cultural and textual contexts.
What are the main arguments in favor of ‘Chinese philosophy’?
Supporters note that there’s no consensus on what philosophy even is in the West, so excluding Chinese thought lacks a fair standard. Also, early Europeans like Jesuits called Confucius a philosopher.
Why is the comparison to Plato important in this debate?
If ancient Chinese thought is excluded for not being systematic or logical enough, then so should Plato—whose dialogues often lack formal logic or scientific method by today’s standards.
How did Jesuit missionaries treat Confucianism?
They saw Confucius as a philosopher and translated his work accordingly, showing that earlier European thinkers recognized Chinese thought as philosophical.
What does the Confucius Sinarum Philosophus (1687) illustrate?
It’s a 17th-century European work that presents Confucius as a philosopher, highlighting that earlier definitions of philosophy were broader and more inclusive.
What does the institutional bias in philosophy curricula reveal?
Curricula overwhelmingly focus on Western thinkers. For example, a study at KU Leuven showed 75% of philosophy content was implicitly Western, with almost no Chinese content.
What role did colonialism play in shaping the philosophical canon?
Colonial ideology reinforced the idea that philosophy was a European achievement. Dismissing African and Asian thought as ‘non-philosophical’ helped justify domination.
How can including Chinese philosophy help decolonize the curriculum?
It broadens the philosophical canon and challenges the idea that rational inquiry is exclusive to Europe, though care must be taken not to distort the original texts.
What is the paradox in calling Chinese thought ‘philosophy’?
Doing so may reinforce Eurocentrism by forcing it into Western molds, but not doing so implies philosophy is uniquely European—either way, there’s tension.
