A group blog of scholars exploring Indian philosophy
Happy belated Solstice to all! I hope everyone is having a good holiday. Thanks to Elisa Freschi and Malcolm Keating for prompting me to post about interpretation and explication. The distinction between interpretation and explication to my knowledge has not Continue reading Interpretation vs. Explication I: background (Truth and Objectivity)
We can answer the question “What is it?” for a religion or worldview by proceeding either sociologically or doctrinally. […] In philosophy, for example, the question “But is it philosophy?” can be not so much a question about the boundaries Continue reading “But is Indian thought really philosophy?”
Roy W. Perrett. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. 249pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. $34.99 (paperback). When introducing the wide-range of Indian philosophy to a new audience, there have been two major approaches: the schools approach and the topics approach. Continue reading Book Review of An Introduction to Indian Philosophy by Roy W. Perrett (Reviewed by Matthew R. Dasti)
Cross-posted on Love of All Wisdom. Last time I examined Andrew Ollett’s distinction between “decision-oriented” texts like Kant’s Grounding and “capacity-oriented” texts like Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga, and the ways in which that distinction might suggest a “philosophical” versus a “historical” approach Continue reading Philosophical and historical uses together
Cross-posted at Love of All Wisdom. Andrew Ollett has recently taken up the point I made earlier this year that Buddhist ethics, in distinction from modern analytical ethics, is not primarily concerned with decision procedure. He identifies Indian non-analytic approaches Continue reading Decision and capacity, philosophical and historical
Anand Vaidya is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Comparative Philosophy at San Jose State University, and one of this site’s bloggers. His work is in epistemology, philosophy of mind, and critical thinking–all of which he Continue reading An interview with Anand Vaidya
[Cross-posted at Love of All Wisdom.] A little while ago, responding to Garfield and Van Norden’s call for diversity in philosophy, I argued that we should fight for the inclusion of non-Western thought in philosophy programs on the grounds of Continue reading On al-Ghazālī and the cultural specificity of philosophy
Last week there was a call from political science professor Nicholas Tampio to narrowly define philosophy as a discipline responding either directly to Plato’s Republic or at least part of a self-consciously Socratic-Platonic tradition of inquiry. I recommend reading Tampio’s essay, “Not Continue reading Where is Philosophy?: A Response to Nicholas Tampio
[Cross-posted at Love of All Wisdom.] Does it matter whether something is or isn’t Buddhist? Or whether it is “distinctively” Buddhist? I was asked these related questions in two blog discussions from last year, both involving Justin Whitaker. Justin raised Continue reading Does it matter what we call Buddhist?
At the beginning of the month, there was an interdisciplinary conference in Kanazawa, Japan–the International Conference on Ethno-Epistemology – Culture, Language, and Methodology. Jonardon Ganeri gave a keynote presentation, “Pluralism about Epistemic Cultures” and Anand Vaidya, along with Purushottama Billimoria, gave Continue reading Epistemology and Comparative Philosophy in Confluence and the APA Blog