Even Wikipedia has already moved away from equating the history of philosophy with the history of Western philosophy. In its entry "History of philosophy" "Western", "Arabic-Persian", "Indian", "Chinese" and "Others" are mentioned. So there are already beginnings of recognition that philosophy, in the sense of dealing with deep, difficult questions or questions that are fundamental to human existence, is not tied to individual cultures but is as originally human as we assume art and music to be. Based on this assumption, respect and curiosity for different, sometimes more, sometimes less comparable, approaches to philosophizing should come easily. Here and there one now reads about "Histories of philosophy" deliberately put into the plural: “Histories of Philosophy in Global Perspective”, “Oxford New Histories of Philosophy”, “From the ‘History of Western Philosophy’ to entangled histories of philosophy”, .…
However, like always, good intentions alone aren’t enough here either. How exactly could or should a globally inclusive historiography of philosophy be designed? What decisions would have to be made along the way? But before trying to answer these questions, the characteristics of the current historiography of philosophy should be examined first.
Historiography of Philosophy (the last 200 years)
In the past 200 years or so, the concept of philosophy underlying Western historiography of philosophy has been so narrowed that some traditions that were previously considered belonging to philosophy now remain excluded. But where even historiography no longer maintains a memory, the memory is quickly lost. Among other things, knowledge of the contributions of non-European philosophical traditions to the fabric of world philosophy increasingly disappeared from collective awareness.
In 1863, historian of philosophy Friedrich Ueberweg justified his turning away from the "philosophy of the Orientals" with the following words:
"The so-called philosophy of the Orientals lacks the tendency towards strict proof and therefore the scientific character. What philosophical elements are found in it are so completely merged with the religious views that the report of it can appropriately be left to religious history. […] It should be appropriate to refrain from the so-called 'oriental philosophy' in this 'outline'."
Apparently the exclusion of the oriental philosophical tradition from a history of philosophy at that time, still required justification.
The work "A History of Philosophy, From Thales to the Present Time" begun by Ueberweg is continued to this day and is still the most important overall presentation of philosophy in the German-speaking academic world. There are now also volumes on Arabic and Islamic philosophy. Others regarding East Asia and Africa are being prepared.
The result of the above-mentioned narrowing of the concept of philosophy was a view, according to which philosophy began in Ancient Greece with Thales, then developed further in Rome in the Latin language, crossed the Alps in the Middle Ages and, initially, found new, influential centers of activity in Paris and Oxford. In the early modern era (Descartes and others), a new era began for philosophy, which transitioned into a heyday that extended from the Enlightenment and Romanticism (Kant, Fichte, Hegel) to the early 20th century (Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein). Over time, the regional center of philosophy increasingly shifted to North America. This is roughly how the development of philosophy is narrated in standard accounts.
What characterizes this perspective? In order to develop the above narrative, decisions first had to be made about which contexts of thought were to be included and which should be discarded instead. The latter were particularly those that fell outside the epochal and regional matrix of the conventional narrative, i.e. non-European and non-American contexts. And practices of philosophizing, such as mysticism, meditation, oral traditions were disappeared as well, together (see above) with any philosophizing that couldn’t be precisely separated from religious contexts. Everything that didn’t seem to meet the current scientific paradigm was rejected.
Epistemic Injustice
The picture of the origins and development of philosophy that still prevails, is therefore at least very incomplete. The epistemic good of qualitative completeness alone could be enough to motivate current efforts to globalize the historiography of philosophy. More serious, however, is the problem of the epistemic injustice that has been created by filtering out the philosophical activity of entire regions of the world.
“… during my study of philosophy, the only philosophy I was taught was Western Philosophy. That’s not all; I was always taught that Africans have no ideas, they cannot think, they are stupid, they have no philosophy, they have nothing…” - Prof. Sophie B. Oluwole, Department of Philosophy, University of Lagos, Nigeria (1935-2018)
Sophie Oluwole's experience is probably typical of philosophers of non-Western origin. The American-Iranian cultural philosopher Hamid Tabaschi therefore asks the pointed question: "Can non-Europeans think?". Tabaschi criticizes the fact that the wealth of innovative ideas that have arisen outside the European philosophical family tree have so far not been recognized by the Western philosophical tradition. However, this lack of perception is a direct result of blank spots on the map of the history of philosophy. Entire systems of knowledge generation are then affected by epistemic injustice.
If an internationalization of the historiography of philosophy is now sought, there is a danger that this again will happen from the perspective of Western philosophy, only this time in a more hidden way because on the surface, if some non-western cultures are being included, everything should be well and fine. After all, who decides according to which criteria, which contexts and forms of philosophical events should be taken into account and where boundaries need to be drawn? After all, no topic can be investigated without any boundaries. Should, or can, it be avoided that European and North American philosophy will once again classify without being classified themselves? Wouldn't the necessary criteria then be developed again by those who can afford to only know superficially about philosophies outside their own culture?
Tasks to be Solved
There are therefore a number of tasks to be tackled when developing an inclusive historiography of philosophy:
The participants' own perspective, especially their possible weaknesses (e.g. ignorance or learned values regarding cultures and methods) must be critically reflected.
The object of consideration (the global philosophies) still needs to be demarcated in some way. What should an inclusive history of philosophy actually represent?
Great thinkers and their teachings? Is philosophy primarily an achievement of outstanding individuals? What does this approach say about the underlying view of humanity? (keyword: cult of genius)
Concepts, ideas, problems?
Which chronology(s) should be used?
What classifications should be made? (time periods, eras, regions, contexts)
What about the translatability of terms, meanings, methods and practices across cultural boundaries?
...
From all this, it is clear that there is more to be done here than adding new chapters about additional regions and cultures to an otherwise already completed account of the history of philosophy. But even if there is still a lot to learn and explore, the development towards a fairer, more complete history of philosophy has not only been underway for some time but has also already borne fruit in literature and research. To mention a few examples:
David E. Cooper, World Philosophies an Historical Introduction, Second Edition, 2002
Jay L. Garfield, William Edelglass (editors), The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy, 2011
Bryan W. Van Norden, Taking Back Philosophy - A Multicultural Manifesto, 2017
Histories of Philosophy in Global Perspective, Reinhart Koselleck Project, April 1st, 2019 – March 31st, 2024, Funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Director: Prof. Dr. Rolf Elberfeld