All Western philosophers prior to Socrates are known as the "presocratics".

Western philosophy was born during the Archaic age of Greece (ca. 800-500 BC),
when Greek thinkers broke with purely mythological explanations of the world by
attempting to explain nature logically. Apparently the first to do so was Thales (the
"father of Western philosophy"), who initiated a search for the fundamental substance of
all matter (see History of Science). Thus did Western philosophy begin with the field of
science (aka "natural philosophy").

To be geographically specific, Western philosophy was born in Miletus, a large Greek

city on the west coast of Asia Minor (now Turkey). This ancient city gave rise to
the earliest Greek philosophers, namely Thales and his successors (most famously
Anaximander and Anaximenes). From Miletus, philosophy spread rapidly across the
ancient Greek world.

Apart from Thales, the most revolutionary presocratic philosopher was Parmenides, the
first major practitioner of "inward philosophy"; that is, philosophy that examines the mind
itself (as opposed to the "outward philosophy" of the natural sciences). He argued, like
so many philosophers since, that we cannot trust our sensory perceptions to accurately
inform us of reality; dreams and hallucinations, for instance, illustrate how misleading
our senses can be. Parmenides was consequently the first to articulate the position
of rationalism, which asserts that knowledge of reality arises (solely or principally) from
rational analysis of innate knowledge (as opposed to analysis of sensory experience).
Most famously, he argued that there is no change of any kind in the world, despite the
constant change we seem to see everywhere.

The opposite position to rationalism, which argues that knowledge of reality is obtained
(solely or principally) via analysis of sensory data, is known as empiricism. Thales and
his successors were thus the first empiricists.

Socrates

The Classical age of Greece (ca. 500-330 BC) featured the three most influential
Western philosophers of all time: Socrates, Plato (a student of Socrates), and Aristotle
(a student of Plato). Socrates and Plato were both Athenian, while Aristotle moved to
Athens for a time to study at the Academy. (The Academy, Plato's school of
philosophy, became the most influential ancient model for Western educational
institutions.)

Socrates is remembered primarily for his tireless campaign that philosophers should
constantly reexamine their beliefs, in order to clarify vague arguments and purge logical
inconsistencies. This notion of persistent critical reflection constitutes his outstanding
contribution to Western thought. The importance of Socrates' message, though it seems
obvious today, is difficult to overestimate; some even regard him the most important
thinker of all time. At any rate, Socrates' efforts introduced an unprecedented level
of rigour and precision to Greek philosophy (though truly relentless critical reflection
would not take hold across the West until the Enlightenment).45

According to Socrates, the duty of a philosopher is chiefly to assist others in

discovering truth for themselves, rather than communicating truth directly. He achieved
this primarily via the Socratic method, which he is credited with innovating. Instead of
offering one's knowledge or opinions on a given issue, the socratic method consists
simply of asking probing questions about the issue. Over time, this approach leads the
person responding to the questions to see new aspects of the issue, to sharpen their
terminology, and to rectify their position if inconsistencies are detected.2,6

Plato

Socrates' greatest successor was Plato. The views of these two thinkers are sometimes
difficult to separate, given that the words of Socrates (who wrote nothing himself) are
preserved chiefly in the works of Plato. Throughout these works, it is often unclear
whether Plato is putting forward his own ideas or those of his teacher. In a sense,
Plato's writings are jointly authored by both men.
Most of Plato's work is written in the form of dialogue (aka dialectic), in which an issue
is explored via discussion between two philosophers. Typically, one philosopher
questions the other until a contradiction is revealed in their reasoning, thus discrediting
their argument; Plato usually casts Socrates as the philosopher who conducts the
questioning. (As noted above, this technique is known as the "Socratic method").

At the core of Plato's philosophy is the theory of forms, which asserts that every
physical thing is merely an approximation of an eternal, non-physical "form". Although
this theory (which Plato inherited from Socrates) may sound odd today (given our
modern scientific perspective), it proved massively influential throughout the history of
Western thought.

As an illustration, suppose that ten chefs enter a pizza competition in which each must
adhere strictly to the same recipe. The resulting pizzas will be very similar in terms of
appearance and taste, yet will nonetheless vary slightly. The recipe itself may be
thought of as the "form" of a pizza: it is an exact concept of what a pizza should be.
Actual, physical pizzas are mere approximations of this ideal form. Physical pizzas
come and go, but the ideal pizza form is eternal and unchanging.

According to the theory of forms, this applies to all worldly phenomena. Though there
are many trees in the world (each one unique), they are all approximations of the "ideal
tree" form, which is an eternal, inherent part of the universe. Even concepts like beauty
and justice are eternal forms; the extent to which a work of art is beautiful, or a human
deed is just, is explained by the extent to which they mimic these forms. According to
Plato, one only comes to fully understand the universe when one sees beyond transient
earthly phenomena to their eternal underlying forms.2,18

Plato did not limit himself to lofty, abstract metaphysics, however. His most revered
work, the Republic, is the founding document of Western political thought. It provides a
detailed proposal for an ideally governed society, which features the absolute rule of its
wisest members ("philosopher kings").2

Socrates was executed by Athens on grounds of heresy and corrupting youth. The
eloquent self-defense he put forward at his trial is captured in the Apology, Plato's
other most famous work (though the extent to which the Apology captures Socrates'
precise words is unknown). (The term "apology" in this sense denotes a defense or
justification.)

Aristotle

Socrates and Plato tended to analyze the world in a rationalist manner; that is, by
examining philosophical matters (existence, knowledge, and values) via analysis of
truths innately known by the mind, without reference to physical experience. (These two
philosophers argued that the "forms" described above are present in the mind from
birth, and therefore do not require physical experience to understand.) Aristotle, on the
other hand, favoured an empirical approach, basing his philosophical system firmly on
information received by the senses.

Aristotle saw no need for Plato's theory of forms, arguing that physical things simply
exist; they are not approximations of abstract ideals. This is the fundamental contrast
between the two most renowned figures in Western philosophy. Whereas Plato argued
that true understanding of the universe is achieved by comprehending its eternal
"forms", Aristotle stressed meticulous physical observation. Aristotle's approach is
thus similar to the modern scientific outlook. (Aristotle did accept the existence of one
non-physical thing, the "prime mover", to explain how the universe came into being in
the first place.)4

The most famous concept within Aristotle's philosophy may be the four causes. (In this
context, "cause" means "aspect".) As noted above, Aristotle argued that understanding
of the universe is rooted in careful observation. The "four causes" are the four
observable aspects of any particular thing. To be specific, the four causes of a thing are
the material it is made of, the form the material takes, the cause of the thing coming
into being, and the purpose of the thing.17
Modern science continues to investigate the universe in terms of material, formal, and
efficient causes. While final causes are not relevant to physics or chemistry, they are
still found in biology (e.g. the purpose of an organ).

In the realm of political philosophy, Aristotle argued in favour of democracy, albeit with
limited suffrage (compared to modern democracies).2 His Politics (Aristotle's chief work
of political thought, and one of the two foremost ancient works of political philosophy,
along with Plato's Republic) famously identifies three basic types of government: rule by
one (monarchy/tyranny), rule by a few (aristocracy/oligarchy), and rule by many
(polity/democracy).8

Though no subsequent ancient philosopher would approach the influence of Socrates,

Plato, or Aristotle, many schools of thought emerged throughout the remainder of
antiquity (e.g. stoicism, which advocates strict control of one's emotions, and
epicureanism, which argues that happiness is attained through a life of moderation).
Meanwhile, with the rapid expansion of Christianity after 313 (when Constantine
granted the religion official tolerance), theologians began to assemble a comprehensive
Christian view of the universe by blending the revelations of scripture with Greek and
Roman philosophy; until the High Middle Ages, their preferred philosophical source
was Plato. These early Christian thinkers included Saint Augustine, one of the two
most influential theologians in Western history (along with Thomas Aquinas).2,15

Middle Ages

Much classical thought (including most of Aristotle) was lost in medieval Europe,
surviving only among the Arabs. Beginning in the High Middle Ages, these writings were
reabsorbed from the Islamic world.2 The prevailing Western philosophy of the later
Middle Ages was scholasticism, which merges Christian theology with the work of
Aristotle. The most influential scholastic was Thomas Aquinas, whose works (which
provide a comprehensive account of all existence, including several logical proofs of
God) helped reawaken European insterest in Aristotle, and have ever since comprised
the foundation of Roman Catholic doctrine.1

Reformation

The rejection of scripture as the foundation of philosophy marks the birth of modern
philosophy. The leading figure in making this rejection was René Descartes, the "father
of modern philosophy". Descartes was a staunch rationalist; that is, he believed that
knowledge of reality could only be attained through reasoned analysis of innate
knowledge (i.e. knowledge that a mind naturally contains from birth), as opposed to
analysis of sensory experience. Descartes also argued in favour of mind-body
dualism, the view that the mind has an existence beyond the physical, and can
therefore outlive the body. (Dualism is yet another philosophical notion whose roots lie
in ancient Greece.)1

Descartes' most famous argument states that while one cannot ever be certain that one
is in the real, physical world (since there is always the possibility that one is dreaming),
one at least knows with certainty that one exists, simply because one is thinking about
it. He pithily stated this argument as "cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am").2

Thought can be divided into two kinds: concrete, which concerns specific physical
things, and abstract, which concerns non-physical things (i.e. ideas or qualities). To
think about a specific green tree is to think concretely; the concepts of "tree" and
"green", on the other hand, are abstractions. While the natural sciences examine the
concrete world and discover abstract laws that govern its behaviour, the field
of mathematics is purely abstract. Consequently, many philosophers who tend toward
rationalism (including Plato) have been passionate mathematicians, as part of their
efforts to understand reality. Descartes was no exception to this rule; most famously, he
developed the Cartesian coordinate system, which united algebra and geometry.

Medieval political theory, which was founded (like medieval philosophy in general) on
scripture, focused largely on determining ideal Christian political arrangements. Modern
political philosophy emerged when thinkers set aside scripture and analyzed politics in
an immediate, practical, realistic fashion. The primary figure in this transition
was Niccolo Machiavelli, the "father of modern political thought". Machiavelli described
how a ruler may exploit human selfishness and cruelty, expanding and maintaining
power via ruthless manipulation.8,11,20

Enlightenment

The most influential Enlightenment philosopher (upon the field of philosophy in general)
was Immanuel Kant, who effected a revolution in Western philosophy by arguing that
our perception of the physical world is shaped by our minds.44 Just as the structure of
our eyes determines how we see things (e.g. the wavelengths of light we can see), so
does the structure of our brains determine how we experience the physical world.

According to Kant, the human mind is structured according to innate "categories",

which it imposes on the physical world in order to make sense of it.44 For instance, one
of these categories is "causality". If one kicks a ball and sends it flying, one perceives
via sensory experience that one's foot struck the ball, and that the ball flew through the
air; only the presence of the causality category in the brain, however, makes one
interpret the kick as having caused the ball's flight.

Apart from the notion of the mind "shaping" reality, Kant is known as the most famous
advocate of deontological ethics, which assert that actions are inherently right or
wrong; this position stands in opposition to consequentialism, which argues that the
morality of an action depends on the results. In order to determine whether an action is
morally right, Kant proposed a rule called the categorical imperative, which essentially
states that an action is right for an individual provided that it would be right if everyone
took that action.

The Enlightenment also gave rise to social contract theory and liberalism, arguably the
two most important ideas in the history of political philosophy.

Social contract theory provides a criterion by which to judge whether or not a

government is legitimate. First, one must imagine how humans behaved prior to the
formation of government (when people lived in a "state of nature"). While these humans
had no restrictions on their behaviour, they lacked protection against the harmful
behaviour of others. This compelled them to come together and form a "social contract",
whereby they accepted the authority of a government in exchange for its protection.

Although this thought experiment does not describe how governments have actually
developed, it can be used to judge whether or not a government is legitimate. All one
need do is specify the contents of the social contract: what authority does a government
rightly hold, and what must it offer in return? A government that fails to abide by the
contract can be declared invalid, and be legitimately overthrown by its people. Social
contract theory thus rejects the notion of a "divine right" to rule, under which citizens
have no right to protest or revolt.27

Thomas Hobbes, the founder of social contract theory, contended that humans are
inherently selfish and cruel, which made life in the state of nature "nasty, brutish, and
short".23 In the resulting social contract, people agree to be ruled by an absolutist
monarch in exchange for protection from one another (since only a dictator is capable of
restraining such violent creatures).25 The sole duty of the monarch is to protect people
from physical harm; therefore the only just cause for rebellion is the monarch's failure to
provide this protection.40

John Locke, the second great social contract theorist, argued that the state of nature
was generally peaceful and tolerant; government was only rendered necessary by a
minority of troublemakers.24 Locke was the first thinker to clearly articulate the position
of liberalism, which argues that the overarching duty of government is to
ensure individual freedom.28 This includes both freedom from harm (e.g. assault,
theft, arbitrary imprisonment) as well as freedom of choice (e.g. speech, belief,
economic activity). Locke argued that these freedoms are inherent "natural rights".

Hobbes and Locke both lived through the English Revolution, the most critical event in
the long struggle between Parliament and the monarchy for governing authority. Though
national representative assemblies had emerged in various Western nations, only
England's managed to achieve major political power; perhaps it was this unique
perspective that allowed the notion of liberalism to emerge and thrive. Up until the rise
of liberalism, states across the world had generally emphasized the collective over the
individual, repressing freedom in favour of unity, stability, and security.

Modern Western governments are liberal democracies; that is, democracies that
embrace the philosophy of liberalism. Liberalism is thus one of the two pillars of modern
Western government (along with democracy; see History of Democracy). The
instrument through which liberalism (and democracy, for that matter) is realized is law,
which furnishes citizens with freedoms and protects those freedoms from being violated
by others (including the government itself). (A country features "rule of law" if it has a
strong legal system to which all are subject, including the government; the alternative is
"rule of man", in which government power is unrestricted.)

As the "father of liberalism", Locke may be the most influential of all political
philosophers. His work (in particular the Second Treatise of Government) was widely
embraced by political revolutionaries of the age (including those of England, France,
and the United States), and lies at the roots of all modern-day liberal
democracies.46,47 (Note that the concept of liberalism described here is distinct from
"liberal" as in "left-wing". Most political parties in modern democracies, whether left- or
right-leaning, are supporters of liberalism; they simply differ in their interpretations and
policies.)

The third great social contract theorist was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a supporter of
liberalism who envisioned an idyllic state of nature. Rousseau argued that in nature,
people do not behave immorally; only within the confines of a state that they become
violent and oppressive, due to the false goals society convinces them to strive for (e.g.
power, wealth, fame) in order to feel superior to others. In a state of nature, humans live
as isolated individuals or families, and thus have no conception of these empty pursuits,
nor neighbours of whom to become jealous.9,38

Since a social contract is an agreement to live in a society, it actually ends

up robbing individuals of their natural freedom; hence Rousseau's most famous quote,
"man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains". Rather than advocating a return to
the state of nature, however, Rousseau argued that government is capable
of overcoming the corruptive nature of society, providing it is constantly subject to the
"general will" (i.e. the general consensus of the citizenry).9 Thus, Rousseau would only
be satisfied with direct democracy or extremely consultative representative democracy.

Apart from his political writings, Rousseau is known primarily for the works Emile (which
describes a program of education, largely self-directed, intended to combat the
corrupting influence of society) and Confessions (often considered the first true
autobiography, in that it realistically accounts the events of Rousseau's life). Though a
few autobiographies had been written earlier, most famously Saint Augustine's
own Confessions (the very first autobiography), these were works of Christian devotion
that focus mainly on the authors' spiritual experiences.

Modern

In terms of general philosophy, the two most famous nineteenth-century schools may be
existentialism and transcendentalism. Both were influenced by the Romantic
movement, which emphasized subjective, individual experience and belief over
objective reality and societal values.

Transcendentalism stresses the fundamental goodness of humanity and the constant

presence of the divine in people and in nature; by listening to one's intuition/feelings,
one can "tune in" to this divine harmony, allowing one to unlock the profound truths of
life (despite the absence of objective evidence). Transcendentalists argued that one
should prioritize personally-discovered truth over social conventions and demands. The
two foremost names in transcendentalism are Emerson and Thoreau; the most
influential work of the movement is Thoreau's Walden, his account of living for two years
in a cabin by Walden Pond, Massachusetts.2,29,36

Existentialism is transcendentalism's pessimistic cousin. Existentialists agree that

profound truths can be discovered via introspection, and that individual belief should
trump societal values; the road to truth, however, is described as exceedingly painful
and bewildering, giving rise to despair and alienation. One must battle these negative
tendencies of the mind by actively constructing meaning for one's own life (i.e. forging
one's purpose in life and one's personal code of morality). The foremost names in
existentialist literature may be Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Camus.2

During the twentieth century, philosophy became increasingly fragmented into highly-
specialized fields, each of which might be occupied by a mere handful of scholars.31 It
seems that while the world of philosophy may be indefinitely explored, its issues will
never be resolved by majority consensus (as in the world of science). This is explained
by philosophy's lack of objective evidence: while scientific theories can be tested,
philosophy consists of innumerable arguments that can never be proven or disproven
(or even necessarily demonstrated to be meaningful).

Political philosophy of the nineteenth century was shaped by the unprecedented

economic growth of the Industrial Revolution and the terrible working conditions that
accompanied it.37 Some philosophers were optimistic that, given time (and perhaps
government intervention), the blessings of capitalism would eventually
be shared among all levels of society. Others, most famously Karl Marx, felt that
capitalism was unfixable and should be overthrown (see Marxism).

The most influential liberal philosopher of the nineteenth century was likely John Stuart
Mill, the foremost proponent of utilitarianism.25 According to the utilitarian view, the
right decision in any given situation is the one that brings the most good ("utility") to the
most people. Using this argument, Mill championed such causes as women's suffrage
and an end to slavery.2,25 (Utilitarianism provides an alternative to the notion of
freedoms as "natural rights", a popular view among liberal thinkers.)

In fact, Mill advocated a new type of liberalism: positive liberalism. Classical liberalism
(the original kind) argues that government should provide freedoms. Positive liberalism
goes a step further, arguing that government should also provide citizens with the
opportunity to exercise their freedoms, by ensuring a minimum standard of welfare.
This minimum standard can be divided into two parts. Individual welfare provision,
known as a "social safety net", directly ensures the welfare of individual citizens (e.g.
unemployment insurance, public health care). General welfare provision ensures the
welfare of society as a whole (e.g. environmental regulation, subsidized infrastructure).

A nation that embraces positive liberalism is often called a "welfare state" or "social
democracy". The development of welfare states occurred throughout the twentieth
century, especially after World War II.25,28 Following the economic slowdown of the
late 1970s, however, classical liberalism experienced a revival. From that time to the
present, many public services of Western nations have been cited as unsustainable
and/or inefficient, and have been downsized or eliminated.27 The debate continues
today as to how "classical" or "positive" liberalism ought to be (or equivalently, how
"hands off" or "interventionist" government ought to be regarding citizens' welfare).
The quoted passage are the first few lines of an editorial that has generated huge
discussion. It proposes for professional philosophy departments to embrace "faculty"
and "curricular diversity" or failing that to rename their departments, "Anglo-European
Philosophical Studies." I dislike and reject Garfield & Van Norden's use of the "Western"
(or European) vs "non Western" (non-European) philosophy distinction--I reject not in
the name of universal, homogeneous reason. Before I get to the substance of my
concerns, I offer two examples to motivate my rejection of this distinction:

First, 'Islamic' philosophy is categorized as non-Western (non-European). But this is

geographically odd because so much of the best of it (Ibn Rushd, Ibn Tufayl) was
written in what we would now call Spain. They sometimes understood themselves as
'Western' and treated earlier generations of Islamic philosophers as writing in the Orient.
(Sometimes they also seem to suggest that they are at the periphery far from the main
centers of learning [Baghdad, Damascus, etc.]). To treat 'Islamic' philosophy as non-
Western is conceptually odd because it so clearly influenced philosophy we
characterize as 'Western' in subsequent ages (for example through Italianate
Averroests, and eventually Spinoza.) It is also strange in a more important sense,
perhaps, nearly ALL of what counts as 'The Golden age of Islamic philosophy' is
explicitly or implicitly a commentary on Plato and Aristotle (or a correction to it).
[Something similar can be said about "Jewish" philosophy.]

Second, Franz Fanon -- try divorcing his stuff from Hegel, existentialism, psycho-
analytic theory, etc. -- and Du Bois are both enmeshed in 'Western philosophy' (I am not
claiming they are enmeshed in the same bit. Their criticisms are as much immanent to
(okay) 'Euro-centric' philosophizing as external to it. And, in virtue of being immanent to
the tradition, they also revive it and extend it. The previous sentence gets at some of the
more philosophical reservations about the terminology.

Before I get to those, I frankly acknowledge that I have political reasons to dislike the
distinction between Western vs non-Western. Because I live and work in an
environment in which 'Western' is treated as a term of approbation and superiority over
other civilizations and philosophies, especially Islam (and Africa) I think it is dangerous
when intellectual contributions are (apologies for the jargon) othered by way of negation
as strange or alien. Clearly Van Norden and Garfield don't think Western philosophy is
superior or that non-European traditions are inferior. But they
unintentionally reinforce the sense that we're talking about extremely distinct and
opposed, perhaps even incommensurable, traditions. This may be true in some
respects (as they suggest), but it is not true in all respects for all the traditions lumped
as 'non-Western.'

A moment's reflection on the fact that Islamic and Jewish philosophy are lumped in with
so-called N0n-Western (and non-European) philosophy suggests
that Christianphilosophy just is Western philosophy. Leaving aside the fact that
traditionally, the Christian element in European philosophy has always been traced back
to Jerusalem not Athens, the tacit identification of Christian with Western had been
thought awkward after, say, Auschwitz. More subtly, it is notable that whole branches of
Christianizing philosophy associated with various strands of Greek/Russian Orthodoxy
are unfamiliar to even very competent historians of (okay) western philosophy.

So much for terminology. Garfield and Van Norden misrepresent what contemporary
professional philosophy is like when they focus on the canon. As I have said before in
response to arguments by Nathaniel Coleman, while there is, indeed, a fairly narrow
historical canon in professional philosophy, this canon is not central to philosophical
education, philosophical method, and professional advancement/success within
analytical philosophy. In addition, the way the canonical texts/authors are treated is
often extremely a-historical (even by folk who are committed to contextual history of
philosophy). That means that, in part, it is not obvious in what sense "broadening the
philosophical curriculum" in the way that they suggest really challenges the way
philosophy is practiced.
There is a more subtle point lurking here. Some of the texts/authors from these non-
Western traditions also express rather sectarian commitments. Some of the Islamic
philosophers that I teach use examples that may well be thought racist (whatever their
intent) and they call/permit for genocide on certain kind of savages (anticipating some of
the worst features of 18th and 19th century European philosophy). It's a bit awkward to
promote diversity by removing more tolerant/broad-minded authors in favor of dogmatic
types, and this suggests that the underlying vision for their proposals has not been
thought out carefully (I extend this point below).

Now you may think I am writing from an ultra-conservative perspective on diversifying

the canon. But (as regular readers know) that's not so: as a scholar, I have
enthusiastically embraced the recovery of knowledge of and produced by female
philosophers in the early modern period and in early analytical philosophy; recovery of
forgotten male feminists in the early modern period; and I have started teaching and
blogging about Islamic political philosophy. In all cases this has influenced my teaching,
my scholarship (and blog posts), and my self-understanding. (I am not suggesting I am
a pioneer in any of this.) I do so not just out of curiosity about the unfamiliar. But
because I sense that such recovery helps me contribute to the improvement of
philosophy today and in the future.

'Philosophy' in the previous sentence stands for the traditions, which are oriented
around certain problems and puzzles, and certain non-trivial commitments about the
nature of logic and reality (tied together by what I cal 'Tractarian semantics'), as well as
some canonical figures/texts and thought experiments, that I have been partially
educated in and, perhaps, help extend. It has, as Van Norden & Garfield argue,
elements of parochiality and, as I note regularly, as much an elevating as sordid
history.* But, as Abe Stone reminded me on Facebook, there is a difference between
being a department of(such) philosophy or about that philosophy. When I note the
racism or eugenics in certain thought experiments or texts that I teach or admire or use,
it calls for a response which, after soul-searching, can generate creative philosophical
moves or a reckoning of the problem. It always runs the risk (or joy) of generating a
transformative experience of me (and less likely) the tradition (recall). But that's not so
when one studies another tradition's philosophy and learns about their commitments.
That can be kept at arm's length, undigested, without transforming me or my own
traditions.
It does not follow we should not study genuinely other traditions nor should we keep
them from our students and ourselves. I agree that even given scarce resources (of
time, attention, money), we need to be also outer-oriented. More important, in some
parts of the world, where our elite universities are engaged in a peculiarly new form of
educational mission -- with host countries paying to have a campus with a liberal arts
education that in some ways reflects aspirational values not to mention economic hopes
[Garfield teaches at Yale Singapore]+ --, it's quite possible that there a new curriculum
and diversity may generate a new form of philosophy that, in turn, will help transform the
philosophy practiced in North America, Europe, and many of their former colonies.
That's an experiment in the philosophy of education we may see come to fruition in the
times of our lives.