According to Steiner, the problem with Kant but also his successors (such as Schelling, Fichte, Hegel, and Schopenhauer) is that they did not analyze cognition well or deeply enough. Instead, they cherry-picked some elements (a claim, judgment, observation, I, etc.) and made it the starting point. But if epistemology as the basis of how we know anything, is to depart from an already formed claim –  i.e. a result of cognitive process, a dogma – how can we assert it from the onset?

Continue reading reflections on the unhealthy faith in Kant →

An individual, who in the course of his or her life had undergone a genuine contact with some otherness, such as other culture, other language, foreign music etc. has in his or her immediate experience something that does not require justification. This may sound a little banal, but to some extent even when we visit some further relatives of ours, we have an experience that the way they cook, the way they speak, the way they arrange space etc. is significantly more different than expected from the fact of having a common heredity. What stance can we assume in that situation? Continue reading Family visits and cross-cultural philosophy →

In his article, Roger Ames presents two senses that we can understand the term “globalization.” The first one is Western globalization related to phenomena such as modernism, postmodernism, colonialism, and missionary work in non-Western countries. The second one is the “global” reading of globalization, which points to the recognition of the potential contribution of other cultures such as Asian or African cultures.

In the second sense, Ames does not mean a meta-theory, which lays claims to being a global i.e. universal philosophy – a narration, which is equally valid for all cultures; rather, the second sense involves recognition and emphasis of local diversity.

Ames writes:

Continue reading Can we take Chinese Philosophy on its own terms? →