Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach

Offering a teaching guide for instructors looking to broaden their view of philosophy, diversify their teaching, or discover a new way of thinking about our place in the world, this book explores how Anglo-American, Chinese, Indian, African, Islamic, and Maori thinkers have all addressed fundamental questions in philosophy. Featuring teaching notes, discussion questions, and a list of further reading, this is a book packed with the background, guidance, and tools required to teach different philosophies.

Using some renditions of Sītā stories from the epic Rāmāyaṇa, this article will endeavor to make a case for reflecting on presentist concerns and interests and being aware of their impact on scholarship. Arguably, narrow syntactical and semantic analyses of translations and of purported convergences in historical and linguistic analyses do not suffice to give a handle on understanding how these concerns and interests might influence selection of pertinent sources and their readings. A more sustained analysis of their impact is needed. Shun Kwong-loi’s methodological work provides a good ground to take that conversation forward.

Drawing on select works of Adorno, we will first rehearse his reasons for a rejuvenation of philosophy and apply them to philosophers working on world philosophical traditions. We will then analyse Adorno’s arguments pertaining to the theory–praxis relation to ascertain whether his thought could accommodate a study of world philosophical traditions for the simple reason that they are present in a particular society. Shifting our focus slightly, we reflect upon how current ways of professional philosophizing affect the study of world philosophical traditions. As the example of Māori philosophy demonstrates, current philosophical practices seem to delimit the search for the unconventional in academic philosophy. Through its philosophical appropriation, the so-called unconventional tends to mimic conventional patterns in academic philosophy. We will then attempt to find reasons to critique this process within the Adornoian framework itself. The conclusion draws together different strands of the discussion and delineates some paths to take forward the world philosophies project in an Adornoian spirit.

The recent call for a conceptual and intellectual decolonization in the humanities critiques the conventional, all-white, largely male philosophical canon. Its critique is directed at the centering of the experiences of this specific group in global knowledge transmission practices. Its proponents focus on the canon’s implicit claim, namely that only one social group is able to think thoroughly and accurately about all problems of philosophical significance across varying spatiotemporal contexts. In this short article, I will use two different debates to make some aspects of this call more meaningful: the US-American discourse in academic philosophy on deracializing the knowing subject and the post-Holocaust German understanding of public intellectual spaces (sections 2 and 3 respectively).

Drawing on select works of Adorno, we will first rehearse his reasons for a rejuvenation of philosophy and apply them to philosophers working on world philosophical traditions. We will then analyse Adorno’s arguments pertaining to the theory–praxis relation to ascertain whether his thought could accommodate a study of world philosophical traditions for the simple reason that they are present in a particular society. Shifting our focus slightly, we reflect upon how current ways of professional philosophizing affect the study of world philosophical traditions. As the example of Māori philosophy demonstrates, current philosophical practices seem to delimit the search for the unconventional in academic philosophy. Through its philosophical appropriation, the so-called unconventional tends to mimic conventional patterns in academic philosophy. We will then attempt to find reasons to critique this process within the Adornoian framework itself. The conclusion draws together different strands of the discussion and delineates some paths to take forward the world philosophies project in an Adornoian spirit.

My paper seeks to set up a relation between two types of dialogue: The first type comes into play between female sants of the Maharashtrian Vārkarī tradition and their god Viṭṭalā, who though being physically absent was said to be moved through the devotion of his devotee to intervene in her life. Characteristic of this dialogue seems to be the deep bonding between such a sant and her god such that he even understood, and was moved by, her role-based concerns as a female. The second type of dialogue to be examined is between such sants and contemporary scholarship on Indian feminism. In setting up both these dialogues in relation with each other, the paper seeks to explore two questions: Can such an exchange offer a meaningful exploration of the nature of dialogue itself? Furthermore, does the exchange offer the possibility of a change, which could be instructive in dealing with the concerns of Indians today?

Using the example of cross-cultural philosophy’s relation to disciplinary philosophy, this article seeks to think through some of the issues relevant to diversifying philosophy as an academic discipline. Guided by James Tully’s ruminations on non-domination, it attempts to make a case for a practice of philosophy which is more attuned to its social situatedness in a postindustrial, liberal society. Within this context, it argues that disciplinary philosophy must seek to contribute to making meaning of our place in the world.

Several authors working on cross-cultural philosophy underscore that a cross-cultural conversational space, which breaks away from dominant theoretical frameworks, is necessary for a genuine cross-cultural dialog. This paper too seeks to contribute to the development of such a space. To this end, its focus will lie on one salient representation of Indian philosophy in the postcolonial context: the ‘Report of the University Education Commission’ of 1948–1949. The paper will analyze how this document marries shared values like freedom and equality with the role of philosophy for the Indian nation.

'Caring to Know' argues that “caring is not the ‘other’ of reason and that our lived experiences of caring and being cared for can be useful resources for truth-seeking” (1). This claim is fleshed out over six chapters using a creative blend of analytical feminist theory, virtue theory of knowledge, and cross-cultural philosophy. The brief conclusion braids together different strands of the argument. The review examines the potential of Dalmiya's 'humble relational knowers' for cross-cultural philosophy

'Minds Without Fear' attempts to showcase the intellectual agency of Anglophone Indian philosophers living under coloniality. The book’s thirteen chapters are framed by the acute professional anxiety many of them experienced then, and its rippling effects which continue till today. Like their predecessors, contemporary Indian philosophers worry that colonialism has crippled their intellectual abilities. Authors Nalini Bhushan and Jay Garfield argue that this anxiety is simply a type of “false consciousness” (38).

This paper tries to show that there is a shift in the meaning of toleration. The traditional meaning of toleration, understood as endurance, is giving way to a more positive understanding of the concept. This is because the traditional meaning of toleration ill-fits with values like the intrinsic worth of human beings, universal rights, etc. Especially in pluralistic societies, endurance of the Other is becoming increasingly unacceptable; minorities and their defendants demand respect, acceptance, and appreciation of the Other. The first section delivers a framework of the general meaning of liberal toleration. Here, the shift in meaning will be highlighted. In the second section, I will try to situate Radhakrishnan’s views within this debate.

Dieser Aufsatz geht von folgender Überlegung aus: Will man die Dynamik und Brisanz des Einwanderungsproblems in einer philosophischen Reflexion begreifen, darf die nationale Identität des Einwanderungslandes nicht ausgeblendet werden. Deshalb wird im Folgenden versucht, die Immigrationsproblematik aus dieser Perspektive zu erörtern. Dafür werde ich im ersten Schritt den Begriff einer liberalen nationalen Identität entwickeln. Im zweiten Schritt werde ich auf die deutsche Diskussion über nationale Identität eingehen, in der sich mit der ›universalistischen‹ und der ›traditionalistischen‹ Position zwei diametral verschiedene Auffassungen von nationaler Identität gegenüberstehen. Schließlich werde ich der Frage nachgehen, ob und gegebenenfalls wie sich der kontextualistische Ansatz von Joseph Carens fruchtbar machen lässt, um zwischen diesen beiden Positionen zu vermitteln.

In this paper, I began by examining national identity understood as cultural belonging. I tried to show that this kind of belonging fails to give a justifiable account of the pluralistic reality found in modern states. I then proceeded to examine the idea of belonging to a polity. My claim is that this sense of belonging is more suitable for nation-states that have multicultural societies and consider this plurality as a vital part of their national identity. If the arguments presented here are convincing, we will have to stop thinking of national belonging as belonging to a cultural group, and pay more attention to belonging to a polity and all that that entails

This volume attempts to bring into philosophical focus central problems and topics of intercultural salience. Simultaneously, our underlying aim is to render philosophical analysis more accessible to those social sciences in which intercultural studies are now firmly established. Both these concerns – a philosophical clarification of relevant terms and concepts as well as a broadening of the thematic spectrum – are not merely of academic interest, for by constructively contributing to a more rigorous analysis of intercultural discourse in a whole range of academic disciplines, the intellectual self-understanding of society in general can be beneficially impacted. Given such an academically and socially oriented agenda, this anthology has collated contributions by authors, reputed for their expertise in intercultural topics and societal concerns. Concepts seminal both to multifarious intercultural processes, as well being central to the social sciences, are discussed from differing disciplinary perspectives.

Im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch ist Toleranz eine unverzichtbare Tugend, durch die die Konflikthaftigkeit menschlicher Interaktionen in Zaum gehalten werden kann. In pluralistischen Gesellschaften soll Toleranz ferner eine gute Grundlage für ein friedliches Zusammenleben der unterschiedlichen Gruppierungen bieten. Auch im interkulturellen Kontext soll Toleranz für eine reibungslose Begegnung zwischen Mitgliedern unterschiedlicher Kulturen sorgen. Doch wie ist Toleranz im interkulturellen Kontext zu verstehen? Ist Toleranz eine Duldung des Mitgliedes einer anderen Kultur? Ist Toleranz eine Aufforderung dazu, den Anderen und seine Andersartigkeit zu ertragen? Oder beinhaltet Toleranz im interkulturellen Miteinander eine Anerkennung des Anderen und seiner Andersartigkeit? Diese Fragen bilden den Rahmen der folgenden Untersuchung.

The main aim of this essay will be to garner humanistic values in the Indian and Chinese philosophical traditions and to illustrate the need for an awareness of these positions in business ethics. From the point of view of the latter, one could doubt the relevance of these traditions. Indian philosophical systems are commonly thought of being preoccupied with otherworldly concerns; the feudal backdrop of antique Chinese positions appears unsettling today. Could anything at all, one could ask, be gleaned from them even in debates which, for example, try to enumerate transnational ethical norms to guide one’s business conduct?