The parameters of the discipline of Philosophy have been established through its development in European (and then Western) history. And yet it is not the case that cultures outside this historical narrative lack sophisticated philosophical traditions. One of the most pressing questions for the discipline today is whether (and to what extent) it should be more inclusive of these excluded traditions? What would this mean for the enterprise and practice of Philosophy? If principles of exclusion and inclusion are to be applied to the field, on what basis should these be formulated and how can they avoid being offensive? The field engages the politics of knowledge very seriously.

One of the questions that troubles the comparative philosophy agenda is the problem of whether its subject is really philosophy at all, or is it really a branch of cultural studies? When we talk about ‘comparison’ what are our referents and to what extent do we fabricate them as we go along? To sidestep this, there is also talk of ‘global philosophy,’ which seeks synthesis and inclusion rather than differentiation and comparison. The field engages comparative and transnational methodologies.

To what extent is it helpful and progressive to view Philosophy as having a central core of European ideas that are then exported and ‘compared’ with other traditions? Is part of the power of comparative philosophy the potential for disrupting European conventions by re-reading the European canon in the light of extra-European concepts? To what extent might comparative philosophy exclude Europe altogether, focusing instead on comparisons of other regional, cultural traditions. The field engages post-colonialism.

Does the enterprise of comparative philosophy ultimately require the rebuilding of the discipline from the ground up, or can it be accommodated as a subfield?

This working group seeks to consider all of these questions through critical analyses of ‘non-European’ philosophers, texts, and traditions.