Beyond gatekeeping: Philosophical sources, Indigenous philosophy, and the Huarochirí Manuscript

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY METAPHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2024-07-13 DOI:10.1111/meta.12695
Jorge Sanchez-Perez
{"title":"Beyond gatekeeping: Philosophical sources, Indigenous philosophy, and the Huarochirí Manuscript","authors":"Jorge Sanchez-Perez","doi":"10.1111/meta.12695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper argues for a broad definition of philosophical sources and how Indigenous traditional knowledge fits that definition. It concludes by showing how, following the previous two points, an Indigenous document such as the Huarochirí Manuscript can be considered a philosophical source by academic philosophers. The paper has three sections: the first deals with the methodological point of addressing what can be considered as philosophy. This section presents a conversational approach to philosophy. This approach, although broad, properly captures the practices of inquiring about philosophical issues as is commonly done in Western academic circles, but without excluding the practices of non-Western cultures from being labelled as philosophical. The second section argues for the analytical distinction between a philosophical source, a philosophical text, and a philosophical insight. It shows that what makes a philosophical source such are the philosophical insights that it can provide. The final section shows how the Huarochirí Manuscript has merits making it worthy of being considered a philosophical source and thus a relevant academic source for those working in the field of philosophy.</p>","PeriodicalId":46874,"journal":{"name":"METAPHILOSOPHY","volume":"55 3","pages":"365-380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/meta.12695","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"METAPHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.12695","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper argues for a broad definition of philosophical sources and how Indigenous traditional knowledge fits that definition. It concludes by showing how, following the previous two points, an Indigenous document such as the Huarochirí Manuscript can be considered a philosophical source by academic philosophers. The paper has three sections: the first deals with the methodological point of addressing what can be considered as philosophy. This section presents a conversational approach to philosophy. This approach, although broad, properly captures the practices of inquiring about philosophical issues as is commonly done in Western academic circles, but without excluding the practices of non-Western cultures from being labelled as philosophical. The second section argues for the analytical distinction between a philosophical source, a philosophical text, and a philosophical insight. It shows that what makes a philosophical source such are the philosophical insights that it can provide. The final section shows how the Huarochirí Manuscript has merits making it worthy of being considered a philosophical source and thus a relevant academic source for those working in the field of philosophy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越把关:哲学来源、土著哲学和《瓦罗奇里手稿
本文论证了哲学来源的广义定义,以及土著传统知识如何符合该定义。最后,本文说明了根据上述两点,《瓦罗奇里手稿》等土著文献如何被学术哲学家视为哲学来源。本文分为三个部分:第一部分从方法论的角度论述了什么可以被视为哲学。这一部分提出了一种对话式的哲学方法。这种方法虽然宽泛,但却恰当地捕捉到了西方学术界通常对哲学问题进行探究的做法,同时也没有将非西方文化的做法排除在哲学之外。第二部分论证了哲学来源、哲学文本和哲学见解之间的分析区别。它表明,哲学渊源之所以是哲学渊源,是因为它能够提供哲学见解。最后一节说明了《瓦罗奇里手稿》的优点如何使其值得被视为哲学来源,从而成为哲学领域工作者的相关学术资料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
METAPHILOSOPHY
METAPHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Metaphilosophy publishes articles and reviews books stressing considerations about philosophy and particular schools, methods, or fields of philosophy. The intended scope is very broad: no method, field, or school is excluded.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The purpose of metaphysics: Apology of excess Moral testimony and epistemic privilege The poverty of postmodernist constructivism: And a case for naturalism out of Hume, Darwin, and Wittgenstein Virtuous leadership: Ambiguities, challenges, and precedents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1