Skip to main content
Sean Carroll's Mindscape

319 | Bryan Van Norden on Philosophy From the Rest of the World

72 min episode · 2 min read
·
Bryan Van Norden

Episode

72 min

Read time

2 min

Topics

Fundraising & VC, Leadership, Design & UX

AI-Generated Summary

Key Takeaways

  • Historical revisionism: Philosophy departments trace lineage exclusively to ancient Greece only since the eighteenth century, coinciding with pseudo-scientific racism and imperialism. Earlier European philosophers like Plato and Aristotle assumed philosophy originated in Africa or India and was transmitted to Greece, not invented uniquely there.
  • Structural barriers: American philosophy departments employ more experts on narrow debates like whether the present king of France is bald than scholars covering all non-European philosophy combined. This creates systematic exclusion where professors dismiss Chinese or Indian philosophy without reading any of it, perpetuating ignorance through institutional design.
  • Buddhist no-self doctrine: The Questions of King Melinda presents the chariot argument, demonstrating that just as a chariot cannot be identified with wheels, axle, or their sum, the self cannot be located in any component or collection of physical and mental states, challenging Cartesian assumptions about substance and identity.
  • Chinese language philosophy: The School of Names developed sophisticated arguments that reference itself cannot be referred to without already deploying reference mechanisms, prefiguring Wittgenstein and Quine by millennia. This explains Daoist claims that ways spoken of are not constant ways, addressing fundamental problems in fixing meaning.
  • Relational metaphysics: Huayan Buddhism and later Confucian thinkers like Zhu Xi propose reality consists entirely of relational properties without ultimate substrata, contrasting with Western philosophy's assumption that individuals are metaphysically fundamental. This difference shapes contemporary political thought about community versus individual rights across cultures.

What It Covers

Bryan Van Norden argues Western philosophy departments systematically exclude Chinese, Indian, African, and indigenous philosophical traditions, limiting understanding of global thought systems that inform billions of people and offering valuable alternative perspectives on fundamental questions.

Key Questions Answered

  • Historical revisionism: Philosophy departments trace lineage exclusively to ancient Greece only since the eighteenth century, coinciding with pseudo-scientific racism and imperialism. Earlier European philosophers like Plato and Aristotle assumed philosophy originated in Africa or India and was transmitted to Greece, not invented uniquely there.
  • Structural barriers: American philosophy departments employ more experts on narrow debates like whether the present king of France is bald than scholars covering all non-European philosophy combined. This creates systematic exclusion where professors dismiss Chinese or Indian philosophy without reading any of it, perpetuating ignorance through institutional design.
  • Buddhist no-self doctrine: The Questions of King Melinda presents the chariot argument, demonstrating that just as a chariot cannot be identified with wheels, axle, or their sum, the self cannot be located in any component or collection of physical and mental states, challenging Cartesian assumptions about substance and identity.
  • Chinese language philosophy: The School of Names developed sophisticated arguments that reference itself cannot be referred to without already deploying reference mechanisms, prefiguring Wittgenstein and Quine by millennia. This explains Daoist claims that ways spoken of are not constant ways, addressing fundamental problems in fixing meaning.
  • Relational metaphysics: Huayan Buddhism and later Confucian thinkers like Zhu Xi propose reality consists entirely of relational properties without ultimate substrata, contrasting with Western philosophy's assumption that individuals are metaphysically fundamental. This difference shapes contemporary political thought about community versus individual rights across cultures.

Notable Moment

Van Norden recounts a graduate student at a top doctoral program expressing genuine surprise that philosophy could be relevant to how one lives their life, having never encountered this idea before, revealing how disconnected contemporary analytic philosophy has become from its traditional purpose.

Know someone who'd find this useful?

Episode Transcript

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Mindscape podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. In many ways, the modern world lives in the shadow of the enlightenment, that period, from the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth centuries when it it was sort of a philosophical movement, intellectual, political, cultural movement that shaped what we think of as reason and rationality and empiricism and science. And a lot of the Enlightenment was about rejecting authority or dogmatism, right? You don't believe ideas just because they've been handed down by ancient texts or authorities. You don't accept government controls just because there's a monarch that has been there for many years. You test ideas, right? You think about them, you test them if they're scientific ideas against experiments. If they're purely philosophical ideas, you test them against other ideas. There might be a free market of ideas where these ideas battle each other out with the idea that the best ones will rise to the top. Now these are standards that can be hard to live up to. Right? We are not all very good at being open to ideas we don't already agree with, but that's kind of part of the ideal of the Enlightenment is that you should think about lots of different ideas and compare them to each other rather than just accepting certain ones blindly. Now it's been pointed out many times that modern philosophy as taught in departments like Johns Hopkins, my own department, but also throughout The United States, throughout Europe, etcetera, doesn't always live up to this ideal of being open to other approaches. Philosophy has, like every other area of academic inquiry, its favorite ways of doing things, its foundational texts, what it considers to be the most important ways of doing things, the most important tradition in which to discuss ideas. Maybe, some people would argue, philosophy could use some expanding into other traditions. In particular, the particular tradition that we generally work in in most Western universities is handed down from the ancient Greeks. Now the ancient Greeks didn't just appear out of nowhere. They got their philosophical impetus from other places. But we tell a story of ourselves. It starts with roughly Plato and Aristotle, goes through, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in Europe and ends up in modern universities. It doesn't talk a lot about the philosophies that are discussed in India or China or indigenous cultures or Africa or elsewhere. So So some people have been pushing against this and saying maybe we should, in the best enlightenment tradition, be more open to these other traditions. Of course, you have to show that there's something useful, something worthwhile in these other places, but to make that judgment, you have to know something about them first. So today's guest, Brian Van Norden, has long been one of the loudest voices in saying that philosophy should be open to traditions besides the Western one, besides the one handed down from the ancient Greeks. Not because …

Get the full transcript (11,867 words) + summary by email — free

One-time email with the complete transcript and AI summary of this episode. No account needed.

One email, no spam. We’ll also show you what SignalCast does.

Browse all Sean Carroll's Mindscape transcripts →

You just read a 3-minute summary of a 69-minute episode.

Get Sean Carroll's Mindscape summarized like this every Monday — plus up to 2 more podcasts, free.

Pick Your Podcasts — Free

Keep Reading

Books, tools, and gear mentioned in this episode

SignalCast may earn commission on purchases via these links. As an Amazon Associate, SignalCast earns from qualifying purchases.

Books

  • The Questions of King Melinda presents the chariot argument, demonstrating that just as a chariot cannot be identified with wheels, axle, or their sum, the self cannot be located in any component or collection of physical and mental states.

More from Sean Carroll's Mindscape

We summarize every new episode. Want them in your inbox?

Similar Episodes

Related episodes from other podcasts

Explore Related Topics

This podcast is featured in Best Science Podcasts (2026) — ranked and reviewed with AI summaries.

You're clearly into Sean Carroll's Mindscape.

Every Monday, we deliver AI summaries of the latest episodes from Sean Carroll's Mindscape and 192+ other podcasts. Free for one show.

Start My Monday Digest

No credit card · Unsubscribe anytime