Western Vs Non Western Vs Feminist Philosophy example essay topic

Throughout my whole philosophical experience I have yet to read about a woman or minority philosopher. It was only in the last chapter of my philosophy book that I got a taste of different philosophy. For nine chapters I studied philosophy from a white male point of view. Granted among these men there are different philosophical ideas but all came from the same region of the world and very similar cultures. It turns out, as I had suspected, that Western vs. Non-Western vs. Feminist philosophy is dramatically different. The most obvious difference between Western and Non-Western philosophy is the incorporation of religion.

While Western philosophers may be religious men they tend to keep religion separate from their philosophical theories. Western philosophers describe reality as being your thoughts and mind. Non-Western philosophy, such as South Asian philosophy, claim that what is most real is their Gods. Buddhism, which is a religion of South Asia, now found all over the world, did not believe in the concept of self". Buddhist believe that all of life is impermanent, that reality amounts to a series of momentary existence, that there are no enduring substances" (The Big Question p. 309). Western philosophy rejects this theory because it is specifically derived from religion and not scientific knowledge.

However, some Non-Western philosophy has some similar theories as Western philosophy. Middle Eastern philosophy, specifically Persia, believed in three levels of reality and time. The three levels are: 1. Ordinary 2. Mythical 3. Divine.

The mythical and divine levels of reality are based on human experience. David Hume, a Western philosopher, also agreed that knowledge and reality are based on human experience. While they do not agree on everything there are some similarities, but the differences are hoe this knowledge is obtained and through what kind of human experience do we find reality. According to Persian philosophy", To attain the true inner divine knowledge one must follow a proof or "unveiling" by immediate vision".

What is meant by an immediate vision is a vision from God that allows them to see what is real and know what is true. Then there is the subject of self, the human body. There are some similar views between Western philosophy and South Asian philosophy. Buddhism philosophy sates that a human being is just temporary storage for the true body, feeling, thoughts, and conscience. Some Western philosophers support theories that deny the physical world, our bodies, and state that the mind is the only sure thing that exists. In these respects they are similar, however, where they draw their conclusions from is quite different.

Again we see the difference religion plays in philosophy. Jainism, another South Asian religion derived from Hinduism, does believe in the individual self or soul. They also believe that the individual is connected to every living thing on this earth. They believe that when one dies you are reincarnated as an animal, that is why it is so important fro them to worship ever living thing. Western philosophers have never out right rejected this claim, but they have never even given it any thought. To them it was something different and not in the "norm" and therefore dismissed.

African philosophy tends to define self as a part of family, community, and nature. A person is not often referred to as an individual, but as a part of something bigger. An outcast of an African tribe with only his / her self to depend on was not thought to survive long without family and community for support and protection". African tribes believe they are a part of the earth, dependent on it, and it is dependent on them" (The Big Question p. 320).

These tribes also believe in animism, which is", the belief that entities throughout nature are endowed with souls". These souls are thought to be the relatives and ancestors who have passed. This is quite contrary to Western beliefs. There is no big emphasis on community, family, or nature for that matter in Western philosophy. Everything is hypothesis and scientific. As you can see in Non-Western thinking science has nothing to do with anything, it is all in the hands of nature and religion.

Feminists and Western philosophers, mostly men, do not see eye to eye at all. Many feminists believe that gender is not something you learn in your culture. The only Western philosopher that feminist believed cared about the roles of women were Plato and Socrates". Plato has Socrates argue for the complete equality of women in the ideal society. Plato further claimed that any two people who do the same job, whatever the sex, ought to be educated, brought up, and treated in the same way" (The Big Question p. 325). Aristotle on the other hand did not have a high regard for women.

Aristotle felt that women were more passive than men and that when it comes to reproduction, men provide the necessary elements to reproduce and women are just there to provide mere matter. Aristotle furthers his claim by saying", The male is more able to actualize fully his potential as a human being than is the female" (The Big Question p. 324). The main difference seems to be the way each gender thinks. According to feminist, and Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan", men understood a moral dilemma posed by the experimenter as a problem having a right or wrong answer, women understood such a dilemma as the result of an interpersonal conflict in need of resolution, not a right or wrong answer" (The Big Question p. 326).

Men see a problem in black and white, women tend to look at the whole picture and solve the underlying conflict. Lets talk about men and women thinkers in regards to scientific knowledge. Feminist claim that men and women do not think the same way as well as they do not view reality in the same ways. According to some feminist thinkers", Scientific methodology and standards for knowledge have employed masculine models throughout western history.

A feminist model of scientific method would yield a very different body of scientific knowledge" (The Big Question p. 327). Female interpretation and male interpretation are vastly different. It would have been fascinating to see what scientific knowledge would have come about in western history if men had worked more closely with women and allowed their voices and theories to be heard. I guess we will never know now.

We can only move forward and open our ears today. It is easy to see the differences and similarities of Western vs. Non-Western vs. Feminist philosophy. It is a shame that we do not dedicate more time into learning about Non-Western and Feminist philosophy. It is quite interesting and just as valid as any other theories. People are free to believe what they want and they should be fully aware of all possibilities.