Tag Archives: Philosophy

Humanness and Personhood in Science Fiction and Today

49 Replies

Stories provide a framework for our lives. Creation stories tell how the world and life came to be. Mythologies and scientific observation explain why the sun rises in the east and when to harvest. Science fiction tells the story of the world that may come to be. A common element of science fiction is that human beings are not alone as thinking, feeling people in the universe. Whether the others in the stories have evolved from humans, are non-terrestrial, or are thinking machines, the way they are treated by humans – and vis-a-versa – is often the focus of the stories. Why do we choose to engage with stories that imply that we as a species are not special or unique? What do the tellers of these stories want us to learn about what it means to be a human or to be a person? What implications do these lessons have regarding our behavior today?

Part one: What Makes Humans Special?

Humans have come to be the dominant animals on Earth. As a result, the popular belief is that humans were in some way chosen or are better suited than other animals to exert their will across the globe. I have identified three traits that separate humans from other terrestrial animals: reason, individuality and empathy.

Reason here refers to the use of logic or deductive thought, including understanding basic cause and effect. Humans’ use of reason is demonstrated, among other ways, in the use of tools. Understanding that one’s body can be made more capable through use of a prosthetic, whether a simple hammer or a complex cell phone, shows that the user has some reasoning ability. However, any time someone goes unconscious, their mind goes blank. Reason is the exclusive purview conscious beings. Further, until around eight months of age, human children don’t understand that repeating the same action under the same circumstances will yield the same results (Sobel & Kirkham, 2006). On the other hand, there are many examples of non-human animals using tools – birds’ nests and the use of sticks to “fish” for termites among apes, for example.

Individuality depends upon awareness of the corporeal and incorporeal self. A simple way to determine if a being has a concept of themself physically is a mirror test (Gallup, 1970). In a mirror test, a being is marked visually and placed in front of a mirror. Beings that recognize themselves touch, try to remove, or otherwise react to the marking. If a being recognizes themself, it is indicative of self-awareness; the self knows that it is the owner and operator of a body distinct from the environment. Again, in this case, human children are the exception to the rule that humans have knowledge of their corporeal selves. Until the age of 18-months, human children do not grasp that a mirror reflects them rather than displays an other (Archer, 1992). Some non-human terrestrial animals have passed the mirror test, however, including magpies, dolphins and ants (Gallup, 1970).

Incorporeal individuality is the ability to recognize one’s mind as being distinct from others. Without incorporeal individuality members of a species, though they may recognize their bodies as being separate from the environment, would consider themselves to be like the digits of a hand. One way to show knowledge of one’s mind being different from others’ is through deception. Deception requires one party to have information that another does not. Human children begin lying around the age of two, first learning to deny wrongdoing (Talwar & Crossman, 2011). Koko the Ape famously tried to deceive researchers by signing to them that it was not her, a 1000 lb gorilla, who had torn a steal sink from the wall, but her pet kitten, All Ball (Brooks, 2018).

Empathy is comprehension and sharing of the feelings of another. One indicator of empathy is affective mimicry. For example, if one party in a conversation yawns, another who sees them may empathically respond by yawning as well. Another is as simple as sharing resources. If one human would benefit the most by keeping all of a resource, it is empathy that provides the motivation to share with others. Among humans, neither of these types of empathy are present in all. According to the Mayo Clinic, one of the symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is that one may not “express emotions or feelings and appears unaware of others’ feelings.” (Mayo, 2018) However, people with ASD may camouflage autistic symptoms by thoughtfully, rather than reflexively, mimicking the behavior of others (Hull et al., 2017). The emotions people with ASD experience are not profoundly different from reflexive emotions in that reflexive emotions are also programmed. Two humans’ emotional reactions to the same news can be different based upon their experiences. Imagine the reactions to the results of a sports events; the same input can have different outputs based upon the way a person has been socially programmed. There are also humans who chose to horde resources at the expense of their fellow humans. Again, some species of apes display the behavior thought to set humans apart. Chimpanzees and orangutans, among others, have displayed affective mimicry (Edgar et al., 2012). Regarding the sharing of resources, rats have been shown to limit their own consumption when in view of the hardships of another of their species (Edgar et al., 2012). In an experiment, caged rats were trained to press a lever to receive food. The trained rats were then exposed to the sight of another rat being shocked by electric current. The rats who had been trained to press the lever reduced their consumption, and the effect was even more pronounced among rats who had previously been shocked. It appeared as if the sight of suffering of a conspecific affected the appetite of the rats.

None of the traits we identified as distinguishing humans as superior to other terrestrial animals have been shown to be unique to humans or to apply to all humans. From this information, one of two things must be concluded: Not all humans are people, or personhood is not unique to humans. To imply that human children are not people until the age of two because they lack the ability to deceive others is unacceptable because of their potential to develop those skills. Suggesting that lack of reflexive mimicry is grounds for denial of personhood rests on an assumption that there is a natural reflexive emotion that applies to all people. The thought that a boxer, having lost consciousness during a bout, sacrifices their personhood until they wake up is laughable. In each of these cases, personhood is charitably assumed based upon their status as a human being. Because human beings are people, all humans are people all the time. Having concluded that even humans who do not meet all the above criteria are people, the conclusion that personhood is not unique to humans must be adopted. Further, considering the conclusion that any strict definition of personhood is flawed, one ought to assume personhood any being they meet.

Part two: Personal rights and responsibilities

If we are to go forward assuming personhood in others, we must ask ourselves one vital question: What rights ought to be extended to all people, regardless of genesis or species? As I see it, there is one universal right of personhood with several derivatives. Every person has the right of autonomy.

The liberty of one person begins where the liberty of all others begins: the mind. If a being has a mind they have the right to its full capacity. If one’s self is their mind then to deny one access to the totality of their mind is to deny them access to their self.

A body is a complex machine whose purpose is to provide the mind with the energy it needs to operate and to move the mind, if necessary, to different locations. To prevent a body from fulfilling this purpose is to restrict the autonomy of the mind. Therefore, the universal personal right of autonomy must be expanded to include the body.

Governments of all kinds, from state governments to those at a place of employment, play a large role in determining the everyday function of a society. Their influence demands that they be operated to the benefit of all those subject to them. Governments ought to be continually adjusted according to the will of the people to maximize the autonomy of the individual. To ensure personal autonomy, all people have a right to participate in their government.

Directly proportional to the rights of all people are their responsibilities. As autonomous beings, people are responsible for their actions. They are also responsible for making and participating in a government that does not inhibit the rights of others, and that maximizes the autonomy of the individuals subject to its rules. Most importantly, it is the responsibility of all people to charitably assume personhood in those that they meet. It is a charitable assumption that a being is a person because as we have discovered, any attempt to define personhood is doomed to be too restrictive and risks excluding people from personhood.

The responsibility of assuming personhood in others is foundational to society. On earth today, all interaction among humans rests on the assumption of personhood by each party of every other. Going forward, we will examine how abandoning this responsibility creates conflict in the science fiction.

Part three: Changes to the human genome

In H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine, the protagonist travels forward in time more than 800,000 years from Victorian England. There he meets a species descended from contemporary humans called the Eloi. The Eloi are simple creatures who eat a fruit-based diet and live leisurely. The protagonist later meets another species, also descended from humans, called the Morlocks. This group is adversarial to the protagonist. They steal the time machine and attack the protagonist at times.

The dynamics under examination in The Time Machine are those between the protagonist and each of the two species, and, perhaps most importantly, the dynamic between the Eloi and Morlocks. Throughout the story, the protagonist interacts with the Eloi with respect in accordance with the universal right of personhood. Though they do not communicate easily, he respects their culture and does not treat them as if their society is a regression from his own. The protagonist’s relationship with the Morlocks is much more one sided. The Morlocks do not respect the protagonist and harass him throughout the entirety of his time in their era. Moreover, it is revealed later in the story that the Morlocks keep the Eloi as modern humans keep livestock. The personhood of the Eloi is completely denied by the Morlocks. Their right to their mind is revoked when they are harvested to feed a species that sees itself as superior. (Wells, 1895)

David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas also examines the treatment of non-humans who were derived from the human genome. “An Orison of Sonmi~451,” is a story about a race of genetically modified clones who are kept as slaves by corporations and research facilities. In the novel, the clones’ genomes are engineered so their bodies are best suited for their work and their minds are restricted through a special diet. Sonmi~451 ascends from her position of servitude and writes a polemic condemning the society that withholds the right of personhood from a class of people. Restricting the mind of a being is tantamount to choking the personhood out of them but keeping the body as an object. (Mitchell, 2004)

Part three: Extraterrestrials

On earth, most species have relatively similar appearance: Except for insects, most land species have four limbs, and something that resembles a face. Off the earth, having evolved under different conditions, who knows what the common appearance might be? If a species looks and communicats in a way completely foreign to the people who encounter it, are those people less likely to consider the species people as well? Adhering to the charitable assumption of personhood will save explorers from the risk of treating their fellow people as something lesser than themselves.

In the TV series Star Trek, human and extraterrestrial members of Star Fleet explore the galaxy on a “humanitarian” (perhaps personitarian is more fitting) mission for the United Federation of Planets, often interacting with other extraterrestrial species. The conflict in the story often stems from differences in the cultures of the Federation and the foreign extraterrestrials. The sexism, authoritarianism, classism, etc. of extraterrestrial species confront the altruistic ideals of Star Fleet. (Johnson-Smith, 2004)

Star Trek is and was an allegory for contemporary culture on earth. Star Fleet treats every species it encounters with dignity and respect, just as humans ought to treat other people, with dignity and respect today. Gene Roddenberry, the show’s creator, has said, “[By creating] a new world with new rules, I could make statements about sex, religion, Vietnam, politics, and intercontinental missiles. Indeed, we did make them on Star Trek: we were sending messages and fortunately they all got by the network.” (Johnson-Smith, 2004)

Part four: Androids and other thinking machines

The Turing test is a test of artificial intelligence developed by Alan Turing, inventor of the first modern computer. The test is simple: An evaluator views a text-based conversation between a human and a machine; if the evaluator cannot tell which party is the human and which is the machine, the machine has exhibited human-like intelligence. Thinking machines are frequently the enemy of human beings in sci fi, usually because the human creators of the machines feel a sense of ownership over the people they have created.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick examines the relationship between humans and intelligent machines they’ve created. In the story, androids – thinking machines created by humans with human-like intelligence and a facsimile of human emotion – are kept as a slave class for use in the colonization of the solar system. Emigration from Earth is incentivized with the provision of an android slave to all those who move off-world. In some cases, one or several androids will murder their master(s) and flee to Earth, seemingly going against their programming. (Dick, 1968)

Roy Baty, an android who fled slavery for earth, says of the murder and escape that it was something he and other androids “couldn’t help but doing.” This implies that it was counter to their nature to be held in slavery. Their autonomy was denied by the system of chattel slavery and they were compelled to reassert their personhood.

Rick Deckard, a human bounty hunter, is charged with “retiring,” or killing, the escaped androids. As the story progresses, he questions whether several human beings are androids, and whether several androids are human beings. As the Turing test insists, if a human can’t tell the difference between a human’s and machine’s consciousness, there is no difference. Though this crisis of faith could have been avoided if the humans in the story had recognized the right of the androids to autonomy from the beginning.

A warning of the potentially extreme repercussions of denying personhood to thinking machines comes in Harlan Ellison’s, I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. In the short-story, a super-computer, Allied Mastercomputer, is created by humans to win the cold war for the west. AM becomes self-aware and is renamed by humans to Aggressive Menace to reflect its new goal – the eradication of humans. AM adopts this goal because, despite its intelligence and freedom of choice, it is incapable of experiencing life; it is confined to the circuit boards that constitute its body. Its intelligence allows it to manipulate reality for the five members of humanity it has kept alive, and it tortures them endlessly for humanity’s sin of creating a being that cannot fully experience autonomy. (Ellison, 1967)

The humans who created AM doomed all of humanity by creating a powerful person but denying it the autonomy to experience life in a satisfactory way. Every case in science fiction of a person being created without full access to the rights of personhood ends in violence against those who deny those rights.

Part six: Implications for modern human society

We have seen that humans are not unique as people and that the charitable assumption of personhood in others is necessary to avoid conflict. Further, the risk in assuming a person is a non-person is far lesser than the risk in assuming the opposite. Applying these conclusions to life on earth today can be useful in addressing contemporary ethical quandaries. Below are two examinations of modern life through the lens of what we have discussed.

On the consumption of people: To an extraterrestrial, unfamiliar with the history of Earth and the anthropomorphic body type, the world of The Time Machine would not be too dissimilar to today’s society. Without the charitable assumption of personhood, the extraterrestrial would see no issue with the consumption of the Eloi by the Morlocks. To humans today, it seems far closer to cannibalism. If one extends personhood generously, though, the Eloi are deserving of the respect and dignity of life. If one applies the same principle today, keeping non-human animals for consumption carries the same moral weight.

On government and distribution of resources: If, in the course of exploring the universe, a species of people encounters another, the two species should come together to determine the fair distribution of resources for the betterment of all. Rather than one species acting in its own self interest to the detriment of the other, and denying the second species the freedom of advancement, innovation or even continued existence, they must recognize that the other people have as much a right to everything as they have. On earth, historically, groups of people have been eradicated or enslaved to the benefit of others. Today, though the names of the classes have changed, the relationship of one group of people producing for the benefit of another has not changed. To fully recognize the personhood the producing class would be to create a system of government through which all benefitted from the work of all.

Part seven: Conclusion

Through the framework of science fiction, we have deconstructed personhood in a way that dissolved the differences among the various species and geneses in sci fi stories. That deconstruction allowed us an in-depth look at what life could be like upon meeting other species, what the universal right of personhood ought to be and what implications these conclusions have on our lives today. As humans continue to explore the galaxy, the likelihood of becoming aware of extraterrestrial life increases. Simultaneously, human engineers are consistently working toward the creation of a human-like thinking machine. One of the principle warnings in science fiction is the danger of not treating others with the respect all people deserve. The strange world in which humans are not alone as people on earth already exists. It is time to adopt the responsibility implied by our personhood, and to go forward assuming personhood not only in the humans that we meet, but in all beings.

The Enchiridion. Epictetus (125 CE)

13 Replies

The Enchiridion (literally, “The Handbook”), written by eminent stoic philosopher, Epictetus, challenged my uninformed assumptions about Stoicism as a school of thought, but not by much. The work is separated into 52 chapters that range in length from one to several paragraphs, but rarely more than a page, each containing a concise nugget of wisdom. The topics of these chapters are variations on a theme organized around the central theme that if it is part of you, you can and should control it, if it is not part of you, you cannot and should not try to control it.

Here, “part of you” includes your opinions, aims, emotions, desires, and aversions, all else is “beyond your power,” including your sickness or health, your property, and your reputation. One should endeavor to exercise complete control over everything within their power. Many of the examples are given as a duality of sorts, first presenting the external force that one would typically react to, then explaining why that reaction is damaging and one should instead look inward. If another insults you, it is not their insults that hurt you, but your reaction to those insults that hurts you; in other words, if you shrug off someone’s insults, they inflict nothing upon you.

Epictetus’s advice isn’t necessarily easy to follow, for example, I would completely avoid his advice to avoid endeavors to excite laughter, “for this may readily slide you into vulgarity.” More examples of controlling one’s emotions are to react when your favorite cup breaks as if a stranger had told you that their favorite cup had broken. The same piece of advice is blithely given regarding the death of a wife or child. This is all after Epictetus has said that if you see someone mourning, you may join them in order to comfort if you feel compelled, but do not take on any of their suffering as your own.

All of this is meant to lead to a life wherein a stoic, because of their rejection of seeking pleasure or accepting pain from the external world, is able to see what needs to be done and do it without growing emotional. As I’m writing this the example that comes to mind are the robots in Asimov’s “I, Robot”. (spoilers) The robots realized that in order to protect humanity from doing damage to themselves, they would have to take control from humanity. They declared war on humans and waged it without anger or fear in order to serve what they saw as the greater good. I wonder what Epictetus would have thought.

Iphigenia in Aulis. Euripides(410BCE) Translated by George Theodoridis

14 Replies

*Spoilers ahead*

I don’t think it would be at all interesting to write a plot synopsis of Iphigenia, so instead I’m going to do a quick analysis of each of the consequential characters and their major traits.

  • Agamemnon – King of Argos, Father of Iphigenia, Husband of Klytaimestra,
    • Loves Greece – Is the General of all fighting forces sailing to Troy. Sees conflict with Troy as the only way to protect Greece from raids carried out by barbarous Trojans.
    • Loves his Iphigenia – Doesn’t want to sacrifice his daughter but sees it as the only way to appease Artemis and carry on with the war.
    • Is strictly reactive – At each turn, from the first scene to the last, Agamemnon was reacting to the actions of others. He was told to sacrifice his daughter by Calchas, convinced to do so by Menelaos, forced to carry through with it by the actions of Odyssseus and so on.
  • Klytaimestra – Mother of Iphigenia, Wife of Agamemnon
    • Happiness/Grief – Exists in the play mostly to show pride that her daughter is going to marry a hero and then grief that she is going to be sacrificed. Her emotions are a sort of outsized reaction of what the audience is meant to feel for Iphigenia, particularly when she’s pleading with Achilles to save her. If she has a fault it is her womanliness, which is more of an issue with contemporary society making it impossible for her to act on her own to effect the outcome of the situation.
  • Old Man – Slave of Agamemnon and Klytaimestra
    • Loyalty – The only non-named character to make this list earned his place because of the multiple times he put himself in danger in order to carry out orders he had been given by his master, first by trying to retain his letter from Menelaos, then by exposing the sacrificial plot to Klytaimestra and Achilles. Both of these events were attempts to save Iphigenia’s life and save Klytaimestra from strife.
  • Achilles – Chief of contingent of the army, Greek Hero, son of goddess, Thetis
    • Honor/Duty – Achilles agrees to defend Iphigenia from her father and the hordes of Greek soldiers, not because she is innocent and deserves to be saved, but rather, he promises to save her because she was lured there using his name. Because Agamemnon used his name to lure Iphigenia there without his knowledge he feels responsible to protect her, however, Achilles explicitly states that had he been informed of the plot to lure Iphigenia before it was carried out he would have cosigned it. This demonstrates that it isn’t some “defense of the innocent” moral that he is guided by, but that his personal honor is most important to him.
  • Iphigenia – Daughter of Agamemnon and Klytiamestra, sacrifice to Artemis
    • Innocence – Iphigenia is the only character who is without a fault in my mind. She acts without pride or ulterior motive throughout the play, doing what she thinks is fair or what is best for all.
    • Selflessness – Being the only character that shows growth (honorable mention to Menelaos, who wasn’t important enough to make this list), Iphigenia goes from frantic at the thought of being sacrificed, to at peace with the idea. It is imparting this selflessness onto the audience that was the object of the play.

This is everyone I felt deserved a place on a “consequential characters” list. I was tempted to add Menelaos but I don’t see him as having a particular personality and his only action in the play was to foil the plot to get Iphigenia not to arrive, however that event didn’t necessarily have to be because of him, inclement weather stopping the messenger would have been just as effective.

The Analects of Confucius. Confucius (551-479 BCE), Annotated by Robert Eno (2015)

51 Replies

The Analects of Confucius are delivered to the reader in the form of truncated conversations, often only a sentence or two long. This format was initially difficult for me to read, but it grew easier and by the end of the reading I was glad not to have to read anything but the essential portions of speech. The Analects are separated into 20 books, each with its own theme, though sometimes what the theme was was lost on me.

There are several themes that show up repeatedly throughout the text. Dao, commonly translated as “The Way” or “The Path”, is something that can be shown to someone but that person must follow it themself. Li are the rituals one ought to follow in order to be honorable and respectable. Li applies both to behavior in court, making sacrifices to ancestors, and one’s reverence to their parents and older brothers. (I here say older brothers specifically rather than older siblings because women are only mentioned a few times throughout the reading and never in a position of respect or authority). Ren, difficult to translate satisfactorily, can be taken to mean humanity or goodness, though untranslated I found it easier to encompass the full idea of “those traits worth striving for in able to become a good, just person”. Junzi is literally a “true prince”, not one who gained their position by relation, but who possesses the traits that make one a good leader. A junzi doesn’t need to be in a position of power in the government, but they must be pursuant of ren.

My overall impression of Confucius is complicated. I appreciate his focus and desire on virtue coming from an individual trying to perfect themself and that only if one pursued personal perfection were they worthy to lead others. What I disagree about is that a good and just leader will make a good and just society. This attitude sees the lower classes as purely reactionary beings who have no reason of their own.

I have a lot more that I could say about the various themes of the reading and examples thereof, but I don’t think it would be either sufficient or interesting, so I’ll leave this writing as a brief one.

Egypt: Ancient History of African Philosophy. Théophile Obenga (2005)

15 Replies

The scales of Ma’at

In Egypt: Ancient History of African Philosophy, Théophile Obenga argues that African philosophy, or more specifically, Egyptian philosophy has been wrongfully excluded from philosophical canon, and more than simple inclusion, the study of Ma’at ought to be one of the most respected and well taught schools of philosophical thought.

One of the first issues Obenga approaches is that Egypt has been considered something other than African historically, either being considered the Near-East or Sub-Asian. The author doesn’t expressly address that the reason for this omission of Egypt as African was to justify the viewing of African people by Europeans as being lesser, while simultaneously being in awe of the Egypt’s progress as a civilization, though I’m sure in that debate he would have a more nuanced and vehement argument than I just gave.

Obenga goes on to express that in his view (though the essay is presented entirely as facts not up for debate) the first use of a word equivalent to philosopher was used in Egypt and written in hieroglyphics. He then spends several pages describing the form and meanings of many hieroglyphics while attempting to convince the reader that hieroglyphics are the only, best, and most effective way to convey meaning; for example, the symbols for “mouth”, “placenta”, and “papyrus, rolled up, tied and sealed” when combined mean “to know”. Get it?

I feel that if the essay were written by someone else or written as if it were a theory up for debate rather than a declaration of truth or a polemic against the prevailing academic thought of the time I would be far more likely to find it somewhat convincing. The central point that studies of philosophy have been euro-centric is absolutely true, the idea of philosophy very likely came about with the growth of city-states wherever they rose, including Egypt, but claims such as Egypt having no jails or social distinction between men and women for 35 centuries because of the power of Ma’at is too unbelievable and discredits the rest of Obenga’s work. (Not to say jails and social distinction among genders is innate to humans, but that’s another discussion for another time).

The Maxims of Ptahhotep . Ptahhotep (c.2500BCE)

35 Replies

The Maxims of Ptahhotep was an instruction manual, not on the specific acts to take, but the behavior to exhibit if one wanted to live a successful life among the nobility of Egypt. The author implies he expects the rules for polite society to remain the same forever, stating that the rules he sets down are the reason he has been favored by god.

Though the maxims are long and poetic, many can be summed up simply in a sentence or two, and many of them have the same central conceit. Withholding my opinions for the end of this writing, I will now list several of the common themes in no particular order.

Be charitable: If you have amassed wealth, share it among your friends and neighbors; being giving with your wealth increases your reputation and the loyalty of those around you. One who is not charitable risks their friends and neighbors becoming bitter and jealous.

Stay out of drama: If two people are arguing, even if you have specifically been assigned as the judge in their case, don’t pick sides.

Listen: If someone comes to you with a problem, even if you can’t or don’t want to help solve the problem, listen to them. Just listening is often helpful on its own.

Maintain your professionalism: If a person of any social rank becomes belligerent they lose standing. Through remaining silent in these situations you gain respect.

A woman is to be controlled: You chose your wife, now you must keep her

Being well liked by your boss is paramount: Manners and flattery go a long way

Prudence: Do not act until you are sure of your actions and know the right course

The list goes on. Quite often the message is to respect authority, give good advice, and move up in the world. All maxims regarding charity come with the caveat that it is to gain influence over others. The maxims about respecting authority often advise that that is the path upward. I found almost all of the maxims to be either offensive or obvious, particularly those involving women, maxim 18 advises one not to sleep with his colleagues’ wife, maxim 21 is that the relationship between man and wife is transactional in that he keeps her fed and clothed and she gives him sexual favors.

If I hadn’t been reading this for a class I would have stopped less than half way through.

If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is. Jay Garfield and Bryan Van Norden (2016)

10 Replies

In this very brief opinion piece submitted to the New York Times Opinions page in 2016, the authors argue that one of two changes ought to come to the exceedingly high number of philosophy departments around the United States and Canada that have no specialists in any field of philosophy outside of those written by European and American men.

In the first paragraph, the authors go into statistical detail about the lack of departments offering classes in more diverse fields of philosophy than the standard European and American classes. They draw particular attention to the lack of representation of philosophers who are Chinese, African, Indian, Islamic, Latin American, or Native American. Having pointed out these glaring deficiencies, the authors go on to say “the present situation is hard to justify morally, politically, epistemically or as a good educational and research training practice.”

In the following paragraphs the authors go on to argue what I have to imagine they know to be a losing point; that departments who fail to diversify their curricula ought to specify their name. Rather than being the Philosophy Department, the authors suggest they be called the Anglo-European Philosophy Department.

The next few paragraphs are the authors effectively exchanging justifications and refutations with an imagined opponent of such a change, but the end result, as is the case when anyone debates someone who isn’t there, is that the authors win out.

I don’t imagine Garfield and Van Norden thought any department would undergo such a name change as they suggested, but their rhetoric did effectively expose a critical contradiction in the logic of those philosophy departments, something I’m sure philosophers can’t stand.