[jazzyk]

Looking at my daughter's textbook at a top-20 college in the US, I was stunned. She took a (core) class in philosophy/psychology. Very little time was spent on classics (ancient philosophers, Kant, Hegel, Freud, etc.) They were replaced by contemporary researchers (often from the same university), often with a VERY extreme, one-sided, politicized agenda (feminist, etc.). Pretty sad.

[vkou]

It's a shame that a well rounded education doesn't solely consist of studying entirely apolitical, classic European thinkers.

It's almost as if there is more to the world than Central and Mediterranean Europe.

And heaven forbid, students get exposed to radical ideas in their philosophy classes. We can't have any of that, here.

[jazzyk]

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder - I said ancient philosophers, the list of names was not meant to be exhaustive, just a few, to give the reader an idea. Of course one would include Confucius, Buddha, etc in that list. A short post cannot be as precise as a dissertation.

Students are already exposed to too many radical ideas (supported by current political interests), which REPLACED the basics/foundations - that was my point.

[vkou]

Many current political interests support the views of classic liberal philosophers. Just because the view is mainstream doesn't make it apolitical.

[FT_intern]

The author's criticism was about replacement of old ideas, not addition of new ideas

[vkou]

Those old ideas provide a very occicentric, and, by extension, biased framework for understanding the world.

There are plenty of old ideas that are excluded by what most universities define to be classical education - yet the complaints are about lack of coverage for Kant and Plato, rather then, say Confuscius, or Cornel West. (For examples both less, and more relevant to modern thought.)

The complaint was directed at a Philosophy education, not at a Western Philosophy education. If said top-20 college promised the latter, and ignored the classics, that would be reason to complain. Otherwise, it's like complaining that your History class didn't solely focus on America.

The other assumption that I call into question is that Freud, Kant, etc are 'apolitical' figures - whereas a feminist writer is 'political.' This is, quite plainly, nonsense.

[marris]

What are the politics of Kant and Plato?

[vkou]

What are the politics of Karl Marx?

Plato's views on government, and condemnation of democracy are quite clearly laid out in the Republic.

Kant writings have plenty to say about freedom vis-a-vis government, state power, rights of property, revolutions, warfare.

None of these great minds existed in an apolitical, unbiased vacuum, where they could devote themselves to nothing but free thought.

When it comes to education, my impression is that people use the term 'apolitical' to describe political opinions that happen to align with their own. Hence, Hobbes and Locke are apolitical - whereas feminist philosophy so frequently is. Adam Smith? Apolitical. Karl Marx? Political.

[marris]

> None of these great minds existed in an apolitical, unbiased vacuum, where they could devote themselves to nothing but free thought.

If that is the claim, then I agree that it is wrong. The most common criticism of Marx that I have heard is not that he is political, but that he is wrong (and perhaps incoherent). Similarly, I think that any curriculum that wants to replace the highly influential writings of Plato with another philosopher should make a case for why we should do this... an argument beyond the "inclusion" of additional points of view. I can sit at my desk and come up with a dozen different points of view. I don't think that each of those should be included in a philosophy class, in place of Plato.

[duaneb]

Can you think of a core class that would include Aristotle and Freud? It'd be a shitty survey class where people came out half-educated, using phrases like "begs the question" instead of "raises the question", which is ideally part of the problem philosophy core classes should solve. I don't think a survey of modern philosophers is any worse than this. Philosophy half-understood isn't very meaningful.

Also, modern philosophers have a lot to say. I still recommend de Beauvoir and Wittgenstein to anyone who cares to read.

[gm-conspiracy]

How much did the textbook cost?