Position:Home>Philosophy> Almost all venerated thinkers throughout the history of western philosophy are p

The ability to reflect is Kierkegaard's second sphere (Ethics)!. When one is short wealth and the ethical impulse to know self and life, one is in the existential or Aesthetic first sphere of Kierkegaard!.

Hence, Western philosophy is as you say--primarily a function of ability to reflect, of wealth, education and libraries, and leisure!.

However, there are some in the Western tradition who've done excellent philosophy without such "poshness!." E!.g!., Plotinus, who regularly experienced out-of-body learning, who described reality as "One Mind Soul"-individuation, and who is the most important influence in Western philosophy outside of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers (Saints Augustine and Aquinas, Philo Judaeus and Maimonides, and al Ghazali, for example)!.

It is noteworthy that Wittgenstein, while born into a wealthy Judeo-Christian heritage, lived a live of voluntary poverty and ordinary work, save during his University years (which are not per se "wealthy," btw)!. In some ways, he and Goedel, and indirectly Frege, have moved Western philosophy to universal philosophy, by virtue of recognizing the underlying uncertainty which informs the Aristotelian project to scientism!.

Husserl and Whitehead further moved philosophy into Being, e!.g!. Husserl's Pure Ego, and this type of Sufi "fana" awareness of Void is harmonious with both the Confucian and Taoist traditions, and the Kyoto School of Japan, including the Zen Buddhist influence of Voidness, which e!.g!. Tanabe move beyond the feckless aspects of Western existentialism ("Philosophy as Metanoetics," Tanabe, for example)!.

Along with current African thinkers, who tend to emphasize the communitarian and spiritist aspects of awareness, the future of Western philosophy, as it moves beyond mere "AI" and the reductionism of e!.g!. a Dennett, may find support in e!.g!. the quantum experiments of those such as William A!. Tiller http://www!.tiller!.org
http://www!.heartmath!.org
http://www!.integralscience!.org
http://www!.sheldrake!.org
http://www!.noetic!.org
http://www!.quantumbrain!.org
http://www!.tcm!.phy!.cam!.ac!.uk/~bdj10 and
http://www!.divinecosmos!.com

"A Philosophy of Universality," O!. M!. Aivanhov!.
"The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet!.
"Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose!.

In fine, the current thinking is basically moving beyond parochial Western materialism, into the broader confluences of all traditions, and, as you allude, it is well to frame and inform one's reading of Western philosophers in the current global awareness!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Mainly because they posh, white men were the best educated and only ones able to afford books and an education in the first place!. Before them they were almost all Roman or Greek!.
I think philosophy has widened its intake of people of different backgrounds (and also women) in the last 100 yrs!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Many posh white men are thieves that stole ideas from other cultures and took credit for them!. These criminals move in on other cultures and obstruct their kindnesses and use them for their genius then falsely proclaim to history that it's their own!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I think's it's a moot point!. Truth endures and rises above such petty details!. If a person's thoughts are lacking in truth they won't survive!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

!.!.!.its because writers of history contained their work to their known world at the time!.!.!.
!.!.!.as the world grew more data was made available to the "educated"
maintaining this bias!.!.!.
!.!.!.such is life!.!.!.thanks for the question!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Wittgenstein was poor all his life!. So was Nietzche!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

How about us East Siders!?!?!?!?

We're ascetic and oriental


Lao Tzu
Confucius
BuddhaWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

A: does it diminish in anyway the importance of what they had to say!? Wouldn't it be reverse-racism to disregard something important because a "posh white man" said it as opposed to, say, a poor black woman!? Judging by your avatar, should we put a disclaimer before everything that you say, because you happen to be a posh white man!?

B: Why is it a surprise that posh white men wrote philosophy in the posh white culture!? Do we put disclaimers before Lao-Tzu and Confucius because they were posh Aasian men!? Or Siddhattha Gotama and Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak because they were posh Indian men!? Or Ptah-Hotep and Ron Karenga because they are posh African men!? Or do we acknowledge that, the rich were the ones with the free time to sit around and think about these sort of things, and the men were the only ones allowed to do so, so it stands to reason that they would be the only ones who arrived at these insights!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Yes, what comes after the craft of broadmindedness!?

Universal History is the venerated determinate, insuper - the contemporary focus is on white men who do not necessarily have to be venerated, posh, or especially, philosophers, to fall under scrutiny!. In contrast, philosophy is, has been, and will always be an indeterminate and voluntary individual pursuit that does not answer directly to the group project!. Philosophy, because of its close affinity to Nature, occasionally limits itself to addressing the same audience indirectly, with the same opinions that so easily satisfy the worst students, the ones who mistake history for philosophy!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I think its because people (majority anyway) only take the posh, rich, and acceptable by society, seriously!. and that is especially in the past!. No one would want to believe the rants of an uneducated person, but they would give all ears to the noise of the well-bred one!.

I am certain that society dismissed a lot of geniuses in the past, never let them get published, or laughed at there faces!. Just as how they laughed when the thought of the earth being round was mentioned!.

There is also an example of this in "The Little Prince", the one about the astronomer who found the small meteor!. No one listened to him coz he wore his traditional clothes, but when he came back wearing his european suit, they listened and published his findings!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

i believe in roland barthes idea of the 'death of the author' if you need to contextualise a philosphy with personal, geographical or political information of the time of the author then it is of less value due to it's lesser scope than those that do not require such a contextualisation to make the philosophy more easily understood!.

quality should shine through regardless of source

so i don't think the high proportion of whiteness relevant and in the past the high class were the only ones to have the luxury of a combination of education and luxury time on thier hands to be able to philosophise in the first place!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

IF you look at most early western history it is all done by white men with money, with a few exceptions!. This is how history was written, a woman could not have gotten any work published, nor could a black man, at the time!. It is only recently that races and sex's where considered equal, and even then only it some places is this so!. So the reason that all early philosophers in my opinion ae largely posh white males, is because these people had time to waste and think about the world around them in a different view!. It had nothing to do with men being smarted then women or white being more intelligent than any other race, it had everything to do with free time, allowing the rich to feel more in tune with the world!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---