Is Western Philosophy the only form of Philosophy?

When one thinks of philosophy one often thinks of European philosophers such as Neitzsche or Kant, when one thinks of ancient philosophy one often thinks of Socrates and Aristotle. As such It is most commonly thought that philosophy was first developed in ancient Greece and therefore that philosophy has a European origin. Indeed, it is true that much of modern philosophy finds its roots in Ancient Greek philosophy, and is therefore categorised as Western Philosophy. However, we cannot so easily conclude that all philosophy is therefore western philosophy. If we were to do so we would completely overlook philosophies that originated in Eastern countries which are not rooted in Greek Philosophy whatsoever.  Indeed, Confucius is often thought to be a great Chinese philosopher, yet he never came into contact with Ancient greek philosophies thus his philosophy remains completely separate from western philosophy. From here we may already conclude that there are other forms of philosophies separate from western philosophy, given that we consider Confucius a philosopher yet he is not linked to Western philosophy. However, to conclude such here is perhaps too simple as it is often debated as to whether Confucius is actually a philosopher and in turn whether ancient Chinese philosophy is actually a philosophy or just classical thought. 

Many claim that Chinese classical thought doesn’t incorporate the necessary elements which strictly pertains to philosophy. Defoort dictates that “Philosophy must give the appearance of systematicity, reflection, and rationality; it must differ from science and religion; and it must be divisible into various subdisciplines such as metaphysics, logic, and epistemology.” Chinese classical thought, however, doesn’t strictly fall under such criteria. Firstly, Chinese philosophy rarely follows a 'systematic' structure unlike western philosophy, it instead is often an amalgamation of riddles, proverbs, and conversations, in no particular order.  It does not follow a logical structure of one related argument after the other to prove a final point like in western philosophy. Furthermore, it would be difficult to place much of Chinese classical thought under western subdisciplines as although some Chinese thought shares certain aspects with such disciplinaries they do so too weakly. Yin yang, for example, is often classed as an early Chinese attempt in working out metaphysics (Metaphysics is a form of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality).  It touches upon the structure of reality and the patterns it displays.  However, this is only somewhat vaguely metaphysical and can barely be classed as such as it does not seek out the absolute truth of reality rather it is largely observational. Therefore, if Chinese classical thought does not fall under the criterion for philosophy it cannot be a philosophy. 

However, one need not take the narrow criterion provided by Defoort as law and instead the criteria to define philosophy can and should be widened to encompass Chinese classical thought. Firstly, it must be asked why Chinese classical thought should be considered philosophy. I believe that there is a certain sense of intuition that Chinese classical thought is philosophy as it is the study of wisdom. It imparts a certain degree of deep thought often hidden from everyday conscious, this type of thought is consistent in philosophy. To simply define philosophy in the way which it is structured and presented rather than defining philosophy by what at its heart, deep thought and wisdom, seems misconstrued. Furthermore, a restricted narrow definition also means that a considerable number of thinkers of western philosophy would have to remain outside philosophy’s borders. For example, Heraclitus’ work was often formed as poetry rather than completely systematic, yet Heraclitus is part of Greek tradition of philosophy and is often classed as one of the first philosophers. It therefore seems necessary to change the definition of philosophy to encompass Chinese philosophy because not only does Chinese classical thought seem instinctively philosophic, but a narrow definition of philosophy stifles western philosophy too.

However perhaps if one were to widen the term philosophy to encompass that of Chinese classical thought, it would allow non-philosophical thoughts to be defined as philosophy. Indeed, Chinese philosophy is in some ways close to that of a religious text in that it seeks to guide a person. Many of Confucius’ notions echo that of religious texts, despite its origin not being that of religion. For, example Confucius’ golden rule is vastly similar to that of the Christian golden rule. As a result, one may argue that these two thoughts would be far too difficult to separate when producing a new definition for philosophy, and one would necessarily have to encompass religion under the new definition of philosophy. In order to prevent ‘philosophy’ from being an arbitrary term which includes a plethora of non-philosophical, perhaps theological, thought, one cannot create a definition of philosophy that encompasses classical Chinese thought and therefore one cannot define such Ancient Chinese thought as Philosophy.

However, this is only a preliminary issue as there can be a definition of philosophy that encompasses Chinese philosophy, whilst avoiding non-philosophies. This definition I will provide is somewhat not too dissimilar for that of Defoort’s, it is a list of criteria we expect from texts deemed as philosophy. “Philosophy must give the appearance of wisdom, reflection, rationality and deep thought. It must be open to change, criticism and discussion, it must not intentionally be formed to be unbreakable law”The first notion In this definition sets out the intrinsic heart of philosophy followed by secondary notions which dismiss religious texts from philosophy. Religious texts are noted to be the complete and unchangeable truths from a prophet or God. Therefore, they are not meant to be open for criticism, instead they are unchangeable and should be followed as law. Those who dismiss or criticise religious texts are non-believers rather than an equally valued academic. 

Chinese philosophy, however, is open to be discussed and dismissed if necessary, when published it places itself to be analysed and scrutinised by other intellectuals of the time, take the Mohists whom critique Confucius. Chinese philosophy is proposed, not as law but as general thought, or guidance. To not follow it and instead critique it would not be punishable by any figure or deity in any time period. Therefore, Chinese philosophy is included under this new definition, as such I believe we can class Chinese classical thought as Chinese, thus non-western, philosophy.

Therefore we can conclude that some Chinese Classical thought such as the works by Confucius can be considered as philosophy. As such we can conclude that Western philosophy is not the only form of philosophy.