DISCLAIMER: This channel will only be posting videos on the work of Hispanic/Latin American Philosophers during the Hispanic/Latin American Heritage Month. The same will be done for philosophers from other unknown and unappreciated traditions in the heritage months. After these months, we will go back to covering the usual content.
Hope you also cover Arabic Philosophy sometime in the future I can barely find any Arabic philosophy on TH-cam or on the internet as a whole even though it has been extremely influential sad that it's not getting enough credit
Bolivian here: The issue of where latin american philosophy starts (because after 1990 is clear we have own philosphical schools and thoughts) is related to the definition of what exactly constitutes an independent thought. Lets look to Japan to ilustrate this. Japanese philosophy from the very start was based on Chinese and Indian philosophy. The first known japanese who did philosphical writing was the budist monk Kukai, whom wrote most of its work in ancient chinese. All schoolars agree that Japanese philosophy (as a diferent tradition from Chinese one or Indian one) eventually arose, however, where we draw the line between Chinese philosophy done by japanese writers and proper Japanese philosophy? For some the line shall be where the philosphical work is distinct enough to build a diferent school within the heritaged tradition. If so Zen Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism (my book gives me the translation as tierra pura, don't know the original japanese word for it) are the begining of Japanese philosophy (1200~ AC) . We shall call this approach Theory 1. However others would draw the line at the point where there is a school which attacks or at least questions all the heritaged tradition. After all, traditions built over the foregin foundations are in some ways still branchs of the old tree, rather than newborn plants. In the Japanese case the first school to question Buddhism and Confucianism as a whole is the National Studies school (1600AC~) with its philosphical work being based around Shinto. Lets call this approach Theory 2. Now, the question of latinoamerican philosophy is not the existance of Latinoamerican-born philosphers. As early as in the 1600 we can find in the works of Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz a theory of aesthetics. However, Sor Juana was by all metrics a Spanish writer (even if born in México) whose work is considered part of the Golden century alongside Cervantes, Quevedo, Alarcon (another born-Mexican) and Gongora. The question is, then, when latinoamerican philosphers stopped doing Spanish or Portuguese philosophy? Under Theory 1 we can see that the latinoamerican approaches to liberalism (understood as Voltaire, Locke, Russeau, Pain, etc.) during and after the independence wars started to morph into a separate school. This different school was born out of the reflexion of creating a republic in a multicultural Society and a diferent aproach to the role of the state (all independence heroes were military men and the armies crafted most constitutions, unlike US or UK). If the first lights of this different aproach can be seen in Bolívar and Andrés Bello, it is only in 1850-1890 where it is fully developed with Juárez in Mexico , Sarmiento and Alberdi in Argentina and Martí in Cuba. If we follow Theory 2, we shall go the 1970's. Under the rule of military dictatirships in south América snd civil wars in Central América most philosphers (and academics in general) started to lose faith in liberalism, modernity, progress, nationalism and other european-imported frameworks. Most simply switched to various forms of Marxism, however in México City (the most safe and democratic country at the time,being host of most exiled minds) started to question the true emancipatory potencial of soviet Marxism. Startingas a critic within Marxism with Bolívar Echeverria, the Mexican based circles started a decade's long debate over modernity, socialism and Latin América. While at the birth of the 90's some of those circles ended being local schools of marxism (for example Jorge Veraza-Andrés Barreda line) Argentinian Enrique Dussel alongside Peruvian Quijano created the "Decolonial switch" which is a school who instead of calling for the destruction of modernity's paradigms (as post-modernism do), or simply siding with the good side of modernity (as Marxism do) these thinkers go for the emancipation of reason and progress from the colonial and violent myths which are fundational to modernity. In short, the Decolonial theory goes towards the construction of a Trans-modernity with a multiethnic and multi-civilizational buildup. The rejection of most of what we could call "the tradition within modernity" (christianity, industrialism, occidentalism, european languages and so on) present a clear cut with all european legacy. Here I end my reflexion. Thanks for covering the topic, you are the first English-based channel to do so in youtube.
Thank you for your well-thought out input! It seems you have studied quite a bit as I can see it reflected in your essay. I am very impressed and happy to come someone who is an avid learner like I am. I personally don't think theory 1 is a bad thing since most civilizations are influenced by either Mesopotamia, India, China, or Egypt. Still, I cannot wait to see how Latin Americans/Hispanics as independent states and individuals will create their own path and build their own independent identity, one that is quite distinct from the one that they inherited from Europeans, assuming that the effects of globalization and the American influence don't continue at this pace. Even once strong ancient civilization like China is struggling for a new identity as western influence is overwhelming so it will be interesting to see whether these civilizations will continue or falter under intense pressure.
Wow. I didn’t know my videos would be useful in more ways than one. Didn’t expect to see this one coming Hahaha! Thanks for watching and hope you did well on your quiz!
DISCLAIMER: This channel will only be posting videos on the work of Hispanic/Latin American Philosophers during the Hispanic/Latin American Heritage Month. The same will be done for philosophers from other unknown and unappreciated traditions in the heritage months. After these months, we will go back to covering the usual content.
Hope you also cover Arabic Philosophy sometime in the future I can barely find any Arabic philosophy on TH-cam or on the internet as a whole even though it has been extremely influential sad that it's not getting enough credit
No worries I got you ;)
Another great video I'll be looking forward to this series again next year
Bolivian here:
The issue of where latin american philosophy starts (because after 1990 is clear we have own philosphical schools and thoughts) is related to the definition of what exactly constitutes an independent thought. Lets look to Japan to ilustrate this.
Japanese philosophy from the very start was based on Chinese and Indian philosophy. The first known japanese who did philosphical writing was the budist monk Kukai, whom wrote most of its work in ancient chinese. All schoolars agree that Japanese philosophy (as a diferent tradition from Chinese one or Indian one) eventually arose, however, where we draw the line between Chinese philosophy done by japanese writers and proper Japanese philosophy?
For some the line shall be where the philosphical work is distinct enough to build a diferent school within the heritaged tradition. If so Zen Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism (my book gives me the translation as tierra pura, don't know the original japanese word for it) are the begining of Japanese philosophy (1200~ AC) . We shall call this approach Theory 1.
However others would draw the line at the point where there is a school which attacks or at least questions all the heritaged tradition. After all, traditions built over the foregin foundations are in some ways still branchs of the old tree, rather than newborn plants. In the Japanese case the first school to question Buddhism and Confucianism as a whole is the National Studies school (1600AC~) with its philosphical work being based around Shinto. Lets call this approach Theory 2.
Now, the question of latinoamerican philosophy is not the existance of Latinoamerican-born philosphers. As early as in the 1600 we can find in the works of Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz a theory of aesthetics. However, Sor Juana was by all metrics a Spanish writer (even if born in México) whose work is considered part of the Golden century alongside Cervantes, Quevedo, Alarcon (another born-Mexican) and Gongora.
The question is, then, when latinoamerican philosphers stopped doing Spanish or Portuguese philosophy?
Under Theory 1 we can see that the latinoamerican approaches to liberalism (understood as Voltaire, Locke, Russeau, Pain, etc.) during and after the independence wars started to morph into a separate school. This different school was born out of the reflexion of creating a republic in a multicultural Society and a diferent aproach to the role of the state (all independence heroes were military men and the armies crafted most constitutions, unlike US or UK). If the first lights of this different aproach can be seen in Bolívar and Andrés Bello, it is only in 1850-1890 where it is fully developed with Juárez in Mexico , Sarmiento and Alberdi in Argentina and Martí in Cuba.
If we follow Theory 2, we shall go the 1970's. Under the rule of military dictatirships in south América snd civil wars in Central América most philosphers (and academics in general) started to lose faith in liberalism, modernity, progress, nationalism and other european-imported frameworks. Most simply switched to various forms of Marxism, however in México City (the most safe and democratic country at the time,being host of most exiled minds) started to question the true emancipatory potencial of soviet Marxism. Startingas a critic within Marxism with Bolívar Echeverria, the Mexican based circles started a decade's long debate over modernity, socialism and Latin América. While at the birth of the 90's some of those circles ended being local schools of marxism (for example Jorge Veraza-Andrés Barreda line) Argentinian Enrique Dussel alongside Peruvian Quijano created the "Decolonial switch" which is a school who instead of calling for the destruction of modernity's paradigms (as post-modernism do), or simply siding with the good side of modernity (as Marxism do) these thinkers go for the emancipation of reason and progress from the colonial and violent myths which are fundational to modernity. In short, the Decolonial theory goes towards the construction of a Trans-modernity with a multiethnic and multi-civilizational buildup. The rejection of most of what we could call "the tradition within modernity" (christianity, industrialism, occidentalism, european languages and so on) present a clear cut with all european legacy.
Here I end my reflexion. Thanks for covering the topic, you are the first English-based channel to do so in youtube.
Thank you for your well-thought out input! It seems you have studied quite a bit as I can see it reflected in your essay. I am very impressed and happy to come someone who is an avid learner like I am.
I personally don't think theory 1 is a bad thing since most civilizations are influenced by either Mesopotamia, India, China, or Egypt. Still, I cannot wait to see how Latin Americans/Hispanics as independent states and individuals will create their own path and build their own independent identity, one that is quite distinct from the one that they inherited from Europeans, assuming that the effects of globalization and the American influence don't continue at this pace. Even once strong ancient civilization like China is struggling for a new identity as western influence is overwhelming so it will be interesting to see whether these civilizations will continue or falter under intense pressure.
I am currently having my quiz while watching this. HAHAHAHA you're a grade saver! ✨💙thank you so much!
Wow. I didn’t know my videos would be useful in more ways than one. Didn’t expect to see this one coming Hahaha! Thanks for watching and hope you did well on your quiz!
@@lyceumofphilosophy9392 i can totally say that I did great. So grateful for your video! Keep on making educational videos! ✨