The HBS hosts take a look at the much (and rightly) maligned “Philosophical Canon.” Who should stay in? Who should be cut? Is it time to get rid of the Canon altogether?

In this episode, Leigh, Ammon and Shannon tackle the so-called philosophical canon, loosely understood as a set of texts and/or authors that form the discipline’s core. But the canon is not neutral and has come under increasing scrutiny exclusions from it have material consequences. Who forms the canon? What are the implications of keeping some people in and excluding others? Should the canon be rejected entirely because of its inherent racism, heteronormativity, sexism, and classism? What would philosophy as a discipline be if not based in figures and texts? Should the canon instead be expanded to include more diverse voices from around the world and from different epistemological standpoints? Would this fix the problems or only exacerbate them? Listen as the crew grapples with these thorny questions and their own education within and against the philosophical canon.

 For further reading, check out the links below:

• Bryan W. Van Norden argues that most approaches to philosophy are racist.
• Dan-el Padilla, Professor of Classics at Princeton argues that Classics is inherently racist and may need to be entirely dismantled.
• For more on Kant’s problematic account of cosmopolitanism, see “Dismantling Kantian Frames: Notes toward a Feminist Politics of Location and Accountability,” by Dilek Huseyinzadegan & Jordan Pascoe.
• David Rutledge argues that “Racist attitudes ‘whitewashed’ modern philosophy” and asks, what can be done to change it?
• Martin Lenz argues for a teleofunctional account of canons.
• Fellow podcaster, Peter Adamson, argues for a different approach to expanding the canon.