Dilworth's book shows little evicence of extensive dialogue, but simply imposes a preconceived (and distinctively Western) set of archetypes ("archic configurations") on a vast amount of extremely varied material. Accordingly, his interpretations of many philosophical figures are overly restricted or exaggerated to the point of carricature. (This is certainly true of his treatment of Nietzsche, for example, who more than any philosopher encouraged us to employ a variety of "perspectives" and developed a number of very different, often half-cocked ideas throughout his productive career. I suspect that a similar charge might be made on behalf of the "unorthodox" Chinese thinkers Dilworth tackles on pages 92-97.) (..) Reading throught Dilworth's book one never gets any impression whatever that these philosophers ever lived in any particular culture. (..) Dilworth takes very seriously the idea of cross-cultural comparison and contrast of philosophies, although the result is often gross oversimplification. (..) The 'archic' method rarely gets down to details or, for that matter, into any sense of the actual activity or integrity of the many philosophers he analyzes. (..) The 'world-perspective' in this book is neither global nor cosmic, but, one might say, interplanetary, observing great thinkers from an enormous distance. (..) Dilworth early on identifies himself with the 'antihistoricist' battalions of the current multiculturalism debate, and this explains, in part, his own refusal to involve substantial cultural and historical considerations in his purely analytic treatment of his subject. (..) The best route to familiarity [with the philosophy of another or our own culture] is intimacy, not analysis alone. (..) My reservations about Dilworth's book derive for the most part from his tendency to 'look down' on the various masterpieces of Western and Eastern philosophy as from a great height, taking them all in at a sweep. But for the reader who is not familiar with many of the world's great philosophical traditions (..) the idea of a different tradition - not just a coincidental parallel - gets lost. One has to get 'into' the other tradition |