 Doing comparative philosophy well can be very difficult because of the vast range of texts and their intellectual and historical contexts it requires its practitioners to cover. Oversimplifications, excessively stark contrasts, and illicit assimilations count as the most frequent sins. One benefit of comparative philosophy lies in the way that it forces reflection on the most deeply entrenched and otherwise unquestioned agendas and assumptions of one’s own tradition. Another benefit at which its practitioners often aim is that the traditions actually interact and enrich one another. Demands for rigor and depth of scholarship obviously rank as some of the most important standards applying to philosophy inquiry. The task of meeting these standards becomes more manageable as the field of inquiry narrows. Such a result can be legitimate but sometimes myopic and impoverishing. To the extent that different traditions address common or overlapping problems, we might expect better philosophical work from those who can draw from a greater range of traditions. Drawing from studies in experimental psychology and the theory of culture as providing individuals with toolkits for problem-solving, Bruya (2015) argues that a multicultural approach in philosophy and in education generally contributes more creativity and effectiveness in problem-solving.