I realize you are replying to part of the discussion but your comment seems to be a nice point in support of the original article and I would like to see if you agree.<p>You mention one strand of western philosophy, &quot;the Western Analytic (mostly anglophone) tradition&quot; that believes its work is most closely related to math but then also point out that, while practitioners from that school are open to participation from non-westerners, they often face &quot;conceptual and not just large linguistic barriers&quot; at engaging with such contributions.<p>You seem to be saying that there may be value in these contributions but that we lack the cultural framework to understand and engage with them. If that is true, even though this is the portion of philosophy most consciously focused on mathematics-like deductive reasoning, doesn&#x27;t that suggest an insufficiency in our current programs and perhaps argue that we need to expand our coverage if we are going to engage with practitioners in a global field?