The underlying problem (which wasn&#x27;t mentioned at all in this essay) is that contemporary philosophical education is a confusing mix of two things:<p>1. Ideas on particular &quot;universal&quot; topics, like <i>politics, ethics, metaphysics, and so on.</i> We can call this &quot;philosophy.&quot;<p>2. What certain people thought about said ideas. We can call this &quot;history of thought.&quot;<p>Should there be a wider variety of cultures in #2? Of course.  But it&#x27;s also very important to realize that philosophy, that is, the activity of ruminating on ideas, is largely a process that happens within specific culture in reaction and in conversation to other members of a culture. So while Confucian thought on the family is no doubt very robust and worth exploring, it is simply out-of-place and lacking context when placed next to 20th-century Anglo-American philosophy, for example. Wittgenstein was writing in response to western philosophers that came before him. One cannot really understand W. without understanding the centuries of western thought that led to him.<p>Personally, I&#x27;d like to see more of a clear distinction between &quot;philosophy&quot; and &quot;history of thought&quot;. This would allow for more inclusion of non-western thought while also recognizing that viewpoints on certain subjects are not equally as valid simply because they are from a different culture.<p><i>Source: philosophy-degree-holder currently working on a philosophy startup.</i>