&gt; &quot;Analytical philosophers generally resist about having to teach history of philosophy.&quot;<p>I actually agree with you on this. It&#x27;s fine to draw inspiration from historical theories, but I&#x27;d prefer if we could focus more on the ideas themselves, and less on the history behind those ideas. That said, this is orthogonal to what the article is about. Given that so much of philosophy classes revolves around &quot;History of Philosophy,&quot; it makes sense to cover the full range of history, and not just one slice of it.<p>&gt; &quot;What topics discussed by non-European philosophers do you think are neglected? Yes it&#x27;s hard to imagine there isn&#x27;t bias in topic selection, but then this needs to be addressed by convincing modern researchers that whatever non-European ideas are better on their merits, not by studying modern non-European philosophy as a separate topic.&quot;<p>What you said is exactly what the author is arguing as well. He&#x27;s expressly arguing against the segmentation of western&#x2F;eastern philosophy into different topics, and in favor of integrating them into the mainstream of philosophy, based on their individual merits. He&#x27;s also given specific examples of non-western philosophy that is unfairly neglected, and meriting integrated study. So far in this thread, numerous people have disagreed with the author, but I&#x27;ve yet to see any highly rated comment dispute the merit of the examples he&#x27;s given.