1. Philosophers should care about the sociology of philosophy.
2. From the perspective of global intellectual history, the analytic-continental divide is a family squabble between 2 Eurocentric siblings.
3. Hegel is an important thinker for history & philosophy of science. https://twitter.com/bryanvannorden/status/1344013256655044613

4. I don’t think that the best philosophy gets written by people who only read philosophy (this is probably true of other disciplines, but maybe of more import to philosophy). Pedagogically I think that it would be good for philosophy to be studied along with another...

discipline: linguistics, chemistry, maths, social history, economic history, physics, whatever “first-order” (?) you want. I think that philosophy works best by feeding off problems from other disciplines. Also, historically speaking I think you can’t name...

a single “great philosopher” (problematic category that requires sociological/causal accounts of canon formation processes!) who only read work that we would today classify as “philosophy proper”.

5. Studies of eurocentrism/racism in figures like Kant and Hegel are imp, but they shouldn’t be divorced from the study of the reception of those thinkers by the people whom Kant and Hegel were racist towards.

Here’s an example, while there is much work on “Orientalism” in Hegel in the Anglophone world, the issue of Orientalism is actually not that important in Hegel’s reception in the Arabic speaking world. This doesn’t imply that we shouldn’t think seriously...

about Orientalism in Hegel, but it does imply that we shouldn’t make uniformed assumptions about how difficult it was/is for people to make a distinction between Hegel’s racist/orientalist claims and what they took to be the emancipatory elements of Hegel’s philos.

I guess my point is that without such reception histories we could end speaking on other people’s behalf, and simply ignore how the affected people in question have responded to such issues.

5. You shouldn’t go study “non-Western philosophy” with the aim of finding some kind of fundamental cultural difference/otherness (self-contained, isolated cultural units don’t exist). It’s not some fantasy escapist adventure....

Obsessing over “fundamental cultural differences” when doing comparative philosophy reproduces what Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò (not on Twitter!) calls the “metaphysics of difference” which was a pillar of colonial policy making, especially in the African context.