ABSTRACT
The premise of this chapter is that the current philosophical canon does not adequately represent non-white-dead-European-males (non-DWEMs). In response to ‘the problem of representation’, some argue that, because the canon is inherently racist, sexist, elitist or otherwise hierarchical, it should be abolished altogether. Others argue that despite a lamentable history of exclusion, the canon should be preserved and made more inclusive or pluralistic. The author offers a third response: we ought to reimagine the canon in a way that helps us to understand why certain contributions have been wrongly excluded and that encourages us to reconsider who belongs on the list. To help make his case, the author introduces the reader to four (non-canonical) Mexican philosophers to make three points. First, the traditional canon is imperialistic in the sense that it is based on an understanding of the Western tradition that justifies our ignorance of other traditions and makes us indifferent to our ignorance. Second, the purpose of canonical works is to help us grow into our full humanity. Third, we ought to understand our common humanity in terms of the precariousness and fragility of human existence that one Mexican philosopher calls our ‘common accidentality’. The aim of reimagining the canon then is not to make it more inclusive in the sense of adding marginalised figures to an already established list but to identify new criteria for reconsidering everyone on and off the list.
