Maybe not all wise and interesting work is "philosophy"?

This is an interesting response from a political theorist to the unfortunate piece by Professors Garfield and van Norden we discussed some time ago.  It is true that much, but not all, of Western philosophy can be traced back to Plato, more or less, but I suppose Garfield & Van Norden would just say, "OK, then call philosophy departments 'Departments of Philosophy After Plato,'" an even more misleading title than the one they proposed!  Why should lineage to Plato get special claim to the field?  And what about the pre-Socratic philosophers?  There's a reason they get called philosophers too!  And just because styles of argument in some non-Western traditions are different (some are not different at all however!), the concerns are often recognizably similar.

Still, there is something to be said for disciplinary expertise and depth, and a department of philosophy can't be all things to all people.  It is true that many wise and deep writings are not philosophy--it would be remarkable to suggest otherwise!

UPDATE:  An amusing response to this piece from philosopher Bryan Van Norden (Vassar).