This paper explores early Australasian philosophy in some detail. Two approaches have dominated Western philosophy in Australia: idealism and materialism. Idealism was prevalent between the 1880s and the 1930s, but dissipated thereafter. Idealism in Australia often reflected Kantian themes, but it also reflected the revival of interest in Hegel through the work of ‘absolute idealists’ such as T. H. Green, F. H. Bradley, and Henry Jones. A number of the early New Zealand philosophers were also educated in the idealist tradition (...) and were influential in their communities, but produced relatively little. In Australia, materialism gained prominence through the work of John Anderson, who arrived in Australia in 1927, and continues to be influential. John Anderson had been a student of Henry Jones, who might therefore be said to have influenced both main strands of Australian philosophical thought. (shrink)

In considering philosophy of education now and in the future, this paper explores the issue from an Australasian perspective. While philosophy of education in this part of the world has strong international links there is an absence of indigenous influences. A number of philosophical strands have developed including naturalism and postmodernism which have informed thinking about education policy and practice. The institutional side of philosophy of education has witnessed both the promotion of philosophers to professorial positions and the slow decline (...) in numbers as departing staff are not replaced. How philosophy of education will fare in the future will depend on the survival of an academic community, the opportunity to teach papers in the subject to undergraduate and postgraduate students (and so replace ourselves) and convincing teachers and policy makers that philosophy of education makes an indispensable contribution to improving policy and the educational experiences of students. (shrink)

Among the reams of volumes published on the Pacific, mostly by foreigners (but increasingly by Pacific Islanders), only a few have examined Pacific thought and how it relates to contemporary ideas, paradigms, and ways of doing. Existing material in this area has been written mainly by Pacific theologians, educators,and more recently by native and indigenous anthropologists and sociologists. While theological works have remained essentially hidden in library stacks in unpublished theses, articles written by native and indigenous anthropologists and sociologists have (...) been published in recent editions of The Contemporary Pacific. The voice of educators, led particularly by the usp School of Education but present also in other parts of the Pacific, is still somewhat marginal in terms of its impact on mainstream education. Put together, the work of these Pacific scholars represents an important building block for the elaboration of a body of Pacific thought, which, like an open fale, should not shut out the world but invite it in on its own terms. In turn, this body of Pacific thought should contribute to the affirmation of a Pacific philosophy and ethic: a body of applicable concepts and values to guide interaction within the region and beyond. (shrink)

Is the history of philosophy primarily a contribution to PHILOSOPHY or primarily a contribution to HISTORY? This paper is primarily contribution to history (specifically the history of New Zealand) but although the history of philosophy has been big in New Zealand, most NZ philosophers with a historical bent are primarily interested in the history of philosophy as a contribution to philosophy. My essay focuses on two questions: 1) How did New Zealand philosophy get to be so good? And why, given (...) that is so good (a point I am at pains to establish), has it apparently had so slight a cultural impact within New Zealand itself? Did we get the wrong Anderson – the uninspiring William, who was Professor at Auckland, rather than his talented younger brother John, who had such a huge cultural influence as Professor of Philosophy at Sydney? Perhaps but that can only be part of the story since we managed to attract even bigger stars, (notably Karl Popper) as well as breeding bigger talents of our own (Prior, Baier, Bennett, Mulgan, Hursthouse, Waldron and many more). Do we export our best talent? Sometimes – but the stars that stay and the stars who arrive don’t seem to have much impact in New Zealand itself however brightly they shine in the international philosophical firmament. Is it too esoteric? Perhaps, but esoteric philosophy can still have a cultural impact, witness, Moore, Popper and the younger Anderson. Is it, like many of New Zealand’s cultural products (from romance novels to movies), primarily intended for an international audience? That’s a large part of the answer but only a part. Another part of the answer is that philosophy HAS had a cultural impact but that impact is not readily apparent. For NZ philosophers have been less keen to push their ideological barrows and more keen to produce critical thinkers, and critical thinkers don’t all think alike. The logician George Hughes was apparently a life-changing teacher not because he had a nostrum but because he taught people to think. As one of his students said ‘the only ism you believe in is the syllogism’. On the whole the history of New Zealand Philosphy is a ‘From Log Cabin to White House’ tale, ‘From colonial obscurity through struggle and adversity to philosophical excellence’. But there are shadows in the picture. Some departments have nearly come to grief through bureaucratic and political misadventures, and it is hard to resist the suspicion that there is often an element of hostility to philosophers on the part of both university bureaucrats and fellow-academics. I speculate as to why this is the case (we are too argumentative and don’t confine our argumentative tendencies to the cloister) but conclude with some upbeat reflections. on the future of New Zealand Philosophy. (shrink)

This article explores the rehabilitation of the ethical dimension of human interactions with nature, using cross-cultural perspectives in Africa. Cross-cultural comparison of indigenous concepts of the relationship between people and nature with contemporary environmental and scientific issues facilitate the rehabilitation, renewal and validation of indigenous environmental ethics. Although increasing attention is being given to the environmental concerns of non-western traditions, most of the related research has centered on Asia, Native American Indians and Australian Aborigines with little attention being paid to (...) Africa. However, this study has confirmed that, like other multi-cultural traditions, African indigenous traditions contain symbolic and ethical messages that are passed from generation to generation in order to ensure respect and compassion for other living creatures. The article shows, however, that not all indigenous knowledge is environmentally friendly. Indigenous and modern environmental ethics alike have something to teach as well as something to learn. (shrink)

Care is at the heart of the Maori values system, which calls for humans to be kaitiaki, caretakers of the maun y the life-force, in each other and in nature. The relational Five Well-beings approach, based on four case studies of Maori businesses, demonstrates how business can create spiritual, cultural, social, environmental and economic well-being. A Well-beings approach entails praxis, which brings values and practice together with the purpose of consciously creating well-being and, in so doing, creates multi-dimensional wealth. Underlying (...) the Well-beings approach is an ethic of care and an intrinsic stakeholder view of business. (shrink)

Liberal writers share the intuition that the fundamental moral particle is the human individual, not the group. In this paper, I adopt the opposing intuition which many, including the indigenous Maori of New Zealand, say they feel: that it is the group that is fundamental, rather than the individual. I attempt to work out the doctrine which results from that intuition and call it?group foundationalism?. I then seek to explore the tenability of group foundationalism, not from the perspective of external (...) criticisms, but by reference to its own internal logic, and the experience of Maori. The problem raised is how far it is possible for a group which claims precedence over its members to be coherently self?defined, and to enjoy stable relations with other groups, including states, from which it may seek reparations for past wrongs, while sharing no common authority with them. (shrink)