In his article, Brian Yazzie Burkhart talks about differences in the comprehensions and perceptions of the world between representatives of western nations and American Indians. He contrasts the underlying principles of comprehension of these two nations by stating that representatives of Western nations seek for a reason and evidence, while American Indians’ way is more intuitive-based and rely on feelings. The characters of Coyote and Thales only prove that American Indian epistemology is very different from the epistemology of Western nations and this difference is obvious in every aspect.
He easily finds evidence to his idea by referring to stories of Coyote and Thales. The stories of Coyote demonstrate his mistakes, show what philosophy is not, while the story of Thales is intended to make clear what philosophy is. The story of Coyote also shows what a question means for American Indian culture. The way a person ask a question is a direct path that leads to an answer. The Western culture does not accept such a direct relationship. Some things remain taboo for Natives, while they are absolutely obvious for Westerns. The difference is in the underlying cultural principles. The author writes about Western and American Indian approach to epistemology separately in order for readers to compare by themselves. He states that the fundamental knowledge for Western people is based on logic, while American Indians take some facts as granted. The author does not use any illustration to prove his opinion as he builds all images in the minds of the readers. There is no data or numeral information used to prove his point of view – the author uses observation and literature analysis to come to the conclusion stated in his article. His tone is stable and narrative along the entire article with no anecdotes in the text. Irony could have spoilt the feeling of respect that the article show to both philosophies, showing their best attributes.
As the author compares American Indian epistemology to phenomenology, he analyzes the papers of some followers of this school. Husserl’s arguments are used to discover the ideas of phenomenology and contrast them to Indian philosophy. As Husserl describes his perception of phenomenology, it becomes clear that American Indian domain of thought contrasts with this school, but still has a lot in common. Nature and unconventional knowledge are important for both philosophies. At the same time, the author refers to Plato, Seneca and other Greek philosophers to support his understanding of Western epistemology. There, the connection is more obvious than in the previous case.
The article teaches readers to see these two philosophies in a different way and respect each of them equally. Probably, one will never know which one of them is closer to be true, but now both of them have a right to be considered as truth. It all leads to the conclusion that our minds are ‘programmed’ to focus on different information. I indeed believed that American Indian and Western culture were different, if not opposite to each other. For a very long time, they could not find peace in the huge territory of one of the biggest countries in the world. However, I could not imagine that the main difference is in the way knowledge is defined and by people and what their perspectives are. I could not imagine that the way one puts question can be so important and constitute a half of an answer. Now the author’s position seems so obvious and truthful that one can hardly find any alternative idea to contradict his arguments. However, knowing about this difference and applying this knowledge while communicating are different things. I do not think that I or other readers will change their mode of communication with others, as we are ‘programmed’ by many previous generations to accept the world as we are taught and used to.
Bibliography
Burkhart, Brian Yazzie. “What Coyote and Thales Can Teach Us: An Outline of American Indian Epistemology.” Waters, (2004): 15-26. https://faculty.washington.edu/pembina/all_articles/BurkhartWaters2004.pdf
