I also found it interesting that as an answer to a Q by Libresco, Andrews just said that she (Libresco) could commission a piece by her on that topic, her fees are very reasonable. Why do you accept interviews invitations if you don't want to answer for free (or as part of the interview's fees)?
8/

Department of Medicine

Andrews: "I would not expect to see a catastrophic effect from feminization in veterinary medicine. I don’t know, like, why is that hard to see?"
7/

If it’s that stark in law, I’d expect — if your claim is true — some erosion in veterinary medicine, or pharmacy, which is also dominated by women, and where you can track the failures because people die."
6/

There was a passage that was more interesting, though:

Libresco Sargeant to Andrews "It just seems odd that you’re describing this general dynamic that women,you say, would undermine completely the rule of law, that we’ll lose the rule of law in our lifetimes when women become a majority of lawyers

There are many elements in the books that are politically suspicious, if this is what you mean.

c) just not talking even if present (e.g. the "Sichaun woman", Shi's wife…)

The protagonists may be troubled, but they never consider talking to their wives about their problems, as if friendship with women were impossible and they were unable to even give advice
3/

Don't tell me that Moby Dick has no female characters and it is still a masterpiece. These books are mainly about a world that is very close to ours, and still women are
a) ~murderers (Ye, Yamasugi…)
b) stereotypes of a pure woman, to be protected etc. (Zhang Yan)
2/

I would therefore have emphasised that the word "philosophy" is historically determined and it covered different topics in different centuries. No wonder that Chinese, Sanskrit etc. don't have an equivalently ambiguous word, given that they had different intellectual trajectories.
3/3

As for no. 1, I partly disagree with the example of trees, since one might say that unlike in the case of trees, philosophy qua critical thinking requires self-understanding itself (I derive this argument from W. Halbfass).
2/3

Well, in my case you're preaching to the convert! I find point 4 especially convincing (there is no reason to say that theory of syllogism in Dignāga is not philosophy but Sartre is). I also routinely use your dance-vs-ballet example (every population knows dance, even if they may not know ballet)
1

I could easily find it through your blog, but just in case:
www.historyofphilosophy.net/philosophy-w...

Is the link not working for all or just for me?

There is a line (a terrible one) at the end of SK's discussion, on Isaac's future. It shows (if I am interpreting SK correctly) how big the leap of faith by Abraham was.

No:-) I think there is more ground research needed before that point. At the moment, imho, new books on "Sanskrit philosophy", "Buddhist philosophy", etc. would not be a major improvement over the ones already available.

Good point!
Abhinavagupta: I think (here I am following R. Torella) that most of his innovations were already in his teacher, Utpaladeva.
Nāgārjuna: Very influential for the development of Buddhist thought outside of India, less so in India itself, also not argumentative enough. (my opinion only)

YMMV, but I would say:
Prabhākara, Śālikanātha, Maṇḍana
(Uddyotakara), Jayanta, Gaṅgeśa, (Udayana),
(Vasubandhu), Dignāga, Dharmakīrti,
Utpaladeva,
Veṅkaṭanātha,
(Vyāsatīrtha).