A serious concern faced by many scholars and readers of philosophy is how to proceed after reading the canonical texts; this may include the question – “why are they canons, anyway?” Of course, developing a passing knowledge of the works of mainstream philosophers remains an inevitable burden for students of philosophy. However, any specific written work is a product of particular vantage points and contexts, and thus cannot escape from showing partiality towards some perspectives. This work revisits the taken‐for‐granted assumptions involved in the selection of canonical texts and argues for a critical readership and re‐imagination of their canonical status and pre‐eminence. The necessity of a de‐canonized reading of canonical texts is asserted; that is, a repositioning of these texts vis‐à‐vis the wide availability of non‐canonical philosophical works, which permits a nuanced account of their reading and interpretation. Here, the goal is to examine the potential of an approach that prompts readers of philosophical texts to navigate the richness of different contexts and perspectives without being dependent on the Western agenda as the central frame of inquiry. It is hoped that this mode of rethinking may, at the very least, promote epistemic modesty.

中文翻译：

---

非常规阅读：阅读规范哲学著作时的谦虚与正念

哲学的许多学者和读者都面临着一个严重的问题，那就是阅读经典著作后如何进行。这可能包括一个问题–“无论如何，为什么他们会教规？” 当然，发展主流哲学家作品的通识知识仍然是哲学系学生不可避免的负担。但是，任何特定的书面作品都是具有特定优势和上下文的产物，因此不能逃避偏向某些观点的偏见。这项工作重新审视了规范文本的选择中所采用的假定假设，并主张读者具有批判性，并重新构想其规范地位和卓越地位。断言规范文本的非规范阅读是必要的；那是，与非典范哲学著作的广泛可得性相比，对这些文本进行了重新定位，从而使人们对它们的阅读和解释有了细致入微的解释。在这里，目标是检验一种方法的潜力，该方法可以促使哲学文本的读者浏览不同上下文和观点的丰富性，而不必依赖西方议程作为研究的中心框架。希望这种重新思考的方式至少可以促进认知的谦虚。