In this introduction, we briefly define Canadian philosophy and discuss its importance before introducing the authors who contributed to this special issue and their articles. The history of Canadian philosophy has been understudied, and there is a need for new philosophical work on the challenges facing Canada. Some articles collected in this special issue examine the history of philosophy in Canada, while others subject contemporary issues to philosophical analysis. The contributors to this special issue include Ian H. Angus, Robert Timko, Anna Brinkerhoff, Stefan Lukits, Charles Blattberg, Ronald A. Kuipers, Jérôme Gosselin-Tapp, Delphine T. Raymond, Frédérique Jean, Rémi Poiré, Matthew Robertson, Janet C. Wesselius, and R. Bruce Elder.

Dans cette introduction, nous définissons brièvement la philosophie canadienne et discutons de son importance avant de présenter les auteurs qui ont contribué à ce numéro spécial et leurs articles. L’histoire de la philosophie canadienne a été peu étudiée et il est nécessaire de réaliser de nouveaux travaux philosophiques sur les défis auxquels le Canada est confronté. Certains articles rassemblés dans ce numéro spécial examinent l’histoire de la philosophie au Canada, tandis que d’autres soumettent des questions contemporaines à une analyse philosophique. Les contributeurs à ce numéro spécial incluent Ian H. Angus, Robert Timko, Anna Brinkerhoff, Stefan Lukits, Charles Blattberg, Ronald A. Kuipers, Jérôme Gosselin-Tapp, Delphine T. Raymond, Frédérique Jean, Rémi Poiré, Matthew Robertson, Janet C. Wesselius, et R. Bruce Elder.

This article explicates the border as a metaphor for an English Canadian nation and for Canadian philosophy in English Canada. The concept of the nation is explicated with reference to Winthrop Pickford Bell. The role of metaphor in philosophy is justified while maintaining its distinction from literature or poetry. Key features of the concept of “border” are division, distinction, and relation. The fact that the border is open to two different interpretations testifies to its viability. Use of the border as a metaphor in philosophy and related cultural expressions suggests that it has a limited, though persisting, duration.

This article argues that it is not possible to understand a nation’s ideals, values, goals, and institutional practices or its past, present, and future possibilities without an examination of its foundational philosophy and the historical evolution of that philosophy. Canada is no exception in this regard. Canada’s underlying philosophy is objectively idealistic, inclusive, duty and community oriented, examines life as it is lived, and moves forward in an evolutionary and dialectical fashion. If this hypothesis is true, then why is it the case that the study of this philosophy is largely absent from Canadian university curricula and public discourse?

Doxastic Partialism in Friendship is the view that part of being a good friend is having positively tilted beliefs about one’s friends. Being a patriot — like being a good friend — is demanding. And there is a case to be made that patriotism — like friendship — demands doxastic partiality, this time towards one’s country. Although doxastic partiality in friendship has been widely discussed in the philosophical literature, comparatively little has been written on its patriotic cousin. Focusing on doxastic partiality in the Canadian context, this article seeks to rectify this lack by considering both motivations and worries for Patriotic Doxastic Partialism.

Canada has a history of unjust injury inflicted on innocents by institutions, by collectives, and by individuals in personal relationships. There is widespread consensus in Canadian society that a proper response to such injury is an apology. I argue that for moral repair to take place the apology is not a good place to start. Explicit apologies conceal systemic social, political, and hermeneutic questions: by speaking out, they silence. As an alternative, I propose forgiveness, which I fill with meaning drawn from a particular Canadian perspective of diversity and recency in nation building.

Charles Taylor’s idea of “deep diversity” has played a major role in debates over multiculturalism in Canada and around the world. Originally, the idea was meant to account for how different groups within Canada — anglophone Canadians, francophone Quebecers, and Indigenous — conceive of their belonging to the country in different ways. Taylor, however, conceives of these differences strictly in terms of irreducibility; that is, he fails to see that they also mean that the country cannot be said to form a unified whole. After giving an account of the philosophical as well as theological reasons for this, I explore its political implications.

If, following Hannah Arendt, we understand Canada’s public sphere as constituted by the basic human condition of plurality, then our public sphere must do more than follow the liberal strategy of containing potentially fractious religious differences. What might a more robust recognition of religious voices in Canada’s public sphere look like, especially considering the destructive historic role that Canada’s mainline Christian churches played in supporting Canada’s genocidal policy of cultural assimilation of Indigenous peoples? How might Canada’s religious voices become more publicly salient while also supporting the basic human condition of plurality?

Le contexte sociopolitique québécois est marqué par deux entreprises politiques distinctes : d’une part, une modernisation de la Charte de la langue française, et d’autre part, une volonté d’établir un rapport de nation à nation avec les peuples autochtones dont le territoire se situe au Québec. Bien que compatibles en théorie, ces deux projets se retrouvent en tension dans la pratique. Cet article propose en ce sens une analyse critique de la notion de « langue commune » au coeur des politiques linguistiques québécoises. L’hypothèse générale est que cette idée repose sur une conception de la justice linguistique inadaptée à une société plurinationale comme le Québec.

Quebec sociopolitical context is currently characterized by two distinct political undertakings: on the one hand, a modernization of the Charter of the French Language, and on the other, a desire to establish a nation-to-nation relationship with the Indigenous peoples whose territory lies within Quebec. Although compatible in theory, these two projects are in tension in practice. This article thus proposes a critical analysis of the notion of a “common language” (“langue commune”) at the heart of Quebec’s language policies. This article argues that it relies on a conception of linguistic justice ill-suited for plurinational societies such as Quebec.

This article introduces theories of populism and empty signifiers to Canadian Indigenous studies. Canadian populist politics may serve to marginalize Indigenous actors and lead them to feel misrepresented within related social movements. These movements commonly develop empty signifiers, which are vague terms that mean different things to different political actors, but help to unite a “people.” Indigenous resistance movements can make strategic use of empty signifiers to build populist or non-populist social movements that challenge colonial institutions. I argue that any such movement would require careful strategizing between Indigenous and other social movements to ensure that Indigenous priorities are not marginalized.

I argue that Winthrop Pickard Bell’s 1915 prediction that Canada would develop into a nation was accurate by examining two Canadian public figures. First, I examine Bell’s analysis that a nation has its own culture. Second, I analyze Roméo Dallaire’s explanation that his actions in Rwanda were guided by his Canadian background. Third, I turn to Harold R. Johnson who argues that culture is story: we choose which stories to tell about ourselves. I conclude that there is a thread that runs through Bell, Dallaire, and Johnson, a cultural thread about nation, culture, and story.

This article argues that music can reflect and express the ideas that define particular cultures by considering the presence of concepts from Canadian philosophy in the nation’s music. It begins by examining how musical compositions can incorporate philosophical notions before surveying some themes in Canadian philosophy. The article then identifies these concepts from Canadian philosophy in the musical compositions of artists such as Léo Pol Morin, R. Murray Schafer, Udo Kasemets, Michael Snow, Glenn Gould, R. Bruce Elder (this article’s author), and David Jaeger.