I came across these couple of paragraphs of Amy Oliver, who I hope won’t mind my sharing:
Expounding on Leopoldo Zea’s notion of marginality:
“Marginality is a gift to philosophers who live and think on the margin in the sense that it affords them a certain latitude to make original contributions in areas that have been ignored through the undetected or unimagined provincialism of the mainstream. Marginality then becomes a methodology that challenges how values are grounded, and by whom, to such an extent that margin thinkers believe their vantage point better illuminates and more comprehensively grounds values. Since philosophy from the margin more easily lends itself to self-criticism, whereas philosophy from the center has no pressing need to criticize itself precisely because it is the center (“the universal”), marginal philosophy is frequently more thought-provoking and compelling.”
And a quote from Sartre’s Troubled Sleep, quoted in Oliver’s article:
“It was so natural to be French… It was the others who had to explain why, either through circumstance or their own fault, they were not completely human. Now France is a giant broken-down machine. And we think: this was an accident of history. We’re still French, but it’s not so natural anymore. There as been an accident to make us understand that we are accidental.” –“Values in Modern Mexican Thought.”
If Zea and Oliver are right, especially about the point of being more self-critical, there is a sense in which philosophy on the margins is potentially more philosophical or a sense in which good philosophy is essentially marginal.