Gaṅgeśa’s work was widely studied and commented upon in various centers of Indian culture, and it not only casts the works of the old school of logic into oblivion but also the works of his predecessors that pre-dated his logical overhaul, which faded into insignificance and were forgotten due to its overwhelming popularity. His Tattvachintāmaṇi is the basis for all later developments in Nyaya philosophy, due to his systemization of the advances in logic and epistemology within the school. With such a great and all-encompassing impact, if one wants to study Indian philosophy, it would be wise to learn about him.
Also, apart from the obvious and somewhat trite diversity reasons I could give for why Gaṅgeśa should be a part of the canon, I think as a whole, more respect should be paid to non-western philosophy, in that it should not be included just for inclusion’s sake. The point isn’t just that different people happen to see the world differently and we ought to include everyone, but rather the further idea that these people might actually be right, and we would never get to know whether they are unless we actually engage with their arguments critically. To ignore non-western sources or give less time/ import than you would to western sources is to practice philosophy poorly, and it contributes to a culture of arrogance and homogeneity of thought that is detrimental to the truth-seeking nature of the discipline. It also relegates the ideas of nearly half of the entire world to be a hyper-specialized field, which further alienates western audiences, and exponentially increases the barrier to entry to the that one can’t even begin to casually engage with non-western works in a meaningful way because there are sparse English resources.
(TLDR; He is wildly accomplished, his work is excellent, and I want to be able to read it without having to desperately translate it from Sanskrit myself, and if it becomes more mainstream in the West, I won’t have to anymore.)
Thanks for reading <3