Talk:Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article was the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy collaboration of the month for December 2005.

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)
Socrates This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Philosophy as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic,  Croatian,  Dutch,  Icelandic or Tagalog language Wikipedias.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B Philosophy has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


For past Talk pages please see:

If you are bored, consider updating the Philosophy portal:

Contents

[edit] The introduction is too long and confusing

...even for me, a student of philosophy. It should have:

  • More concise and clearer definition of philosophy (as opposed to the current state of swirling it through etymology and other linguistics/word-stuff). Or at least it should have much more citations included if it is circled around different interpretations.
  • There is almost a self-dialogue-like feel to the introductory part. Very unencyclopedic and very unprofessional. Needs drastic improvements throughout.
  • References, references (a lot of statements in the intro are very confusing, because there aren't sources/references provided that would enlighten the reader)!

It's absolutely appalling that this article is considered to be a core topic and it is in a state like this. An article considered core topic should in my opinion be a featured article, or at least very, very close to a one. And now it's rated B. Disgraceful. Otvaltak 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The opening lines, "Philosophy is a field of study in which people question and create theories about the nature of reality," concerns me because, at least within some post-Heideggerian circles, philosophy may not necessary address the "nature" of reality- I am basing this off of the rejection of totality of beings (which would have originary nature) and Dasein, which implies something different about reality. It is unclear whether philosophy needs to be done by "people," as well as whether it is an act of "creation." I only bring this up for the first sentence's instructive capacity if it means to explain philosophy in general.


[edit] Persian Philosophy

I am far from having an authoritative knowledge on eastern philosophy, but I must say that the entry for Persian philosophy bothers me a bit. The main contributor (84.177.125.142, August 15) states that because Zarathushra, per the Oxford reference’s definition, is chronologically the first philosopher then he too must be the “father of [the] humanit[ies] and ethics.” Pardon me but doesn’t being the father of something imply that one is not only the first in a series, but is also the principle influence in said series’ beginning; evidence for which is not provided. Nonetheless, the contributor has no problem implying that there is some causal relationship between Zarathushtra and Classical Greek philosophy. I would appreciate any input...Thanks

I absolutely agree, the statement isn't just POV, it's also incorrect. Zarathustra can hardly be considered “father of [the] humanit[ies] and ethics.”. --D. Webb 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical Topics

Why does this section include virtually nothing from the 2000 years of western philosophy before Descartes? For instance, what about the metaphysical discussions of Aristotle, the post-Aristotelians, the Neo-Platonists, the Arabic and Jewish philosophers, and the Scholastics.

This article has a bias I see often in the study of philosophy today (and I say this as a PhD candidate in philosophy) because it only mentions the 20 centuries of philosophy before Descartes as though they were not philosophy but only the history of philosophy. That's a strong bias and should not be present in an encyclopedia article.

Well actually, the structure of the article used to be a lot better, but then all of these topics were treated under the heading "History" (you may have noticed the awkward gap in the historical overview of Western philosophy between Francis Bacon and the Analytic Continental distinction; you may have noticed too that what falls under the heading "philosophical topics" is more or less in chronological order). Anyway, the heading "History of philosophy" apparently offended someone. So they changed it this way and, in my humble opinion, ruined the good structure of the article.
Now I see no reason why the topics dealt with in the article can't be arranged chronologically the way they used to be and put under the heading "history of philosophy". When I pointed this out (see here) I was told that "The history of philosophy as such can be understood the placement of key publications and events within the greater social and biographical context. The 'topics' section doesn't try to do that. True, it does list movements chronologically, but this is nothing but a stylistic choice." Of course this is completely false. This is not what the history of philosophy is about (I know, I am a Ph.D. candidate working on Ancient Philosophy. And anyway, anyone who doesn't believe me can check out journals like, say, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Phronesis or Ancient Philosophy.)
One can write about the history of philosophy as history and one can write about the history of philosophy as philosophy. Virtually all "historians" of philosophy do the latter and are not concerned primarily with placement of key publications and biographical context (although they may be sensitive to the dangers of anachronisms). An example of the latter -- i.e. writing about the history of philosophy as philosophy -- would be to go through the history of philosophy explaining along the way the concerns, problems and arguments of philosophers in history and sheding light on their influence on one another.
Now, the section from Descartes to Wittgenstein -- currently under the heading of "Topics" -- reads like a blend of the two - and, in fact, a little bit more like the history of philosophy as history than as the history of philosophy as philosophy due to it's conciseness (summarizing theories and ideas extremely briefly and mentioning quite a few key writings in the history of philosophy and the reasons why they were written, but placing little emphasis on e.g. arguments and counterarguments). So "history of philosophy" as I understand it would actually be even more philosophical in nature than most of the "Topics" section is anyway. And that's all the more reason to put most of the "Topics" section back where it belongs.
The bottom line is that the section on the history of philosophy once read nicely through from the ancients to Wittgenstein, but doesn't anymore. And, as you point out, the "Topics" section lacks many topics from before Descartes. Now I don't think it was right to fix the problem of the lack of discussion about the major areas of philosophy by ruining an already succeful section by way of transplanting material from the historical section into the topical section. Rather, the article should have just been expanded to meet the need. I suggest that what was taken from the history section be put back there and the topics section be re-written if necessary. --D. Webb 08:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I was thinking about putting in a discussion here about the metaphysics of Plato, Aristotle, and others, especially the Scholastics. Do you think this would be out of place? It seems like you would think it would be fine, but others would have a problem with it. From your background, you know well of the metaphysical elements in the West going all the way back to the natural philosophers, let alone Plato's Republic and Aristotle's discussions of the four aspects of being, etc. For example, I think this section on "metaphysics" loses much when there is no discussion of ousia, form/matter, the four causes, the distinction between essence and existence, and act/potency.

Absolutely, it would be good to have some discussion about Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics. Now, I think the article would be structurally better for having the section dealing with Descartes to Wittgenstein and some of the stuff under the heading "ethics" put back in the history section (and, anyway, most of it reads more or less like history as history) but Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics could certainly be viewed as philosophical topics of contemporary interest no less than the other topics. --D. Webb 08:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a lot more mentioned about before Plato and after Plato. There does seem to be a great bias in many Wikipedia articles that reject or ignore a lot of philosophical ideas and books before the 1800's. This is a rewriting of historical ideas and words that are often rooted in ancient Greek and Latin. The importance of the etymological definitions of so many words seems to be greatly overlooked in some of the articles in Wikipedia. Read the introduction to truth to find a lack of open mindedness about great agreements and not mere perspectives about the what the idea of "true" is all about. Science is impossible if there is not at least some correspondence theory that actually works because reality is being described very accurately using math, logic, experiments, sense data, demonstration, etc.

--joseph 06:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early modern period

[For the confused: I am moving this back because the discussion is primarily about the relation of Aristotle to the early modern philosophers such as John Locke. Dbuckner 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood writes "you may want to correct the following paragraph from Aristotelian logic":

There was a tendency in this period to regard logical inference as trivial, which in turn no doubt stifled innovation in this area. Immanuel Kant thought that there was nothing else to invent after the work of Aristotle, and a famous logic historian called Karl von Prantl claimed that any logician who said anything new about logic was "confused, stupid or perverse." These examples illustrate the general tendency during the period between the 13th century and the 19th century to accept without question the work of Aristotle. He had already become known by the Scholastics (medieval Christian scholars) as "The Philosopher." The dogmatism created by the Scholastics in favor of Aristotle took a long time to disappear.

It is beyond correction. It betrays a complete ignorance of anything that happened between the 17th and the 19th century. Which was why I slapped the warning template on that article. One could correct it, but there is so much of this stuff it would be pointless. Wikipedia seems to be good at some things, bad at others (philosophy in particular). Dbuckner 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If I suspected for a moment you really believed in what you say, then you would have long since departed. But since you're still here, I should say it's useful to have a critical eye on the text, so thanks for that. Still, if you can't bring yourself to fix it, then someone else will be happy to. Lucidish 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
"These examples illustrate the general tendency during the early modern period to accept with little question the work of Aristotle."

Unfortunately, this does not make the paragraph more accurate. Quite the opposite. Here is an early modern source that will give you an idea of the early modern view on Aristotle. Dbuckner 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer."
My knowledge here is quite slim, and so my knowledge-base is quite likely not enough to aid in making the repairs. I've contacted the original author of the text, and hope he will show up here shortly.
On the subject, the only thing that I personally know of that broke with the Aristotelian tradition is on the topic of infinitessimals and the continuous. John Bell writes: "The early modern period saw the spread of knowledge in Europe of ancient geometry, particularly that of Archimedes, and a loosening of the Aristotelian grip on thinking". Do you have other things in mind as well? Lucidish 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


The idea that the early modern period represented a complete break with the scholastic or Aristotelian tradition is something most undergraduates will learn if they are studying the early modern period. Any textbook dealing with Locke will cover this. For example, the first page of Pringle Pattison's introduction to the Essay:
"We still meet in his [Locke's] pages the attitude of mind familiar to us in Bacon and other pioneers of modern philosophy, the same disparaging criticism of scholastic philosophy and the Aristotelian logic, the same revolt against tradition and authority in all its forms".
What you and the author you mentioned need to do is to read some elementary books on the history of philosophy (or enroll at a university or similar institution that deals with these matters, if you are sufficiently interested). What you shouldn't be doing (if I may suggest it) is trying to write encyclopedia articles on the subject. Dbuckner 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
My edit was not one which was meant to assert much, but rather to quell what I saw as the most glaring of absurdities (having to do with 18th and 19th centuries, in which the development of calculus was a prime example). The original author, again, has been invited to defend their position, out of charity. If they do not, then a full and complete edit may be done.
Your suggestion in this particular vein has been noted and discarded, mostly because you obviously didn't understand the point of the edit. Your suggestion, taken in a more general vein, has long been made, and long been discarded. You have a tendency to engage in POV pushing, even after having been presented with evidence which emphatically refutes you on your own terms, as with the Blackburn affair; or cogent counter-arguments are present, as with the "racism" affair. Ignorance is excusable, but a systematic disregard for reason is not: the former may have its errors mended, while the latter commits itself to error out of a love of it; and the latter is, of course, the real and lasting threat to any educational resource. Lucidish 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Edited again. Still waiting for Charles Stewart. Lucidish 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, what are you going on about? Your edit said "These examples illustrate the general tendency during the early modern period to accept with little question the work of Aristotle. " I commented that not only was this wrong, it was very wrong. I'm also moving this back to the the philosophy talk page. It is relevant not to Aristotle's logic but to the whole early modern thing. Dbuckner 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Point to the part that confuses you and I'd be happy to clarify Lucidish
On your claim that Charles Stewart wrote the original. So? Dbuckner 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
So I'm waiting for his reply, out of charity. As I said. Read the full sentence, not just the colorful part. Lucidish
And by the way ignorance may be excusable, but not in those who would write encyclopedias. Dbuckner 19:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not. But for those who seek to edit the encyclopedia in response to problems arising from what others had written, it helps if the critic supplies more than the underside of their nose to the task. Lucidish 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Still baffled. In what sense have I missed the point of your edit? I merely said that your edit was wrong, big time, and encouraged you to do some elementary reading on the subject, or enroll at the appropriate institution and study the subject properly. In what sense is this 'missing the point'? What in fact is the point of making edits that are stupid and wrong? Dbuckner 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
To minimize those statements which I knew to be absurd, and to leave the rest out of charity. Read. Lucidish 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I've done a more recent edit, though Charles is still welcome to make his case if need be. You are invited to examine this most recent edit, and if it still contains absurdities, to either personally edit it to your satisfaction, or inform other editors who will do it for you. Lucidish 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we having fun yet? Rick Norwood 00:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? Your contributions are also of the variety that need to be discouraged, in that they show complete disregard for the facts of the matter. Qualified philosophers will never contribute to the Wackipedia when they constantly have to justify quite elementary factual points all the time to people whose arrogance is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject matter. Life is MUCH too short. Dbuckner 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What's interesting about this statement is that "justification" is tagged in a hostile way, as if it were a contemptible exercize. I had no idea that anti-intellectualism was so rampant in certain sections of the academy as that. Lucidish 15:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is the same as yours. Life's too short. When a debate degenerates into name calling ("stupid"), it is time to move on. Just scroll up and look at how long your debate with Lucidish has gone on! Rick Norwood 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point is not the same as mine. My point - read it - is that suitably qualified philosophers will never contribute to the Wackipedia when they constantly have to justify quite elementary factual points all the time to people whose arrogance is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject matter. You are one of the people whose arrogance is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject matter. Unless that really was your point. Dbuckner 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, my point was that calling people names is not a valuable way to spend your time. Rick Norwood 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling you names. It's the edits which were stupid. The stupidity lies in not understanding that you can't write sensibly about subjects about which you are self-confessedly ignorant. Somebody needs to say these things. Or can you suggest a way that would persuade you to stop this silliness? Dbuckner 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Rick shouldn't worry, because I didn't interpret your statement that way. And indeed, by my own confession right at the outset, the edit was ignorant of much of the details.
However, first of all, enough was repaired to disregard and dismiss a very obviously false claim. If it was replaced with a claim that is still false, and which the editor is not himself confident in, then there is a duty to either contact the original writer and suss it out, or to go back to primary material. I did the former.
Second: my purpose in the edit was tentative, not absolute. Tentative edits are required by any and every editor when there is an obvious lapse in the quality of writing even from the perspective of a dilettente, and not just from that of an expert. We must pick up the reigns of the task despite a lack of overall proficiency because you (for example), who are ostensibly more competent in this area of philosophy, simply refuse to do what's necessary.
A note on the social climate here. In formal settings, the huffing, "good riddance to bad rubbish" attitude might pass as a standard, because academia has a certain rigorous set of filters which both intentionally manage the riff-raff, and unintentionally provide disincentives for participation until exhaustive research. That is very effective in that context. But in this particular institutional setting, that is, of "Wackypedia", due to the lack of barriers, while you may expect a decline in quality, there is also (conversely) no excuse for a lack of participation. This means that, in the former, absurdities must turn into dogmas, and serve to suppress real intellectual development; while in the latter, absurdities are as easy to scrap as the click of a button. If your preference is for the former, and not the latter, then you may escape to the nearest ivory tower and stew away. But that's all the worse for the dissemination of truths, and an injury to us all, whether we know it or not. Lucidish 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in arguing with Dbuckner. He may come around, but if so, it will because he figures it out for himself. Argument puts him on the defensive.

As for the social climate here, I like it, or I wouldn't be here. In fact, even in academia, I often suffer fools gladly, up to a point. Some people are actually capable of learning. Rick Norwood 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are one of the fools. Dbuckner 07:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure I missed the part where name-calling helps produce a better article on philosophy... Ig0774 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If it puts off patently uninformed and potentially troublesome contributors, then it helps produce a better article on philosophy. Anyway, in answer to the objection that I am simply criticising without contributing, you should know I stopped working on WP some time ago, due to this sort of nonsense. It's all yours. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. Dbuckner 07:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well now that Dbuckner has engaged in his monthly bout of catharsis, I trust we can get back to the topic. Is the paragraph on the early modern period now adequate, or does it still contain objectionable phrasing? Lucidish 23:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert

That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

See here here.

And don't forget Larry Sanger's article excellent article here. Dbuckner 11:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The impression I get from the past few months of talk pages is that the Wiki system is regarded as being to academic philosophy as a sucking chest wound is to a man's health. For any who feel the same way that Prof. Buckner does, I'd appreciate it if you went to the WikiProject page to share your thoughts, albeit in a more measured way. I have posted my outlook on editing policy, including an explication of how tentative edits are justifiable under the Wiki system. This bears directly on the above worries. It's not at all appropriate to have the discussion on this page, and likely won't get the appropriate scope of attention here anyway. Lucidish 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have also added my thoughts along this vein at the Wikiproject, on the subject which directly affects Prof. Buckner, namely, willful professional incompetence.
In a more light-hearted spirit, I'd also like to laud Mr. Sanger, and express how glad I am he wrote an article that did not require generations of copyedits by Wikipedian editors to make readable. Lucidish 00:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a 'tentative edit'?

In this case (see above), it seems to mean an edit where a claim is made that has no kind of evidence or support. Doesn't this contravene WP policy anyway? No potentially controversial statement should be made without either explicitly backing up by some authoritative reference. At they very least, the person making the statement should be aware of a reference or citation that would support their claim. But by the author's own admission, he knows next to nothing of the claim he was making. Here is the 'tentative edit' he is talking about.

"These examples illustrate the general tendency during the early modern period to accept with little question the work of Aristotle."

This is a stupid statement (I am not name calling, I am simply stating a fact). Even Wikipedia itself, rather surprisingly, could have shown him it was stupid. E.g. search for Early modern philosophy, which in turn directs you to 17th-century philosophy which right at the beginning says "17th-century philosophy in the West is generally regarded as seeing the start of modern philosophy, and the shaking off of the mediæval approach, especially scholasticism." If the editor in question knew what Scholasticism was ( a medieval philosophy that was highly deriviative of Aristotle]] he would immediately have seen that his 'tentative edit' was highly stupid.

Of course, there is a mitigating factor, because if he didn't know (as he probably didn't) that scholasticism is almost by definition a philosophy that is derivative of Aristotle, then the Scholasticism page will not help him here. I did try to correct this problem, but immediately encountered the 'skeleton warrior' problem (see above) – there is a person who guards that page who has a daft theory about Scholasticism, and I wasn't prepared to go through the long round of tedious argument that would persuade him otherwise (if indeed it would persuade him – probably not).

On whether this discussion belongs here, I propose that it does. I've looked at some of the theoretical Criticism of Wikipedia, but this is theory. Let's locate the discussion on the talk page of what is unarguably the worst page in Wikipedia (that is quite something) so people can put the theory into practice. Remember, the person here who is arguing the theory of 'tentative edit' (i.e. edits made in the full knowledge by the editor that he or she hasn't the faintest idea what they are talking about) is one of the principal architects of this page. The other is Mr Norwood, who, by his own admission, is unaware of the difference between a statement and an inference. Also the man who said that Aristotle was an Idealist. (And who was part of an editing team who, last year, claimed that philosophy was the same thing as alchemy – this was the point where I stepped in and said enough is enough).

For some more really bad pages, see Medieval philosophy, Ontology ("Ontology thus has strong implications for conceptions of reality"), Objectivist philosophy – actually the last one is really bad.

Why am I whingeing on instead of trying to change things? Well, I tried, and I have given up. Also, there is now considerable interest in whether Wikipedia can deliver the goods without some change in its editorial policy, and it may possibly help for someone to give a concrete example of where it's going badly wrong. Dbuckner 07:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, first of all, for putting thought into your post.
A 'tentative edit' in this context is one where the attempt is to minimize falsity, and leave the rest out of benefit of the doubt -- especially when treating the writing of non-anonymous users, and especially when said user purports to be an expert in the field. Thus, all of the above remarks, which you hope to be leveled at me, actually end up being attacks on Charles Stewart.
Your analysis of Scholasticism's connection to Aristotle points out obvious enough facts, which I was aware of, and were nevertheless irrelevant. For what I wasn't comfortable weighing in on in the edit was the notion that this carried over to the history of logic of the time, which was the only significant issue in the edit.
It is amusing that I am credited as a "principal architect" of this page. I did not appear until late last year, mostly because of your critiques. Besides, you surely don't do yourself enough credit, nor Rick, KSchutte, Mel, Ig, and especially Lac.
One of your troubles has to do with the nature of philosophy and its inclusion here with an emphasis on etymology, "love of wisdom". However, you have shown yourself to be absolutely, irrationally livid on the subject of not admitting metaphilosophical naturalism (of which this etymology is a reflection). Indeed, I have shown that you were systematically ommitting actual reference material in order to press your views. I have no choice but to consider that particular series of edits that you made to be professionally incompetent. This is not an attack on you, of course, but an attack on your behavior, and the grossly misleading propositions which your behavior generated at Definition of philosophy.
Rick has been one of the main forces which made this page verifiable. That alone affords him far more respect than you give him.
Again, the more appropriate page is the philosophy Wikiproject, since the difficulties here seem to be unique to the philosophy section. Some of this discussion has leaked over to there. Lucidish 17:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research? "What if everbody did that?"

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

Kant strikes me as the silliest of philosophers, and I recommend a little book called "The Critique of Impure Reason". In particular, the categorical imperative leaves no room for human diversity. But, sigh, this is original research. Rick Norwood 16:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I observe nothing but diversity — not to mention perversity — in the maxims that many-splintered humans will will to become universal laws. Jon Awbrey 17:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

RN: In the news today was a move by conservatives to outlaw birth control using Kant's universal imperative. After all, what if everybody did it? Rick Norwood 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extended the links on topics of philosophy

Hey people, I thought that the list of philosophy subjects needed to be a bit expanded, so I did that. Tell me what you think. Please reply to me either on here, or through my personal Talk Page. --Lord X 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

[edit] History

History section mainly describes "history of western philosophy". There are several big regional branches, so I think History section should be divided into two or three (maybe more) sections, like 1.History of Western philosopy. 2. History of Eastern Philosophy. etc. Janviermichelle 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jagged 85's edit

Good work, Jagged 85. Rick Norwood 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of possible interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Responses_to_Objectivism

If you wish to participate, I ask that you carefully read the commentary to get some idea of what's going on. I'll say no more, as you need to make your own decision. Al 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rand and cults.

There is a dispute on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) on the matter of whether Ayn Rand's Objectivism qualifies for the category of Cult. This may be of interest to editors of this article. Al 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causility v.s. the existence of God

So how is thee concept of causility or "cause and effect" more justifiable than the existence of God? Both cannot be empirically tested; you can not "experience" both with your five senses. I understand that one concept can be "believed in more" than the other; for example, you COULD say that you believe in cause and effect more than you believe in the existence of God. But you can't say, from an empiricist point of view; that you KNOW casualty or God exists. So what I'm asking is how can scientists (and empiricists) believe in the concept of "cause and effect" more than they believe in the existence of God? How is causility more justified (and therefore, more readily "assumeable") than the existence of God? You can't say you know they both exist according to Hume, if you are an empiricist, but why would anyone be an atheist (not believe in God), but assume that causility exist? 165.196.139.24 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not actually the place for this sort of question, but since I find it interesting, I'll try to give an answer. First, one might understand that Hume himself seemed to have been aware of the difficulty of assuming cause and effect from an empiricist standpoint — one simply cannot "see" cause and effect. However, cause and effect is, to some degree inferable — to quote Thomas Aquinas: "When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause." Putting aside, for a minute, the metaphysical claims implicit in this idea (e.g. the temporal priority of the cause or the necessity of the cause being included in the effect), what Aquinas seems to mean is that we can, in a very practical sense, conceive of something that is immediately perceptible having a cause — that is, we can infer the cause from the event (this process is known as inductive reasoning). But what allows us to do this? Quite simply direct observation. To use Hume's famous example: "The first time a man saw the communication of motion by impulse, as by the shock of two billiard-balls, he could not pronounce that the one event was connected: but only that it was conjoined with the other. After he had observed several instances of this nature, be then pronounces them to be connected. What alteration has happened to give rise to this new idea of connection? Nothing but that he now feels these events to be connected in his imagination, and can readily foretell the existence of one from the appearance of the other." In other words, the predictable repetition of a sequence events (the striking of one billiard-ball by another followed by their mutual motion, in this case), gives credibility to the idea that there is a connection between those events. From this standpoint, of course, one cannot be sure that one has observed an instance of cause and effect; however, if cause and effect do seems to be the most plausible explanation which accounts for the observed sequence of events, then, even given a notion of radical empiricism, one seems justified to conclude that "cause and effect" is the best possible explanation for the observed phenomena, at least until a better explanation comes along, if it ever does.
Now, it can easily be pointed out that by this same inductive argument, one could reason that God exists. And, in fact, this is precisely what Aquinas suggests with his famous five ways. So why do some people regard God as a less valid hypothesis than causality? Well, one possible reason is that God is generally held to be a supernatural, that is, God is an entity whose cannot be explained simply as some sort of first cause (at least, most modern conceptions of God). Instead, God is imagined as some sort of person, with likes and dislikes (Righteousness and Sin). In short, there is additional metaphysical baggage to most conceptions of God (it is, in fact, putting aside this metaphysical baggage which lead some to accept the tenets of pantheism or deism). If God were inferable in the same way that cause and effect is, then it would be quite hard to say how such a God is different from no God at all (unless one accepts something like Spinoza's identification of God with nature.
Finally, the short summary: the hypothesis of cause and effect, while nothing more than a hypothesis, can be inferred from observable phenomena and has a certain amount of explanatory power; the hypothesis of God that can be inferred from observable phenomena does not help to explain anything at all, unless, perhaps, certain arguments are true. iggytalk 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confines of philosophy

Somehow, the article should try to make it clear what makes philosophy different from i.e. science, wild speculation and New Age/religion/Zen, or perhaps more neatly put, what seperates it from pseudophilosophy. If there is an overlap or no sharp dividing line, this should be mentioned. This question is mentioned briefly in the paragraph "Branches of philosophy".

I'm afraid that such topics would inspire endless and mostly pointless debates. Look at this archives to this page to see what I mean. Lucidish 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Two other sciences that philosophy could be separated from, are rhetorics and psychology. Lucidish: If it's impossible to define at all what philosophy is and what it isn't, the entire page should be replaced with the sentence "Every question is a philosophical question". If one agrees that this isn't good enough, one has to define "philosophy" as spot-on as possible, just as one defines everything else in an encyclopedia. I think that a discussion of what philosophy is agreed not to be, or at least what different people (such as the logical positivists and Socrates/Plato) claim it is not, is important. Whether or not the debates become endless or pointless is beside the point. At least the relationship between science, New Age and philosophy should be outlined.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudophilosophy", as I think it's more or less relevant to this discussion: A portion of the article right now reads "while significantly failing to meet some suitable intellectual standards". To make the article more objective (and thus less readily attacked by ignorant relativists), it should be made clear precisely which intellectual standards are violated (and, if necessary, mention criticism of these intellectual standards). Some hints of standards that most people would agree on: vague, non-defined or ill-defined concepts, mixing together two different concepts that share the same term (in fact, a frequent error), heavy use of concepts with strong connotations, lack of locical consistency, texts being more emotional than factual (too much pathos compared to logos, see modes of persuasion - an example may be philosophy presented as a novel or a poem), etc. [In fact, I think that these are different formulations of more or less the same problem]. These very intellectual standards should perhaps be collected on a page of its own as well. See also the article on pseudoscience, which I find very factual and informative, of course in part because the scientific method is so easy to define. -More on this may be found here: Logical positivism and Plato, for example in the dialogue Phaedrus (Plato).
Followup: The use of rhetorical tricks or terms that sound very sophisticated, elegant or complex but still are vague or ill-defined are sometimes a hallmark of pseudophilosophy. Also, I would like to emphasis that the importance of logical consistency, precise definition and correct use of concepts often is seen disputed by relativists and semi-relativists, but still it's an essential part of philosophy and the philosophical tradition. It seems some people want to define philosophy as a discipline where "anything goes", but this isn't and has never been true. If necessary, this very dispute should be mentioned in the article.
I've added "Confines of philosophy" as an own paragraph. If it's going to be objective, I guess it has to quote different philosophical directions' views of this, arguably plus mentioning what every philosopher seems to agree on (arguably, logically sound arguments, for example). It's very crude as it stands, but I hope it's appreciated that it's added and that it can be refined over time.
It's not impossible to define. Rather, it's unlikely that people are going to agree.
The most generic, and positive, treatments can already be found in the opening paragraph. If you want to define the subject negatively, that's fine, but it would probably be better suited at Pseudophilosophy, not here (since that article is necessarily defined as a negative). And even still, nobody's going to agree on it, but at least you'll have the opportunity to spell out the particular points of view in more detail than you have the opportunity to do here. Lucidish 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've made an outline which I feel has a NPOV. Feel free to disagree&discuss&edit&remove. :)
You've certainly gotten to the heart of a number of pivotal discussions in that edit. Some of the edits you made are begging the question -- i.e., that science as science stops being philosophy -- but you're not far off base, I think. But in order to do justice to any of them, it would require a bit more space. I really think that, if we're to have a section like this, it ought to be a short summary (as is currently in the intro), with a link to Metaphilosophy (where these topics are and may be discussed more fully). [Moreover, the "Definition of philosophy" wiki should be merged into the Metaphilosophy wiki.] Lucidish 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll accept any changes, and I see that the paragraph I added fits rather awkwardly into the rest of the article. I feel the need to emphasis, however, that an encyclopedia article about "philosophy"'s primary goal must be to define what philosophy is. Hence, it feels strange that "Definition of philosophy" needs a separate page, shouldn't it read precisely the same as the "Philosophy" article? For this reason, no articles exist that are named "Definition of sociology" or "Definition of psychology". You simply go to "Sociology" or "Psychology" to find them. Or am I missing something?
You've got the right intuition. I certainly think that, if philosophy were undefinable, it would be meaningless gumbo. As it happens, it has a wealth of definitions. Some of them are broad enough to fit pseudo-sciences like alchemy, some are not; some are restricted to the second-order consideration of abstractions, some which care about the first-order particular implications of ideas in action; some which include science proper, some which don't; some which include symbolic logic, and some which have exported formal logic into mathematics departments; some definitions which regard it as mere language games (and a kind of therapy for the rational), and some which regard it as the prerequisite to anything serious, meaningful, or worthwhile in life (either act or idea); some which demand clear thinking, some which accuse rationality of being a form of tyranny. Needless to say, all of the above, and probably more, would take a wiki of its own to draw out. In the end, the best we could do is emphasize that philosophy is about argument over important things.
Also, it's certainly true that in most disciplines, you have a pretty clear-cut idea of what's being studied, and what the limits are. Philosophy is not especially obedient in this regard. Lucidish 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] philosophy isn't a greek word but egyptian

The Greek themselves recognize this fact. The Word philosophy doesn't have an Etymology in Greek. It's a foreign word --84.130.67.211 20:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a Greek word and has an etymology in Greek. --D. Webb 23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Try then to give the etymology of philosophy ? Platon itself said it in Kratylos (where he explains concepts), sophia/sophos isn't a greek-word. It is a foreign word. And the science today says the same there is no greek etymology of this word. What i'm saying is well known, look in your words-etymology-dictionary.

Sophia, sophos isn't a word of the greek-language.

Read Obenga. --84.130.39.12 08:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Firt of all, you shouldn't take the etymology Plato offers in the Cratylus seriously. It's folk etymology and I'm not even sure he bought it himself. In fact, you shouldn't take any ancient etymology seriously. It's more or less nonsense, all of it. But, secondly, you deny me the means to show the etymology of the Greek word "philosophia". It's made up from "philo-" (from "philos" meaning "dear", same root as the verb "philein" meaning "to love") and "sofia" meaning "widsom". Now the word "philosophia" was first coined and used by a Greek (Plato says it was Pythagoras and I seem to remember Aristotle saying that too). Whether the root Pythagoras used was Greek or not is irrelevant. Sophia - even if from a borrowed root or even itself a loanword - had become a Greek word like any other long before Pythagoras. And anyway, just think of all the words that aren't English words by your standard, e.g. "automobile", "microprocessor", "telephone" and "television", "horticulture", "suicide" and "lexicographer". I mean, these are obviously English words even though their roots are not ultimately English but Greek and Latin. It doesn't matter. --D. Webb 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I might add that the question of the etymology of "sophia" and of the etymology of "philosophia" are not one and the same question, although in some ways related. Giving the etymology of "philosophia", i.e. explaining its origins, is not the same as explaining the origins of its parts, i.e. the etymology of "sophia". I can tell you the origins of "philosophia", explain how it was coined, without knowing the ultimate origins of the very roots used to coin that word. --D. Webb 09:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Now we understand each other ! What i'm saying is that if they borrowed it from someone else, isn't it worth to be mentionned ? Then the greek themselves didn't have any problems to recognize that they learnt how to think from the egyptian priests. Sophia is what philosophia is all about, the love of it: wisdom. --84.130.39.12 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia should represent modern scholarship, not a single remark by Plato who lived a century after Pythagoras and was going on hearsay. Evidence for your claim would, at a minimum, require the Egyptian word from which "philosophy" was supposedly borrowed. Rick Norwood 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And anyway, philosophy, the activity itself as opposed to the word, is Greek. --D. Webb 19:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
How could something be Greek, when the first greeks philosopher learnt all what they knew from egyptian ?
Search about the Egyptian system of mysteries
--84.130.23.185 06:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
They didn't. Read about the history of Greek philosophy. --D. Webb 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, a debate about afrocentricism.
If you're going to argue that, then modern Western languages must also have a significant proportion of their words reclassified as Latin. Anria 08:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition ?

The article presents some information about the term, "philosphy". It suggests there are topics associated with it. It suggests there might be a relationship (ill defined) between "philosophy" and "wisdom", All very erudite. But a good, clean definition of "philosophy" which a reader can read, know, and apply into life, isn't present in the article. If a reader reads the article, they can't be confident that they understand what the term, "philosphy" when they talk with their neighbor, their doctor and their political representative. Shouldn't we first present a good, useable definition of the term ? "Philosophy is something about wisdom" just isn't very useable. Terryeo 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is the nature of the beast. Banno 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As Banno says, a clear-cut definition of philosophy isn't that simple. Philosophers do not all apply a common method and their considerations are most certainly not all on the same subjects. It seems to me that saying that philosophy is something about wisdom is as specific as you can get without misleading people or leaving out large chunks of philosophical studies by implication. Anria 08:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think useful first section is "What is philosophy?" Invariably, it is a question all philosophers ask. The intro to the article could mention the difficulties of the definition as well as some areas of inquiry: past and present. What is philosophy could also include some different limits of philosophy within other cultural traditions. --Gyuen 18:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aey: what do you mean?

[I have posted this also at Aey's own talk page.]

Aey, you recently substituted this for something that most of us, I'm sure, thought was quite sensible:

Nietzsche, whose contributions to philosophy extend beyond existentialist thought, developed complex aesthetico-philosophical premises, based in part upon the concept of the will to power; existentialists tend to see Nietzsche's thought as one characteristic of a self-defining paradigm.

Now, I don't want an edit war. But you came in claiming that this amounted to "Correctives to misinformationist edits". That edit summary tells us very little, and (may I say) is barely literate. Please explain:

  1. What was wrong with the information you replaced?
  2. What are the "complex aesthetico-philosophical premises" of which you speak? (Why do you mention them, and why do you label them in that obscure way?)
  3. Which existentialists are they, who think that way about Nietzsche?
  4. What is a "self-defining paradigm"? How can Nietzsche's thought be reasonably considered "one characteristic" of it?

Thanks. I look forward to enlightenment! Noetica 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that my summary there had a typo (I was in a hurry). To put it briefly, the original had information that suggested Nietzsche's project was about developing some "superhuman race" or whatever, which is simply a Nazi reading or what have you. The "premises" I mention aren't obscure at all: he very clearly defined them as aesthetic and philosophical in nature. And, generally speaking, all existentialists (by dint of definition) read Nietzsche in the way I described. Existentialists are those that characterize his thought as a "self-defining paradigm", which means exactly what it says: any individual "defines" his or her "self" (not to say I agree with them, or anything alike). I can clarify the last point in the article if needed. Aey 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Aey. I strongly advise that you do indeed clarify all of your proposed contribution, and that you reflect carefully about the value of what you propose to replace. "Self-defining paradigm" is unlikely to be understood in the way you intend; it looks more as if some sort of a paradigm is somehow supposed to be defining itself. I will intervene, and I suspect others may also, if the result is not an enhancement, or not easily understood. Noetica 07:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, after that other person came in and fixed up a lot of stuff, I really didn't have to do much. Please tell me if there are other problems or anything. Aey 08:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that edit. Not really sure, but doesn't existentialism hold individualism to be true? Poor Yorick 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's how you can put it. According to Sartre, all are "condemned to be free". Aey 06:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
(By the way a fine example of an unanalytic, but pretty, claim). Narssarssuaq 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy on Wikiversity

Want to pat self on back, encourage others to participate I like philosophy, so I started the Department of Philosophy in the School of Humanities. Join in! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pragatism vs Pragmaticism

Two problems in the section devoted to pragmatism: first, there is no mention of the disagreement between Peirce and James about realism and truth; second, I am fairly certain that the term "pragmatist" does not apply to Santayana. In fact Santayana is considered to be one of the non-pragmatist philosophers of that era. this should be clarified.

[edit] Indian philosophy?

I think that the section on Indian philosophy should be removed. Even a cursory look at the other areas of study on this page will reveal that what is being done in the Gita or the Vedas is of a very different nature. This is not to degrade Indian religeous thought and an enterprise, just that what is done lacks certain criteria for it to be called philosophy. There are of course Indian philosophers (Rabandranath Tagore, for example) but what is refered to here is theology.

I support this view. Radhakrishnan's views below look more like religion/theology than philosophy to me, and to most others too I guess. If a subsection of Indian philosophy is to be kept, this problem should at least be mentioned in the article. (The fact that Indian philosophy often seems highly regarded amongst Western intellectuals these days doesn't make its content any less religious or any more "philosophical" in a more traditional sense). Narssarssuaq 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement material

In the interests of finding ground for what really should be written: what follows is an exerpt of a discussion about the hallmarks of Indian philosophy. The first, by S. Radhakrishnan, is (it seems) the consensus view, or something close to it. The second is the dissenting view by Daya Krishna. The two views are evaluated by Arvind Sharma ("Competing Perspectives on Indian Philosophy", Philosophy East and West © 1999 University of Hawai'i Press), concluding that the former summary is more powerful than the latter: "it cannot be gainsaid that the counterperspective offers a strong challenge to the existing presumptions of studying Indian philosophy".

S. Radhakrishnan (the conventional view) 1. The chief mark of Indian philosophy in general is its concentration upon the spiritual. 2. Another characteristic view of Indian philosophy is the belief in the intimate relationship of philosophy and life. 3. Indian philosophy is characterised by the introspective attitude and the introspective approach to reality. 4. The introspective interest is highly conducive to idealism, of course, and consequently most Indian philosophy is idealistic in one form or another. 5. Indian philosophy makes unquestioned and extensive use of reason, but intuition is accepted as the only method through which the ultimate can be known. 6. Another characteristic of Indian philosophy, one which is closely related to the preceding one, is the so-called acceptance of authority. 7. There is the overall synthetic tradition which is essential to the spirit and method of Indian philosophy. 8. All philosophies in India -- Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, Carvaka - have a practical motivation, stemming from man's practical problems of life, his limitations and suffering, and culminating in every case except Carvaka in a consideration of his ultimate liberation. 9. [THere are] several schools and systems of Indian philosophy. 10. Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, in all their branches, accept the underlying doctrines of karma and rebirth. 11. The way of life accepted by Hinduism... includes the fourfold division of society, the four stages of life and the four basic values which man seeks (namely, dharma, artha, kama, and moksa).

Daya Krishna (the dissenting view) 1. The characterization of Indian philosophy as 'spiritual' is erroneous. 2. The notion of 'Vedic' authority ... is a myth. 3. There is no such thing as final, frozen positions which the term 'school', in the context of Indian philosophy, usually connote. 4. [It is a] myth that Indian philosophy is intrinsically and inalienably concerned with spiritual liberation. 5. Indian philosophy is not moka-oriented, as usually claimed. 6. That there are four Vedas, and that they are the sruti or final authority for all orthodox Hinduism is axiomatically accepted by everybody who writes on the subject. Also, that they form a unity, a musical harmony like that of a string quartet, the so-called sakhas are nothing but recensions of the same text, and there are no problems in this best of all possible worlds. [THis is just not so.] 7. It would be no exaggeration to say that the tradition concerning what are regarded as the Upanisads is largely accepted uncritically and repeated as read or heard from the so-called 'authorities' who[m], in the context of the Indian tradition, one has learnt not to question. 8. The traditional and the modern scholars both seem to be either uninterested [in] or unaware of the problems [associated with the text of the Nyayasutras] 9. [The concept of Adhyasa in Sankara is based on] Samkhyan premises. 10. The search for the meaning of Vedanta leads nowhere. The most haloed term in Indian philosophical thought connotes nothing. It is an empty shell, mere verbiage, and absolute nothing. 11. The Indian doctrine of karma makes morality in the usual sense impossible. 12. The oft-repeated traditional theory of the purusarthas is of little help in understanding the diversity and complexity of human seeking.

In the right hands, a few musings on these themes should be more than enough to satisfy a brief description on this page. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup attempt: Removed paragraph

I removed the following from "Applied philosophy": "The idea of philosophy as general concepts or principles of knowledge breaks down in fields of endeavor which require a certain type or level of personal performance. For instance, no principles of knowledge can tell a person how to write dramatic works comparable in quality to Shakespeare's or symphonies comparable to Beethoven's or to hit baseballs like Babe Ruth or sing songs like Elvis Presley. Yet, there is a certain state of mind conducive to peak performance in such fields. Sports psychology does bring knowledge to bear upon such endeavors. William McGaughey's book, "Rhythm and Self-Consciousness", approaches rhythm as a philosophical concept, discussing both its conscious pursuit and its limitations". --I thought this sounded more like applied psychology than applied philosophy. And the part on "Rhythm and Self-Consciousness" doesn't really contain any information central to philosophy, in any case it needs to be longer in order to be comprehensible. Narssarssuaq 11:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links suggestion

I am new and mistakenly added a link to a webpage of my own (Wikipedia policy infringement, self-promotion?): is this link of added value for this article: Philosophy - overview http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup: Definition of philosophy

Right now, there are three paragraphs involved in defining what philosophy is and isn't. For clarity, they might be assembled into one, hopefully without leaving out too much substancial information. The three paragraphs are "Origin and meaning of term", "Confines of philosophy" and "Philosophers on philosophy". Or perhaps the present situation is all right; to have a brief definition at the top and then come back to a more thorough discussion at the end of the article? Narssarssuaq 08:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC) -Perhaps "Confines of philosophy" and "Philosophers on philosophy" could be integrated into Definition of philosophy instead. Narssarssuaq 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The "definition of philosophy" page has always seemed rather useless to me. If truncation is needed, then it would be a better idea to work with a page on Metaphilosophy, and then both offload the unwanted sections here into it, and merge Definition of philosophy with it. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 23:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
One idea. Move first paraghrap to second, to top "Origin and meaning of term". What others thing about this idea?--Jack007 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The "origins and meaning" section used to be a part of the intro, but I think it was more or less agreed that that made the intro a bit too topheavy. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is better than earlier, but in intro is still f.ex "philosophy is itself debated", so, it is not well agreed intro. I think (and it is also common habit) to show "Origin and meaning of term". I am confident that, it is well accected. That intro into second paraghrap, or remove it. My vote.--Jack007 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

I've removed the following from the "Confines of philosophy" paragraph. It is too long and without sufficiently important points for an article of this scope. It raises some questions, though, perhaps this could be moved to a different article and pointed to from Philosophy. If you think I'm wrong about removing this, feel free to discuss.

Much debate has also considered what kinds of persons are capable of thinking philosophically. Kant explicitly excluded women, saying that they were good at conveying philosophical skills such as moral reasoning and were in fact necessary for teaching children to behave ethically, but that (alas) women lacked the rationality necessary to engage in original philosophical reflection. Aristotle was also explicit about his belief in the rational inferiority of women to men. More generally, the work of women has not been representatively present in the philosophical canon , and women working in philosophy often used initials rather than names so as to mask their gender. For more on such criticisms of philosophy as exclusive of women, see Feminist History of Philosophy. Several years ago, the American Philosophical Association estimated that average salaries of female faculty are 70% of the average salaries of their male counterparts. This is a major improvement from 1963, the first year that women were granted diplomas from Harvard University whose philosophy programs has long been a leading light in American academic philosophy.
Children have also traditionally been excluded from the category of philosophers by virtue of being incompletely rational, and yet the Philosophy for Children movement holds that not only is it the case that children can engage in philosophical reflection in early primary school with increasing quality as they develop physically and cognitively, but that it is also the case that a healthy civil society requires people who have been taught how to reason from the earliest age.
Similarly, criminals are often excluded from the category of people for whom philosophy is useful or who are capable of philosophical reflection. Yet, some philosophers have found that taking philosophy into the prisons has reduced recidivism and improved the ability of prisoners to reason well about their decisions in the future.

Narssarssuaq 07:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The above seems to be about the sociology of philosophy, which is interesting (and full of embarressing facts about the prejudices of philosophers which certainly deserve mention somewhere, for posterity's sake), but if anything on that belongs here, it should be a short summary which links to a wider article. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 23:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GOOD JOB EVERYONE!

So yeah, I was in the midst of writing a message to you all relating how I thought the body of the article was out of the scope set out in the intro, when I actually began to read it. Although you title the meat of the article as a "history," I've gotta say, you all did a fabulous job discussing different periods/traditions with respect ot the ideas and questions that characterize them. I believe you have all succeeded in finding the middle ground between discussing philosophy as a field of study and different philosophical traditions, which was a source of serious tension in this article a few months ago. I've been MIA for awhile, so I just wanted to congratulate you all on a job well done, and a much improved article. Keep up the good work. - Shaggorama 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New!

I fixed some of the wording in the introduction. The context is now more universal. Plus, I added a mural!! Hope everyone likes it. -Rich

[edit] Cleanup tag

I'm reapplyinkg the cleanup tag. Reason, many parts, for example "Philosophers ponder such fundamental mysteries as" which if not ironically intended is an embarassment. I like the picture, however. There is also the mistaken reference to Elizabeth of Bohemia. Guys, just read a book and work out what is wrong. Dbuckner 08:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is not really the best possible language. Changed it today. Hard to find the best, most perfect wording. But I do think but the use of the phrase "fundamental mysteries" is appropiate. As well as making the transition from philosophy to philosophers, as unlike many other fields of study, the individual thinker is part and parcel to the history of philosophy.--Gatfish 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that condemnation of banality in the "fundamental mysteries" bit is not exactly interesting or relevant to the summary conclusion that the article needs a "cleanup". Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 22:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some examples

See below. The "1066" tag is for passages whose style is parodied in the book "1066 and all that". Dbuckner 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • "Zarathushtra was the first who made a difference between good and evil and by this he developed dualism as such." (grammar, 1066)
  • "This alone makes him father of humanity and ethics" (grammar)"
  • The section on African philosophy says nothing about African philosophy, except that it is rarely considered outside Africa (self-fulfilling).
  • "Husserl's 1887 work, On the Concept of Number considers psychologism to be an important part of arithmetic." (inaccurate).
  • "With their Principia Mathematica in 1910-1913, mathematical logic attracted the interest of many philosophers."
  • "With this increased interest in mathematical logic came the rise in popularity for the view …" (grammar)
  • "At the same time that logic was coming to prominence in America and Britain," (inaccurate, 1066)
  • "In the mid-twentieth century, existentialism developed in Europe" (1066)
  • "The mid-twentieth century, for North America, Australia and Great Britain, was not as united behind a major philosophical idea as it had been in the past, but a general philosophical method can be abstracted from the philosophy that was going on at the time." (fat, 1066, POV, grammar)
  • "the methodology of philosophy is dynamic" (waffle)
  • "The definition of wisdom for many ancient Greeks would have dwelt .." (grammar)
  • "Ancient Greek philosophy is typically divided …" (typically?)
  • "The medieval period of philosophy came with the collapse of Roman civilization and the dawn of Christianity,.." (1066)
  • "The philosophers … were intercommunicative" (grammar)
  • "[Descartes'] work was greatly influenced by questioning from his correspondent Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia, who posed the mind-body problem to Descartes." (inaccurate)
  • "The Renaissance saw an outpouring of new ideas that questioned authority" (1066)
  • "Husserl placed great emphasis on consciousness" (1066)
  • "Many societies have considered philosophical questions and built philosophical traditions based upon each other's works. Eastern and Middle Eastern philosophical traditions have influenced Western philosophers. Russian, Jewish, Islamic and recently Latin American philosophical traditions have contributed to, or been influenced by, Western philosophy, yet each has retained a distinctive identity." (POV)
  • "The differences between traditions are often based on their favored historical philosophers" (grammar)
  • "Other major texts with philosophical implications" (waffle) Dbuckner 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Editing

Good work, Dbuckner... you're absolutely right. Feel free to go ahead and make some of these changes yourself, since you seem to have a good feel for efficient wording. We still need to edit more and split the article up into sub-groups. I think I'll add the other table to the top of the page. -Rich

[edit] 1890 and all that

  • (1) and (2) have been corrected or replaced, along with more accurate dating and citation.
The section on Husserl is much improved, at least. Why does the section on Descartes say who he was influenced by? Why doesn't every reference to every philosopher say who he was influenced by? If it is because he is generally considered to have begun modern philosophy, then this needs to be more carefully researched and referenced. I think you will find he had many influences. Dbuckner 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No doubt that's true, but the section re: him (the modern Western philosophy section) only calls for one or two examples. Haven't got the time right now to find more of his correspondences, but anyway I don't want to overdo it.
Re: Husserl section, I've been thinking we should add a brief bit more on John Stuart Mill's aggregate theory of number, since that was one of the things left behind by the new orientation towards logic and mathematics. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I presently suspect that there's little I can do about African philosophy section, being both presently ignorant of it and not knowing where to turn to learn more. (The Wiki tells us nothing about African philosophy itself, but just discusses what it might or should be; and the reference texts in the King resource are criticized as being of similarly little insight.)
If we take the presence of written word to be the easiest and most reliable place to examine the philosophy of a people, then we meet a challenge. My linguistics text tells me that there was no such thing as a sub-Saharan African written language before the nineteenth century, among the Vai people (around Sierra Leone/Liberia). Curiously, my text doesn't mention the great library of Timbuktu, which I've come to understand is populated by books in Arabic. That would indicate that Arabic philosophy -- to the extent that the texts there are representative of the area -- would in some degree be continuous with at least parts of northern African philosophy. On the other hand, if we take oral traditions to be important, then we must abandon our armchairs and either do research on ethnophilosophy in anthropology, or become anthropologists ourselves.
  • Hopefully I haven't bungled the bit about philosophy of number, Husserl, Frege, etc. Did my best. At least there's a citation now. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 21:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Socrates

Can someone increase the size of the miniturette potrait in the articles lead? It looks quite silly with my screen resolution. Rintrah 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Increase the size? I know people have high resolutions these days,

but compared to the rest of the images on Wikipedia it seems a little large already. It's at 700px (width) now; but, sometimes if the page isn't refreshed it converts back to the previous "philosopher in contemplation". -Rich

Ok, but in my screen resolution, it does not look the scene from a tragedy, but rather from some obscure Greek pygmie play, with the main pygmie plaintively declaiming in a high pitched voice and making a dramatic gesture. Surely this is not what Plato intended in his work on Socrates, nor David in his painting, despite his deranged pyschological attachment to the French Revolution. Rintrah 07:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's funny, Rintrah. Real funny... but, seriously, I keep editing the picture as a 700 pixel mural and it keeps reverting to a 75 px thumbnail. I'm not sure why. I don't know what the standards are but it looks so much better when it's large. I don't know who keeps changing it. -Rich
Perhpas a mural is too large. I object to it being minitiarette size, but when I adjusted my preferences, the size was more to my taste. The edit history might answer that mystery question you ask. Nevertheless, I am glad you appreciated my joke. :) Rintrah 06:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
David did not have a deranged psychological attachment to the French Revolution. He lived during the Terror and did a pretty good job of surviving.Lestrade 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
I haven't read books on the French Revolution in a while, but as I remember it, David was part of the same extreme political faction as Robespierre, Saint-Just, and Marat, whom he made an iconic figure in his painting Death of Marat. He often denounced members of the rival party for not adhering to the revolution fervently enough. His painting the Tennis Court Oath had similar kinds of alterations as the pictures of Stalin's comrades (or former comrades). He also largely organised the Revolutionary Cult of the Supreme Being, with Robespierre essentially being its supreme prophet; and had a large part in Marat's funerary procession. Of course, to survive, he had express patriotic support for the revolution, but I think he supported it more than required by expendience. The wikipedia page on David seems to support my opinion.
However, I do not wish to deprecate his art, which is truly magnificent. I will not enter further into the debate here, for this is probably the wrong talk page. Rintrah 06:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just leave the size out & leave it a thumb - then everyone can choose in their Preferences|Files how big to make their "thumb" --- 240 is too small on my screen --JimWae 05:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I didn't realise the preferences could be adjusted. 240 is also very small on my screen, but I was being cautious. Rintrah 05:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African Philosophy

Is it me, or is this section a bit skimpy? Do we have anyone who is an expert in this topic that can give a more adequate summary on African Philosophy? Until then, I think that section would qualify to be a stub. 24630 18:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tiny section. And I have no idea what to write there. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greco-Roman Section

Just to let you know, the "Greco-Roman" section is actually just a "Greco-..." section. There is no mention of the Romans. Maybe some research here by people more knowlegeable than me. -Hairchrm 03:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. The question of definition is, of course, essentially a philosophical one, and is not for physicists alone to consider. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University Professor Sources

Here are some online sources for papers and other information from Professor's at Rutgers University:

Note: These sites may change significantly every semester. --165.230.46.67 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some others:

--70.111.218.254 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup tag replaced

I replaced the cleanup tag that I originally put there in September 2006. The article is if anything worse than when I tagged it. There is a huge introductory section which repeats much of the stuff in the body of the article. Introductions aren't for long personal essays, they should be a short, pithy introduction to the subject.

Moreover it is a personal essay. There have to be citations for any substantial claim made. E.g. 'the ancient Greeks were perhaps the first to explicitly ask: Is the world (of which we are also a part) intelligible?'. That's a pretty hard one to verify. Where is it written that 'The ancient Greeks organized the subject into five basic categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics.' ?

The style is also not encyclopedic. E.g.

  • Their view of reason rested in the creation of concepts using the deductive method operating on the data provided by the senses as its basic material, and then reasoning further from this conceptual base.
  • . A range of answers to philosophical questions were subsequently proposed that fall somewhere on a spectrum between the two poles of rational and non-rational.

Just two examples. Dbuckner 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Haven't really visited this page in a while, except the other day when I noticed the same thing. I agree, the intro is far too long. I had thought the pre-Wendl version was serviceable enough. Sure, beginning the article with a remark on human curiosity has its flair, and can pull the reader in; so that's to the good (much better than a lean-in with a definition; better save that to the second sentence or so). But much of the rest of the material ought to be chopped or transferred elsewhere.
I'll see what I can do about dumping those jargon-ridden sentences. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidently now Lucaas is using some "anti vandal bot" software which reverts truncation. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this waffle about "human curiosity" is very patronising to any reader and in fact a mistaken, or at lesat one-sided, view of philosophy. Most people I'd imaging are looking for something more definite, that might lead them on to more specific issues and pages, or to clarify what philosophy means or how it is carried out by today's professional philosophers and of course a summary of its history. --Lucas

  1. The remark about curiosity was a single line. The entire article is dedicated to philosophy in detail. So no comment is given any kind of exclusivity.
  2. Was Plato patronizing us when he wrote: "..for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder"? (Quoted in the article)
  3. Your reversion kept the remarks about curiosity. The only difference is that it buffered those remarks with superfluous text. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A single line yes, but it sticks out. And yes, I know I left "human curiosity" (as opposed to feline curiosity) and "behooving" (what an odd word) in the article and that the rest of the article is not about curiosity, but do you know what the original word you quote from plato was? It weren't curiosity.

The article also should not be so Greek, there is also very old Eastern philosophy and religious and Jewish philosophy. I would also not go along with the trite old thing about philosophy as a luxury, I'd say it came with the first necessity not with the first yawn.

The "superfluous text" is a little serious I know but it does orientate someone into the topic as it is practiced today, since many readers might already have at least an everyday notion of the word's meaning. Which might even be probably closer to the meaning of it than "curiosity".

--Lucas

The remarks made here are rather subjective: "it sticks out", "it is condescending", etc., which is why I find them unconvincing. (Though I would agree that "behooves" sounds like a word that Mr. Belvedere would use.) Ultimately, though, I just don't care that much.
The meaning of "wonder" is somewhat separate from "curiosity", of course, but one wonders what may be condescending about the latter that is not present in the former. Since I detect none in either, there must be something wrong with me; enlightenment is required.
I don't understand it when you write that it should not be "so Greek". Do you mean, "So Western"? The latter I can understand. But the former, not really. In the body of the article (forget the intro for the moment), the philosophy of ancient Greece is given proportionally identical treatment to that of other cultures. Namely, a single paragraph.
Anyway some of the intro has been trimmed, I see. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems Lucaas doesn't much care about WikiStyle guidelines. Great stuff, then; this article is officially destined to never reach A-class. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was only talking about the intro.

I agree it might be unconvincing when I just say its condescending without explanation. What I mean is that it the article sounds like it is addressed to a child. Most people already have an idea of philosophy and may even have a better idea of it that is given by this intro. So rather than give a misleading and clichéd description of philosophy as "human curiosity" or when humans first began to yawn, etc., better just direct them straight away to more info and details about how it is practiced today.

Your word wonder is better, but miracle or marvel or something more affecting like anxiety are also as much a part of the picture.

The Greek bias in the into was obvious, Greek is Western and anyhow there are large articles on both Western Philosophy and Greek Philosophy.

Whats this about rules of style ? I never break rules especially when they are not written in stone.

--Lucas

[edit] This article needs to be editted

Content arguments aside, the structure and language of this article is rough and amateur at best. Could an English professor or two with some background in philosophy spend a few minutes re-doing the worst sections?TeamZissou 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Update: I cleaned up that awful intro a little, but the whole of the article reads coursely. As for length, I'm glad it's so long! Look at some core-topic entries in paper encyclopedias, and you'll find that this length is acceptable for the breadth of the topic.TeamZissou 07:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/Talk%7EPhilosophy_05ac.html"