Talk:Metaphilosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
There is a problem with the editing tools. A heavily attributed and carefully written rewrite of this entry (which would have also undone the 'vandalism') was destroyed apparently since it was submitted just as the 'revert' was applied. This is a damn shame as it is not going to get written again. As it was, all I felt like doing was adding the 'see also' links. Consider this a bug report about the tools, and a complaint about the process of reverting. In general, silly edits get noticed and new people are encouraged to rewrite by their presence. Therefore, there ought to be a wait before any reversion, to see if someone else has something intelligent to say on the topic. What I had to say on it, was destroyed, and I don't care enough about this topic to write it again.
So, fix the tools.
- You should have been presented with a screen called "Edit Conflict". Your version of the text would have been in the second edit window. If that window is still open then your version of the text is still in it. If you closed that window then you just deleted your own work. BTW, most of us use external text editors to make substantial changes to articles. Otherwise browser crashes tend to destroy hours worth of work. --mav 23:08 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
- The most common problems I have seen that lose an edit are always some stupid browser problem (or an operator error, like clicking the "back" button while editing), not Wikipedia. I've seen the browser:
- Dump the entire edit in transmission.
- Insert trash characters that caused all or part of the article to appear to have been lost (but you could still find it if you edited again and removed the trash characters).
- Discard the end of a long article and refuse to let you do anything but deletions yourself.
- If you absolutely insist on writing an entire long article from scratch in the browser window... do frequent saves (e.g., every paragraph. BTW, This also reduces the probability of an "Edit Conflict" hit.). And remember to double check your edits with the "show preview" button too, to make sure it is formatting correctly. -- RTC 23:56 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
"was destroyed apparently since it was submitted just as the 'revert' was applied..." -- do you mean someone did a "rollback"? That doesn't remove the version; rather it inserts a copy of the old version at the head of the page history. Just tested this on the sandbox. -- Tarquin 00:03 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC) Computers fail because, we people, fail and we made them. But if you do want to know about some philosophy theme you will continue to search, no matter what happend. No obstacle, can be so great that can not be reach by our minds, there is an inmense power in our capacity of reaching what is apparently out of reach. Metaphilosophy is going beyond our limitations, is expand our inteligence over any cincunstances, is not to have limits and is to be free.
Contents |
[edit] Pejorative tone
The article is badly skewed. Before asking how meta-philosophy is possible, and criticizing it, it should be explained a bit better what it is.
[edit] hyphenated?
"Metaphilosophy" should not have a hyphen.
The tradition within philosophy, eg. Blackwell's Metaphilosophy, the most prominent metaphilosophical journal, is to not hypenate the term and I do not know any philosphers who do hypenate "metaphilosophy".
[edit] False Claim
In the secion on the so-called "linguistic" metaphilosophical stance it says, "Criticised as being vacuous and without relevance, the logical study of meaningful language is in decline in many universities." This is absolutely false. I am not someone to delve into debates about the virtues of Contintenal vs. Analytic styles of philosophy, but I don't think this is really what is at heart. The claim as stated expresses that the study of logical form and theories of meaning is in decline, which is simply not true. These form the backbone of the linguistic study of semantics, which is a rapidly growing field of study that has made major scientific advancements since the time of Chomsky. Furthermore, as a statement about philosophy it is also false. Analytic philosophy, which is associated with the "linguistic turn" is still the dominant trend throughout the English-speaking world. That means it is the trend at the very large majority of universities throughout North America, the UK, and Australia. Colin 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup?
Seems to me like this article could use a clean-up. I'll have the necessary time to do the research but only in a month or so - if no-one else is willing at the moment. In the meantime, any suggestions?
- Introduction: could be a bit more compact, but it's okay I guess, though I'd remove "Philosophy is, however, commonly understood to encapsulate metaphilosophy, so the distinction is seldom made." as the distinction is standard if not always made.
- Taxonomy: theology is often considered as a seperate discipline, so perhaps "(some include theology)" or an explanation of why both disciplines (philosophy and theology) have diverged in modern times.
- Existing stances: awful. The idea itself isn't bad but I'd include it in an independent overview of each of the specific questions (nature of philosophy, aims, relation to everyday life, ?) There is also no reason at all to make a section both for existing stances and metaphilosophical writings.
Possible (new) categorization:
- Introduction
- Aims of philosophy: nature of philosophy; relationship between philosophy and life/sciences; historical overview of stances
- Philosophical method: the rationalism/empiricism distinction, experimental philosophy, to a priori or not to a priori (as e.g. in naturalized versus traditional epistemology; but also the broader debate about whether philosophy has a distinct method or a distinct subject-matter); genealogy and other methods of criticizing the methods, aims and premisses of a particular type of philosophy.
- Progress in philosophy (and perhaps other smaller problems like these, if there are any?)
- Suggested reading list would be nice.
Other ideas?
Stdbrouw 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
this sentence is exceptionally murky: One of the precursors of the cybernetic meta-philosophical relativisation of philosophical systems was the Polish science-fiction writer Stanislaw Lem.
[edit] Language Truth and Logic
Since it was published in 1936, I have taken the liberty of chaning "post war debut" to "book". KD Tries Again 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD
[edit] Edit Jan 28 / 07
I've done some reordering of the article, added a few things and removed the stupid reference to linguistic philosophy as being vacuous. The article is still crummy and my additions aren't top notch themselves, but overall I think it's a improvement. Too bad few others seem to be interested in improving the article; considering that it might be a good idea to create a somewhat smaller but better article - something on my to-do list. Stdbrouw 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
