Talk:Philosophy/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 14


Contents

intro

I agree with Lucidish. All four of the intros above are poorly written and best forgotten.

--Comment: this means that the current page must also be forgotten, my point is that the current one aught be forgotten first!

Here is an intro I found from about a year ago that seems to me better than any of the current proposals. Is this something we could work with:

The word once included all forms of knowledge, and all methods for attaining it. Early scientists, regardless of their field of study, called themselves "natural philosophers". But through the rise of universities and the separation of learning disciplines, philosophy has taken on more specialized meanings. Not all philosophers agree on what the word 'philosophy' means, variously contending between the following views of philosphy, for example:
A method of rational inquiry, with the approaches used varying considerably. For instance, the Socratic method relies primarily upon asking questions while analytic philosophy applies logic and language in other ways.
A particular subject matter. The scope of philosophical inquiry is diverse, and includes metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic.
A process. Goals of this process include: to perfect the human soul, to "Know thyself", to seek the Tao, or, as Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed, to provide an antidote to certain confusions of language.
An academic discipline, studied at universities and colleges worldwide.
The term can also refer to a worldview, to a perspective on an issue, or to the positions of a particular philosopher or school of philosophy. Popularly, it may also refer to a person's perspective on life (as in "philosophy of life") or the basic principles behind, or method of achieving, something (as in "my philosophy about driving on highways").
The phrase "a philosophical attitude" refers to a thoughtful approach to life. Reacting to a tragedy philosophically might mean abstaining from passionate reactions in favour of intellectual detachment. This usage arose from the example of Socrates, who calmly discussed the nature of the soul with his followers before drinking a deadly potion of hemlock, as ordered by an Athenian jury. The Stoics followed Socrates in seeking freedom from their passions, hence the modern use of the term stoic to refer to calm fortitude.

Rick Norwood 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they were poorly written, that was Dean. My ability to tell the difference between good and bad prose has deteriorated steadily over the past few years. I would likely give a cookbook two thumbs up.
The quoted introduction has many of the features that are needed. However, it's important to flesh out the disputes about meaning a little bit more -- just enough to give the reader the low-down, but not so much that it requires its own section. A bit more on rationality, systematicity, critical nature, dialectical method, etc., would be helpful. The "first-order second-order" thing is worth a mention, esp. the different approaches taken by Quinton and Blackburn. Also, it's important to give a teaser of the article to come, including the analytic-continental distinction, history, etc. Also, I like giving the reader an orientation by pointing out how the academic sense is not necessarily identical to the natural language sense. However, it should probably not take a paragraph to get that notion across. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(Dean:) While this introduction is not particularly well phrased, I like the basic ideas. The writing could easily be cleaned up. I note with amusement it contains sections that are directly attributable to Larry Sanger. The only objection will be from JJL, who wanted a short introduction, in line with other areas in WP. The reply would be that most philosophers think philosophy is unique in that philosophers don't even agree exactly on what the definition is, and that the whole controversy over the definition, which you don't find in other areas, marks out philosophy for special treatment. So I vote for something on these lines (if we agree, I will have a go at the prose style). Agree with Ben also that there should be something about the first/second order controversy.

Mel Etitis (who also said that no one takes post modernism seriously) objected to the 'philosophy of life' bit on the basis that it removes focus from the main article. And as Ben says, the introduction should, well, introduce everything to come in the main article. Thus, as well as Descartes and Kant, we ought to have sections on the philosophy of golf, popular philosophy? Think about it.

Since there is a reasonable chance, say 1 in 5, that we may reach consensus, can I float an idea about how the rest of the article should go? It is currently way too long, the reason being people have written it like a traditional encyclopedia, hence a mini-essay on all of philosophy that effectively repeats material in other sub-articles. But as we have links, and this is the internet, we should be giving the reader just enough to understand what the sub-article is about, without a long essay, plus a link to the sub-article. Furthermore, there should be careful co-ordination between the main article and the subsidiaries so that there is no contradiction between them. This article should really be a roadmap to the rest of the philosophy department, and we should really be devoting more attention to the contents of the sub-articles, some of which are truly dreadful (though some, particularly the biographies, are quite good).

Also, assuming we do get consensus, at what stage do we get the article unlocked? You know what's going to happen. Is there a case for having it briefly unlocked to put in the consensus definition, then lock it again until progress is made on the rest? Ben (I think) said that this was not possible, but I'm sure it is. There is even a category for such articles (semi-protected. Go to Hitler or Peaches Geldof and have a look. Dbuckner 08:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(Ben) I don't agree about the elimination of the orientation-section. I think it can be useful to the reader. I agree with everything else, though.
I wouldn't want to remove it. But we don't need a paragraph, as you yourself said.Dbuckner 15:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
True, true. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look as though we qualify for semi-protection. SP is reserved especially for biographies which are trolled by anonymous users frequently. This page is a different sort of thing. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
So we don't get trolls on this page? Dbuckner 15:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, it's a troll bridge. But semi-protection only keeps out anonymous users, and this article isn't a biography. Still, we can request it, and see what happens. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe we are actually making progress. I agree with most of what Dbuckner said. I am a little concerned about changing the content of the sections before we agree on a structure for the article, but since everyone agrees that we need an introduction, would anyone like to try a rewrite of the intro above with an eye toward smoother prose and fewer words? Rick Norwood 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggested revision is below. I deleted the stuff about Socrates and the hemlock, because while true, it is better suited to some sub-article, say Stoicism. I deleted the claim that ' The word once included all forms of knowledge, and all methods for attaining it.' is provably false. Also the passage ' Early scientists, regardless of their field of study, called themselves "natural philosophers". But through the rise of universities and the separation of learning disciplines, philosophy has taken on more specialized meanings.' is badly written. There is a truth lurking behind what it says, but it is well-disguised. We could put something in on those lines, but is it not better suited to the body of the article? Dbuckner 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no complete agreement, even among philosophers, on what philosophy actually is [Russell quote]. However, some commonly accepted ways of characterising the subject are as follows.

  • A field of enquiry whose branches include the core subjects of metaphysics (the ultimate nature of what exists), epistemology [definition needed], ethics [definition needed], and logic [definition needed], and whose method is generally critical and methodical in nature, often using techniques from logic. [here we have the famous problem that if the method of philosophy uses logic, how can logic also be its subject matter. This is why some definitions omit 'logic']
  • A process whose goals may include discovering ultimate or fundamental truths (Aristotle), reconciling faith and reason (the Scholastic philosophers), establishing the limits of reason (Kant), establishing what can be known with certainty (Descartes), clarifying confusion (Wittgenstein), seeking the Tao [what does this mean?].

The term can also mean

  • a worldview, to a perspective on an issue, or to the positions of a particular philosopher or school of philosophy.
  • (popularly) a person's perspective on life (as in "philosophy of life") or the basic principles behind, or method of achieving, something (as in "my philosophy about driving on highways").
  • "a philosophical attitude", i.e. an emotionally detached approach to life.

Dbuckner 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good template. Also need to include short bit on first/second order character (and possible relation to science etc), and the analytic-continental distinction. Also, of course, not using bullet form, which is ugly. And we could likely slim that last bit on informal uses down even more.
At the back of everyone's mind is the issue of whether or not this will all go down the drain in a week. I'd like to suggest that, if nothing else, we should stamp the basic expectations to the head of this talk page, so that whatever permutations arise should at least be guided by a template. The ordinary reader will not want a thousand references, but nevertheless: we might also engage in a bit of megasourcing, i.e., doing what you (Dean) essentially did at Definition of philosophy, pointing out source after source in exemplary texts, and using that to justify the template. If the above sounds confusing, I'll just show you what I mean in one moment... { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes the bullets were ugly. Also, there are other mistakes which I need to think about. Dbuckner 08:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy in College Catalogs

User:Dbuckner, and others above, you're still engaging in original research. It is inappropriate for you to look for a Super-definition of what constitutes the subject matter of philosophy when you yourself recognize that there is no agreement among philosphers themselves. Can you not see that that's precisely what you are doing above, with your colleagues?
I told you my view of what the alternative is - but you guy(s) just choose to ignore it - because it deprives you of your platform - a platform which gives you your opportunity to expound your personal view(s) as to what philosophy is.
Again, here's my suggestion - consisting of THREE POINTS.
  • This is the English Wikipedia - therefore it is appropriate to Commence with the Western point of view.
    • Philosophy, today, is predominantly practiced in (higher) schools of learning known as colleges and universities, and by authors in the field whose work is recognized by publishers as worthy of publication when the author is so based (at a reputable school).
      • Go to the college catalog to abstract the sub-devisions of the field of philosophy.
I'm sorry to deprive you of your soap-box - but so it must be.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are talking about. If you look above, you see I followed your suggestion, and gave a number of definitions based on college and university prospecti. Dbuckner 08:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I hate to say it, Ludvikus, but your comments seem to me to be destructive rather than constructive. Nobody ignored your suggestions, though it is true we failed to consider your suggestions as the only suggestions. "*This is the English Wikipedia - therefore it is appropriate to Commence with the Western point of view." is totally wrongheaded. One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that it embrace all points of view, and not be in any way chauvinistic. Also, college catalogs are written by committees, and are a totally inappropriate source of quotes. Unless you show a willingness to compromise, you will end up marginalizing your own input. Rick Norwood 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not embrace all points of view. It embraces a single, neutral, detached point of view WP:NPOV. That view comes out of bits of evidence from authoritative sources. Where there is disagreement it is noted, in a factual, neutral, way. University prospecti are not the sole source, of course. But they provide useful evidence of how philosophy is taught, and the skills that are taught. All the prospecti emphasise the importance of critical thinking skills. I have taught philosophy at university and can vouch for that. Students were regularly expelled from the course for failing this course. Rick, you teach mathematics. Presumably you set exams based on numerical reasoning, proofs, skill in manipulating that sort of thing? Those skills are to mathematics as critical thinking is to philosophy. Dbuckner 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For Succinct Un-Pompous Presentation(s)

"Going away" and "being brief" were prior request here made (not by me).

Can we please restrain the pontification here (no insult to the Pope intended) regarding defining philosophy?
At least Ben Nelson had the (I didn't say it) to say "No" to the substitution of "knowing" for "knowledge". Is there something you know better than I, or is it a mere Categorical Imperitive on your part?
What's better about "knowledge" than "knowing"?
What is? - is that an accurate way of translating Aristotle's inquiry into the nature of Metaphysics, Being, and/or Existence? Why wont you philosophers above enlighten me as to the proper point of view on the substance or matter of being?
And why is it that most of you fellas (no lady?) refuse to DO THE RIGHT THING - a subject upon which the cinematographer, Spike Lee, appears a better authority?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Darmock and Gilaad on the ocean. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Alone?
No balm? Rick Norwood 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Darmok and Jilad on the ocean ? --Ludvikus 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a Star Trek reference. Rick Norwood 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus: re your question as to whether "What is?" is an accurate way of translating Aristotle's inquiry into the nature of "Metaphysics, Being, and/or Existence", the short answer is, no it is not. I gave a reference and a link to the Metaphysics above. Book 1 (A) gives an overview, book 7 (book Z) gives a more precise view, in his very words, of what he means by 'Metaphysics'. Or rather, 'First Philosophy', since Aristotle never uses the word 'Metaphysics', as you surely know. Dbuckner 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're either missing the point, or engaging in your personal philosophising, or doing some other stubborn, irrational, thing which I cannot go into at this moment (your psychology). But the issue (of your possition) is easy to refute. "I am that I am." Do you have any sense of the meaning, or source of that? The copula has a use of asserting existence. Any philosopher who's not pig-headed can recognize the question, "What is?," as an inquiry into the nature of existence. And your deliberate (conscious or unconscious) interpretation of the rhetorical question here demonstates your irrationality, and therefore you have no logical right to describe philosophy as a rational inquiry. The fact is that you are not motivated to conform to the rules of Wikipedia regarding personal opinions, but rather you want to enjoy this page as a place you can expound your personal interpretation of what philosophy is. And in particular:

    you have chosen, irrationally, to interpret Aristotle as not asking What is?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I understoosd you the first time. The answer, once again, is that 'what is' or 'what exists' does not accurately translate Aristotle's enquiry into the nature of Metaphysics. Just read the online texts. Google Aristotle + metaphysics - there are plenty. Dbuckner 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastern vs Western

We've been arguing for some time about the Eastern-Western thing, because the inclusion of 'rational method' (or critical, or logical) seems to rule out the Eastern bit. My problem all along is that if we leave out the rational method, what else is there that defines the two traditions as being 'philosophy'. What actually do they have in common that entitles them to be in the same article. The name? Well, no, because apparently there is no name in Eastern 'philosophy' that corresponds to our word 'philosophy'. The name was simply a Western imposition based on the idea that there were superficial similarities between the two traditions.

And again, are we so sure that the rational, argumentative method does not apply anyway? Here are the words of Buddha according to the Anattalakkhana Sutta, his second discourse, the Sermon on the Mark of Not-Self:

The body [rupa], monks, is not self. If the body were the self, this body would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to the body, “Let my body be thus. Let my body be not thus.” But precisely because the body is not self, the body lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to the body, “Let my body be thus. Let my body not be thus.”

Looks like a pretty good argument to me. Dbuckner 11:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Many Eastern philosophers are logical, many Western philosophers illogical. If Philosophy is a set of "big" questions, then the question of how to attain truth is itself a philosophical question, and we should not attempt to provide the answer: Western rationalism, as part of the definition. Others might answer: fasting, meditation, introspection, inspiration, denial of the self, or whirling. They would argue that vaunted Western rationalism is mere rationalization, and that Western philosophers always use their rational arguments to arrive at the conclusion they wanted to arrive at before they started. (There is some truth in that last.) Rick Norwood 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, the points about "non-rationality" were between myself and Mel Etis (sp?). The focus of the discussion, though, was upon Zen Buddhism, not (I think) the East in its entirety. I argued in defence of the inclusion of Zen Buddhism, because of its skeptical outlook. Whether or not I succeeded in being convincing, though, should not be a reflection on the East itself, any more than a poor defence of New Age texts would disqualify Western philosophy.
Reasoned inquiry and rationality is one aspect of philosophy, but roots in doubt and skepticism are also important. This is just to say that they all require inclusion.
I don't agree that common treatment of subjects (i.e., ethics) is to be seen as a superficial connection. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(Dean) Rick: Oh dear. Entirely misses my point again. If these two ways of looking at the same questions (and if they are indeed the same questions) are really so different, why are we dealing with them in the same article. At what point do you say that fairness to each dictates separate treatment? I read some more of Buddha's writings over lunch, and looked at some articles on Buddhist logic. It's clear to me that they have very little in common with the 'Western' traditions. Given they are so different, why not treat them separately.
I repeat. The method of critical thinking is fundamental to the subject that philosophers study in the West and the East today. You cannot imagine this subject still being what it is, without it. Every undergraduate goes on critical thinking or logic courses, successfully acquiring these skills is essential to grasping the work of Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Mill, Russell and the rest. The subject in question is nothing without it. Why, then, do you want to treat of it in an article where these skills or not only not highly regarded, but where you are explicitly told to lose them or forget them (which was the gist of one of the Buddhist parables about monks who are arguing)?
You say "they would argue that vaunted Western rationalism is mere rationalization". Fine, I'm not disagreeing, and maybe there is some truth in what they say. But you miss the point. Why should such deeply opposed and irreconciliable systems be treated in exactly the same article? What on earth do they have in common?
You say "the question of how to attain truth is itself a philosophical question". Not as far as the chosen method of philosophy is concerned. Professional philosophers do not debate about whether to have critical thinking or logic courses, or whether passing the courses is a requirement for going onto the second year (a lot of students fail at this point, or are invited to leave). How they use the method of rational, critical thinking, or whether they think all truth is accessible in that way is a different matter.
It's rather as if there were a discipline, tradition of something that happens to be called 'mathematics', in which no addition or subtraction were done, no numerical skills were required, no manipulation of equations and so on. What makes it the same as standard mathematics? You will say 'this is just your Western prejudice coming out' I reply 'perhaps so. But what in fact makes it mathematics, as I understand it'? In order for the same article to treat with two apparently different topics, there has to be something fundamentally in common. You haven't said what that is.
I'm not denying that "meditation, introspection, inspiration, denial of the self, or whirling" are not perfectly good ways of attaining the truth. It's just that they are not philosophical ways of attaining the truth. Dbuckner 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to re-iterate the view that Eastern philosophy allegedly seems irrational. That view is held to reflect racist and imperialist attitudes.

  • The fact is that major bookstores, such as Barnes and Noble, classify books accordingly.
    • Furthermore, colleges and universities make the distinction, and offer courses distinctly dedicated to Eastern philosophy. Inspite of Liebniz's writing on China, and Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathrusta, involving Zoroastrianism, these are distinct and mostly separate traditions which have only interacted in recent times. So we do not need User:Dbuckner's argumentation as to the rationality of Eastern philosophy.
      • If anything, User:Dbuckner's prejudice in favor of rationality, and against Eastern philosophy demonstrates quite well the role of the irrational in philosophy. Do we really need to explore his unconscious views any further? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Where was I expressing a prejudice against one thing or another. It was Rick Norwood who explicitly said that the methods of 'Eastern' philosophy were radically different from 'Western'. I replied, if they really are so different, why should they be in the same article. I'm not saying we should dismiss either. Quite the reverse. Give fair and equal treatment to each, and don't confuse one with the other. The current article pretends to be about both, but is in fact mostly about the 'Western' variety. I wish you would read carefully what I say.Dbuckner 17:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And why should asserting that some Eastern methods of attaining truth, such as Zen Buddhism, do not use rational, systematic and critical methods of investigation, be racist. See for example this article. Dbuckner 17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And since you have apparently asserted that 'Western' methods of doing philosophy do not use rational, systematic and critical methods of investigation, isn't that also racist? Dbuckner 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
To reject your beloved word rational, User:Dbuckner, is to refuse to assert either, that that something is so-and-so, or that it is not so-and-so.
Your word, rational, as a qualification as to what constitutes true philosophy is useless.
Something is rational when Dbuckner says it is.
Dbuckner says most Eastern "Philosophy" is irrarional, therefore it is not philosophy. Why, because User Dbuckner says so.
Is Hegel rational? Why did certain British empiricists describe him as full of metaphysical nonsense?
What about the Postmodernist attack on the very notion of rationality? Did you find an argument against their position? Did you, User:Dbuckner publish your denounciation of this school of thought in any journal we should know about? Are most European philosophers, who have followed in the footsteps of the Postmodernists just simply mistaken?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia on Postmodernism ("Overview")

    Scholars and historians most commonly hold postmodernism to be a movement of ideas
    that has both replaced and extended modernism by countering and borrowing
    from a number of modernism's fundamental assumptions.
    For example, modernism places a great deal of importance on ideals such as
    rationality, objectivity, and progress
    -- as well as other ideas rooted in the Enlightenment,
    and as positivist and realist movements from the late 19th century
    -- while postmodernism questions whether these ideals can actually exist at all.
    [Emphasis added]

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're a modernist, User:Dbuckner, who believes in the ideal of rationality. And you reject postmodernism. Good for you - but must you shove your view down our throats? :Besides, have I not made a rational argument, with the above quote, that there is a whole world of European philosophical thought which maintains that rationality is an unattainable goal? Accordingly, philosophical inquiry is unattainable! Why? Because it subscribe to rationality (according to User:Dbuckner). Checkmate! If you reject this argument it can only be because YOU are irrational - and that's further proof that philosophy is NOT rational inquiry. But its also NOT irrational inquiry!!! The Category does not apply; I have assumed that you're a philosopher - or is that also false? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And so we are back where we were more than a year ago, saying the same things over and over again. (pauses to take deep breath) We cannot choose what philosophy is. We can only report how the word is, in fact, used. Examples have been offered showing that the word is used to include both Zen and Postmodernism, not to mention The Philosophy of Peanuts. Rick Norwood 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't around a year ago. We can say what it is - but only in extremely broad terms: Philosophy is (at least part of the) Western Intellectual Tradition and it asks three broad questions common to all known featherless bipeds which are rational beings (the Greek term which identifies human beings, or homo sapiens. And it asks, in general three (3) fundamental questions:
(1) What is it to know? knowledge; epistemology
(2) What is it to be? metaphysics; ontology, existence
(3) What is it to do the right thing? ethics
Philosophy of Peanuts I'm unfamiliar with. Perhaps you mean the Philosophy of Beans. Pythagoras had written, 'On Beans, and a professor of mine at City College - by the name of (Hutchinson]] - demonstrated - sarcastically I might add - that one could construct a corriculum on anything - including a Philosophy of Quizine!!! --Ludvikus 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction "Template"

Do not place discussions here in a template format. These are your opinions, NOT any Wikipedia policy. For historical purposes, here is what has been moved from the top of this page:

Introduction template

The introduction to Philosophy is subject to revision. However, in the interests of following NPOV and NOR, editors need to mention any information that is provided in other encyclopediae at minimum. This includes:

  • The etymology of "philosophy";
  • The difficulty of formulating the meaning of philosophy;
  • The first-order and second-order nature of philosophizing (including its relation to other fields);
  • Philosophy's rational, discursive, or critical character;
  • Continental and analytic philosophy;
  • The branches of philosophy (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, logic);
  • Eastern and Western philosophy.

Cmprince 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

At no point was it asserted to be Wikipedia policy. It is a template, and it is in a box. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is my rewrite of Dbuckner's rewrite of the old intro, with no bullet points and one reference.
Philosophy (from the Greek “philo”, love + “sophia”, knowledge) is a field of enquiry. There is no complete agreement, even among philosophers, on what philosophy actually is. Some approach philosophy through its subject matter, which includes logic, esthetics, ethics, politics, and metaphysics [1] Others approach philosophy through its methods, which include analysis, synthesis, reason, introspection, meditation, and inspiration.
Philosophy can also refer to a worldview (a philosophy of life), to a certain perspective on an issue (the philosophy of golf), or to the position of a particular person or school (stoic philosophy). The phrase “a philosophical attitude” means calm in a situation where people are commonly emotional.

Rick Norwood 21:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good start, Rick Norwood.

  • There is this customary etymological analysis into the two combining forms (that's what it is - and there no reason not to be precise). But the second word is "wisdon" not "knowledge."
  • I do not see the need for the negative - about there being no agreement. In fact Hegel and his successors showed us the significance of history: there is a 2,500 year continuous dialogue among the philosophers (in the West). Each addresses and contradicts and/or improves upon his predecessor. This is presented in any History of philosophy course.
  • And that's why you cannot get a single answer as to what the nature of philosophy is. Hegel built his system (as difficult and incoherent as it may appear) by tracing this connection among the philosophers.
  • So let's present philosophy in its evolution, or revolution, as it has in fact evolved. This does not require us to engage in PersonalPoints of View - which is not allowed by Wiki policy.
  • So we should begin with the Presocratics and go through the Great Philosophers as these are recognized in every college and university in the world.
  • As we go along, philosophy as it is today will emerge - out of its history - including the inclusion of Eastern philosophy in the second half of the twentieth century with the collapse of Imperialism and institutionalized racism.
  • There is no other way to do it - but historicaly.
  • Philosophy begins in the West among the Greeks. (We will get to other cultures later.) Let's start with that.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick, this would seem more adequate to me, if only because it deals with the subjects that it needs to deal with (italicized changes):
Philosophy (from the Greek “philo”, love + “sophia”, wisdom) is a field of intellectual enquiry. There is no complete agreement, even among philosophers, on what definitively constitutes philosophy. One approach is to understand philosophy as a certain subject matter, which includes the study of good reasoning, theories of beauty, good conduct, good community, knowledge, and existence. Others approach philosophy through its typical use of methods like critical analysis and reasoning, through dialogue and/or introspection.
Some claim that philosophers tend to examine the process of examination itself, and so, philosophy has a second-order character. Others claim that philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every field of intellectual enquiry, including all the sciences.
Although the word "philosophy" originates in the Western tradition, seminal figures in the history of the East have addressed similar topics in similar ways. This has led to their being called "Eastern philosophers". Contemporary Western philosophy is divided into continental and analytic traditions.
Philosophy can also refer to a worldview (a philosophy of life), to a certain perspective on an issue (the philosophy of golf), or to the position of a particular person or school (Stoic philosophy). { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on whoever produced this template, I think it should be reviewed and placed at the start of the talk page. But by and large it is better than what we've had before. I've noticed also that there seems to be some convergence in opinions.

The main issue, I think, is going to be how to follow etymology and a statement of the difficulty in defining philosophy with one particular definition or statement of what it is. My idea is not to give only one idea (eg, that it is rational oor critical) but to give a flavour of some of the important ideas there have been about what philosophy is. A list or paragrpah limited to 5 or 7 such views I think is appropriate to the, the list should also be limited only to Major philosophers, I give an example here: Some tentative definitions of Philosophy might include:

  • The critical and rational study or discussion of the truths, principles and practices of knowledge, and conduct, being, and ideology
  • The provision of a solid foundation for scientific thought and for political praxis
  • The dissolution and relief from enigmas and mysteries .(Wittgenstein)
  • That which grasps its own era in thought
  • An interpretation of the world in order to change it
  • An attempt to answer and set boundary questions such as, "What is the good life?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

No doubt each of these could be argued about and improved. However, I think it would be hard to leave any of them out.

I think that not only quick direction to the reader about how philosophy is used today (ie, Analytic/Continental) but also Lucidish's advise about other non-academic uses of the word are practical necessities of the intro (plus links to self-help books, coaching etc.). Practical aspect of the intro might also be mentioned in the template, practical as in how different readers coming to this page might want quick redirection.

--Lucas

Some of the quotations do not appear to accurate. E.g. "The dissolution and relief from enigmas and mysteries" (supposedly Wittgenstein), "That which grasps its own era in thought" (Hegel) "An interpretation of the world in order to change it " (Marx). The quote supposedly from Wittgenstein does not correspond to anything he said, as far as I am aware. The other two are inaccurate in a way that changes the intended meaning. Marx, I thought, was criticising philosophers for not changing the world. And in any case, we should distinguish things that have been said about philosophy by individual philosophers, but which are not defining characteristics of philosophy, from things which are essential. Only the W. quote captures anything that philosophers have thought essential (i.e. conceptual clarificatio and the dissolving of problems). Dbuckner 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea of dissolving problem corresponds to Wittgenstein's ideas if you have read any of his books you should know that. Yes, Marx was criticising others for not changing the world, he said the whole point of philosophy was not to interpret the world but to change it (just as I said above, then again maybe you have some secret idea about his intention of not saying what philosophy is, but just criticising previous philosophers. He certainly has had an effect on it in anycase.
These are defining characteristics of these philosophers they shape almost everything they do. In the last line of this strange reply you talk of "philosophers" to who are you referring? Now you give me one line on what the above philosophers thought philosophy was!
--Lucas
That would seem to be the jist of Wittgenstein I, at least from what I have read of him, if you were to add the clause "...of language" to the end of your summary. His insistence on the fact that philosophy was about puzzles of natural language, and not genuine problems, is what had him waving a hot poker at poor Karl Popper. Strictly speaking, though, Dean is correct about the Marx quote. If you take it word by word from Theses on Feuerbach, Marx is criticizing philosophers, not giving them advice. Maybe he had other intentions -- Marx is a terrible writer, so it's possible -- but the evidence is on Dean's side. Of course, though, it would not be difficult to find philosophers who were inspired by his praxis-driven approach. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see someone has read Wittgenstein. As to Marx, he says "the philosophers have only interpreted the word in various ways; the point, however, is to change it" This is a fairly clear outline of what philosohophy should be doing and is not just a contemplative criticism of a certain philospher (notice the plural in philosophers, it includes all of them since the beginning of time, it sets out what philosophy means to him and what he thinks it should be doing in clear terms. I think it is obvious he believed this. Dont know what you mean about his writing being bad, he has given lots of jingly aphorisms and has a very rhetorical style.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucaas (talk • contribs).

It is not a pretty clear outline of what philosophy should be doing. It is a pretty clear outline of what philosophers have failed to do, with at best the implicit implication that they ought to change their ways.
Since you asked: the very fact that Marx was aphoristic and rhetorical is what I mean when I say he was a bad writer. He contradicts himself, and his rhetorical flourishes only obfuscate his point and frustrate the dispassionate reader. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We all agree not only that Philosophy is hard to define, but that the greatest (generally recognized as such) have been unable to do, or to have their views accepted, and we are even experiencing difficulties agreeing on what these greats have said.
Accordingly, it is presumptupous at best to go about thinking that we could do it here!!!
On the other hand, every great philosopher influenced his successor. There is a kind of "dialogue" running through the history of philosophy in the West (where all of us are). Eastern philosophy, which is a different tradition, comes into the picture only in the 1960's, with the 60's revolution in Europe and the United States.

Dont know where you got that info, sounds very TV though where the the 60s is considered ancient history. The Western encounter with Eastern thought goes much further back than that! Don't ask me how far, go research it.

By the way, some of my philosophy Encyclopedias/Dictionaries do not even have an entry for "Philosophy". Why?
So I recommend that what we should do is what is done in every History of Philosophy course. Present it as it has evolved historically. In India and China I imagine there would be a different presentation. In China, with the central role Marxism in Communism, I can imagine that philosophy culminates in Marx. But we are writing about philosophy in the English Wikipedia. And in this context Philosophy is that which begins with the Greeks, not the Persians, or the Egyptians, or the Caanonnites, etc. So here's my general (incomplete) list of essential philosophers:
We can rely on the fact that each of these are developed separately in another WP Article.

Good list but don't know why you have science in cognitive science in there, that is psychology not philosophy. Then again if we let you put that in, we can always add some mystics to even it up. Please avoid giving an "evolved history" of philosophy that idea is distinctly Hegelian and I don't think we should favour him particularly --Lucas

So lets focus on each, chronologically, abstracting what philosophy is for each.
As for philosophy of the man (or woman) in the street - why don't we consult him on brain surgery? The fact that the "common man" has a view, or that there is the usage "philosophy of golf" - that's not a serious problem. It's a trivial usage - though not for a golfer. Let's ask Tiger Woods what it is, or look to the article on him, as well as in golf.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 12:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus – I agree with many (not all) of the points you make. The fact remains that, where style and presentation are concerned, Wikipedia works on a consensus basis. I doubt you will get consensus to remove the 'man in the street' definition as that has been a contentious issue from the start. On the periods of philosophy, you are quite right that philosophy had different goals, methods and even subject areas in the past. But that is better dealt with in a section of the article, rather than an introduction. The consensus is that we have a brief introduction which captures the main points of the article, followed by the main sections of the article. That also covers your other point, that many encyclopedias do not have articles on philosophy. But many do, and in particular Wikipedia does. So given the consensus for a brief introduction to the article, we have to deliver one. Do you agree? In particular, are you comfortable with the idea of doing things by consensus, rather than unilaterally? Dbuckner 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Approaches to philosophy

Not for the introduction, I think, but a first stab at how different philosophicers or schools have approached philosophy.


Approaches to Philosophy
Philosopher Goal Method Subject Areas
Plato ?? Dialogues cosmology, theory of mind, theory of knowledge, theology, ethics
Aristotle the fundamental reason of everything discursive logic, metaphysics, cosmology, theory of mind, theology, ethics
Scholastics reconciliation of faith and reason the quaestio, dialectic, syllogistic logic logic, metaphysics, the soul, theory of knowledge, ethics
Rationalists
Empiricists show all knowledge derived from experience discursive theory of knowledge, logic, theory of ideas
Kantians establish the limits of reason discursive ??
Analytic / Linguistic clarification of concepts analysis, formal logic theory of language, theory of mind

Dbuckner 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche and the Continentals left out? --Lucas

Lucidish's version of the intro

I have no objection to Lucidish's rewrite of my rewrite of DBuckner's rewrite, except that he takes out the only reference, and doesn't put his own reference in its place. I can't help but notice that, after we all agreed that the introduction had to be referenced, very few references are being provided.

Hagel: Yes, Hagel tried to shoehorn all Western philosophy into a dialectic, but the shoe really doesn't fit all that well. As for Communism, Marx followed Hagel, and we have the irony of an strongly anti-Western government in China under Mao based its politics on a Western philosopher, rather than following the Eastern tradition.

One major difference between Western and non-Western philosophy is that you can find some continuity in Western/Arabic philosophy which you cannot find (as best I can tell) outside the Western tradition. The same seems to be true of Western science and mathematics. There is a lot of mathematics in India and China, and some in Africa, the Pacific islands, and pre-Columbian America, but very little continuity. Rick Norwood 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the trend towards putting a note at the end of every sentence so that the paragraph ends up looking like it has headlice. Also, the html doesn't handle them very well, and the line spacing becomes corrupted. Can we agree to put the notes in somewhere, but at the end of the paragraph? On the introduction itself, I think it needs a bit more work, but at least we seem to be agreed on the basic ingredients. Well, all except Ludvikus and Lucas. Dbuckner
On the continuity thing, yes, and that is another reason why I would prefer separate articles. Eastern philosophies, someone said, had a pre-Socratic period but nothing comparable to an Aristotle and hence no medieval period. Thus any historical treatment becomes messy, because you can descrive a long 'Western' tradition which is highly continuous, but nothing comparable outside. I just wrote an article on the Continuity thesis which is connected with the whole issue. Dbuckner 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick, I only removed it temporarily to get all my ducks in a row with respect to visible content. One thing at a time. Anyway, all of the points can be substantiated by the references on Definition of philosophy, with the exception of the man on the street stuff, which is just to make it reader-friendly. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussing consensus among just four (4) editors does not move me at all. I appreciate Rick Norwood's request for citations. Unless I get a source/reference to the above essentially personal point of view analysis as to WHAT IS COMMON TO PHILOSOPHY OR PHILOSOPHERS, we are not going tomake much progress. There's all the talk about other sources - yet I do not see Dbuckner giving me any.He now introduces new words, such as discursive - and what he says may be true - nevertheless it reflects giving the world his own point of view as to how he organizes all the various philosophers, philosophies, schools of philosophy.
None of the specific issues I have raised have been directly addressed - though I see I am beginning to have some influence - but very little. This is not merely an ego-trip on my part. I too would like, rather love, to write a book entitled Philosophy. However, at least I realize that this is not the place for it.
On the etymology I think we can easily make progress.
I want to know what you three (3) editors have to say, regarding your sense of what we should say is Philosophy according to their work? And I want, in each instance, some sort of explicit reference. Better yet, I'll begin it:
Thales (c. 624-546), in the Western intellectual tradition [a phrase to show that there are other traditions, such as perhaps Abraham among the Middle Easterners for example - we won't be accused of Chauvinism], Philosopherhas long been considered the First .
Why not begin with him and explain what's philosophical about his work, or why he is considered the First Philosopher? But please don't introduce any loaded words which reflect someone else's views - some ONE person, and a much later concept, like the word discursive, although I doubt it'll do you much good in this context. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Some assistance! Eduard Zeller, page 27 of his Outline ... , writes that his "mathematical studies" and the "scientific sense", etc., "had doubtless a considerable influence on his attempt to explain the ultimate basis of things on other than mythological terms.."
So, philosophy begins, in Greece, as an
    attempt to explain the ultimate basis of things on other than mythological terms

Notice the use of non-technical, ordinary words, except for mythology. --Ludvikus 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So: Philosophy begins, in the West, specifically in Greece, as an attempt to give an ultimate explanation of things free of mythology. Ludvikus 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how you can say it begins in the West. There were Eastern philosophers even before Plato et al. Also how do you draw a clear line from a mystisism that didnt rely on existing religion (or mythology as you call it). Wasnt the division into fire/water/air/earth fairly mysterious dvision yet most of the pre-Socratics had opinions about them? By the way, people are refering to revisions of the intro, they are not easy to find, where are they? --Lucas

I appreciate the tone of your questions.
  • This is the English language Wikipedia. That's in the West. Eastern philosophy is "discovered" by the West in response to un-Civil unrest of the 1960's. Whether you like it or not, Philosophy IS separated into Eastern and Western. And there's a reason for that - they have been quite separate for a very long time. Why you mention Plato instead of the earlier philosopher I mentioned, Thales, is strage.
  • You confuse mysticism with mythology. The latter is the appropriate term regarding the Greeks. You also introduce another, much later, Latin concept, namely religion. But that's a common phenomena - an anachronistic one at that. What the Greeks had was a common mythology. Stick to that notion.
    • But what is the most serious, horrible, error you make is the following:
    Wasnt the division into fire/water/air/earth
    fairly mysterious dvision
    yet most of the pre-Socratics had opinions about them?

Here you are missing the points completely:

(1) Not only are such divisions not mysterious - but they are not mythological.
(2) You fail to see that this is the beginning of Physics and chemistry.
(3) You fail to see the continuity with Aristotle. Was he "mysterious" too.
(4) The issue of the substance(s) of which the world is made is a perennial one. It must follow that substantially all philosophers, up through Descartes (dualism - mental substance & material substance), were mystics because they advocated "mysterious" views according to you.
(5) How come you don't just say they were wrong? Anything that's wrong is mysterious for you. Now I'm sure you'll deny that. But it follows from your position - which is a failure to see the forest for the trees (see Wiktionary).
Best regards, --Ludvikus 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Some additional assistance. In Physics today, we still distinguish among solids = EARTH, liquids = WATER, gases = AIR, and heat = FIRE.

Are you enlightened? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's Wikipedia on alchemy & Greece:

    One very important concept introduced at this time,
    originated by Empedocles and developed by Aristotle,
    was that all things in the universe
    were formed from only four elements:
    earth, air, water, and fire.
    According to Aristotle, each element had a sphere
    to which it belonged and to which it would return if left undisturbed.
   (Lindsay, p. 16)
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's Wikipedia on the Philosophical contribution of the Presocratic, Empedocles:

    Empedocles maintained that all matter is made up of four elements:
    water, earth, air and fire.
    Empedocles called these the four "roots";
    the term "element (stoicheion)", meaning literally "syllable",
    was used only by later writers.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Experience

When I began my study at the proletariate Harvard (The City College of New York), I remember my Scotish American instructor, Hutchinson was his name, in the context of Michael Oakeshott introducing me to the notion of Experience. I new already what it meant, probably from my parents, who would tell me to listen to them because the had experience. However, it was in this college classroom that I first learned its philosophical technical sense - and it was only a little later, when I contemplated Descartes that I healized that it was he that made this notion significant with his cogito: even if we doubt everything, the first thing we have to consider is not nothingness, but experience. It is experience which allegedly unmediated, or immediate. And out of it we are to deduce the Self (the I which exists), as well as the rest of the world.

  • As much as I may like this term, or find it useful, I find it inappropriate until we come to Descartes. It is not a Greek philosophical notion - simply because the ancient Greeks did not dream the Cartesian dream. --Ludvikus 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Why are these musings here? Lucas

Cesorship - Inappropriate

If you disagree with me - that's OK.

  • 1) Removing, deleting, chopping up my Talk/Discussion is inappropriate, and violates Wikipedia policy.
  • 2) You are free to say whatever you like concerning your view - but do not make my views incomprehensible to other reads.
  • 3) I know its not Rick Norwwood - it's at least one of you two L's who did it. --Ludvikus 02:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It is true that it is against Wikipedia policy to revert the comments of others so long as they are on-topic. However, in restoring your section titled "experience", you scrubbed out one of my comments. Please try to avoid that. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. You should have REVERTED, instead of IGNORING the reversion against me, and continue writing as if I didn't exist. What should I have done? Anyway - you can just past it again. But please don't blame the first victim. How come you do not address the issue to the person who caused the problem in the first place? DO THE RIGHT THING. Conduct. That too is Philosophy! Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The entire point is that it would be wrong to revert a talk page. That is what Lucaas did, and that is what you did, and both times it was wrong. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas Removing Ludvikus Talk

     ---I removed, copy and paste text from another wiki page by Ludvikus:
     Please just give a refernce with [],
     it is very easy and doesnt clutter up the talk page. User:Lucas
I have to tolerate your long-winded views, yet you consider mine clutter of quotes to be removed? --Ludvikus 02:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Talk/Discussion comments, should be signed. Like this: --Ludvikus 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry about this but you keep cutting and pasting large sections of text from elsewhere, all I ask is that you just give references. It causes alot of confusion here and the issues being discussed are already quite difficult.Lucas

(comments inline above) I don't say they were wrong, nor did I equate mysticism with being wrong, you assumed that of me and so revealed your own beliefs which are verified in what you say, you imply that, since the element earth has been replaced now by the element solid, there was something wrong with it so they changed it.

All I ask you to do is to give me some examples of mysticism (no cutting and pasting though). I can tell you of the orphic mysteries, the pythagorean ones, and dionysian. My point is that there was not such a clear line between the philosophy and mysticism then.

You only see fire/water etc. as the begining of chemistry and claim it was not mysticism, because you trace a line back from todays divisions which try to clearly distinguish themselves from mysticism.

What I was asking for was that philosophy in the intro be distinguished equally from: science, mysticism, and theology. Do you agree? --Lucas

Why is your comment unsigned/undated, Lucas? --Ludvikus 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem uninformed as to substance, elements, Aristotle's view regarding the four (4) elements. Also, you seem not to understand that the ancient Greeks were uniques among their neighbors, all around the "Mediterranean Lake, in their explanation of the ultimate nature of the world - independent of mythology. Why you insist in describing them as mysterious is a usage peculiar to you - it is ahistorical and cannot be supported by any learned references.
You would get an "F" in any accredit college course in which you refused to acknowledge the uniqueness of the contribution of the Greeks in this regard.
Not only are you unable to give me a reference/source, but you cannot even give me any quote of a non-Greek source in which an explanation is given without a Deux Ex Machina from mythology.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not answer my question, should philosophy be distinguished from both science and mysticism?

I certainly think is was a mysterious division they made of substance into earth/wind/fire/water. We have 100 or so elements now, you confuse phases with elements.

The mysterious division may have come originally from one of the numerous mystic cults of ancient Greece (pythagoras being in one of them). Firstly, that it forms the basis of modern chemisty is fine, I don't deny it, but that does not make its origins any less mystical. Secondly, nor do I claim that mysticism = untruth (these two things you erroneously read into my view and so I can only associate them in reality with you)

--Lucas

User:Lucaas

Please (1) date your signature when you make your comment; and (2) please do not interject your comment into another's comment. There are other readers here - and your undated interjections into my Talk/Discussion ruin the readability of my position for other editors. Please make your points at the end of the text to which you wish to respond!!

Thank you, --Ludvikus 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Ludvikus writes: "all the talk about other sources - yet I do not see Dbuckner giving me any."

I have given plenty above, which you do not appear to have read. But certainly, I can give you as many quotes as you like. Here are some taken from the compendium A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, edited by Gracia and Noone, in defence of my statement that the objective of scholastic philosophy is "reconciliation of faith and reason". Gracia is probably the foremost living expert on medieval philosophy.

  • The aim of [scholasticism] was to yield knowledge concordant with both human reason and the Christian faith (Jorge Gracia – p2)
  • 'The distinguishing mark of Latin philosophy in the Middle Ages is to be found in its double aim: the understanding of Christian faith and its defence against those who attacked it. (ibidem p3)
  • 'No other issue concerned the medievals more than the relation of faith to reason'. (ibidem)
  • 'What are the features characteristic of the scholastic thinkers associated with the schools of the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries? Speaking in the most general terms, we can say that there are at least three overarching traits: (1) thinkers treasured rigorous argumentation and trusted logic and dialectics to uncover, through discussion and analysis, philosophical truth (the principle of reasoned argument or ratio); (2) they accepted, as a fundamental guide to developing their own ideas, the ancient insight that earlier philosophers whose thought and writings were remembered and preserved had so privileged a claim on one's attention that to show the legitimacy of one's own reflections involved constant reference to and dialogue with such predecessors (the principle of authority or auctoritas); and (3) by and large, thinkers during this period felt obliged to raise questions about the relationship of their theories to revealed truths and to coordinate the insights of philosophy with theological teaching (the principle of the harmony of faith and reason, or concordia).' T.B. Noone (article 'scholasticism' p55).

Ludvikus, I also note most of your quotations come from Zeller, who was a Hegelian philosopher of history. Nothing wrong with that, but using one source is always going to give you an unbalanced view. My sources are about five general reference works on the history of philosophy, a couple of other more specific works and guides, plus a large amount of primary source material, such as all the works of Aristotle, all the works of Aquinas, the major work of Francisco Suarez, the last scholastic philosopher. Most of the works of Locke, Berkeley and Hume. All the works of Wittgenstein (I was taught by two people who were students of Wittgenstein - in the sense of actually attending his lectures). So give me a break. If I have to choose between some of the strange and eccentric views you put forward here, and what I find in the source material in my library, plus what I learned from experts, forgive me if I choose the latter. Dbuckner 10:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything which T. B. Noone says. However, he says it about scholasticism. And this dichotomy, or dualism, of faith and reason is that of the Catholic church. You are affirming my position, regarding viewing philosophy from it's historical perspective. Reason is a concept that applies to a certain period of time. Also, as much as Hegel was rejected, Hegel was a known scholar of the of the Greeks as well as the history of philosophy, and he must have recognised this obvious dialectical phenomena (besides his assertion that "the Real is Rational and the Rational is Real") that whereas the Greeks had separated mythology from the subject which became philosophy thereby, the Christians had re-introduced it but in the form of religion through the new concept of faith.
I have to go now. But like MacArthur, I shall return. Ludvikus 13:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Saying that Zeller was a Hegelian is a distraction, and a fallacy, which attacks his brilliance as a scholar of Greek philosophy. You, on thec other hand, retort by giving ONE QUOTE. The rest of your argument consists in name-dropping (Locke, Berkeley, Hume). Making vague references to philosophers by merely mentioning them; and merely giving the titles of their works does not constitute an argument. Besides, it is clear that you suffer from a clear case of philosophical tunnel-vision - a description of you which is more precise at times than "missreading." Under certain circumstances, there is nothing wrong with that. The Great Philosophers often did it to their predecessors. But I do not see an instance of creative misreading in what you have to say so far.
What you call "strange" and "eccentric" is really that which is not mediocre but philosophical common place. Your ad hominum is totally useless. If you cannot specify what you consider such, how do you expect me to enlighten you, or for that matter, to defend my position?
Yours truly, Ludvikus 13:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thales

On Thales and mysticism. Mysticism not easy to define, but generally a belief that it is possible to acquire knowledge of things that lie beyond the reach of sense-perception, or that true understanding transcends logical reasoning. From what Aristotle says of Thales in Metaphysics book I, he does not appear to be a mystic. "Thales … says the principle is water (for which reason he declared that the earth rests on water), getting the notion perhaps from seeing that the nutriment of all things is moist, and that heat itself is generated from the moist and kept alive by it (and that from which they come to be is a principle of all things). He got his notion from this fact, and from the fact that the seeds of all things have a moist nature, and that water is the origin of the nature of moist things." I.e. Thales made the empirical observation that living things require moisture, and deduced that moisture is the basic principle of everything.

There is a very good article here on the relation of mysticism to philosophy. Dbuckner 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a clear example of your tunnel-vision, or un-creative creative missreading. The genius of Thales is precisely in the fact that he was the FIRST ONE not to use a mythological explanation of phenomena. He is the first one to look for the underlying substance of all things, and for him that one substance was water or moisture. And that is a stroke of genious! He also related that substance to a notion of the unbouded, which seems related to the infinite. And these are not construed in what we today call religious terms. Maybe you could make a leap here into contemporary physics and consider the big bang for a moment? What was the universe like in the first few minuites or seconds? But whatever it was like, composed of fluid quarks (burning and exploding - just creative metaphors on my part) - do you consider contemporary physics to be mysterious? If you do then you're merely using the word like Hupmty-Dumpty - to mean whatever YOU wish it to mean. On the other hand, if you don't (think physics mysterious), neither should you think so of Thales. His reasoned view was merely inadequate (or simply wrong or mistaken, but not mysterious). Do you understand the distinctions? --Ludvikus 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a lot of mysticism to me. Anyhow, the earth floating on water seems to be in direct contravention to empirical observation, if anything it is clear that under the water there is earth, the sea-bed. Thales was a bad mystic, the mystics who talk of the big bang, like yourself, are much more imaginative. --Lucas 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

As I've been asked to look at the article by two editors on opposite sides in most of the recent disputes, I thought that I really ought to swallow my nausea and come back, if only briefly.

Without going into detail (though I can if anyone wants me to) I can't see any grounds for reejcting the version to which Dbuckner tried to revert here. It's both fuller and more accurate. The initial image is much too big (500px!); I mean, it's very pretty and all that, but it makes the opening screen look like a a bit of text next to a painting, instead of a painting illustrating an article. The caption was both rather long and a bit misleading; corrupting the youth is only the second charge — the first was that he was atheos (heretical). (This change, incidentally, chanegd the sentecne from good to bad grammar.)

Ludvikus' apparent insistence that philosophy is to be defined solely in terms of the Western tradition is also misleading, ignoring as it does other philosophical traditions which, though they've been ignored or belittled by Western philosophers in the past, are now recognised as containing much that's centrally philosophical. His claim that philosophy is the love of wisdom is also unhelpful; that's its (approximate) etymology, but not its meaning.

here the first {{fact}} is fair enough, but the latter is odd, given that the sentence in question is discussed and backed up in the following paragraph. (Incidentally, adding {{fact}} isn't a minor edit.)

I've been tracing changes back from the curent version, and that's as far as I've got so far. It didn't seem to me, though, that there was an edit war that warranted page protection. What's the story there? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You, Mel Etitis, inaccurately paraphrase me in the following sentence: "Ludvikus' apparent insistence that philosophy is to be defined solely in terms of the Western tradition." I do not wish to "swallow my own ...". Those who hark on non-Western this or that, besides bleading-heart liberals (although on many issues I'm a liberal myself, on others a conservative), often suffer from feelings of inadequacy.

Aside from engaging in this ad-hominum, can you enlighten us as to your mere anti-Western views? I personally belong to that community in the United States which believe in the siblinghood (brotherhood excludes sisterhood) of (wo)men. But please, we do not wish you to vomit. Please show us specifically how your going to be more inclusive than us Western male chauvinist pigs? You are more anti-sexist than we? Right? Please give us you more inclusive view.
I think you cannot do it. You probably reflect the views of the butcher advising the brain surgeon. Unless you are versed in Western philosophy, you cannot contribute in any significant way to the English language Wikipedia. Don't you understand that?
Also, do you understand that Philosophy, at least as it has emerged in the West, is an attempt to comprehend the World in non-mythological terms, and subsequently in non-religious terms.
Now I'd like you to tell us something about which you imply you possess knowledge. Namely what's non-Western. Instead of your vague generalizations - why don't you contribute something CONSTRUCTIVE. We do need that. Tell us, EXACTLY, what we are neglecting to include, from your much more universal point of view? --Ludvikus 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy distinguished from Mysticism and Science

In ancient times there were orphic mysteries, the pythagorean ones, and dionysian etc,. My point is that there was not such a clear line between the philosophy and mysticism then. Perhaps similar to a contemporary mix-up between science and philosophy.

Ludvikus sees earth/fire/water etc. as the begining of chemistry and claims it was not mysticism, only because he traces a line back from todays divisions which try to clearly distinguish themselves from mysticism.

What I was asking for was that philosophy in the intro be distinguished equally from: science, mysticism, and theology. Do you agree? --Lucas

You seem uninformed as to substance, elements, Aristotle's view regarding the four (4) elements. Also, you seem not to understand that the ancient Greeks were uniques among their neighbors, all around the "Mediterranean Lake, in their explanation of the ultimate nature of the world - independent of mythology. Why you insist in describing them as mysterious is a usage peculiar to you - it is ahistorical and cannot be supported by any learned references.
You would get an "F" in any accredit college course in which you refused to acknowledge the uniqueness of the contribution of the Greeks in this regard.
Not only are you unable to give me a reference/source, but you cannot even give me any quote of a non-Greek source in which an explanation is given without a Deux Ex Machina from mythology.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not answer my question, should philosophy be distinguished from both science and mysticism?

I certainly think is was a mysterious division they made of substance into earth/wind/fire/water. We have 100 or so elements now, you confuse phases with elements.

The mysterious division may have come originally from one of the numerous mystic cults of ancient Greece (pythagoras being in one of them). Firstly, that it forms the basis of modern chemisty is fine, I don't deny it, but that does not make its origins any less mystical. Secondly, nor do I claim that mysticism = untruth (these two things you erroneously read into my view and so I can only associate them in reality with you)

--Lucas


I know of no reason to suppose that anyone ever referred to the mysteries (or any part of religion) as philosophy. That philosophy used to encompass areas that have since become the sciences is something that needs to be explained, of course.
There's also nothing mysterious about the division into four elements (and mentioning modern elements is misleading; the two notions were utterly different). Your problem seems to arise from a misunderstanding about what the elements were in ancient Greek thought.
Ludvikus: perhaps your challenge only concerns other European countries, but both Indian and Chinese philosophy contains prominent naturalistic accounts of the world. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Philosophy differs from science in being about the general rather than the specific and from mysticism and religion in lacking dogma.

You know, Superman has a problem with L's too. Lois Lane, Lana Lang, Lori Lemuris, Lex Luthor,... I say it's spinich, and I say to 'L with it.

Several pages of posts in 24 hours...are we going anywhere with this? Rick Norwood 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Eastern Philosophy discovered by the West in 1960s" !!!

This is the English language Wikipedia. That's in the West. Eastern philosophy is "discovered" by the West in response to un-Civil unrest of the 1960's. Whether you like it or not, Philosophy IS separated into Eastern and Western. And there's a reason for that - they have been quite separate for a very long time. Why you mention Plato instead of the earlier philosopher I mentioned, Thales, is strage.Ludvikus

Eastern philosophy was certainly not discovered by the West in the 1960s, are you completely crazy? I am inclined to drop my contribution to this page altogether if this is the kind of level we are at.
I agree, this is the English language wiki, so when discussing Science do you think we should leave out all the German scientists unless they spoke English? This is a general subject not subordinate to geography or linguistics.
--Lucas

I'm afraid that I have to agree that Ludvikus' claim is bizarre. Even leaving aside the connections between the philosophy of India and China and that of the late Classical period (think of Plotinus' hope to travel to Persia and India with Gordian, precisely because of what he's learnt of Indian philosophy), Western writers had encountered Eastern thought long before the 1960s(!).

Also, while Thales is considered by many to have been the first scientist, he's rarely thought of as very important philosophically. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Ludvikus is being bizarre. I wonder if he thinks that all of us who disagree with him are hippies? I'm not. I'm a beatnik, meaning I discovered Eastern Philosophy in the fifties. Rick Norwood 21:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see God did a great job at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. There is no real, or informed, discussions or dialogues, going on here. I feel somewhat like the Jew praying at the Wailing Wall who was asked by a Christian friend what it's like. He answered: "To tell you the truth, it's like talking to a wall." My experience here is of another kind. No one here (except myself of course) has an adequate knowledge or appreciation of Philosophy in the Context of the Western Intellectual Tradition. And in this context of ignorance I hear unconstructive defensive tooting about non-Western ways about it (without specifics). And frankly, I'm bored with the mediocrity of my - not exactly mindless - adversaries. And it does seem like a waste of time. Perhaps Wikipedia proves what can happen to philosophy when just about anybody can get into the act. It is extremely annoying to have to deal with personal views rather than the views of authorities. And the nonsense I'm presented with deserves emphasis:
    I'm afraid that I have to agree that Ludvikus' claim is bizarre.
    Even leaving aside the connections between the philosophy of India and China
    and that of the late Classical period
    (think of Plotinus' hope to travel to Persia and India with Gordian,
    precisely because of what he's learnt of Indian philosophy),
    Western writers had encountered Eastern thought long before the 1960s(!).
    --Mel Etitis
It seems Mel Etitis enjoys creating a straw-man so he could tear him down. He ignores my reference to Liebniz on China, and to Nietzsche on Zoroastrianism. What he shows above is the influence of the East on the West. Who denies that? Only his straw man. But what has he informed us about regarding non-Western philosophy? Nothing, zero, nada. And he will be unable to do so in the future. Why? Because he reflects the irrational element in philosophy. He gets his kicks by looking for disagreement. He is not interested in finding what is true in what someone else has to say, but rather he enjoys finding fault. That, of course, is also heavily spiced with a huge quatity of ignorance. I appreciate very well those beautiful flower people of the 1960's. They too camouflaged their ignorance in their love of everything Easter (which they also misconstrued). But at least they had LOVE in their hearts. Not so it appears is the case of Mel Etitis. Because besides enjoying seeking faults, he really cannot tell us anything specific about the relation of the East to the West - only vague generalities which also reflect the role of the irrational in philosophical disputation. Ludvikus 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You ask who denies the influence of the East on the West? You do, you said above:

Eastern philosophy is "discovered" by the West in response to un-Civil unrest of     
the 1960's. Whether you like it or not, Philosophy IS separated into Eastern and 
Western. And there's a reason for that - they have been quite separate for a very 
long time.

I've no idea why you rapture on about Mel Elitis and irrational, sounds like you've got a screw loose. Do you seriously expect us to believe your talk of "truth" and "rational" when you make such bizarre comments.

I'd say at this stage much of the long comments and pastings you put in here are ignored for this reason. We are not asking Mel Elitis for details of the West's encounter with the East, though he gives the example of Plotinus, it is far too big to fit in here. You're claim that Eastern thought was only recently discovered in the West during the 1960s is myopic. By the way, which philosopher since 1960 encounters Eastern philosophy more than any prior to 1960? Anyhow amongst all these long pastings etc,. how would you not see references to Liebniz, Nietzsche, Zoroastrianism; the above quote from you ignored all of these.

--Lucas 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As Ludvikus is unable to discuss the issues civilly, and as there's clearly no point continuing a discussion with someone who considers himself to be the only participant with either knowledge or rationality (while shifting his ground constantly), I'll withdraw. My blood pressure doesn't need to be raised further, and my time is better spent elsewhere. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Lucas, for learning how to date and sign your comments from me.

I will respond to your "you've got a screw losse" un-Wikipedian remark about me later.
I, however, do not wish you any ill will.
But in the mean time, can you please think about something more constructive and specific regarding the East? Also, are you saying that there was NO MAJOR CHANGE in the philosophy corriculum of colleges and unversities in the West in the 1960's? Are you aware of the interdepartmentalism phenomena?
Do you deny the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960's? Have you heard of African studies? Of course you have! So is it not the case that you are wrong, incorrect, mistaken, false, etc.?
And is not not true that it is something IRRATIONAL which prohibits you from admitting that you are mistaken - namely your EGO, or something like that? Ludvikus 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Fuckwit. Dbuckner 18:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Made me laugh! Bad Dbuckner. Bad boy. Rick Norwood 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I said "you've got a screw loose" to give you some advise, not to insult you. You do appear to be quite all over the place, maybe you need a vacation. Main question here though, why do you consider what university departments do and teach as the sign of what philosophy is? If the West has a couple of thousand years of exchange with Eastern thought that is the main issue not when some department started teaching it.

I'm not saying that curriculum is not important, and this is another sign of your oddness: I never for one moment suggested that there was no change in teaching during the 1960s. Do you read things that are not written, do you have textual hallucinations! In any case teaching something at university is only the institutionalisation of something not the influence on philosophers and philosophy. As to being rational, again you seem to be the least rational person here, so give us a break about being irrational and also leave your personal views about Eastern philosophy and the 1960s aside, you sound like a crank. --Lucas 21:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis

    You say to him "Unless you are versed in Western philosophy,
    you cannot contribute in any significant way to the English language Wikipedia."
    Now you really are embarrassing yourself.
    Mel in actual life is a distinguished philosoper at the University of Oxford.
    YOu really are a FUCKWIT. I had to say that.
    Dbuckner 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I received the above rational argumenent, by User:Dbuckner. The argument is as follows:

  • 1) It is irrelevant whether one is versed in Western philosophy regarding significant contributions to the English language Wikipedia.
  • 2) That assertion is an embarrassment to me (as opposed to User:Dbuckner or User:Mel Etitis).
  • 3) There is an implied appeal to (a secret) authority, namely User:Mel Etitis who, allegedly "in reallife is a distinguished philosopher" at the University of Oxford.
  • 4) Therefore, supporting the requirement of 1) leads to the necessary interjection of an ad hominum - that YOu really are a FUCKWIT.
I rather make the inference that the above is evidence of the irrational at work - and that it supports the views of postmodernism - that rationality is an ideal, especially as regards an ordinary man, without distinuished credentially, such as User:Dbuckner.
  • 5) Regarding the alleged distinguished Oxford man , he has expressed the view, rather interjected his observation, that Thales was a scientist, and he has seen fit to trivialize the importance of Thales (out of context of our discourse I might add).
  • 6) Nevertheless, whatever may have caused the Oxford man his nausea - he clearly is unaware of what poison mushroom(s) he has eaten in our wild forest of discourse above, where only trees can be seen by most.
  • 7) If he truly is an Oxford man, a place where the contributions of the ancient Greeks have long been recognized, I would imagine that he would not deny that in the Western intellectual tradition Thales is recognized as the First Philosopher, and that his contribution to philosophy is the recognition of a universal substance, which we translate from the ancient Greek as water, or perhaps moisture, (recognizing suggestively some property of these), and asserting that everything is made of this substance.
  • 8) Now Thales still belonged to the oral tradition, and had not written anything, and what we now of his views is very little; nevertheless, I expect that after this Oxford man regains his composure (from his nausea), he will acknowledge his views not to be inconsistent with the views of a graduate of the proletariate Harvard of the great (Western) United States, a country, I'm proud and happy to say, is so close to all things English philosophically, politically, and legally; it seems we cannot avoid appeals to authority, or ad hominums, if we are to prevail in an argument; but hey, rhetoric too is a Western phenomena (not that there's nothing Eastern like it, as the nit-pickers here may wish to interject).
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Philosophy intro

This is a dispute about what ought to be included in the Philosophy introduction. Issues of contention:

  • the inclusion of the word "rational" to partly describe philosophical activity;
  • the appeal to other encyclopediae as primary reference sources; and
  • the inclusion of reference to Eastern philosophy. 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • On rationality
    • Rational, Reasoned, neither words do anything. I emphatically say that we should get rid of both in the opening. -Ludvikus 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The fact that candidates like "rationality", "reason", ... etc., are available to us, and are able to communicate the same idea with less anguish to the reader, indicates that we ought to prefer them. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • [Ludvikus] dislikes the use of the word 'rational'. I have pointed out that [including rationality] is consistent with ALL introductions to the subject. Dbuckner 09:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My idea is not to give only one idea (eg, that it is rational oor critical) but to give a flavour of some of the important ideas there have been about what philosophy is. Lucaas [undated]
  • On sourcing
    • I find other dictinaries and encyclopedias as precisely not good exemplars since choosing among the myriad of them is not easy and many are of dubious quality and are never referenced by philosophers themsevles. Lucaas [undated]
    • The point is not to flippantly exclude primary sources [i.e. Plato], but to bring together as much sensible material as possible in the most economical way. That's why secondary sources, like Blackwells, etc., are given a high priority for present purposes: economy of words. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The basic principle is that, whatever our personal opinions about the nature of philosophy, which are bound to differ, we have a duty to ensure what Wikipedia calls NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The only way to do that is to appeal to consensus views in the field, using authoritative reference sources such as encyclopedias ... and standard introductory texts. Dbuckner 10:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Certainly, I agree. Rick Norwood 16:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I could not put it better myself. However, I think the problem is not the principles about which at least 3 of us aggree - its in their application. Ludvikus 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On Eastern philosophy
    • I oppose include examples of Eastern philosophy in the introduction to a subject which has, until very recent times, has been an isolated European subject, influenced by Islam, and somewhat by the Middle East primarily in its Biblical roots. Ludvikus 20:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I was not sympathetic to the idea that philosophy is purely a "Western Thing" in the beginning, and to date I have not seen any reason to alter my views. For the branches of philosophy apply to Eastern bodies of literature... { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We've been arguing for some time about the Eastern-Western thing, because the inclusion of 'rational method' (or critical, or logical) seems to rule out the Eastern bit [sp: Zen Buddhism]. My problem all along is that if we leave out the rational method, what else is there that defines the two traditions as being 'philosophy'[?] What actually do they have in common that entitles them to be in the same article[?] Dbuckner 11:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it really exclusive to Western? There are millions of pieces of Eastern philosophy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.226.67 (talk • contribs)
    • I agree with 69.157.226.67, the "western" part needs to be removed since other regions have philosophy (especially Eastern Philosophy). Zachorious 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments


The frog in the well syndrome!

    • Before one comes to the conclusions that certain structures (viz philosophy or rational thought) are absent in other cultures, one has to evaluate one's own assumptions and how they come about. I feel this debate has to address a very basic question - can western civilization think outside the box of biblical theology that structures the assumptions of both theological and secular studies? if you are interested to understand that then you should read [heathen in his blindness] now available online.
    • it looks 'trivially' wrong to assume that 'rational thought' is not present in eastern thought. It only shows a lack of familiarity about indian philosophical polemics going on for milleniums (not just centuries!!)

[SV 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)]

Comment by Banno

Thanks for setting up an RfC on this. Given the degree of acrimony expressed by various editors, perhaps what is needed is a nice cup of tea and a sit down. The article will not be improved until the atmosphere here has improved. Take a break, come back in a few days and see what has developed. But this article has always been difficult, so don't expect miracles.

On the use of "rationality": Perhaps a point of agreement here is that philosophers make use of reason, as opposed to say observation or experimentation; that is, that the point being made is the emphasis on contemplation as a defining method of philosophy. This covers both Zen and Kant. (though the idea of an "irrational" philosophy makes no sense at all.)

And the emphasis on contemplation as a defining method of philosophy makes no sense at all, either. We had a perfectly good definition here, of which Mel Etitis (admin and professional philosopher agrees is fuller and more accurate. What's the problem. Just eject that fucking troll. Dbuckner 21:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On Western philosophy: In the dark distant past I made a feeble attempt to restrict this article to what is now called Western Philosophy. But there are now substantial articles on both Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy. For the sake of consistency within the Wikipedia, this article needs to address both. The alternative would be to merge this article with Western philosophy, a strategy that would never gain sufficient support.

On Sourcing: Obviously referring to other encyclopedias should be avoided. Primary texts are of course preferable; failing that, standard texts should be used. So, leave the encyclopedic references in place until they can be replaced by references to standard texts or primary sources. Banno 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Banno, forget the cup of tea, if you are going to get involved at all, take some time to read through and understand what's going on. Most of this has been caused by one person, Ludvikus, who is basically a fucking troll. I don't normally use, in fact never use language that on Wikipedia, but there's a time and a place. I put up with the guy for over two weeks. Mel Etitis, who is a professional philosopher, lasted about two minutes. Just get the guy banned or something. For goodness fucking sake. Dbuckner 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Take a look here where the guy is causing huge disruption to editing. Very occasionally he has some good ideas, and he is clearly not unintelligent. But he persists in this completely disruptive and aggressive attitude and I am completely fed up. As I say, I put up with it without losing my rag for two weeks. Now I am losing my rag. Dbuckner 21:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have been following the discussion and trying to think of some way to help with this discussion, as I rely heavily on the philosophy portal as a resource. I did check your internal link, and I totally agree: this person is a runaway train. And I am entirely serious when I tell you I wonder if it isn't a case of Bipolar Disorder loose on Wikipedia. This person should see a psychiatrist, and I'm not the one. If this is the case, the disruption will go on indefinitely until the user is banned or gets proper treatment. Richiar 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It is my hope that this RfC will be met with attentiveness, not cruelty. Otherwise it fails before it begins, since all RfC's depend upon the good will of all interested parties. We can do better than make accusations about insanity, etc.
Still, to put in my hat in the ring: I as well am unhappy with the way that Ludvikus has chosen to approach conversation here. From where I stand, it is a question of evidence, and of evidence being ignored. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of what Banno suggested above. Replacing "reasoning" with "contemplation" is also a better idea, however, it leaves out a stream of thinking in philosophy which considers materialism or non-idealist ways as best, eg, the primary source quoted above: "philosophers have only interpreted the word, the point is to change it" would not fit well with this more religious view of philosophy as contemplation. I think that defining philosophy as contemplation or rationating is prejudice, we should just give a flavour of 4 or 5 major but different philosophers in the intro instead. As to irrational, sometimes there is use of irrational ideas, eg, Descartes' evil demon.

As to using encylopedias,I agree, primary sources are better but I do not think that the stuff from those 1904 and 1957 encyclopedias, that were in the intro and now moved to the first subsection, should be left there, we already have plenty of primary sources (just count the number of philosophers and the number of "professional" philosophers on here).

--Lucas

As usual, Banno offers good advice. I am to the point where a cuppa sounds awfully nice.

I've been doing some outside reading, however, and now find myself wondering if people here are using the word "reason" to mean what I think it means. I came across this quote by Carlyle

"Reason, the Kantists say, is of a higher nature than Understanding...Reason discerns Truth itself, the absolutely and primitively True."

He goes on to say only the highest intellects (Kant, Hegel, Carlyle) possess Reason (with a capital R) and by means of this Reason directly apprehend the existance of God, thus confounding the Enlightenment once and for all. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this. Let's see. Lower intellects can apprehend the true, middle brow intellects the True, and the highest intellects the True. Right? Rick Norwood 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is usually never a good idea to bring in Kant if you want to clear up an issue. The man's prose is as dense as a forest made up of tiny forests.{ Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A note to all: If the problem is an individual, and you are convinced that it is too late for a nice cuppa, then there is a clear process that can be invoked. It's outlined at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. This RfC is one step in the process. Perhaps, after this RfC has run for a day or so, someone might consider a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing contains the relevant guideline; see also the essay Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. But Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Especially, Wikipedia:No personal attacks

The aim here is of course to write the best possible article. Keep that in mind. Look for things on which you might be willing to compromise. If the other guy really is a bastard, it'll show though very clearly. Banno 01:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Psychiatrist User:Richiar's Contribution

    have been following the discussion
    and trying to think of some way to help with this discussion,
    as I rely heavily on the philosophy portal as a resource.
    I did check your internal link, and I totally agree:
    this person is a runaway train.
    And I am entirely serious when I tell you
    I wonder if it isn't a case of Bipolar Disorder loose on Wikipedia.
    This person should see a psychiatrist,
    and I'm not the one.
    If this is the case, the disruption will go on indefinitely
    until the user is banned or gets proper treatment. 
    Richiar 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! How about my drinking hemlock? Or was that just reserved for Socrates?

  • 1) Are you, User:Richiar familiar with the notion of ad hominum? That it's not a valid form of argument? How am I supposed to defend against your accusation? And you are not even trained in philosophy - or are you? I ask because I'd like to know how to address you? Would you tolerate my views on your practice as a psychiatrist (I'm not formally trained in it - as I am in philosophy)?
  • 2) Why have you not made any contributions at all - except evaluating my psychological profile?
  • 3) Nevertheless, I'm willing to consider your observation. Can you please tell me more precisely what led you to the conclusion that I suffer from a "Bipolar Disorder"?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no hemlock my friend: maybe a round of drinks for all for this fine discussion ! I have done slightly more research since my posting of yesterday, and now can respond to your message here. 1) I am not formally trained in philosophy, I have my hands full as it is, but I find I cannot function very effectively in this world without some grasp of philosopy, so I try to educate myself, and this Wikipedia effort is commendable. 2) I was not making an accusation as you state above, but experssing a personal concern that came from a momentary impression just at the time when I dropped into the discussion. I wish to now say publicly that I withdraw my concern, and that I am convinced the issues being discussed are from people with sound minds. The debate is legitimate, and the discussion is legitimate. There is some emotionally charged expression which may have rendered the appearance of fanaticism, which is what may have triggered my concerns, but a little bit of communication and research has cleared this up for me. I would formally like to withdraw the concern about Bipolar Disorder. Please, everyone do continue with your work on the discussion here. Richiar 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

You may wonder what the connection is, right? It's an irrational one maintained by User:Dbuckner on the above discussion page as follows:

    On your point that 99% of your contributions have 'stuck' in Wikipedia.
    There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on this page at least.
    Plus at least one of your articles nominated for deletion.
    Plus your persistent disruptive activity on the Philosophy page,
    now locked down as a result.
    Plus your similar point on the Philosophy talk page
    that you do not accept the view that Wikipedia proceeds by consensus
    (holding out against at least three other editors).
    Some of the points you make are valid and interesting,
    and you could potentially make a good contribution.
    But you spoil them by your constant tirades,
    your abusive attitude to other editors.
    I don't appear to be alone in this view.
    Dbuckner 10:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that not another wonderful demonstration of the role of the irrational

in philosophical discourse, in philsophy?
Accordingly, I only ask, by the above example, that the word rational be dropped.
In addition, Dbruckner demands not that I be persuade by arguments, but rather that I submit to consensus. So why doesn't he say that philosophy is the consensus of philosophers?
Is philosophy what the majority say it is? I'm not sure if by consensus means that?
I certainly do not think that i am irrational in my positions!!!
On the other hand, an ally of his has said that I'm bi-polar. That too means irrational.
However, it seems to me that a nut is someone who does not submit to the consensus of 2 or 3 editors!
Again, I'm still hoping here - not for a consesus, but for the need to drop the word rational from the opening sentence. Clearly, the personal interests in having one's views accepted play a role in philosophy. And isn't it the case here (I hope there are not secret self-admitting nuts here) that everyone thinks they are the normal one - that it's the other guy (in this case me) is the nut, the - well "fuck" what? I never understood why such a pleasurable human activity as intercourse is, in the Anglo-Saxon tongue, the most abusive term. Boy, User:Dbuckner, you should learn some Arabic. Your vocabulary in abusive words would increase tremendously, and perhaps thereby you'll find yourself less frustrated in your efforts to curse me out!
Once more, this need of yours proves again the role of the IRRATIONAL in philosophy. So why don't you just admit that I'm right, that your wrong (you did wish to keep rational, no?), and lets move on to other issues!!! Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Swamp of Philosophy

Since I wish the word rational dropped, it is appropriate that I paste the views of the other two (2) editors who have chosen to post their views on User:Dbuckner - notice the psychological (nonrational, antirational, etc.) under which he must be made to suffer:

    Damn you Buckner — damn your eyes!
    Why did I let you sweet-talk me into going back to that gods-accursed swamp of an article?
    --Mel Etitis
    (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 13 January 2007 UTC)


   Mel brings up a good point.
   I think the only feasible solution at this point is an exorcist.
   { Ben S. Nelson }
   Lucidish 16:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I only bring this up to demonstrate the non-rational element at work in philosophy - and that therefore we should drop the term rational from the expression preceding inquiry in the opening to our article; as is maintained by postmodernists, a philosophical perspective more common on the Continent (of Europe) than in the English-speaking world; I might add that Marx's views, as well as those of Hoekheimer, and Adorno, are more respected and adopted; accordingly, rationality is viewed as an unattainable ideal by some. --Ludvikus 16:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think we should have a priest on hand. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to philosophy

Let's see if I can be constructive, with a little help from my friends! The opening sentence is as follows:

    Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom')
    is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition
    that is concerned with rational inquiry
    into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?),
    being (What is?),
    and conduct (What is right?).

How can we improve it?

  • And those of you who are so unhappy with my contributions, I expect to go away if we can just come to an agreement on this opening!!!
    • So cheer up, and let's get to work (no name calling, please).
My sincere best wishes to you all - I remember that 'sticks and stones will ... - well, it obviously seems false! --Ludvikus 02:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
As you know, alternatives have been suggested. They all include mention of "rationality" or somesuch, because that is what standard reference texts do. (See citations here for details.)
There can simply be no agreement so long as these works are ignored, and then marginalized as OR. That alone is grounds for rejection of your proposals. And moreover, frankly, I do not even see a motivating reason to exclude the mention, since the claims made against it so far have been specious. Reasoning (or, for that matter, rationality) does not in itself have any conventional connotation to rationalism, nor does it exclude dialogue or dialectics, nor is it pretentious. Moreover, not only are the arguments so grounded specious, but they are domineering, intolerant, and exclusivistic. (Note that these words describe conduct, not personality.) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 05:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The cold facts are as follows:

  Most definitions of philosophy are fairly controversial,
  particularly if the aim to be at all interesting or profound....
It's quite informative, and perhaps useful to quote it here completely - but I do not have the time at the moment.
So, we must accept these facts, and account for them. But to gloss over that, and hope to get four (4) editors succeed when 2 out of the 3 above have abandoned the effort, and the 3 says its "controversial" - is not to do Wikipedia any service, besides being presumptuous. --Ludvikus 06:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for references.
Re: Blackwell companion, it was explicitly intended to be limited in scope. See the Second Preface: "...the Companion is not exhaustive, and emphasis is placed on developments in Anglo-American philosophy in the latter part of the twentieth century." It is not a surprise that Eastern philosophy is untreated -- the volume is already near a thousand pages long, and to do Eastern philosophy justice, it would need to be another thousand. And there is no scarcity of guides to Eastern philosophy: i.e., Blackwell's "World Philosophies"; the "Comparative Approaches" volume featuring Anthony Cua I mentioned earlier; Eastern Philosophy (Routledge Key Guides) by Oliver Leaman; etc.
Looking at articles on philosophy will help a great deal if we're addressing the issue of rationality. It would indeed be nice to see the full text of the Oxford companion to see what it has to say. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick mentions below that Oxford has an entry for chinese philosophers. In the absence of further information, I take this to be more evidence against your claim. It escapes me how the transition from "Eastern philosophy" to "Chinese philosophers" can be dismissed as irrelevant, except if the latter were "Western-styled" contemporary philosophers or somesuch. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of enyclopedias

Obviously a lot going on here. But could I just take up Banno's point about use of secondary or tertiary sources such as encyclopedias. Banno appeared to say we should rely on primary sources. This is not WP policy as I understand it. The reason is that there can be original research by selective interpretation of primary sources. Please read the section on sources in WP:OR. This explains how to use sources. On encyclopedias, I always try to use compendia, such as the Oxford Companion series, where the articles are written by authorities, rather than cut and pasted by hacks. The key is whether you can locate the author of the article or not. Moreover, we should not confuse sourcing from an encyclopedia, which is plagiarism, with checking for consistency with encyclopedias. There seems to be a minority view here who dislike my proposed check against encyclopedic sources because this disagrees with their views. If we accepted the principle that we can't check this way, we have a charter for cranks. Remember that WP:OR was introduced to deter cranks. Dbuckner 08:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbuckner is correct about primary sources, as WP:OR explains. I still suggest we leave the encyclopaedic references in place until they can be replaced by references to standard texts or suitable primary sources. I see no problem with checking work here against other tertiary sources. Although I've read back a fair way, I have trouble seeing exactly what the issue is with regard to sources - perhaps, Dbuckner, you would explain what you see as the main problem? Banno 09:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I only mentioned it because you mentioned it! If there is any specific problem, it is that some people are not accepting these standard definitions. What do you count as a primary source, by the way? I would take Quinton's article in the Oxford Companion as a primary source, as it is a distinguished British philosopher saying it. Secondary would be someone citing Quinton. Dbuckner 11:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that encyclopedias are, by definition, secondary sources, even if written by the author of the primary source. For example, most of the mathematics articles in Encyclopedia Britanica are written by major mathematicians, but they are still considered secondary sources, while a book by the same author on his own research might be considered a primary source and a journal article where that research was first published is certainly a primary source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
Which is fine, because WP policy is to rely on secondary sources. Primary sources are problematic because of selective quotation or interpretation. Tertiary sources are unreliable for similar reason. (The tertiary source may be selective, or an interpretation. Dbuckner 13:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now the intro, which, I presume is what we are all discussing right now, does not refer to any encyclopedias, so there is nothing to leave in place. Primary sources of major philosophers are then the first place we should be looking. I also have a problem with many Encyclopedias (except wiki, because wiki is on the world-wide-web) is that they are quite local, they often ignore other traditions, such as Eastern or Continental. At least in giving a primary source we do not pretend some kind of authority other than those of that particular philosophers ideas. The Oxford and Cambridge references are well respected but that is part of their problem they are very status quo, and, with that often dull.
As to the references to encyclopedias that we find in the first subsection of the article, that section is new and I think it should go since there is already a subsection for the history of philosophy.
--Lucas 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

OK I apologise to user Ludvikus for my rudeness and crudeness. And to anyone else who may have been offended by my language. But I also agree with Banno's comments on L's talk page: "Try to keep to the topic. Consider what you might be willing to do in order to reach a compromise, because the Wiki works by consensus. That is the nature of the game.". Ludvikus, will you agree to abide by the basic principle that we reach compromises, and that we do base things on consensus here? Best Dbuckner 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I appreciate it very much. It means, in my view, that you acknowledge that Wikipedia is a joint effort, and that you do not wish me any ill will, as I do not wish you anything but the best. It's also important for me to point out that you were not alone in that phenomena for which you apologized. But your the first person to have apologized, and again, I thank you - and I will do my best to conform, as far as I can, without compromizing my views, consistently with Wikipedia policy. However, what I ask of you, is to take all this as an experience applicable to the issue at hand - namely, the question about what is Philosophy.

I want the word rational dropped from the opening sentence for many reasons. One reason is that it is inconsistent with actual practices. Notice that in your effort to pursuade me to abandon my view, you still appeal to an authority - User:Banno. He can, and has, addressed himself to me. And I have heard what he has to say. I do not wish to provoke you here. But I want you to observe your own emotional response to me - and do not feel bad, because, in my opinion, you are not the exception in this, but rather the rule.
Notice that I am keeping to the topic. We are all here engaged in philosophizing by trying to explain what philosophy is. And I have pointed out the existence of a whole world out there on the Continent which is called Postmodernism, and our Wikipedia on it maintains that it is the view of this world that the ideal of the Enlightenment, also a modern ideal, of rationality is UNATTAINABLE!!! Does it not follow that Philosophy is impossible because, as things stand at this moment, it is rational inquiry?
Have I not done much more than mere cite an authority, a sources, or a reference? I have given everyone here something even more than a school of thought. I have given a movement.
Yet I'm encountering LESS THAN A HANDFUL OF EDITORS WHO STUBBORNLY RESIST MY OBSERVATIUON. Is this Stubbornness not as well excellent support for dropping the word rational?
I certainly do my best to follow Wikipedia Rules and Regulations. The problem here is PARTLY in their application - upon which there is disagreement;and the rules themselves are also used as a form of coersion; I'm beginning to appreciate Noam Chomsky more than I have ever done before (but I'm not an Anarchist, nor an authority on Bakunin.
I am versed in American. And that is relevant to our current notion that Philosophy is rational inquiry; in particular, I appreciate in general how inquiries into questions of fact are actually pursued in a field other than the hard sciences. I have practiced Administrative Law for many years, as well as been involved in the drafting of thousands of pages of legal papers in civil actions and proceedings, and it is from this experience that I find the qualification, rather the pretentiousness, that we make an enlightening contribution to Wikipedia by calling Philosophy rational inquiry, which also suggests the silly (or insulting) notion that there exists an irrational inquiry (principle of non-vacuous contrast?).
I can go on - but I think already some will say I've said too much.
Best wishes to all Wikipedians, from your irrational Wikipedian adversery? --Ludvikus 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
These proposals are exclusivistic. Nobody here, in their roles as Wikipedia editors, deny that postmodernism and continental philosophy are recognized traditions in philosophy. The inclusion of a mention of rationality and critical attitude does not exclude postmodernism etc., since the definition of philosophy is quite explicitly regarded as a thing without necessary and sufficient conditions. (See my Russell quote from "Wisdom of the West".)
Dean seems to reject the idea that postmoderns are philosophers. But on my reading of him, that has been his personal opinion, not an attempt to block their inclusion. His efforts -- all of our efforts -- have been to block out any attempt to scrap "rationality" and so on from the introduction. It has not been to block out competing claims, up to and including "discursivity", "dialogue", "dialectics", and so on (quite the opposite -- see my proposed intro).
My own view -- again, personal opinion -- is that some major postmoderns do use reason, even if they hypocritically deride it. As I've said, even you have exercized reason, to some extent. But it would take a number of essays to argue for these things. And I have no intention of drowning this article in the surfeit of my opinions. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It may also be worth mentioning that the postmodern critique of rationality does not necessarily mean that postmodern philosophers claim not to use rationality. On the contrary, Derrida for example believes that philosophy is characterized by rationality, and is therefore impossible (but, also, that the attempt to do philosophy is inescapable). Just pointing out that postmodernism contains a critique of rationality isn't enough to establish that rationality isn't a characteristic element of philosophy, even for the postmoderns; but if someone has a source to that effect, it would be interesting (particularly if it included some other proposed characteristic of philosophy). VoluntarySlave 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

If we are to make any progress at all, I suggest the following.

If one of us says something idiotic, ignore it.

If a point has been made repeatedly, don't make it again.

Since we don't seem to be able to handle the introduction as a whole, let's try just the first sentence. (This is an example from Polya's How To Solve It -- if you can solve a problem, find an easier problem that you can solve.)

The first sentence should be referenced.

Once we agree, or at least several of us agree, on a first sentence, then unfreeze the article and put that sentence in place. Revert without discussion attempts to change the agreed upon first sentence.

Then move on to the second sentence.

Rick Norwood 13:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How are we going to agree on what the first sentence should be? The whole problem of constructing a good introduction is to get all the pieces in the right place. That really is writing by committee. Dbuckner 13:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Very constructive, as usual, User Rick Norwood, I agree 99.9% with your proposal here. --Ludvikus 14:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Then make an alternative proposal. My time is too valuable to waste in endless squabbling that produces no results. Rick Norwood 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Please feel free to shoot this first line down in a constructive way…

Philosophy (literally ‘love of wisdom’) is debate about the correct answers to three questions:

(1) What exists? (The metaphysical question) (2) How do we know? (The epistemological question) (3) What is the right thing to do? (The ethical question)

--Leawardseif 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Finding a quote from a primary source saying "philosophy is X" is going to be hard. There are lots of examples given above however of one line descriptions of various philosophers, Hume, Russell, Wittgenstein etc. but they are not quotes. So when you say reference do you mean quote. If not they take your pick from the long list above.

In any case my first line would be:

Philosophy is not easily defined and there have been almost as many definitions of it, as there have been philosophers. Less disputed, however, is its etymology....

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy

To state that The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has no entry under "Eastern Philosophy" is disingeneous, since it does have an article on "Chinese Philosophers". Rick Norwood 14:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here you miss my point. So I'll repeat it (because I know you'll get it by that simple act): There is no entry under Eastern philosophy. That's significant, for one thing, because Wikipedia has its entry under it, and as I've pointed out, bookstores classify the books by this distinction.

And, by the way, there is an entry in said companion for Hindu philosophy, as well as Hungarian philosophy. But I think your line-by-line approach may get us to this problem in time.
Thank you very much for your level-headness (I'm tempted to say rationality, but I'm afraid it will be used against me by others - also, let's keep our sense of humor).
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14
55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To Ludvikus:

  • The disruptive editor page says that "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
  • I have cited a number of verifiable sources, e.g. Quinton, which say the method of philosophy is rational enquiry. So, NPOV dictates that we should cite this in the definition.
  • I have already replied to your silly argument that there cannot be rational enquiry, because 'enquiry' includes 'rational'. It does not. Look it up in a dictionary. Note also the spelling of 'enquiry'. 'Inquiry' means something else.
PS I just asked Mel about this and he gave a clever example as follows: "an enquiry into the source or identity of the demons possessing a person isn't a rational enquiry".
  • To your argument that "the ideal of the Enlightenment, also a modern ideal, of rationality is UNATTAINABLE!!!", that is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source. Could you also stop using capitals, as that is generally considered unacceptable behaviour here.
  • To your argument that some philosophers are not rational, that is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source. So, first you must find such sources, and no such view has been expressed in verifiable sources. And if you do, you must prove its relevance to the present debate. Probably some mathematicians can't add up, but does that mean that mathematical methods include poor addition?


You say "I will do my best to conform, as far as I can, without compromizing my views, consistently with Wikipedia policy." Unfortunately if you cannot compromize your views, and persistently violate WP policy, disruptive editor policy means you will face a ban, possibly indefinite.

To Lucas' request that we look at primary sources violates WP:OR. Lucas says " The Oxford and Cambridge references are well respected but that is part of their problem they are very status quo, and, with that often dull." also violates OR, since Oxford and Cambridge are internationally respected, significant, authoritative viewpoints. Dbuckner 16:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias should not reference other encyclopedias.
Dull is bad.
If the question of the value or the lack of value of rationality does not fall in the area of Philosophy, under what area does this question fall? If the question does arise in Philosophy, then the definition of Philosophy cannot pretend that the question is already answered.

Rick Norwood 16:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


"Encyclopedias should not reference other encyclopedias" I thought we just agreed e.g. Quinton, writing in the Oxford companion, was an acceptable reference? The Companion series are not encyclopedias, they are compendia of the views of leading authorities in their field. Quinton happens to be a leading expert in philosophy.Dbuckner 16:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"Dull is bad" Possibly. But I have cited a number of verifiable sources, e.g. Quinton, which say the method of philosophy is rational enquiry. Your view that these are dull is an interesting piece of ORDbuckner 16:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You say that the definition of philosophy is a philosophical question. That is an interesting philosophical question. I have cited a number of verifiable sources, e.g. Quinton, which say the method of philosophy is rational enquiry. So NPOV requires it goes in. Logic. Dbuckner 16:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed above that you might be arguing that encyclopedias are unacceptable because they are secondary sources. Wrong. Wikipedia policy prefers the use of secondary sources, as I have said, because of the dangers of OR that selectively cites primary sources, as Lucas wants. Dbuckner 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You also forget in the above comments on what I said about encyclopedias that this is on the world wide web, and so there is a chance to do a much better job since those encyclopedias usually only have one person per entry with the effect that they are often biased. The issue also that provoked me is our current but recent use of strange dusty old ones from 1904 and 1957 (as are given in the first subsection). Their use is approriate for 2nd level education, I hope that is not the level we aim for.
--Lucas
OK I remember, sorry. Well, I still like the Catholic Encyclopedia which is online. It's rather better at the medieval and churchy stuff, but still good. Also, there is the very important distinction between the signed and the unsigned stuff. But we still shouldn't ignore the old things - they also give a view from different periods, and another kind of consensus. Dbuckner 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to make "peace" with Dbuckner. The problem is not at all with me regrading the need to compromise. The problem is the extreme attachment of editor(s) to the word, rational. My so-called silly point (misconstrued) is that if rational inquiry is generally unattainable Postmodernism than it follows that philosophical inquiry is unattainable - because Dbuckner maintains its basic rationality.

But I'm going to stop correcting the perversions of my expressed editorial views and let them face their fate alone - and I'm going to hope that editors overlook my typographical and/or spelling errors on this talk page.
What's most disturbing is the failure to acknowledge the fact that 2 of the 3 named desk references (Oxford, etc.) do not contain articles on Philosophy alone. We cannot just gloss over this fact.
Quinton is a single philosopher whom Dbuckner likes because he's the only apparently major source which Dbuckner has found who he (DB) believes supports his view.
However, a more careful examination shows that in his initial first paragraph he says that defining Philosophy is controversial. It's only in the second paragraph that he uses the DB word, but in the context of specifically named subdivisions of philosophy. I don't even have a problem with accurately paraphrasing him (Q), as long as we specifically identifying him as the source of the that view.
It's clear to me what Dbuckner's aim is - he has an agenda - he will only look for sources which will support his view. He will use all his talent to prove that philosophy is rational inquiry (or should I have said enquiry - to demonstrate his love of the non-sequitor - pointing to spelling errors, a subtle form of an ad hominum - someone who misspelled is unworthy of being taken seriously).
Now I know that it might appear that I'm picking on Dbuckner - but I'm truly not - I'm trying, in the best way possible, to point out the irrational at work in philosophy!
Notice, also, how he threatens me with being banned forever from Wikipedia. What have I done but express my views - and demonstrate the use of anti-rational tactics against me. I'm also trying to demonstrate the role of conformity in philosophy - Dbuckner really wants me to conform to his views. Now I know many of you will find this engagement distasteful. However, it is relevant - it supports my view (that of Postmodernism) that the emotions play a significant, and often a major, role in disputations and philosophical points of view that prevail.
As disappointing as this may be, it is reality.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course Quinton says that it is fairly controversial. But he clearly means to exclude his own definition. He says "A more detailed, but still uncontroversially comprehensive, definition is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about ...". You see the word 'uncontroversially' lurking in there? Read carefully. My point about the spelling was that 'inquiry' has a different meaning from 'enquiry'. That's all. On your accusation of selective quotation, I am compiling a list of all the quotations I have located. The page Definition of philosophy has some, but there are a lot more. Quinton was just a convenient one, that's all. Also, the burden of proof is on you to produce the relevant counter-quotations. And I'm entirely unclear why the fact that some encyclopedias do not defined philosophy is relevant. How does that show that the method of philosophy is not rational enquiry? Dbuckner 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I did not threaten you with a ban. I do not have that power. I said that persistent violation of WP policy, means you will face a ban. Dbuckner 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Taking the other definitions step by step. Professor Nigel Warburton says that the most distinctive feature of philosophy is its use of logical argument. A review of his book is here. This is in reply to your point that I have been selectively quoting. Dbuckner 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

enquiry vs. inquiry

Please don't loose your sense of humor! Take it easy. Don't get so upset. And don't take things so personally.

Regarding the two things above, consider this:
  enquire \in-kwr\ enquiry \in-kwr-e, in-; in-kwe-re, in-\ var of inquire inquiry
  (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Best wishes, your fello lover of Philosophy, --Ludvikus 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Western

I know this page is currently protected, but if it becomes unprotected again, someone needs to disambiguate the use of Western in the opening sentence. Planetneutral 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point! --Ludvikus 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why this obsession to make Western perceptions Universal?

I am surprised that my previous comment had no takers. may be i was not clear, let me see if this makes you understand the difference between theological and rational -

"Not many would challenge the claim that Christianity has been highly influential in the development of the western culture. We need to take this statement utterly seriously. It means that many things we `take for granted', whether in the West or in India, come from the influence that Christianity has exerted.

I claim that Christianity expands in two ways. (This is not just typical of Christianity but of all religions. I will talk only of Christianity because I want to talk about the western culture.) Both of these have been present ever since the inception of Christianity and have mutually reinforced each other. The first is familiar to all of us: direct conversion. People from other cultures and `religions' are explicitly converted to Christianity and thus the community of Christian believers grows. This is the `surface' or explicit expansion of Christianity. In India, both in the colonial and modern times, this has been a theme of intense controversy but, according to me, not of very great consequence when compared to the second way Christianity also expands.

Funnily enough, the second way in which Christianity expands is also familiar to us: the process secularisation. I claim that Christianity `secularises' itself in the form of, as it were, `dechristianised Christianity'. What this word means is: typically Christian doctrines spread wide and deep (beyond the confines of the community of Christian believers) in the society dressed up in `secular' (that is, not in recognisably `Christian') clothes. We need a very small bit of Western history here in order to understand this point better.

Usually, the `enlightenment period', which is identified as `the Age of Reason', is alleged to be the apotheosis (or the `high point') of the process of `secularisation'. What people normally mean by `secularisation' here is the following: the enlightenment thinkers are supposed to have successfully `fought' against the dominance that religion (i.e. Christianity) had until then exercised over social, political, and economic life. From then on, so goes the standard text book story, human kind began to look to `reason' instead of, say, the Church in all matters social, civic, political etc. The spirit of scientific thinking, which dominated that age, has continued to gain ascendancy. As heirs to this period, which put a definitive end to all forms of `irrational' subservience, we are proud citizens of the modern day world. We are against all forms of despotism and we are believers in democracy; we believe in the role of reason in social life; we recognise the value of human rights; and we should understand that `religion' is not a matter for state intervention, but a `private' and personal affair of the individual in question. This, as I say, is the standard text book story.

The problem with this story is simply this: the enlightenment thinkers have built their formidable reputation (as opponents of `all organised religion' or even `religion' tout court) by selling ideas from Protestant Christianity as though they were `neutral' and `rational'. Take for example the claim that `religion' is not a matter for state intervention and that it is a `private' affair of the individual in question. (Indian `secularists' agitatedly jump up and down to `defend' this idea.) Who thought, do you think, that `religion' was not a `private' affair? The Catholic Church, of course. Even to this day, it believes that you should believe what the Church says, and that because the Church mediates between Man and God, what you believe in (as a Christian) is decided by the Catholic Church. The Protestants fought a battle with the Catholics on theological grounds: they argued that `being a Christian believer' (or what the Christian believes in) is a matter between the Maker (i.e. God) and the Individual. It was God (i.e. the Christian God), who judged man; and men could not judge each other in matters of Christian faith. The Church, they argued, could not mediate between Man and God (according to their interpretation of the Bible); the Catholic Church argued that men could not, using only their reasoning and interpretative abilities, interpret the Word of God (i.e. the Bible). To think so is to be seduced by the Devil, and the only guarantee against the seduction by the Devil and eternal damnation was the Church itself and its interpretation of the Bible. (There is a famous doctrine of the Catholic Church, which says, `Extra ecclesiam nulla salus': there is no salvation - i.e. being saved from the clutches of the Devil - outside the Church.) To cut the long story short, the Protestants won this theological battle. The enlightenment thinkers repeated this Protestant story, and this has become our `secularism'" [SV 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)]

You have no takers because you don't sign your name. We cannot talk to you, on your pake, because you did not sign your name! Why don't you sign your name and join the brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity that's expressing itself on Wikipedia? Ludvikus 19:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My reply to your point about selective quotation is above. If you claim to be in good faith, please reply. Dbuckner 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you raise a related issue, I'll make a comment. We recognize Chinese philosophy and Hindu philosophy, and although we have a usage such as Eastern philosophy, it is not united that way Western philosophy is. You yourself recognized one uniting phenomena - Christianity. But there's bore, a coninuous very close relationship among all the countries of Europe - for example, their preoccupation with things Jewish, like Jesus and the Old Testament. But most important of all - the West has learned better than any other civilization on earth, the separation of Church and State. India, and the Great Mahatma Ghandi have come to terms with the West - at least in their development of their own Democracy. China has absorbed into its midst Marx and his aversion to religion.
Your preoccupation with God and things theological only demonstrates the unphilosophical nature of the views you present - because if philosophy is anything, it severely compartmentelizes all things religious. Now its true that many philosophes of the Enlightenment were Deists, rather than agnostics or atheists - but the point is that God played a very limited, or shall I say, impersonal and impartial role in their system - as in Providence, or the First Cause, or the Infinite.
That's uniquely Western - as is the automobile, the airplane, and electricity. India did give us numbers, and there are deepphilosophical views in various systems in India I am quite certain of that - Oppenheimer appreciated reading the ancient Hindu scriptures. Nevertheless, there is a phenomena called Philosophy which is distinctly Western. This is a distinction that's made throughout the world - and even if its wrong - this is not the place to correct the perceived transgression. Yours truly, Ludvikus 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
My reply to your point about selective quotation is above. Please reply. I don't like being accused of selectively quoting sources in order to get a view across. Quinton is one such source, there are others. Please reply, or retract your accusation. Dbuckner 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Could this poster be a little more succinct? This applies to you too Ludvikus, dont subject us to too much text, let someone else get a word in, and let there be clarity about the intro (and the first subsection).

Protestantism of course cannot be just subsumed as religious it also emerges as part of the zeitgeist of northern europe, you forget about the humanist philosophy of the renaissance. Philosophy was quite religious in the middle ages and rightly so, in this sense it is closer to religion than science. But what are you saying about Eastern philosophy which also has religious if not scientific ties? --Lucas 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is NOT if philosophy had a connection with religion or not. What happened during enlightment was religion went in the background but its 'assumptions' were still there. What was claimed on a supposed 'rational' ground was actually based on christian assumptions that had gotten secularised.
such a 'moment' did not occur in the East. Philosophy, theology, math, ritual and politics were all mixed, and rightly so. There was NO 'need' for the development of a seperate 'secular' from 'religious' since 'religion' never functioned in the east what it did in Europe.

--SV 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While these are interesting Weberian comments, I'm unclear on what reforms to this page you are recommending. A sociohistorical approach to philosophy? We're rather tight on space as it is. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know they pertain to the way the page says at the moment "Western", this should be changed when the page is unlocked.

So you suggest rational comes from the secularisation of western religion and is not then an idea of Eastern philosophy so we should also remove "rational" from the intro. I wonder however, is the East now becoming secularised. Seems like in China it happened pretty fast with Marxism. --Lucas 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Historicism wins again! { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Rational emerged in the west due to secularisation of christian religion. what does it mean? it means, the 'supposed' rational explanations makes sense only within Christian assumptions. In other words what was claimed as 'objective' rational was actually 'subjective' rational, subject to Christian assumptions.

-- SV 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so rationalism, a system that suborns emotions, history etc. to rationality, is really an abberation in philosophy, a peculiarity that comes from a northern european religious fervour. In any case it was critiqued by Kant and now is just a limited part of Western heritage. --Lucas

Principle of nonvacuous contrast

Here's a principle against describing philosophy as rational.

    The Principle of nonvacuous contrast
    is a logical, or methodological, principle
    which requires that a genuine predicate never refer to
    everything, or to nothing, within its universe of discourse.
  • Our Universe of Discourse is Philosphy.
  • Everything Philosophical is Rational.
  • Whatever is Irrational is Unphilosphical.
    • Therefore, by the Principle above, Rational is not a Genuine Predicate. QED

Yours truly, Ludvikus 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But our universe of discourse is not philosophy, because we're trying to contrast philosophy with other things. Anyway, even if your argument were valid, it would be OR. If you don't think that rational argument is a characteristic feature of philosophy, please provide a source to back that up. VoluntarySlave 21:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dialectic of Enlightenment

  Long before "postmodernism" became fashionable,
  Adorno and Horkheimer wrote one of the most searching
  critiques of modernity to have emerged among progressive European intellectuals.
  Dialectic of Enlightenment is a product of their wartime exile.
  It first appeared as a mimeograph titled Philosophical Fragments in 1944.
  This title became the subtitle when the book was published in 1947.
  Their book opens with a grim assessment of the modern West:
  "Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought,
  has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters.
  Yet the wholly enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity" (DE 1).
  How can this be, the authors ask.
  How can the progress of modern science and medicine and industry promise to liberate people
  from ignorance, disease, and brutal, mind-numbing work,
  yet help create a world where people willingly swallow fascist ideology,
  knowingly practice deliberate genocide, and energetically develop lethal weapons
  of mass destruction? Reason, they answer, has become irrational.
  [emphasis added; from the Sandford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], [1]
Need I say more? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you do need to say more. Your proposals are to exclude mention of reason and rationality in philosophy, while the Frankfurtians were attempting to explain its decline in social life. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody wants to exclude rational philosophy. The question at hand is whether or not to exclude everything else, and report in the introduction that all philosophy is Western rationalism. To me, the answer is so clearly "no" that I can hardly believe we have been arguing about this for more than a year now. Rick Norwood 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick, please read Ludvikus's comments. The exclusion of rational philosophy is exactly what he has been proposing. I've even quoted them in the RfC above: "Rational, Reasoned, neither words do anything. I emphatically say that we should get rid of both in the opening." What's been going on recently has nothing to do with our escapades in 2006. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is not as if someone reading it is going to say, oh it doesnt say its rational, therefore philosophy must be irrational. The argument about the East by SV above shows the point more clearly though. --Lucas 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Who/what are you agreeing with? { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
How does the quote from SEP prove the assertion that the philosophical method is not rational enquiry. It suggests it is dangerous or useless, certainly. But how does it prove that the philosophical method is not rational enquiry. Also Ben, Rick, you keep referring to the debate as if it were whether 'philosophy is rational' or not. That is not the issue. Some philosophers or philosophies may be irrational, just as some purported mathematical proofs may be incorrect. The fact remains that the correct method, the one taught in undergraduate courses, is rational and critical. Dbuckner 08:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, Dean. I have not said anything about it being a necessary condition for all philosophy. In fact, I have said quite the opposite, explicitly. Also, the relevant posts in this section say things like "The exclusion of rational philosophy", "Your proposals are to exclude mention of reason and rationality in philosophy"; not "rationality equals philosophy" or "there is no such thing as irrational philosophy". My support for the inclusion of Zen Buddhism should tip you off in particular about the last item being a bad interpretation of my words. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Lucidish, the current discussion sounds to me like deja vu all over again. There is a big difference between your "exclude mention of reason and rationality in philosophy" and Ludvikus's "I emphatically say that we should get rid of both in the opening."
Dbuckner, Ludvikus devalues the rational, you equate the rational with the correct, why can't we compromise and leave the question of rational vs. irrational until the body of the article. Clearly, it is a question, not a settled matter of fact, and therefore not appropriate for the introduction. Rick Norwood 13:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You confuse two quite separate propositions. The first proposition is "what is rational = what is correct or valuable". Clearly this proposition is, as you say, "a question, not a settled matter of fact, and therefore not appropriate for the introduction". I agree. The other proposition is "the method of philosophy invovles rational enquiry". It is a settled matter of fact that all definitions of philosophy in standard reference works say that the method of philosophy involves rational (or critical, or logical) enquiry. Do you see the difference? Dbuckner 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick, how? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no difference except that I did not mention the introduction (intending to leave it implicit) while Ludvikus did mention it explicitly. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Working towards a consensus

The Wiki works by consensus. Take a look at the guideline. It appears, from my reading of the stuff posted overnight, that Ludvicus is alone in wishing to remove the word "rational" and cognates from the introduction. In addition, this seems to be the main sticking point in the dispute. I may be wrong here, and if so, no doubt you will let me know.

But if this is right, I wonder, Ludvicus, if you and your supporters might consider ceding this particular point, even if only for a while, as an act of good will? If you were to do so, I would be happy to unlock the article as a trial, to see if we can make some progress. I'm painfully aware that it has been locked for more than two weeks, which is a very long time. You are under no obligation to cede the point, but doing so might allow some progress.

If the article were unlocked, you might consider presenting your account explicitly in another section of the article, or in another article, in far more detail than you could in the introduction. You would be free of course to raise the issue again in the future. Banno 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that's a good idea. Then I and others will have to make endless reversions to his OR and the article will get locked again. And why should his account be in any section of the article at all? All his stuff so far has been OR. Happy if he wants to include material if (a) it is grammatically written and to the point (b) supported by adequate sources. When I say 'supported' I mean the source cited logically supports the claim made in the article. He is in the habit of quoting sources that do not logically support his claims in the slightest. So, please keep the article locked until he promises to abide by WP policy. This means (a) no original research (b) editing by consensus. He doesn't seem to accept either. Dbuckner 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Any edits made by Ludvicus after the page is unlocked have to stand or fall on their merit, as do edits by you or anyone else. My suggestion gives him the opportunity to allow consensus in the introduction. If after the page is unlocked, his (or anyone's) edits are unacceptable to the community, if the impasse continues, other processes would be invoked. But while the page is locked, no progress can be made. Banno 10:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, take your point. But I'm not sure I have the energy to follow the millions of edits that are going to result. And if I revert any, I get 3RV ban or something like that, and I get banned from Wikipedia? Dbuckner 10:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It is rather difficult to get banned from Wikipedia. Nor are you the only one who will revert any unacceptable content. But better than reverting would be to edit whatever is added so as to make it acceptable. Just avoid straight reverts, which don't help much anyway. Banno 11:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't conceivably imagine that any edit made by this individual, in part or whole, would be acceptable. They tend to be rambling and wholly content free. For example, his long essays in the introduction. Moreover, if it really is as difficult as you say to get a user banned, how on earth is anyone going to keep the page in order? I don't think you understand the sheer quantity of edits this guy is capable of. And he is very persistent. He said on one talk page that he is an only child, so he has a very strong ego, and that he will 'win' this argument, come what may. Eventually we will get worn out, and in that sense he will win. I for one am sorely tempted to leave anyway. As you know, I take wikibreaks for exhaustion quite regularly. The situation would be different if there were a reasonably large group of competent philosophers. But there aren't, and the few that arrive here quickly leave. Mel Etitis (who lectures at Oxford, and is probably the most competent philosopher working on Wikipedia) came back and gave up with this individual after precisely two hours of argument. He says " I don't know what can be done; philosophy articles tend to attract this sort of editor for some reason, which is why I tend to avoid them, despite philosophy being my profession. They generally stay within the strict bounds of policy, leaving no grounds for disciplinary action, but they make life impossible for anybody who wants to make positive contributions." On which note, I think I will bow out at this point. I will watch progress with interest, but essentially the guy has won. Indeed, I predicted he would. As Mel says, there is nothing in the governance of Wikipedia that prevents a determined crank from destroying good work. Dbuckner 11:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I suggest that we change the introduction to be more along the following lines: Philosophy is concerned with the clarification of thought, terminology, and language. As such, it is concerned with the most general terms, such as "Truth", "Knowledge", "Existence", "Meaning" etc. This is distinct from the sciences, who are concerned with matters of fact, and the "philosophy of X" or "theory of X" who seek, each in their own field, to clarify some overall concerns specific to these fields. I hope such a sentence would eliminate many of the arguments here, and also help our readers to understand what distinguished philosophy from other pursuits. Samfreed 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What the current dispute is about

Just as a reminder, since this talk page is getting filled up with all sorts of irrelevant stuff. The current dispute is about Ludvikus' claim that the words 'Rational' or 'rationality' or cognates should entirely be removed from the definition of philosophy: here.

My objection is per WP:OR which everyone involved in this debate should read carefully. ' If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts'. I have substantiated my view with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. I am currently compiling a separate section with a link so that we can locate all of these without trawling through the talk page. Ludvikus has not done this. He has put forward a number of own arguments which I summarise below, with my objections.

  • 'Rational' means 'rational number'. I do not understand this argument.
  • 'Rationalism' was not a part of philosophy until the seventeenth century. Two replies. 1. We are not arguing about 'rationalism', which is a school of philosophy, but about whether the method of philosophy is rational enquiry. 2. In any case, rationalism is generally held to begin in the sixth century BC with Parmenides. Plato is also held to be a rationalist.
  • 'Rational enquiry' is superfluous, since all enquiry is by definition rational. This is incorrect, by English dictionaries at least.
  • 'Rational enquiry' is superfluous, because a genuine predicate never refers to everything within its universe of discourse, and the universe of discourse is philosophy. Incorrect. As one other editor has pointed out, the universe of discourse is not 'philosophy' but 'enquiry'. All philosophy involves rational enquiry. But not all enquiry is rational.
  • Some philosophers are not rational. Therefore philosophy does not include rationality. Note this contradicts the premiss of his argument directly above. But in any case, the claim in dispute is not that philosophers are rational, but that philosophical method involves rational enquiry. One might as well argue that, because some mathematicians have produced faulty proofs, that mathematical method involves faulty proofs
  • I have given no sources for my claims. False. I have given plenty. The fact they are hard to locate is a function of the vast quantity of vacuous rambling that Ludvikus has produced on this page, and its archives.
  • I have been selectively quoting. False. I have quoted every source I could find in my personal library, online sources and public reference libraries. In any case, WP says ' If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts', which is exactly what I have done.
  • Some encyclopedias do not have definitions of philosophy. True. But how does this prove that the definitions I have cited in other reference works and encyclopedias are not correct? How on earth does that follow? Dbuckner 09:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (from Rick) Here is one you left out. The value, even the possibility, of rational thought is one of the most hotly debated topics in philosophy today. If we take that debate out of philosophy, under what category should it appear? Do we really want an article on metaphilosophy? Rick Norwood 14:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC) - Reply (from Dean) - not at all. Fortunately all standard introductions leave this problem out, so the difficulty is solved. You still do not seem to have grasped the fundamental principle of WP:OR. We are not concerned as editors with what is true, or free from difficulty or contradiction. We are here to report and consolidate what anyone would find in an acceptable reference source. I wish you would take this on board. Dbuckner 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Banno

I strongly support Banno's suggestion, and request that Banno write the introduction. Rick Norwood 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No you don't. You can't dump the problem in my lap. The only way to get a consensus is to write the damned thing together. Thanks, anyway. Banno 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, you can't blaim me for trying. Sadly, the locked article already says what Dbuckner wants the article to say, that all philosophy is Western rationalism. There is no incentive for him to compromise. Rick Norwood 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Criterion of Verifiability

There is a basic issue that some people persistently are failing to grasp. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. WP policies insist that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia.

Such facts or theories may be false (in your view). They may present philosophical problems or contradictions (in your view). You may be able to prove they lead to contradictions. If so, please publish your views or your proof in some peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise, stick to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher, however strange they may seem to you. Dbuckner 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly you are correct. But the problem here seems to be how this policy is enforced. That the guidelines on dispute resolution were not followed much earlier is a shame. Banno 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Ethics part of Philosophy?

Epistemology, ontology were a part of philosophy in the East too but Ethics was not. The west 'theorized' about what is right by trying to keep the criteria context-independent. In the East you will never find 'theories' of Ethics, instead what you will find are 'stories' or 'context-dependent' models only. Here the 'learning' is sub-intentional and as near to the fuzziness of the real world as possible. I think these differences should be mentioned in the article.

--SV 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You certainly find ethics in the writing of Confucius. This East/West distinction is too facile. There is a flow of philosophy that began with the Greeks and continued through the Arabs and the Europeans, and comes down to the present day. Everyone in this school can be counted on to have read, or at least be familiar with, the Greeks. Then, there is everybody else, from the Aztecs to the Fiji islanders, who wrote (or had an oral tradition) of trying to answer the same big questions as the Greeks, but without knowing about the Greeks.

Rick Norwood 18:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did i say East has no ethics. I only said that eastern ethics are of a different 'kind'. There are NO Ethics theories anywhere in the East (may also be true for other native cultures), what you find are model stories that are completely context-dependent. They are certainly NOT philosophy. What does all this mean? it means theorising is NOT the only way to learn!
Are you kidding me! where is the flow? it is a secularised version of the appropriation of 'world' history into the Christian 'grand narrative'. The romans had traditio not the Christians. just because i study american authors does not make American history mine. Flow is traditio and there is NO traditio continuing between greeks, romans and christians. In actuality, Christiany is a break from roman traditio.

--SV 19:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Quinton on Philosophy & Compromise

I've made a suggestion at a compromise. The only exact reference (page number) that was made was that in Quinton; my proposal was to paraphrase his entry in the Oxford Companion. So here it is:

  philosophy. Most definitions of philosophy are fairly controversial,
  particularly if they aim to be at all interesting or profound.
  That is partly because what has been called philosophy has changed radically in scope
  in the course of history, with many inquiries that were originally part of it
  having detached themselves from it. The shortest definition, and it is quite a good one,
  is that philosophy is thinking about thinking.
  That brings out the generally second-order character of the subject,
  as reflective thought about particular kinds of thinking — formation of beliefs,
  claims to knowledge — about the world or large parts of it.

I have offerred a compromise, namely - paraphrase Quinton above. But that was merely glossed over - as if I didn't propose it. Also, as this very source clearly associates controversy with philosophy, does it not imply that we should be extremely careful at not being profound in our definition - because of this controversy, and that many others (Wikipedians) will want to interject?

I also made a reference to Postmodernism - that's just merely ignored!
And the attack on Reason as having turned Irrational in Dialectic of Enlightenment - that's just twisted to conform to the particular editor's obssession with reason.
And there's the absurd claim that rationality does not really mean reason.
The Marxist position, which is widely held by literally billions of people all over the world, regarding the role of class interest seems not to be understood at all by two of the editors above - Marxists would, and have said, that philosophy reflects class interests; buy dropping reason from the opening we would not be submitted to this attack because we would merely free ourselves from the claim of a Hegelian absolute objectivity that's connoted the pretense of rationality. By the way, the Oxford Companion does not have an entry on rationality. The significance of that fact is that this word itself is open to all the interpretations one chooses; and I have pointed out that it denotes the enlightenment, certainly to the followers of the Adorno school; but Adorno, being a Continental philosopher, is simply ignored by these Anglo editers (I like Anglos, but they are not the only philosophers even in the West).
But what's most disturbing of all is the sheer irrationality of these - just three (3) - editors is this: China had its Gang of Four; I believe this "Philosophy" Page has its Gang of Two (I will not name them, because of Wiki policy). However, I must explain why I am raising this issue here - which appears inconsistent with Wiki policy regarding personal attacks (I'm not naming names). The issue here is, inter alia, the rationality of philosophy. Accordingly, I maintain that the discourse here demonstrates the irrational at work in philosophy. We all claim to be versed in Philosophy. Yet my adversaries here are simply unable to stop from attacking me personally, or severely distorting my views simply to prevail in their position. Isn't that itself an excellent demonstration that we cannot describe philosophy to be a rational inquiry? Look what my adverseries are trying to do to me/my position (personally, emotionally, I really do not care)? They wish to marginalize my view as that of a nut, a trouble maker, an egoist, a crank, etc. It's somewhat like McCarthyism, or the old Communist phenomena of re-education. And Why?

Simply because I disagree with them!

I have given exact references, and postings - more so than anyone else has done, I might add!
The fact is, my adversaries here (and there are fewer than one could count on a single hand) are totally incapable of admitting that they are mistaken (again, a demonstration of the irrational at work). They have invested a significant portion of their emotional life in their positions.The fact is, that philosophy is much more like religion than we would like to believe - have you ever tried to change someone's religious belief?
I believe that the attachment to rationality which at least 2 editors have is more like a religious belief. So they will only look for citations which will "prove" that I am wrong, that in fact, according to them philosophy is verifeably a so-called rational inquiry.
But, User:Banno, you ask for a compromise. I accept whatever you propose. I am not really ego-involved in this particular article; it's more of a disinterested attempted to see what can be accomplished in a controversial field on Wikipedia. I only ask you not to accept the descriptions of me or my views by the highly biased philosophers above. My words are perfectly capable of speaking to you directly. And please ignore, as is customer, my typographical errors in this talk page - I'm much more cautious in the literarly hundreds of Wiki article I've contributed to.
PS: Another extremely important point. The Later Wittgenstein maintained that in instances of major philosophicalm disputes, his task (and the task of philosophy) was to perform a kind of philosophical theraphy. That philosophy who maintained a particularly troublesome view was really suffering from a mental cramp. And the task at hand was to cure him of it.
Accordingly we have here an instance of a mental cramp involving the word rational in it's relation to philosophy. The problem is that each side blames the other of this crampiness.
Who ever is correct, the point is that Wittgenstein's activity in curing mental cramps can arguably be held not be describable as a ratiuonal inqury. So the word rational should be dropped. But I'm affraid the philosophical mental cramps regarding rationality are too well entrenched to be cured by the likes of me in this forum!
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody reads all of your posts, it may be because they are wordy and repetitious. To be read, write and then rewrite. Cut every repetitious or nonessential word.

I doubt very much that there are billions of Marxists in the world, though there are billions living under governments that pay lip service to the man with the beard and then fill the shelves of WalMart with their consumer goods produced by underpaid workers.

Rick Norwood 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll do my best. But there are only less than a handful here who need reptition to penetrate their stubborness. Remember, the technique they employ is essentially an ad hominums. Look above - their issue, still, is not the subject matter, but me! Your're too nice a fello to appreciate what's going on - simply because it's not your method!
Regarding Marxism, the fact is that Marxism is recognized as Philosophy. And the view that Phiosophy (Western academic views) manifests the class struggle, and class interest, is also a view widely held among a huge number of European intellectuals, who are also styled philosophers. So what I'm saying is that in accordance with their views Philosophy is not Rational, but rather a manifestation of the class interests of Capitalism. Now as distasteful as this may be to you (and by the way, that itself is not a "rational" response), and false as it may be, nevertheless it is a very widely announced position involving, as it does, billions of people. But also, how many people do you know whom you would describe as rational? And why? Because they agree with you? Ludvikus 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
My advice above was not directed at you alone, but repetition does not penetrate stubbornness, it only causes people to stop reading.
My point about "billions" was that most people are not philosophers.
I think all people think rationally when they believe it suits their interests and irrationally when they believe that suits their interests. I believe that in fact, in most cases, rational thought produces the best result. But not when dancing.

Rick Norwood 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrational Philosophical Disputations

Banno has been asked to mediate the dispute herein. Please not carefully the 'rational, or irrational arguments used! I ask, how many ad hominums are there? How many appeals to authority, or credentials, and vague generalizations about my positions, appeal to emotions?

  While I appreciate your attempt at peace-making,
  I'm afraid that in this case it's a bit off-target.
  While I deprecate Dbuckner's language,
  I agree with the basic sentiment;
  Ludvikus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  is insufferable, and a real obstacle to any progress on the article.
  I gave up fairly quickly because this is the start of a busy term for me,
  and I can't afford the time or energy —
  but I can't imagine getting anywhere with him in any case.
  He's arrogant, offensive, stubborn, overflowing with half-witted ideas,
  and completely unable to discuss issues rationally.
  I don't know what can be done;
  philosophy articles tend to attract this sort of editor for some reason,
  which is why I tend to avoid them, despite philosophy being my profession.
  They generally stay within the strict bounds of policy,
  leaving no grounds for disciplinary action,
  but they make life impossible for anybody who wants to make positive contributions.
  I don't generally have much time for Larry Sanger,
  having had run-ins with him before Wikipedia existed —
  but this sort of article lends serious support to his complaint
  about the knowledgeable editor being submerged by the ochlocracy
  to produce sub-standard (or even downright loopy) articles.
  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  I know what you mean.
  I swore off the page myself, and then (probably because I'd had a wikibreak)
  allowed myself to be persuaded back.
  Never again.
  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this evidence of the rationality in philosophy? Is this really the argument of a professor at Oxford University? --Ludvikus 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Was the first question rhetorical, or do you actually want people to bring up the number of insults, vague phluaria, outright demonstrable errors that you've made? Is this what you really desire?
Perhaps if I end every and all of my long-winded "fuck you"s with a "respectfully yours" or "yours truly", I may be able to get away with wearing the mask of the victim all the while I dominate and exclude by the power of contempt alone. You've set the mold. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Break logjam

I'm going to make a proposal, maybe an irrational one; to move this forward, could we put the discussion in a neutral location? use my discussion page. I will host the debate temporarily, for a set time, 1month, 2 months, whatever.

Let the editors continue the debate at my discussion page, I will review the archives and render an opinion after I have digested it. This looks like a truth vs encyclopedia article issue.

No harm would be done, the debate could return here when its ready. If Ludvikus would consent to "bracket" (Husserl) the issue, I will research and analyze this; it can always be brought back. Let the other editors proceed, and get the article unblocked. If this is a truth vs encyclopedia issue, then it doesn't matter if philosophy is irrational, there just needs to be a body of work in philosophy to support that position which is a position among other positions. I will be back in several hours to check responses. I would be using some language theory, Austin, and Flores, and Maturana as a context for resolution Richiar 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure I understand your proposal. In particular, I am not sure which group "the editors" in paragraph two refers to, and which group "the other editors" in paragraph three refers to. Rick Norwood 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Donald Davidson

    We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others
    when we interpret in a way that optimises agreement
    Donald Davidson, On the very idea of a conceptual schema,
    in Inquiries into truth an interpretation, Ch. 13

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the mafia!

What? { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rationality - Proposal, Compromise

The editors who are so preoccupied with rationality have made absolutely no contribution to the article on it. I infer that they do not know much about it of significance. And that article seeks cleanup. Isn't it poor judgment to call philosophy rational in Wikipedia when rationality itself is dying here, and in need of a cleanup?

Accordimgly, I propose that they work on it - rationality - which they love so much, and return here once the concept is clarified there! In the mean time, in that regard, let me point out that the Oxford Companion has a 2 column entry on it. --Ludvikus 20:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rationality as Intelligent Judgement

Said citation ends as follows:

    ..., Kuhn and others have argued that there are no fixed rules of scientific method.
    Rather, we must learn what the correct rules of method are as science develops.
    These considerations suggest that our ability to be rational
    depends on a basic ability to exercise intelligent judgement
    that cannot be completely captured in systems of rules.

That's by H.I.B. Harold I. Brown. Accordingly, philosophy depends on this kind of intelligent judgement. Do we want that implication in the opening? --Ludvikus 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Have I not here shown that rationality itself is controversial by the Oxford Companion authority? --Ludvikus 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This quote refers to scientific method, not philosophical method. It does not support your claim directly. Banno 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid you would think that - because it is merely the concluding sentence of the article. The title of the article is Rationality. So whatever method it is, one or the other, it is the method involved in Rationality.

Furthermore, even if you are correct, it makes my point far stronger. It implies that philosophy must follow the scientific method (because it is rational inquery). You do not believe philosophy is to follow the scientific method do you? Well, you must, because that's what's implied by it being subjected to the conditions rationality as explained by the article on rationality.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of context. Since many of us do not have access to the volumes in question, you have us at a loss; suffice it to say, quoting a single paragraph is not convincing. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations & support

Ludvikus, for the convenience of newcomers, would you please provide a few citations from sources that explicitly support your claim that either rationality is not central to philosophy, or that irrationality is a part of philosophical method? The more prominent the better. Banno 21:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Does any one here support the proposal to remove rational and its cognates from the definition? This question is not intended as a vote, but simply to gauge the level of support for the irrationalist position. Banno 21:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As a big fan of rationalism, I realize that the debate over the value of rationalism or lack thereof is a hot topic in current philosophical circles, and therefore is a subject of discussion in philosophy, not part of the definition of philosophy. Therefore I support the removal of rational (also Western) from the definition, though both topics are obviously important and will certainly appear in the body of the article. Rick Norwood 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Then, Rick, can you provide some suitable citations? Banno 21:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad to. See below. Rick Norwood 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you conflating rationalism with rationality here? The value of rationalism (that is, the doctrine that reason is the primary or only way of attaining knowledge) is certainly disputed; but that can coincide with a belief in the importance of rational method in philosophy (that is, giving reasons for ones position and accepting some kind of standard to distinguish good from bad arguments). I think rationality in this broad sense is generally accepted as a characteristic of philosophy. I'm not wedded to the term "rational," but I think there's a value in distinguishing philosophy from ungrounded speculation on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Other possible terms we could use include "critical," "reflective" or "systematic," but these have their own problems. Somebody posted a link above that characterized philosophy as being "careful thought" about metaphysics etc; I quite like that term, but maybe it's too vague. VoluntarySlave 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely surprised by the two (2) choices you give me.

I'm not saying that (1) "rationality is not central to philosophy";
neither am I saying that (2) "irrationality is a part of philosophical method".
Accordingly I do not have the burden of proof which you have passed on to me.
With all due respect, you got it backwards.
It's 2 other editors who claim that philosophy is rational.
Accordingly, they have the burden of finding citation and support for their position.
I think also, with all due respect, you have completely missed my position. I do not say philosophy is irrational.
I simply asked that the term be dropped.
That means that I neither commit myself to the one (rational), or to the other (irrational).
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making your position clearer. I fear that your interlocutors will have little difficulty in supporting their claim, that philosophy is rational, with appropriate citations. Banno 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Banno, let me ask you a question that I have asked others. If the debate over the value of rational discourse is not a part of philosophy, then under what area does that debate fall? Of course, there are many philosophers who can be quoted as in agreement with the statement that philosophical discourse should be rational. But Kant and Carlyle, to name two, would disagree. What most people call "rational", they call "understanding". Specifically, Carlyle includes logic under "understanding". What most people call "inspiration" or "intuition", they call "Reason". Specifically, Carlyle argues that the existance of God cannot be proven by "understanding" but can be directly apprehended by "Reason". Since this specifically rejects rational, or at least logical, debate, then there are (logically) only two alternatives. Either some philosophers include methods other than the rational, or else Kant and Carlyle are not philosophers. It seems clear to me that the first alternative is the correct one. Rick Norwood 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


For the n-th time I agree, rational and western should be removed from the intro. Irrationality should not appear either, though as I said before it is used by Descartes' demon and given lots of space in Kant's critique of reason. It does not appear in Eastern philosophy, this is hard to cite because they just don't use the word, nor do they talk of irrational. We have lots of citations above that say philosophy is such and such, and again they do not use the word rational in their main idea of what philosophy is (long list, Marx, Wittgenstein, etc.) these citations show the point but only negatively. By the way what cognates of rational were you thinking of? --Lucas 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick. There is no definition of philosophy. Hasn't that been made clear? It is a fuzzy set, defined by typical -- not necessary and sufficient -- characteristics. The issue is not how we define philosophy. It is how we describe philosophy. By advocating the removal of "rational" and related concepts, you imply that it plays no part. This is ... profoundly mistaken. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help when you deliberately misunderstand. If the intro to the article on France doesn't mention Paris, that does not imply that Paris isn't a part of France. I'm happy to have the intro mention rational methods. I don't want the intro to say what it says now, that all philosophy is Western rationalism. Rick Norwood 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A consensus?

Well then, what's say we remove reference to "rational" from the introduction, and insert a discussion of the role of rationality in philosophy, with appropriate citations, into the body of the article? Will the rationalists cede this point? Again, if so, I will unlock the article. Banno 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, provided the limitation of Philosophy to Western tradition is also removed. Rick Norwood 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that's more or less a terrible idea. I don't care which you keep -- rationality, reasoned inquiry, or critical inquiry -- but some variety of them are part of philosophy as practiced in very deep-rooted traditions, which means at least one of them should be front and center. I also oppose any attempt to remove mention of Eastern / Western philosophy from the intro.
The inclusion of both is consistent with Wikipedia's expectation that the lede actually give a preview of what the article is about, which obviously contains material about both East-West and rationality.
I think I should be honest here. I have no desire or inclination to compromise. I support following Wiki policy. I don't support OR and abandoning Wiki policy because some people feel like dominating the article with their POV. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and am pleasantly surprised, that so does User:Lucas regarding dropping rational.
On the next point, however, regarding Western, I think there is a misunderstanding. No one maintains, at least here, that Philosophy is exclusively Western. I'm only saying that that's the appropriate place to begin, and for to reasons: (1) the English language Wikipedia is in the West (is it not?), and (2) no one can deny that the word, and concept, has a history that's in the West; Just to be more specific, our word philosophy comes down to us not from the Hebrews, or from the Hindus, etc. But that does not comit one to saying that therefore these other cultures have no such subject as philosophy which is distinctly their's. Actually, I'm quite curious about what the translation of the word philosophy is in the various (for lack of a better term on my part) Eastern languages. So what I'm suggesting is that we are naturally led to begin with the West on philosophy because of the history of the word philosophy. My other point was the recognition that - because of chauvinism, imperialism, colonialism, etc. - Eastern philosophy has come to the conscious of Westerners in the 1960's (Rick Norwood says the 1950's). So we can discuss it below, in the body of the article, in an appropriate spot. But also, I've pointed out that our book stores have this category, but not the three desk references we have cited; instead, there are Chinese philosophy, Hindu philosophy, etc. I suspect that's to do with the fundamental unity of the West Europe, the English speaking world, and the Americas.
But all that does not mean that I committing myself, one way, or another, to philosophy being Western but not Eastern! Is that that difficult to comprehend?
But I'm also saying a bit more, if it is the practice to write about philosophy as Chines, Hindu, and Western, then it is not for us to correct that wrong. That is not the function of Wikipedia. The job of it is to describe the views of philosophy as they are held by philosophers.
My apology to User:Rick Norwood for any repetitiveness - but it's obviously necessary because my position seems to be mysteriously misconstrued. --Ludvikus 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Point (1) is specious, as Dean and Rick have indicated. Point (2) is interesting, but one which I ultimately disagree with, because of the expectations in Wiki:LEDE. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


An example from Carlyle

"Reason discerns Truth itself, the absolutely and primitively True; while Understanding discerns only relations, and cannot decide without if. The proper province of Understanding is all, strictly speaking, real, practical and mateial knowledge, Mathematics, Physics, Political Economy, ... . Let it not step beyond this province, however, not usurp the province of Reason, which it is appointed to obey, and cannot rule over without ruin to the whole spiritual man." -- Thomas Carlyle

Rick Norwood 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Never read any of Carlyle before nor seen him much as a major philosopher, he is probably not flavour of the month at universities, would you recommend anything written by him? --Lucas 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I dislike Carlyle (and Kant) but I don't dislike them enough to claim that they were not philosophers. For a critique of Carlyle I recommend Critique of Pure Verbage by Ronald Englefield. Rick Norwood 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely it would be better to read the original before reading some critique! --Lucas 10:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Had I but world enough and time, I would read all of philosophy in the original. But ever and anon I hear time's winged chariot hurrying near. Rick Norwood 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Beautifully put! Ludvikus 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidestepping entire issue

For the life of me I do not understand what the argument is about. How about sidestepping the whole issue by something like:

   Philosophy is concerned with the clarification of thought, terminology, and language. As such,
   it is concerned with the most general terms, such as "Truth", "Knowledge", "Existence", "Meaning"
   etc. This is distinct from the sciences, who are concerned with matters of fact,
   and the "philosophy of X" or "theory of X" who seek, each in their own field,
   to clarify some overall concerns specific to these fields

it is clear, uncontroversial, and explains to people what philosophy is. (BTW, I am a mere BA in Phil.) Samfreed 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Many such uncontroversial introductions have been proposed. All proved controversial. Rick Norwood 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Let the controversy ensue.... Can we not agree on a simple article for the general public? This article, as it stands, is a disgrace to our profession! Samfreed 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, what happened was that someone slammed in a really bad version of the intro on December 29th or 31st, and then locked the page! There were a couple of versions coming close to consensus prior to that which were much better. --Lucas 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Lucas said. Rick Norwood 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in; I'm new to this, but what is there now is awful. Samfreed's version is a bit better, but it tries to squeeze too much into too small a space, and it starts with a definition that is rooted in a mid-twentieth century English approach (philosophy as a sort of conceptual sanitiser) which has long been seen to be much too narrow.

Here are a few thoughts, anyway.

1. Philosophy isn't unique to the West. That's surely too obvious to need mentioning. Fifty years ago (twenty years ago in Oxford) the majority of Western philosophers might have thought that it was, dismissing the whole of Western and Chinese philosophy as just religion or moral preaching, etc.; that's just not the case any more, I'm glad to say.

2. I agree that it is concerned with the most general - not terms, but - concepts, though it can also be concerned with more specific concepts (so we discuss the nature of existence, but also the existence of particular sorts of thing, such as possible worlds, fictions, numbers, sets, and even of specific things, such as god, or the largest prime number). The latter is often in the service of the former, but the point stands, I think.

3. As well as being general and abstract, philosophy is rational and rigorous. Its enquiries are, unlike those of astrology, religion, "critical theory", etc., wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions, no leaps based purely on analogy, revelation, authority, etc.

4. Philosophy is an activity, a way of enquiring, reasoning, analysing, arguing, and so on. It isn't a set of claims, propositions, theories, or whatever -- it is the process that leads to those things. The dualist belief of a Christian isn't a philosophical belief, for example, in so far as it is rooted in faith; the philosophy would lie in how one reached the dualist belief.

5. Trying to give an exhaustive list of the main divisions of philosophy is probably hopeless, because there ahave been different, equally acceptable divisions at different times, and the ddivisions are often relative to one's concerns. They also overlap considerably. Still, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, Logic, Moral Philosophy, and perhaps Politics (if you don't, like Aristotle, see it as part of Ethics) must be there. Most other areas turn out to be mixtures or versions of those, I think. For example, the philosophy of various subjects (such as science, history, religion, mind, art) turns out to fall into the main divisions.

In a book I published a couple of years ago, I tried to explain the nature of philosophy. I could post that here if people think that it would be helpful. --Peter J King 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont buy that Philosophy makes no unexamined assumptions! On the contrary, philosophical questions get formulated in a framework of assumptions. Let me give an example to prove my point - say "What is the meaning of life?" is a question that gets formulated. Now what assumptions make this formulation 'intelligible'? The assumption that life has a meaning. what supplies that assumption? Christian theology of course. What about those theologies that do not admit of a 'meaning' of life say like buddhism or hinduism? can you have a philosophy unconnected with any theology? if so would it look like the one we have today?

--SV 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are unfamiliar with the philosophical literature. Modern discussions of the meaning of life do none of the things that you mention. You assume that that is what such discussions do, presumably because of your view of philosophy. --Peter J King 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont need to survey what modern discussions of meaning of life do (that is just one example) because the formulation of such a question itself is not 'intelligible' to me. The very reason such a question is formulated is because the background framework lets it. Every one of the so called 'big' questions that philosophers raise are 'big' only in the framework in which it is formulated. To other cultures such questions may not sound 'intelligent' at all. The point being made is this - if it is claimed that philosophy as a topic on wikipedia represents a universal pursuit, then all 'flavors' and 'kinds' of such approaches that other cultures took should get mentioned. That would mean for example that Ethics does not come under Philosophy in the East. East has never had 'theories' of ethics - theoritical learning is ONE approach to learning.

--SV 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will agree here with Rick Norwood (22:43) and Lucas (22: 20). There should be a consensus upon a provisional phrase, and the need for ongoing discussion can continue. My logjam entry was to try to suggest a way to mediate that. Banno seems to be making an mediating effort here (21:07; 21:49), lets support it. Lets get a consensus on a provisional approach. If it isn't quite right, its not like one goes to prison, for goodness sakes. Richiar 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your take, philosopher King, on the — shall I say recent — discovery of African philosophy in the West? Or is that to be directed to the attention of Cornel West, as his name ends in West? Ludvikus 01:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid, but (sub-Saharan) African philosophy, in my view, started in the late nineteenth century. --Peter J King 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On Banno's point, there is no way that the word 'rational' or its cognates should not appear in the definition, as characterising the method of philosophy. For the nth time, I am not proposing that philosophy is or should be rational, that philosophical discourse is or should be rational. The correct method of philosophy is rational, critical &c.

I agree with Ben, who says "I support following Wiki policy. I don't support OR and abandoning Wiki policy because some people feel like dominating the article with their POV."

Glad finally to see that an actual philosopher has joined us, namely Peter King. Peter is auther of 100 philosophers, a widely acclaimed introduction to philosophy.

He says "As well as being general and abstract, philosophy is rational and rigorous. Its enquiries are, unlike those of astrology, religion, "critical theory", etc., wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions, no leaps based purely on analogy, revelation, authority, etc."

So, no way do we remove 'rational', as applied to the proper method of philosophy.

To the people who say this is a shame on the profession, no it's not, it's a shame on Wikipedia. There are a handful of trained philosophers here. One (Mel Etitis) has left in disgust. They all without exception agree that the word 'rational' stays in. The others have no obvious professional training, and are simply volunteering personal opinions about the subject. It is against Wikipedia policy to put personal opinions in articles, unsupported by proper citation &c. Dbuckner 08:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify where I came from: Lets simply finesse the issues. "Rational" is controversial? leave it out. "Western" stirs up much emotion? Out. A good definition, such as Peter J King's, it very correct (who am I to argue?), but also too long for a title. So let's be opportunistic and Wikipedia-like, and not rigorous a philosophy-like, and simply choose a definition that is

  1. Correct
  2. Brief
  3. Incomplete

This in-completion is necessary because of space constraints. We can use that constrains to resolve the argument! Samfreed 09:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, rational is controversial only because the majority of people here have no professional training in philosophy. All professional philosophers would see it as essential. Are you saying that the same would apply in physics, say, where there is plenty of crackpot controversy about string theory or whatever? Thus, get enough cranks on one talk page, create some controversy, and reflect that in the article? No way. Remember WP:OR was originally designed to eliminate crank theories from scientific articles. So, no way do we remove things that are controversial, because they are controversial. That would be a crank charter. I am sticking my neck out on this page precisely because this page is the Alamo of Wikipedia. Allow that principle in, and the cranks have won. Dbuckner 09:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well! It's a while since I've had anything to do with this inevitably intractable article. I see that things are in dreadful shape, and that discussion has descended into something even worse than we went through at Physics, and then for months at Talk:Physics/wip. Matters are far from resolved there. As Dbuckner appears to suggest, these most general articles amount to the most serious challenges for Wikipedia's whole program.

I'll have a look through the discussion, to see if there's anything I can usefully chip in with. Meanwhile, just two points:

  1. I think it helps little that an editor comes in under two names here, in what may be an attempt to insert their "authority" with double force. I do hope that will not continue.
  2. It is a mistake to think that professional philosophers (or higher-degreed philosophers) are so scarce here as some assert. Many editors have a policy of keeping their professional and academic activities well sequestered from their Wikipedia work. There are several good reasons for this, not least that "credentialism" is an enemy of the Wikipedia program almost as much as sheer incompetent amateurism is. Both are in evidence in the generalist articles like Physics and Philosophy; and both should, in my opinion, be kept in abeyance.

Now, if anyone wants a little diverting fun, check out Talk:Paul_Valéry. You might find the little dispute there refreshingly specific. – Noetica 09:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a warning banner at the top of this talk page for someone like King: Those new to this page should at least at first ignore most of what a certain person writes, usually identified by over-zealous and multiple edits, cut'n'pastings from various places, over-use of upper case letters, over use of word references to wiki articles, and certain bizarre comments: Do not take these as a general indication of the standard on his talk page. The doctor Mel Etitis did leave mainly I think for the "bizarre comment" issue as (the 1960s issue above) it meant for him that the standard here was very low. I don't think he was unreasonable in doing so, I was on the point of doing same.
Now I just skip those bits and treat this editor-bizzarro, more like a noise. However, Mel Etitis might also be too deep into rationalism, and I believe rationalism is the main stumbling block here at the moment and responsible for the atrocious intro we have. But hopefully Mel will return after we've resolved the intro issue.
As to the substantive issues raised by King above, they all sound very reasonable. And I look forward to seeing the short "intro" thing promised. However, I thought we had established that the intro must be cited, and the citation should be only to the greats in the history of philosophy. Even citing encyclopedias is not up this standard

On SVs comment, of course it is not without assumptions, but it likes to believe (is an ideal) that it would give an open hearing to examine or see to the legitimacy of these assumptions. Though I think you are a little hung up on the Christian thing, you forget maybe that in their turn the Christian thinkers and theologians took alot from Greek philosophy.

--Lucas 10:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with your proposal regarding sourcing. I follow Dean's line in this regard. We should not abandon secondary texts. They provide cohesion, economy. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition based on Peter King's suggestion

The following definition I have constructed as a summary of Peter's suggestions above. Note, I have only left out the East / West thing because this is a definition. Whatever counts as philosophy under this definition we can talk about in the body of the article. As Peter says, philosophy isn't unique to the West. That's surely too obvious to need mentioning. Dbuckner 09:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom') is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. As well as well as being general and abstract, philosophy involves rational and rigorous enquiry. Its investigations are, unlike those of astrology, religion, etc., wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions, no leaps based purely on analogy, revelation, authority, etc.

Philosophy is an activity, rather than a set of claims, propositions, theories, or whatever. The dualist belief of a Christian is not a philosophical belief, for example, in so far as it is rooted in faith; the philosophy would lie in how one reached the dualist belief.

There is no general agreement about the main branches of of philosophy, as there have been different, equally acceptable divisions at different times, and the divisions are often relative to the concerns of philosophers in different periods. They also overlap considerably. Nevertheless, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, Logic, Moral Philosophy, and perhaps Politics must be there. Most other areas turn out to be mixtures or versions of those (for example, the philosophy of various subjects such as science, history, religion, mind, art) turns out to fall into the main divisions).

Dbuckner 09:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I would dump the middle paragraph, and everything upto and including "nevertheles" in the third. Definitions should be brief. I, Personally, would definitely add Aesthetics. I would also dump the last sentence, from "must be there", and "perhaps". Maybe we can placate the "non-rationalists" by saying the it aspires to be wedded to reason? (Or is wedded to reason, but cheats on the side?) Samfreed 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would drop "academic discipline" and add "science" to astrology etc. Overall it has a breezy confidence that is misplaced; this is hubris. Saying it is the "most fundamental" is just myopic, it is also the most superfluous. Though I like the bit about unexamined claims it should also say that it tries to do this but usually fails. You fail to mention speculation. Not sure what a Christian dualist is, I thought they were into the trinity. I like the bit on activity but don't think you can say it has not any claims. Otherwise you'd just go round in a circle.
Overall, again this is just one person's, well two, King and Dbucker's, definition. Nor is it cited, nor does it give anyone an idea that anything interesting ever happened in philosophy (unlike the photo). We need to give nothing of our own 'pet' definitions of philosophy and instead give a few examples from the canon of philosophers, with them we all might have some chance on agreeing they were important. Also a quick resume of overview issues in contempory academy (eg, Analytic, Continental, Postmodernism, etc.). is good for redirecting those looking for more specific things and makes it a live issue. (here I make a subsection for this)

--Lucas 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is mostly King's definition, pared down. I agree entirely with it. The idea of 'fundamental' is probably the most consistent things that philosophers (especially Aristotle) say about philosophy. That is why he calls metaphysics 'first philosophy'. If you have read any of the recent discussion, you will be aware that every single one of these claims can be backed up with references. See e.g. Definition of philosophy which is a compilation of authoritative references. There is no need for an introduction to imply that anything interesting happened. It is not a 'pet' definition unlike, sadly, most of the half-witted comments which you persist in contributing here. On your idea of selectively quoting 'great philosophers', that is not WP policy. Avoid primary sources, stick to authoritative secondary sources. Dbuckner 11:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Fundamental is not only the most consistent thing among some philosophers but also almost every other discipline, physics "fundamental particles", psychologism, historicism etc. You also ignore the Marxist stream of philosophy which considers economic and social relations as fundamental and philosophy as just an ornament. It is a pet definition because it displays only one person's view of philosophy (which in your case seems to defer to a lexicographer) and does not refer to any of the great philosophers. It is also dry as you affirm "no need to let anyone think in philosophy anything interesting is happening". By the way the intro already says something interesting happened, hemlock, the cross, Galileo...

--Lucas 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a Marxist stream of philosophy. Dbuckner 12:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it happens to go by the name Marxism but is also prevalent in other areas. If you look at BBC 4 philosophy etc., radio show where they voted for the best philosopher last year, the listeners chose Marx.--Lucas 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, you have consistently failed to reply to my question, as to whether you accept WP:OR or not. This is not a pet definition. It is King's, I agree, so does Mel, so I believe does Ben. All the references cited on Definition of philosophy agree. so why is it 'pet'? You insist on using primary sources (largely misquoted). This I repeat is not WP policy. Dbuckner 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I accept wikipedia rules but that does not mean that I think it can answer our question here, it was not exactly what the inventor of those rules was thinking of. Mel has not agreed to this definition. You take form King's one but he has not agreed either. As to Ben, well that is for him to decide. So it remains till then a pet definition. Most of the references on that page are to dictionaries, and as I said you defer to lexicographers, I've no problem with defering, we must, but not to those guys, instead we should defer not to some pet theory of a possible cabal but to the great philosophers of the ages. --Lucas 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's see what they say, then. Which of the references on that page are to dictionaries, apart from Collins? For example The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. The use of philosophical scholarship, biographical sketches of major philosophical figures and philosophical treatment of the key topics marks it out as not a dictionary in the lexicographer's sense. Dbuckner 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
On what the author of WP:OR meant, it is quite clear. It was to give those with some knowledge of the subject some edge over cranks and crackpots. The requirement for authoritative sources prevents crackpots presenting their own unpublished personal views. The requirement that the source be secondary eliminates any possibility of selective reading of primary sources. The policies are very carefully designed, and they apply very well here. Have you actually read the relevant bits, may I ask? Dbuckner 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the 'cabal'. Of course, didn't you know about the cabal? So-called experts in all sorts of subjects are in secret communication with one another to foil and frustrate those lone seekers after truth. Down with the establishment! Dbuckner 14:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "definition" to refer to what we're doing is a bit misleading. Definitions seem to be more closely tied to the notion of setting up necessary and sufficient conditions. If we say that philosophy is hard to define, then we either have to engage in tentative definitions, or we have to try to merely describe what philosophy is. If we choose the latter, then it makes little sense to say that philosophy is a method, and not a collection of subjects.

If we stick to a "strong-rational" proposal for the intro, then we still have to make room for two points. One, Dean you mentioned once the analogy to mathematics: the individual mathematician may make errors, but that doesn't affect the subject of mathematics. But the intro quoted makes reference to something like the former, not the latter: "Its investigations are, unlike those of astrology, religion, etc., wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions, no leaps based purely on analogy, revelation, authority, etc." (Incidentally, on separate grounds, we might question this outlook, since reasoning by analogy is a subspecies of informal logic.) Two, we still have to make sense of postmodernism etc. I don't see how we can do this with this proposal. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is easily solved, by changing 'investigations' to 'method'. As for the second, we need to find a reliable secondary source that unambiguously says that there is such a thing as 'postmodern philosophy', and that its methods are not rational &c. I'm not convinced in any case that its methods are much different. Once again, we must confuse the views of certain philosophers about human rationality, with whether their own methods rely on careful argument and a critical approach. Dbuckner 15:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
True, (1) could be solved in that way; but my parenthetical concern still holds in earnest. (2): Martin Hollis, in my Blackwell Companion to Philosophy (Ed.2, chapter: Philosophy of social science, p 396) writes: "The Enlightenment story of science relies on notions of rationality which connect reason directly with truth... It will be clear by now that this story has come under heavy fire of late. In effect, critics have been tring to relativize reason by suggesting that rationality is always a matter of conforming to the rules of a particular practice. If practices, in turn, are relative to particular groups and societies, then truth too becomes unattainable or, if you prefer, a matter of conformity to local custom." He calls such persons "relativists", not "postmodernists", but the overall argument is the same. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The author of original research rule for wiki would probably agree with me when I suggest that genuine, acclaimed and historically noted philosophers would be well above any dictionary definitions of philosophy that are being suggested. I agree "definition" is not the word here, we really talk of the intro. Secondary writings offer a possibility of an even more selective reading since there are far more of them. --Lucas 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy as a vital and live issue

Does anyone here have any imagination? The photo of Socrates drinking hemlock I think is treasoned by the dry text next to it. Now I do not claim to be any more imaginative than anyone else here, but I'm sure there are lots of examples from history and our own time that gives a flavour of this aspect of philosophy. To make it a live issue we might also refer to philsophers' interpretations of topical issue: the war, ecology, french revolution etc. Academic definition is fine but for wiki it does need some spice. --Lucas 11:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


At last, a compromise. You stick to finding a picture, let the academic philosophers concentrate on a definition of their own subject. If only it were all so easy. Dbuckner 11:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking of the picture but the text, it needs to be brought up to the level of the picture. Nor do I want another photo, the one there is fine. --Lucas 12:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(Cabal = User:Mel Etetis + User:Peter J King + x)?

User:Dbuckner did you not get the clues given to you?

You are obviously swayed by credentialism - why do you (irrationally?) ignore this point?

User:Lucaas how come you just gloss over that you and I, and User:Rick Norwood agree with you on dropping Rational from the opening?

We'll get to East v. West later.
The first item on the list towards a compromise is the word 'rational'.
By the way, as things stand right now, it's my version that's frozed here. So I suggest that all of you consider carefully your extremely irrational behavior on this talk page, the passion with which you hold on to your philosophical believes, the extremes to which you will go to call someone a crank, and a crackpot because that person does not agree with you.
Therefore, you, YOURSELVES (capitalization is a technique of Email emphasis) are IRRATIONAL.
How is it that this passionate handful of dedicated enthusiasts are so blind to the element of passion which is so strongly (at least here) involved in philosophizing?
The consensus of the hard-workers here was to drop the word philosophy from the opening; this does not mean that philosophy, therefore is irrational.
Is User:Peter J King really Peter J. King the poet?
What books have been cited by alleged philosopher User:Mel Etetis.
Ah! Credentialism - does this require an article, or is appeal to authority sufficient.
User:Dbuckner - you can contribute as much as you wish to the role of rationality in the opening, just accept the consensus that has been reached before, in your naiveté, you fell into the very arms of the cabal you so fear. Did you not notice the difference between:
Peter J. King and User:Peter J King? And do not put to much faith in that one (can you tell who I mean) who maintains that the dogma or doctrines of the Catholic faith are irrational - I deduce that from his strong anti-religious convictions (I'm not revealing mine): he considers Exorcism irrational; all of faith is therefore irrational. That's why its important to appreciate what we have learned from 3-valued logic & perhaps Godel: true, false, and undefined (not necessarily meaningless). Let's get back to the consensus: merely dropping rational in the opening.
User:Dbuckner - can you not see that your comitment to maintaining that philosophy is rational is a passionate one? Why don't you just do what Socrates and Descartes would do in your place? Socrates would try to know himself (I do not mean the joke - laughter?). Descartes would introspect. Can you not admit - only to yourself - that you are extremely emotional about your position? Also, besides appearing irrational because of my overlinking and CAPITALIZATION, am I not correct in asking that we merely drop irrational from the opening (emphasis on opening)??? (Repetition is often the only method to penetrate stubborness).
Best wishes, Ludvikus 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Repetition is also evidence of stubbornness, of course! Dbuckner 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Catholic doctrines are irrational because 1 = 3 is irrational. Rick Norwood 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
What? { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's Dbuckner's issue of a Cabal herein. I know you are surprised. I do not blame you. But let me finish my summary bellow! --Ludvikus 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider what User:Noetica has said]:
  1. I think it helps little that an editor comes in under two names here,
  in what may be an attempt to insert their "authority" with double force.
  I do hope that will not continue.
  2. It is a mistake to think that professional philosophers (or higher-degreed philosophers)
  are so scarce here as some assert. Many editors have a policy of keeping their
  professional and academic activities well sequestered from their Wikipedia work.
  There are several good reasons for this, not least that "credentialism" is an enemy
  of the Wikipedia program almost as much as sheer incompetent amateurism is.
  Both are in evidence in the generalist articles like Physics and Philosophy;
  and both should, in my opinion, be kept in abeyance.

That's not me, Ludvikus, in the above, but User Noetica. --Ludvikus 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I don't understand what you're alleging, at who, and why. Are you saying Dean is a sock puppet? Or that Prof. King is? Also: what is a "cabal"? A credentialist cabal? Am I in a cabal just because I disagree with you? Not that I mind having nice social parties. But when I explained where you were mistaken, is that then irrational? Can you at least admit the mere possibility that your understanding of "rationality" is a misunderstanding of both conventional usage and felicity in context?
These other points about rationality have been rebuffed previously. Most of them trade on confusing different senses of the word "rationality". This is why I think "reasoned enquiry" and/or "critical enquiry" are more appropriate: "rationality" is easier to confuse (though harder to confuse than your other suggestion, "good sense"). In addition, King notes below what seems obvious: that emotions are non-rational, but not irrational. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, as I said below, I was being ironic. There is no cabal. I was being ironic. There is no cabal. I have corresponded with Peter for a long time. I am not he - I live in an entirely different place from him. OK? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs).

Rationality: Recapitulation for Newcomers

Rationality should merely be dropped from the opening because:

1) Rationality (and Irrationality), and its cognates, ares themselves the subject of philosophy.
2) The Rationality of Philosophy is questioned by Postmodernism.
3) The Rationality of Philosophy is questioned by Marxism.
4) Rationality of Philosophy is put into question by Wittgenstein II and his notion that philosophers suffer from mental cramps which require a kind of Philosophical Psycho-Therapy.
5) Rationality connotes Reason, the Enlightenment, and the Age of Reason, which are past moments in the history of philosophy.
6) Rationality is central to the dominant Oxford, Cambridge, and American academic schools of philosphy (at the universities thereof), but not necessarily so in relation to philosophy as practiced and mained on the Continent of Europe, where Marxism and Adrno are held in high regard.
7) Rationality itself is a controversial notion.
References are, and have been, provide above.
Best wishes to all Wikipedians, Ludvikus 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a good summary Ludvikus, unusually, for you, short and to the point. I think it shows the point very clearly. Anyhow, I think you are backing a loser, this site is pervaded by Analytic philosophers from the 18th century, and anything that isnt Analytic and they feel is under their control, is deleted or overruled. I tried writing an well referenced article, there were many other contributers. But still there was a coordinated deletion of it, Analytic and Continental Philosophy, whatever you do, don't call Analytic philosophers Anglophone, they hate it.
--Lucas 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[Sorry; I have tried four or five times to save this, but failed. What's above seems to have changed in the meantime, but I shall try again.] [Oh; this should have appeared just after Ludvikus' previous message.]

(Note that capitalisation is a sign of shouting in Internet usage, and has been from the beginning.)

The passionate attack on passion above isn't always easy to follow, but it seems to spend a lot of time doubting that I'm the same person as the subject of the article Peter J. King. I'm not sure why this matters, but in fact I am, and Ludvikus can easily verify that by e-mailing me. I can't and don't want to comment on the other attacks on editors, except to say that I think that it would have been better to have dropped them.

To drop "rational" from a definition of "philosophy" is peculiar. I have looked at the reasons given, and as far as I can tell, the main reason is that all enquiries are rational. Even if they were, this would be no reason to be so passionately opposed to the use of the word, so I can't help feeling that something more is involved. In fact, though, not all enquiries are rational. I don't know where exorcism comes in, but it is surely clear that it makes perfect sense for someone to declare an enquiry irrational -- either because of its methodology, its starting point, or its aims.

Ludvikus also offers an ad hominem and fallacious argument: to whit, that those who argue that philosophy is rational do so passionately, and are therefore arguing irrationally, and therefore show that philosophers aren't always rational. This goes wrong at every step. First, there's nothing irrational about passion in itself; indeed, rationality must involve the passions, otherwise it would be nothing more than logic. Next, the idea that for philosophy to be rational all philosophers must always act rationally is false (compare: for science to be objective all scientists must always act objectively).

His initial reason seems to have changed to a different one (for instance, in the penultimate section above): that philosophy isn't rational. I have no idea why he might think this; suffice to say that it contradicts the first reason. --Peter J King 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Thank you Peter. I'm afraid this is not the first time your line of reasoning has appeared on this page (see above, and above). But it is well put, and I hope it has some effect this time round. You need to be prepared for a lot of this but, to be fair to the rest, the person concerned is by far the most extreme and difficult I have encountered in Wikipedia in 3 years of being here. But he is VERY persisten. Whoops, I am capitalising. One tip, either write in a separate document, or do a control-C and save what you have written, as sometimes there is an edit conflict and you can't save. 5 o'clock UK time is always bad as it is US lunch hour. (And please note, Ludvikus, I have corresponded with Peter in the past and he is of course one and the same person as the author of 100 philosophers). Dbuckner 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh by the way on the cabal bit, I was being ironic. But as everyone says, never use irony on the internet, always backfires. Of course there is no cabal. Dbuckner 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My dear Philosopher King,

You cover many issues above and I do not want to alienate the other dedicated users here who have had to endure my presence. So I'll only make a choice to deal with what I perceive are the most pressing issues here first.
Whether or not you are the poet you claim to be is certainly, in and by itself, not imprtant.
However, you are invoking an appeal to authority and clearly influencing other editors by your credentials merely by the mention of your identity. Surely you agree to this effect?
Be that as it may, is that not a fallacy, and not a rational way to go?
And even if we are permitted to appeal to your authority as Philospher King, it is inconsistent with Wiki Policy to do so; what you ought to do, to be significantly persuasive, is quote from the alleged book(s) you have written!
Accordingly, would you kindly give the exact page number of the particular position that you wish to expound, Philosopher King?

Yours truly,, or should I say, in an English poetic way, your Humble Servant? Ludvikus 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My dear Ludvikus - what do you mean, alienating the other users of this page? How on earth could that be? With every kind wish Dbuckner 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful if your sidekick remained at bay - at least for the moment. --Ludvikus 18:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And consider this, Philosopher King, Yours truly, Ludvikus 18:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC):
  It's possible to talk rationally about anything.
  I think that religions are unconvincing and self-contradictiory sets of fairy tales,
  and that belief in them by any marginally intelligent adult is perplexing.
  One of my main areas of teaching and research, however, is the philosophy of religion,
  and I spend a great deal of time reasoning about god, miracles, etc.
  One can be rational in drawing out the implications of a proposition,
  seeing whether it is consistent or inconsistent with other propositions,
  and so on — but if I started enquiring into why god had created my eyes
  so that I needed glasses rather than going to the optician,
  then it would be time to section me for my own good...
  --Mel Etitis
 (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm merely posting the above to illustrate - shall I say - "influence" upon your side kick? Ludvikus 18:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

At least we know the name of our Philosopher king. But our mysteriously other professor remains an Oxford mystery, known to us by his Greek sounding pseudonym. Ludvikus 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, and as a qualified philosopher I can only be utterly depressed by the state of many philosophical articles and the extraordinary discussions which go on beneath the surface. There must be a hundred different ways of writing an introduction to this article without using the word "rational", but the reasons summarized above for not using it (by Ludvikus) are unimpressive. Number 7 - rationality is controversial - I can agree with, and it sheds light on the foregoing, unconvincing points. What is truly at stake in debates about rationality conducted by - e.g. - Adorno and Horkheimer, the post-structuralists, Marxism, is not rationality as such, but the false claims to rationality made by the irrational. This can clearly be seen in the Dialectic of Enlightenment, which is a critique not of rationality, but of the Enlightenment's characterization of the irrational as rational. Adorno did not spend his life attacking "rationality" - quite the opposite: he sought to persuade us that Enlightenment/capitalism/traditional Western thought was irrational - and of course that it led to Auschwitz. Adorno was no friend of irrationality: Auschwitz, for him, was the irrational in full dress. Much the same remarks could be made at length about Derrida or Lyotard - and Marx, of course, claimed not only rationality for his project but an exclusive level of rationality - he claimed that Marxism was science, not ideology. And so on... Interestingly, I think Wittgenstein might be the odd one out here. I suspect he did come to believe that philosophy was irrational. Anyway, the only true, robust proponents of "irrationality" I've come across in the Western tradition are Shestov and his sometime follower Bataille. As for the Eastern tradition, I could see good reasons for splitting that as a separate topic. KD Tries Again 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 16 07

Newcomer KD, we are bound to assume good faith, but also, I've been asked not to be repetitive. So I ask you, for all our sake, to read carefully the issues presented above. If you do that you will discover the fallacy of your deduction that because we wish to drop Rational from the opening, it follows that we advocate some sort of Irrational philosophy. Furthermore, you personal opinions, and interpretation, are not appropriate to this forum. You seem to have a good sense of what Rational means. Good, now can you grace us with your wisdom by providing precise and specific citations that would bring us to an agreement regarding the keeping of Rational as a defining characteristic of philosophy. Just another philosopher we do not need here - we need a more practical one who can convert his/her opinions to induce us to make a simple choice: keep or drop a single word. Do you understand? --Ludvikus 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just another version to consider

Don't mean to belittle any attempts being made to re write the intro: I just wrote this down, rearranging a little, while I was at work, to see what people think:

No single definition of Philosophy has been found to be entirely satisfying to all, as the field has branched out, evolved, and has come to encompass many backgrounds. The controversy of how to define Philosophy may in fact be part of the nature of Philosophy itself. One definition portrays Philosophy as a subject in the Western intellectual tradition concerned in part with rational inquiry into issues about the nature of knowledge and knowing, conduct, the nature of existence, and the nature of mind. Another definition may challenge this view; for instance, claiming that philosophy itself is an irrational endeavor. Several other definitions portray ……………… Various schools may be built around the different definitions. etc.Richiar 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I salute your effort, but it fits as an intro to THIS page, not as an intro to "Philosophy". The title/intro should say what philosophy is, and what it is not. I refer you to my own humble attempt above. Samfreed 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
With further salutes, I'd add that in Wikipedia terms, the claim that philosophy is an "irrational endeavour" - unless perhaps restricted to some very specific philosophical project - is not "notable". As I said elsewhere on this page, other than Shestov and Bataille I cannot think of one philosopher of note who has held this position. KD Jan 16 07

A "Professor"'s view of Rationality

Unfortunately, the most coherent and intelligent view concerning Rationality (second only to "arrogant" me) is given behind the scenes - which deprives the rest of us of participation; I therefore post it here so everyone can appreciate it's possible brilliance (I'm omitting whom it's addressed to - except to say that it's not addressed to me - I've only his "nausea":

  With regard to rationality, you're still using the term in a very peculiar way;
  it isn't belief of any kind.  rationality is the process by which Descartes tries
  to regain knowledge after hyperbolic doubt has left him doubting almost all that he had believed. 
  His enquiry is a rational enquiry.  After the cogito, which is a direct intuition,
  everything is arrived at through reason: his knowledge of himself as a res cogitans,
  the existence of a non-deceiving god, the account of the possibility of error,
  the Real Distinction between mind and body, etc.
  It doesn't matter that some of those don't work —
  they're quite clearly rational.
  Irrationality is sterile, impotent, pointless; from irrationality comes nothing.
  As Descartes says when rejecting the argument from madness: "But such people are insane,
  and I would be thought equally mad if I took anything from them as a model for myself".
  (AT VII 19) --Mel Etitis
  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many things that can be said about the above. I choose this one: It's about Descartes, known to us as the First Modern Philosopher, and First of the Three Great Rationalists. So it follows - rationally I might interject - that the conception of rationality which we are made to swallow comes down to us from that early date in the history of philosophy. That is what is meant by the reasonable term in the expression rational enquiry, or rational inquiry?

So every philosophical view which came down to us after Cartesianism, and did not, or does not, accept this view of Rationalism (since in this context Rationality clearly means Rationalism) is simply mistaken. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Same error perpetuated. Descartes' conception of rationality is widely questioned, but not rationality in and of itself. The critics of rationality whose cause you espouse are - in almost every case - seeking to expose and condemn the irrationality of certain positions which claim to be rational - in other words, they (Marx, Adorno, Derrida, et al) are strong advocates of rationality. KD Jan 16 07
Your opinion is interesting, but it's just that - it's not a reference/citation. At least the above Mel Etitis, gives us a reference for Rationality - Descartes. You give us much less than that - just your personal opinion of what you take as Rationality. Wikipedia policy requires more than that. Furthermore, since we've established that defining philosophy in a profound way is controversial, the burden of proof lies with you in citing a source which support the view that Philosophy is in some sense Rational --Ludvikus 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, you're overlooking the citations I did give, here and elsewhere on the page. Marx, Adorno (specifically Dialectic of Enlightenment), Lyotard and Derrida, Lyotard, in fact, attempted to write one book which explicitly claimed to defy all standards of rigour and rationality - Libidinal Economy. But he gave it up. Now you will ask me for specific page references I suppose, but that's inappropriate: any chapter of any volume by the philosophers I've cited will demonstrate an adherence to high standards of rational debate. In addition to that one book of Lyotard, I've identified Shestov and Bataille as two philosophers who rejected rationality. There are some passages in Deleuze and Guattari too. Set against the rest of the Western philosophical endeavour, such exceptions are scarcely notable; or, they may be worth noting but cannot influence the introduction to an encyclopaedia article. Given that no encyclopaedia you might pull off the shelf will give "irrationality" equal time with "rationality" in its article on philosophy, I'd ask you to provide any examples you can of philosophers who reject the rationality of the philosophical project. I think that once you get over the idea that Descartes or the Enlightenment have a monopoly on rationality, you'll see the weakness of your position. (In order to reduce repetition, this will serve as a reply to the similar comments you made about another of my contributions yesterday). KD Jan 17 07
For the last time: (1) not to say that someone is rational, is not the same as saying, that they are irrational; (2) you own citations show that there are thinkers - wrong though the might be - who give weight to irrationality - so we cannot keep rational as distinguishing philosophy.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how many times you have said it before, but the first part of that is logically trivial. It is of the form "Not to say that someone is Scottish is not the same as saying they are not Scottish", which is plainly true but uninteresting. If you meant to say: saying someone is not rational is not the same as saying they are irrational, then that would be clearly false. Perhaps you can clarify. As for (2), I have seen elsewhere that rather than provide specific citations, you yourself have offered a "movement" - post-modernism - as evidence that rationality is not a hallmark of philosophy. Now, as I have tried to explain with more pointed references - to Adorno and Horkheimer, for example - this is a misunderstanding of "post-modernism", which mounts a critique of a certain "Enlightenment" form of rationality, but in defense of a more nuanced rationality. I fear you are in the position of those who, reading only half of Derrida, infer from his critique of traditional accounts of meaning the conclusion that meaning is impossible. Now, I have offered a couple of exceptions - Bataille and Shestov. The latter has been out-of-print and largely unread for many years; the former is a somewhat marginal figure as far as academic philosophy is concerned. I have no objection to mentioning this strand of Western thought in the body of the article, but it is not sufficiently notable to decisively influence the introduction. If you have a specific philosopher to add to my short list - one who would argue that philosophy is not rational, please mention him or her. KD Jan 17 07

A renewed attempt to find an agreed text

This is a mash of King's stuff abbreviated as above, with some of the comments. Please don't argue about this, but propose improvements. Lets try to get a text that works for everyone.


   Philosophy <Greek letters> (literally 'love of wisdom') is an intellectual pursuit concerned with the most fundamental 
   and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. As well as well as being general and
   abstract, philosophy involves rational and rigorous enquiry. Its investigations aspire, unlike those of astrology, religion,
   etc., to be wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions, no leaps based purely on analogy, revelation, authority, etc.
   It differs from from the sciences, which are concerned with matters of fact,
   and from the "philosophy of X" or "theory of X" who seek, each in their own field,
   to clarify some overall concerns specific to these fields
   The main sub-fields of Philosophy are Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, Logic, Aesthetics, 
   Moral Philosophy, and  Politics.

Samfreed 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Per my various comments above, it might help to revise the second sentence as follows: "As well as well as being general and abstract, philosophy involves rational and rigorous enquiry, even when the nature of rationality itself is the topic of discussion." KD Jan 16 07 Adding: I have to admit, I don't like the list of sub-fields. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics are unimpeachable - at least as far as the Western tradition is concerned (and yes, both analytic and "continental" sectors), but philosophy of language is really an approach to those areas (and a fairly recent one too). I could live with Political Philosophy (rather than just politics) if Philosophy of Science was added - they both seem to me to have about the same, albeit slightly secondary, status. I honestly don't think Logic (any more than say "Reason") is a sub-field of philosophy. At a stretch, maybe Formal Logic. KD Jan 16 07
I think philosophy is not only an intellectual or abstract pursuit. It also is in action, philosophy also has a real part which involves behavious, eg, Socrates taking the hemlock, is this philsophy, if so it is not just contemplation. I'm sure you'll say philosophy occurs, a decision is made and action results. Then you set-up action as the opposite of philosophy when their synthesis is the goal for certain philosophers. --Lucas 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/Talk%7EPhilosophy_Archive_14_0d34.html"