User:Shaggorama/Philosophy Guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Context from From Talk:Philosophy#CONSENSUS:

"I think KSchutte has made an excellent suggestion (although I think that "methods" may be better suited for an article in itself than a simple section in this article). Domain and goals are excellent topics for this article; I was actually going to suggest something similar based on the approach taken by the Science article. We need to be careful about how we write the goals section, or it could over time become a tedious list of "hard questions." Regardless, FIRST AND FOREMOST we need to decide where we want to focus our energy. As I'm sure you have all noticed, we have expended a great deal of time arguing over the finer points of the introduction and history sections, which it seems we don't all even agree should stay. Let's all step back, take a breather, and work on the article as a whole for a second. Before we get caught up in the details, we need to decide how we want this article to look.

  1. Establish some general goals for this article
    1. Discuss what we need to say about philosophy for this to be a successful article
    2. Establish a "What this article isn't" guideline for future reference
  2. Discuss what topics must be raised to accomplish these goals
  3. Delegate goals to sections (create sections based on goals)

"KSchutte is right. I do believe this article needs to be radically changed, mainly because I see the chaos that is this talk page as indicative of the fact that we don't really agree on what this article is supposed to be. I propose we focus on THAT and that alone before we even consider the wording of the introduction or how to present eastern philosophy. (by the way, have any of you seen this Ultimate reality article? it's total crap...I'd prefer if there was no link to it from this article at all. Besides, there are many schools of philosophy that don't accept the existence of an objective reality at all). Shaggorama 10:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"


Contents

[edit] Statement of purpose

At present (3/1/2006), the philosophy article is in what has been generally regarded as an unsatisfactory condition. It is my belief that this is the result of lack of agreed upon direction for the article. I believe that this problem is the result of various groups holding different opinions about what this article should address. Attempts have been made to address this problem on the talk page in the past (most often in the form of discussions trying to establish what sections we need), but because the talk page is growing so fast, it is often the case that only a minority of people participate in the survey before it is lost to the clutter.

So, I would like to attempt to accopmlish some strategic planning here. Please add a subsection titled with your name (~~~) to the point (section) currently being addressed. In this subsection, succinctly state your opinion with respect to the point being addressed (bullet format is preferred). This way, we can clearly get our ideas out in the open. Please, feel free to comment on others ideas in their section, but only they may edit their original statement (to reflect their current opinion). Each point will have a discussion section, wherein it is my hope that we shall reach a consensus for that area. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MOVING FURTHER BEFORE A CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED. My plan is designed such that we move from one point to the next in series, it doesn't work properly in parallel.

Thank you for contributing to this project, and hopefully we will get through this together. Right now, we are working on "general goals", "what the article needs", and "what the article is not." Please feel free to throw in your 2 cents.

Nota Bene: This is not a talk page, it is a forum for strategic planning. Do not hesitate to revise your opinion if you change your mind. The goal here is to reach a consensus.

[edit] General goals

Goals will serve as a general outline for the article. This is what the article "needs to do."

[edit] Shaggorama

  1. Portal: This article should serve as a gateway into the topic of philosophy in general. I suggest everyone examine the approach taken by other articles on general topics such as Science, Mathematics, and History. As a gateway, it should have links that span the scope of philosophy as a topic on wikipedia. I do not mean that it should be a list of links, so much as it should link to out in ways that branch the topic out sufficiently.
  2. Introduction: This article should provide sufficient information to educate someone completely ignorant on the topic as to: (see "Need to say..." section)
  3. Current: This article should be about philosophy today. It can lead up to this by describing what philosophy used to do or be, or what a philosopher used to do, but read that with emphasis on "lead up to." The main focus of the article should be on what philosophy is, not what it used to be. Historical references should be invoked only to the extent that they are useful in accomplishing this goal.

[edit] Comments

I see no good reasons either to emphasize, or ignore, the state of philosophy today. So I disagree with your third point, which I think is a suggestion which places arbitrary weight upon contemporary views. Though ultimately, you'd have to make your suggestions more concrete in terms of particulars before this complaint can be either vindicated or dismissed. Lucidish 02:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What we need to say about philosophy

These are what we want to ensure is addressed in the article. The more general the better; once general points are covered, we can establish some specifics within the general points. This is what the article "needs to say."

[edit] Shaggorama

  1. What philosophy is
Assent. KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. If this is possible. Ig0774 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. Tentative definitions are better than none at all. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What philosophy is NOT
Dissent. Philosophy is not defined negatively. It is a positive enterprise. At most, this should be "what philosophy is often confused with", but even that might suggest things that we don't want to suggest. In an article this general, we need to pay special attention to cognitive bias. If we make too many qualifications, readers of our article will end up with the impression that philosophy is just some random jumble of people who disagree. KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dissent. It is hard enough to give a positive definition of philosophy. Giving both a positive and negative definition of philosophy runs the risk of being to exclusionary. Besides, most major "what philosophy is not"s would probably be in need of too much qualification to be worth the space. Ig0774 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dissent. Agreed with Ig. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What are the goals of philosophy
Assent. Philosophers are surely trying to do something. Scientists are trying to achieve something, and it is only recently that scientists have stopped being called "philosophers". There are slightly different goals that scientists and philosophers might be aiming for, and it isn't impossible that we identify them. Some include knowledge, intelligence, virtue, a better society, and so on.KSchutte 03:53 & 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dissent. I am skeptical that there are particular enumerable goals of philosophy aside from the goals of particular philospohers. I am further unclear as to how this differs from the questions philosophy seeks to answer. Ig0774 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain.. I see no problem in listing possible goals, but if this just takes up space, then leave it out. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What are some common themes in philosophy
Comment. What does this mean? What is a theme in philosophy?

KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    • What kinds of questions does philosophy seek to answer
Assent. KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. Ig0774 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What are the current, generally accepted divisions of philosophy
Assent. KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. Ig0774 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. How philosophy is used (methods and applications)
Assent. KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. This sounds like an awfully broad topic, though... Ig0774 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. What characterizes a philosopher/someone who practices philosophy
Dissent. This should be in the article philosopher. KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. What is currently going on in philosophy ("hot topics")
Dissent. The answer to this isn't even obvious, and this would surely be a section prone to contentious edits. KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dissent. Perhaps some sort of list of the "big questions", but "what is going on in philosophy" is 1) often overly technical and 2) as Kschutte says, prone to contentious edits.
Abstain. This might work for a "contemporary philosophy" page. Whether or not a small section should be added, with reference to another main article, is not something I care about. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. What were some key paradigm shifts that occured in philosophy
Comment. I don't like the term "paradigm shifts". I think this section should come last, and it should be called "History of philosophy" and I think it ought to include major trends, where trends are defined by some group of philosophers sharing an approach to the domain (e.g., logical positivism), method (e.g., Confucianism), or goal (e.g., Critical theory) of philosophy. KSchutte 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. "History of Philosophy" is, I think too broad and would probably leave the article unchanged (aside from adding what is needed from whatever is agreed above). It would be better to pick out major thinkers or major styles of philosophy rather than to attempt to give an overview of philosophic history. This has the added advantage of being somewhat less contentious when dealing with non-Western traditions (we do definitely need a link to the history of philosophy page and the history of Western philosophy). Ig0774 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Assent. A brief history of philosophy and its major trends is perfectly reasonable to add. Lucidish 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What this article isn't

This guideline will protect the article from inexpedient topics that should be addressed elsewhere.

[edit] Shaggorama

  1. NPOV: This article is not about western philosophy alone, but philosophy in general; otherwise it would be titled "Western philosophy." To focus on western philosophy, no matter how great the temptation may be considering the background of most of the article's contributors, would violate wikipedia's NPOV. This point may be the greatest obstacle we must overcome.
Assent KSchutte 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. History: This article is not about the history of philosophy. This topic is covered adequately in the History of philosophy article, and it would be redundant to address it here. A sidebar timelining the history of philosophy will be sufficient, if it is deemed necessary to teh article.
Assent KSchutte 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Definition: This article is not a definition of philosophy. This topic is addressed in Definition of philosophy (thanks to DBuckner). But, we do need to address what philosophy "is" to some extent in the introduction.
Assent KSchutte 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. List: This article is not a list. Good writing does not contain lists of names, dates, topics (not to say that it would be inappropriate to present any names dates or topics). List of philosophical lists is a great portal to other categorical lists, so we don't need to present them here when we can just link out to the main list.
Assent KSchutte 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KSchutte

  1. Philosophers: This article is not about philosophers. Including the name of even one philosopher is going to give priority to that one over those that aren't mentioned, and we should not make the article prone to "my favorite philosopher" edits.
Dissent. In principle this isn't a bad idea, and the article should not be reduced to any sort of list of philosophers. Nevertheless, this article would be a mess without the mention of certain particular philosophers, and, worse still, of little value as a reference source. Can we talk about the rise of modern Western philosophy without Descartes? Or the huge impact of Confucianism on Chinese society without a mention of Confucius? Ig0774 09:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It might be difficult to write an article without mentioning a philosopher, but it isn't impossible. See my draft in progress. KSchutte 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What topics are required to satisfy our goals?

For each goal, suggest a topic/section that would satisfy it, or how multiple sections could tackle the issue.

Goal1: Goal2: Goal3: . . .

[edit] Decide article's sections

From the above discussion, decide upon the article's sections.


[edit] Delegate goals to sections

Section1: section2: Section3: . . .

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/a/User%7EShaggorama_Philosophy_Guidelines_0900.html"