User talk:KD Tries Again

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

I'm also a newcomer here, I'm trying to follow the debate. I grasp the reasoning you presented. I may have more questions for you. Richiar 07:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I arrived at this discussion out of the ruins of the Anglophone/Analytic and Continental Philosophy discussion, which rightly ended in the deletion of the article. KD Tries Again 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 16 07

[edit] Analytic/Continental philosophy

I believed you were Analytic because you seemed to think that the Heidegger/Cassirer debate had nothing to do with the schism, since it is more likely that Analytics cut things in a black and white manner. The flavour of the Heidegger debate was interesting anyhow and to see one leader of Continental, Levinas and another of Analytic, Carnap in the same audience, with a split view from each was also interesting. (If I remember this was the thing you wanted to change.)

But since you say you were trained in Analytic but now teach Continental (or whichever way round), you would be the ideal person to start a new article. There are several links there from other places and right now it is blank, see "schism..." in the intro of Analytic or other pages.

Nonetheless though you are not Analytic, much of the delete squad were, they even pushed people to vote and to revert votes, they're a real mob. Many people like to ignore this divide, you played right into their hands! I didnt even solicit one vote! So in this sense I think I actually won the debate.

--Lucas 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You made some very intelligent comments on the talk page. Could you support the reversion plan as per this message on the talk page. The idea is to defend a single version against attack. Eventually these people do go away, believe me, we can always argue about the reverted version later. As you say, no point in making minor alterations to something that is constantly shifting. Dbuckner 08:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Obviously, I particularly like what you say here. However, this is like trying a have a reasonable debate when there is full scale civil war going on, gunfire, explosions &c. I am just trying to get all the reasonable-sounding people in one trench. Best. Dbuckner 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
PPS you make a second point which I just noticed. Exactly: there is a distinction between finding out what things in particular exist, which Aristotle says is the subject of the ordinary sciences, and finding out what existing is qua existing, or what it is for a thing to exist inasmuch as it exists. I tried explaining that to our friend (the spectacularly mad one) but to very little effect. Do please stay and help, your contributions are very welcome. Dbuckner 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aha

I was there 79 - 84. I knew Edo well. How is he? Sadly a lot of that department are gone to eternity. CJFW died, also Hirschmann. Michael Welbourne was my tutor. My email is d3uckner AT btinternet.com. Your contributions on 'continental' philosophy would be welcome - the reason I never got very far with that article was my lack of knowledge of the thing. However, Edo was a bit out of date - Husserl and all that stuff. I still have his book on phenomenology. You are doing great work on the page, keep it up, I am taking a break for a day or two. Dbuckner 19:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy

The issue of inaccuracy is a general issue to be confronted on the philosophy talk page. The additions being made there are open to review. A number of people have edited the section you refer to and you are also welcome to edit it or add extra referenced material to it. --Lucas 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no disputing the inaccauracy of the material from which I draw. The material I draw from is scholarship, books, journals.

What was disputed was the article, primarily the name (eg, ask Lucidish), secondly some of the middle material. The historical part was not questioned for inaccuracy though someone disputed if something was or was not part of schism history or just philosophy history.

I attempted to build a completely new description of this divide and the start of the bit you removed was completely new but you just removed it all. Without consideration, I have not seen you make many contributions to the philosophy page, but I will not remove it all, rewrite that takes thought and effort, please try and be constructive. --Lucas 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I could not respond to phil talk because were lots of edit conflicts. The accuracy of the article was questinoed of course nobody questions the accuracy of for example Rorty's paper, this is just a matter of primary source. There is major changes to it. And this is the stuff quoted in the philosophy page ,eg the quote on Babich. The title was the problem, I was not willing to change the title and the guy/girl 29812 then put it up for deletion. He has been here for years and asked all his friends to come and ask to delete it. This is not the way to philosophy in my opinion. Again I'm not sure youi know what constructive means. There is a huge history to this schism, instead of removing or doubting if something was a part of it, go out and find some more incidents. --Lucas 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say I did not revert the work you did on the philosophy page. We have been having a discussion, I concede some points and you others. You removed the Cassirer debate, I left it out but just mentioned the Levinas Carnap comments as I think they show something. I also left Heidegger's quote though it pertains to the debate I think it shows perhaps one important link between both sides of the division. If you want to develop ideas that show bridges between the two please go ahead, we could put in a subection "Bridges across the divide" or something like that.

I returned also the thing above Chomsky I believe it is not exactly in line but it does hint at some divergent ideas of Foucault from the usual philosophic humanism of Analytic philosophy. It is also nice to have a video of a debate between an English speaking intellectual and a continetal philosopher.

I find you just have an irrational urge to not contribute to this section, nowhere do you clearly explain this. Is there something I'm missing? Lucas 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good to have you on board - good luck?

Philosophy is the Page.

Enjoyed very much the fact of your exact references, and reading your commentary - its like your doing the work for at least us both.
PS: Maybe drinking the hemlock imposed by mediocrity will not be required?
Best Wishes fromYours truly, Socrates & --Ludvikus 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Now I understand your position. Let me direct your attention to the fact that we already have in the first sentence what appears like a definition - the problem is that some wish to put more in. I think the most critical focus has been on the words Rational, or Critical, and their cognates. And when references had been made to Postmodernism, and Marxism on ideologies and Class interest - that's just ignored. My main concern is dropping this qualification if only we would thereby gratify communists and certain Continentals. For me that was the primary issue here. It appears that there's a very strong block that whose members passionately believe that that word(s) must be associated with any kind of definition of philosophy of any significance. On the other hand, I've also recommended a sort of historical approach, tracing Philosophy through its travels, in history, through the West, beginning with the formation of the concept in ancient Greece. But that gets knocked down because it somehow violates the suggested sactity of Eastern philosophy. And when I point out that it is a Category of Barnes and Noble, but our major desk references do not even have such an entry - this too is simply ignored. Remember, it is much harder to prove a negative. The more notable encyclopedias have Chinese philosophy, Hindu philosophy, but not Eastern. I also tried to direct the editors attention to the extremely well known marginalization of mythology, religion, and faith, as concepts, or notions, distinct from philosophy, a characterization that has been with us for 2,500 years in the Western world - it seems that in that I'm merely talking to a wall. I suspect that by this distinction we might be viewed as somehow trivializing the rest of the world. Certainly, in the 19th century, it was held that philosophy was uniquely a part of the Western Intellectual tradition. This, however, is apparently taken as an abhorent distinction. It's as if there is an effort to cover up the fact of imperialism by covering up historical events. I'm almost affraid (just kidding) to say that the airplane was invented in the West. I suggested that we get to Eastern philosophy in relation to its discovery in the West in the 1960's or 1950's. I've emphasized that this is the English Wikipedia, so its "reasonable" to begin with the West. But here to I found myself confronting an impenetrable philosophical wall which, mind you, claims to be Rational. So these are the two pressing issues here, as I see them. Yours truly, Ludvikus 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC) --Ludvikus 00:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to hear ...

About Andrew Harrison. Very sorry, he was a good guy. He had a dog called 'Taxi' (geddit). Another reason for being sorry is that he had all 3 copies of my PhD Theses which then went missing. I suppose lost for ever. Still it wasn't very good, with hindsight.

Andrew Morton (don't know if he overlapped with you) left under mysterious circumstances.

I'm afraid I can't place you at all. Are your initials (KD) a good guide? Anyway, do get in touch. Dbuckner 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I see you have had a visit from Ludvikus - you will get used to this. Dbuckner PPS I agree with your point about Lucas. He seems hell bent on getting that horrible schism thing back into the main article. I support you 101% on this. Dbuckner 08:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analytic / Continental

Just to give my reasons for not liking that section. Mainly because the style is atrocious. 9/10 of all my problems with philosophy in WP is plain bad writing. But difficult to argue with someone who writes badly, that it is so. Like explaining to tone deaf people how to sing in tune. The other problem is the length of the existing article. I would prefer to see it as a brief introduction, about the length of the snake. Then a few sections about how different periods and schools have viewed the method, subject matter and goals of philosophy. Then a brief section on the history of philosophy with links to the main article History of philosophy which is atrocious. There is no point in making the article a mini-essay when there are plenty of sub-articles which could do the heavy lifting. Thus the Analytic Continental divide deserves a serious article in its own right (there probably is one but haven't dared look). The section in this article need be no more than a few paragraphs summarising the main points of the heavy article. I think the problem here is that a certain individual was upset his contribution was taken very seriously, and is now wreaking revenge here. Anyway, those were my thoughts. I really appreciate having someone who knows about this tradition, as it is somewhat of a closed book to me. (That said, I have read most of Being and Nothingness, and much of Being and Time. But Derrida I got no further than a few paragraphs. I had no idea whatsoever what he was going on about.) Best Dbuckner 09:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment is so badly written, if it is anything to go by, I would not like to see it in an article. It is one large block dense and hard to read. It begins sentences with "But" it splits sentences., it uses peculiar hard to understand expression, "heavy lifting". Who made you master of style anyhow? I knew the division was a " closed book" and little known to Dbucker, yet he still insisted on removing it even though with his superlative knowledge of style he could have tidied it up!

Anyhow, K D, I do not remove the stuff you do. The problem was that you removed my stuff, I then returned it. Ok so I removed your remove, but that is exactly what I mean by not contributing. To contribute you must add or edit something, and I promise I will not remove it, though I might edit it. --Lucas 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I was talking of contributing in a positive way and not just removing stuff. And no, you have no imposed duty, I was just appealing to a more constructive attitude, since removals and reverts tend to block the flow of things.

You suggest you could add Popper V Adorno and Wittgenstein. Well why would you mentioned it if you did not think them relevant? Maybe you do not feel confident adding stuff, or you cannot find the references, that is ok, I can help you with that.

I'm not sure of your stance on the schism but I think trying to ignore it is not a good idea. Also you refer to a citation you made on Ryle and Heidegger, I see none other than an out-of-context quote from the review. I on the other hand do cite when I say it was a largely "negative and dismissive review" (nor was this Babich's comment). Are you expecting me to believe that Analytic in comparison to Continental philosophy, did anything with Heidegger other than in the main ignore it. What do you think is going on in philosophy in the 20th century? Rorty, who you mention, refers to the schism in quite clear terms, he considers that only about 10% of philosophers are on neither side of this divide, and that it is a big issue for getting a job in philosophy since in the U.S. only a few "Continentals" are hired. --Lucas 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Ludvikus' interjection

Lucas is right! I'm afraid,You have to try again. And by the way, have you heard of Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979). I love my country, the United States. But to have you come along and deny the effect of McCarthism suggests you must be a very well sheltered younster living on Park Avenue.
Russell and Wittgenstein dominate post-WWI America, with Quine in tow. --Ludvikus 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way - I'm only pointing out that such a dismissive view of yours can only mean that Marxists are right - that we can only expect you to express the views of Capitalism. You do not demonstrate objectivity by unilaterally offering to delete. If you delete me, I'll delete you.
Do you follow my argument above?
Please do not take it personally - it's not intended to be so.
However, you have expressed yourself as an authority on Truth above.
Regards, --Ludvikus 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the word "Schism", but otherwise Lucas is correct about the Gulf between the Continent of Europe and Anglo-America. So I side with him.

The brake, I think is tracable to the Rationalists/Empiricist split. And we must trace its history, step by step; so it's better if you take an issue at a time. --Ludvikus 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I think we are both victims of vandalism. "interjection" is not my word. I think someone else pasted it onto your page. --Ludvikus 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

Technically, any editor who prevents other editors from working can be blocked. I did make an RfC against Ludvikus, but I need 2 supporters. I'm sure Mel and others would be happy. Lucas can also go on the list. There is no point in working in this constant vandalism. Would you support the complaint? Dbuckner 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Let's do it tomorrow. Best Dbuckner 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please see this page

Talk:Philosophy/Workshop. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analytic / Continental

Ludvikus has raised the interesting thesis, namely 1. Continental philosophy is characterised by an attachment to Marxism. 2. It developed on the Continent because there is not the stigma attached to Marxism as there was in the USA.

I can see there may be truth in both of these, but it would require careful argument, plus citation and avoidance of OR. Is this view documented in the literature? I think there is room for a carefully written and researched article that says whether there is or isn't a split (I think Jason Stanley argues there isn't), what if anything characterises the split, and so on. Possibly a paragraph, but no more, in the Philosophy page.

My take on it is that it is a bit like the Eurovision song contest. But I'll defer to your expertise in this area. Dbuckner 11:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that note. It strikes me what you wrote there would be good enough for an article on the subject. I'm going to look now and see if there is a 'Continental' page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Current disruption on Philosophy Talk

Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get too havy about this, but this comment suggests a rather unWikipedian attitude towards the project. Wikipedia isn't here to provide slapstick entertainment. the Philosophy article is a mess, and has been a mess for some time; it should be a flagship article, and it's a condemned hulk. If something isn't done about Ludvikus, in particular, then there will be no chance of improving it; if sensible editors don't show solidarity in their opposition to this sort of circus, then nothing witll be done about him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Mel's a good guy, don't take this in the wrong way. See my message on his talk page. Dbuckner 11:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if my (too hastily written) message came over wrongly; I wasn't trying to get at you or to blow off steam, just alerting you to my worry that your light-hearted response (though understandable) might not help us to deal with the problem. (It's nice to know, though, that Ludvikus has had an "extremely voluable experience" here; that was my impression too.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for commenting

Yes, I appreciate the problem is twofold but

1. Two is much harder to deal with than one.

2. One of those two is easier to deal with. As you will find out, Wikipedia has specific policies to deal with troublesome editors, but very few to deal with merely incompetent but persistent ones. One step at a time. Dbuckner 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Jimbo

Fare thee well sweet heart. However, I'm sure he will be back. Dbuckner 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What was this?

Quick question please - what was this comment in respect of? Many thanks FT2 (Talk | email) 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Double check - do you remember who added the original statement and information quoted in that edit? I would like to not assume. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about A / C distinction

Would you mind if I posed some questions about the analytic contintental thing? It might help me to clarify what it actually is, and it might form useful material for some of the articles.

1. The consensus (in reference-book world) seems to be that the distinction arose after WWI. In particular, with the rejection by Russell, Moore and others of the 'Oxford logistics' circle and of the English Hegelian school. Is that correct?

2. Or was there some sort of distinction before? Was the English Hegelian school a blip, and thus the post-WWI state simply a return to the normal state of affairs before Bradley and co? E.g. there's a strong anti-metaphysical, and also anti-German tendency in the writings of Mill, & one could see Russell as the natural heir of Mill (indeed, wasn't he Mill's godson?).

3. Was there any reaction among the 'continentals' similar to the one in the English analytic school? I.e. was the reaction against the English Hegelians a reaction against 'continental' style philosophy, or was it simply a reaction against the past? And if the latter, was there also a reaction against the past on the continental side (hope that makes sense).

4. Does the real distinction go back to Hegel? He is impenetrable to me in the same way I find much continental philosophy impenetrable. Also, there is no real equivalent of Hegel in Anglo philosophy, is there?

5. Are there any subject areas that distinguish one school from the other? Sartre and Heidegger seem to have an obsession with consciousness, but then so does Wittgenstein, and so does a lot of modern analytic.

6. Is there any continental equivalent of the analytic obsession with predicate calculus?

Best - E.D. Dbuckner 09:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions

Many thanks for your contribution! I edited slightly, and quite unfairly, to add humour value.

Thanks for the reply to my questions. As you can guess, I'm thinking on the lines of, if you had half a page on the subject, what would you say. More later. Dbuckner 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Want to make a difference?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/1/desired.htm

Email for editors: http://www.iep.utm.edu/1/editors.htm


Editors' lists:

Language: http://uh.edu/~psaka/IEPlist.htm

Logic: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~klement/IEP/desired_logic_articles.txt

History of Analytic: http://www.malone.edu/2909

Continental: http://www.utas.edu.au/philosophy/staff_research/reynolds/IEParticles.html (note that existentialism and Bergson are already reserved, articles such as *Deleuze* could be suggested to JR)

19th century European: http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/iep/19th-des.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeusnoos (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

These are requests from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is a very good encyclopedia, and getting better. However, it is not a collaborative-approach system like Wikipedia. I'm one of those people who are incapable of producing any work without discussing it and iterating with other people. The only problem with that, as we have seen elsewhere, is that certain people can't iterate and discuss in productive ways. Worth a try, however. I'm discussing with IEP on a couple of articles. Dbuckner 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Supposing that IEP editors are aware of the limitation of their current structure and want to change it, and unlike Stanford they have no budget for keeping the encyclopedia online (volunteer basis only), what improvements would you suggest? I think a collaborative effort would be opposed by some subject experts, but perhaps some would be open to feedback for improvement in a conversational wikitalk style. If some behind the scenes wiki technology were employed in which authors, editors, and invited philosophers could participate in article improvement or collaboration, would you participate? Do you think it would lead to unproductive personal conflicts between subject experts? Would it make authors or area editors who choose not to participate appear uncooperative? Zeusnoos 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-American philosophy needs to be updated. Support is unclear. If you wouldn't mind changing it to Keep or Delete that would help clarify your position. Thank you! -- Kesh 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analytic / Cont

You say "Continental" didn't start at some point in time - it was what people started calling a bunch of schools which were not analytic. "

Interesting. But this sounds like before 20C all philosophy was pretty much similar, barring obvious differences in style, and language. Then analytic sprang up, and obliterated previous philosophical ideas in certain places. But in other places, the old manner of philosophy clung on. Rather like the Catholic church (contintental) vs protestant (analytic).

Not sure about that. I remember a bit from Heidegger - I'll try and locate it - where he says that it is not that there is a question of the existence external world, but that people insist on asking the question again and again, when in fact the very question presupposes the answer. (Not very will put - let me find the quote). Very similar to the analytic view that it makes no sense to ask whether everything can be doubted.

In summary, there is an alternative view that there was a reaction to 19C philosophy in Europe and in Anglo-land, but the reaction happened in different ways.

Another thought is that we have a word for what is done in 'anglo-land', but no proper word for 'continental' (which is an anglo-land term). What do continentals call what they do? Is the fact they don't, indicative of a fragmentation of views, schools, whatever?

I'll stop rambling now. This should really go on the Philosophy talk page, but a bit cautious about going there right now. Dbuckner 08:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Dbuckner: Continental philosophers are like Anglo-American philosophers — they normally just think of themselves as doing philosophy, and where relevant they use labels that distinguish them from those with whom they're in direct conflict, within their own traditions. The broader labels only come in to play occasioanlly, usually when someone doesn't reralise that there's a difference.
KD Tries Again: I can't really get through Husserl much myself, but some things that he says (admittedly derived from people like Descartes) have a clarity and straightforwardness that takes me by surprise. I like the distinction between ludicity and lucidity, though. I've tried many times (I mean made genuine attempts) to appreciate Continental philosophy, and every time I've found myself either shaking with laughter at peculiar purple pompous, even pachydermous, prose used to paper over the pitiful paucity of philosophical perception (sorry, I got carried away), or at a loss to see how anyone could make such a name while saying so little of interest. The thing is that I often have similar reactions to Anglo-American philosophical works. I suppose that the difference is that I can appreciate and approve of the standards of Anglo-American philosophy, it's just that many philosophers don't meet them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that Derrida wasn't much respected even by Continental philosophers? The ones that I've met (mostly French, a couple of Greeks and Italians) didn't think much of him (to say the least). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of basic philosophy topics

I've incorporated your suggestions into the list. I've also cleaned up the list to some extent (improved formatting, etc.), and improved it to some degree (I hope). Please take a look and I look forward to any further comments you might have.   The Transhumanist   

[edit] Your Knowledge of Analytic Philosophy

Only now have I had a chance to read over some of your views on the above.

And I am happy to say this to you. There is no-one on Wikipedia that I've seen (except myself of course), who knows more about the above than you. But why have you wasted so much of your time and energy expounding that knowledge on other peoples' Talk pages? You should stick to your expertise above, and do it where it shall do some good - not merely where you have. Do you understand me? Will you return to Anglo-American philosophy? The page is dying for your valuable knowledge? Why are you not being Bald? Wikipedia policy encourages boldness. Do not waste your time in engaging in Power politics. You are not in some University Philosophy Department where you have to kiss ass to get yourself in. --Ludvikus 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification request

I'm not sure if this was the right thing to do, however, I tried to put a question on the workshop page about clarifying the Analytic/Continental issue; specifically, why should or should not "Continental" be included in the Philosophy article? I'm asking for the sake of clarification, hoping not to stir up the hornets nest. Richiar 09:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious editing on Being and Time

See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analytic philosophy

Had a go at the introduction. See what you think. I'm starting to wonder if Philosophy should be abandoned as a lost cause. If we concentrate on what should be the sub-articles, get nicely-worded introductions to those, then we can always make up an article consisting of the introductions to the sub-articles, problem solved. Philosophy should be no more than a set of links, plus a thread. The problem is people feel the desperate urge to write personal essays. Dbuckner 09:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Comments on B & T

I noticed your comments on the B & T talk page. I noticed with concern that the Wiki work environment is wearing you down, too. I am actively working to turn this whole situation around, and need the help of people such as yourself. "Your pain is my pain". Please consider joining the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards (ESF). I am planning to use the philosophy conflicts as a case study to argue for a better managed Wiki work environment. Also, if you would turn on your emai, we might have further discussion on some technical issues. Richiar 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heidegger and Analytics

The argument is useful to the extent it forces one to examine one's prejudices. I examined whatever I could find from my library from the 30's and 40's, to see if Heidegger is referenced. Hardly at all. Indeed, not at all. When the analytics disparage metaphysics, it is always 19th century grand metaphysics they have in mind. Therefore there is no 'schism' in the sense of conscious disagreement or difference, just a conscious break with the past.

Except for this passage from Monk's biography of W: "He could imagine, he said, what Heidegger means by anxiety and being ... St Augustine, Heidegger, Kierkegaard - these are not names one expects to hear mentioned in conversations of the Vienna circle - except as targets of abuse. Heidegger's work, for example, was used frequently by logical positivists to provide examples of the sort of thing they meant by metaphysical nonsense - the sort of thing they intended to condemn to the philosophical scrapheap." (p. 283)

The conversation of Wittgenstein is located to the (very) early 1930's, but Monk's claim about the logical positivists is not sourced. Given Heidegger was not published until 1929, I find that a little implausible. In the 1950's you can find plenty of examples of this sort, but I have located nothing earlier. I searched through all the Ayer I could find, and skimmed through a book by John Wisdom (utterly, completely dull). Perhaps in the writing of the German positivists.

On a different note, I found a passage from Isaac Watt's (Anglican hymn writer but also logician and philosopher, flourished mid 18C). There he mentions the 'Popish schoolmen' and talks disparagingly of 'Metaphysics'. Another dimension, of course, is the suspicion of Catholicism. Why this did not happen in Germany is another question. They wrote in Latin much later than in England (the last Latin writer is probably Hobbes, whereas even Kant wrote in Latin). And traditional logic was much more widely studied than in England.

Also picked up Russell's History (not looked at for a long time). Is surprisingly good. He says the character of German philosophy is to be explained as the product of a nation that feels it is qualified for greatness on the world stage, but also that it has been unfairly denied it.

Best Dbuckner 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who knew?

KD says: "All I wanted to do was polish up a few philosophy articles - who knew???"

Richiar replies: "Yeah-who knew? thus my comment about Hotel California!!" Are you ready to order your wine? :) Richiar 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Considering RFC

I assert user Ludvikus' communication patterns demonstrates that user L is using pseudo-debate/pseudo-"Socratic dialogue"/logic reversal and false characterization, in a fillibuster tactic, and that he is doing so perceptively and subversively (suggesting disguised malice in my opinion).

I understand your comments: they are cogent and clear. I think there is a consensus generally supporting you and your effort on the Philosophy intro. Your points are clear to anyone without clouded reasoning, and I don't see a need for you to continue to belabor points already made clear.

I'm going to think this over and do a little more research, but I'm thinking of launching another rfc on Ludvikus: I am of the opinion he is incorrigable, willfully, and is starting to become disruptive of the flow of progress.Richiar 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armando Reveron

Where can I find the Armando Reveron article? (please post on my talk page) Kugelmass 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Lucas

No I don't think it was Lucas. I'm pretty sure it was our friend Rick. He was sort of chief editor of that page for a bit, and invited in some very strange friends. I don't think there is any sense at all to be got from that section. It begins with a picture of Chomsky of all people, the first two sentences are babble. Indeed the whole lot is babble. It wouldn't harm to delete the lot. One thing to note, is that the trolls only bother with the opening section. They don't seem to mind if you fiddle around with the other stuff, unless you advertise it. I've never actually tried deleting a whole section, though. Why not try?

I puzzled a bit about why sitting around and humming might not be OK, as long as it came up with the goods (e.g. chant a mantra and suddenly you have the proof of the irrationality of 2 – that would be useful). Dbuckner 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I malign our friend. Part of it was put in in a series of edits of which this is typical, in Feb 2006. A lot of the current page dates from that period. Dbuckner 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

Hi KD. I am almost certainly moving to Citizendium. There's a good community there, a number of good philosophers, and (apart from some questions I have as to whether the Ludvikus problem could theoretically occur there) seems a good home in a good area. I would very much welcome your involvement. Your writing is first class, and you have a firm grasp of areas of philosophy I have never even approached. Email me at the usual address if you have any questions. It really has got too mad here. Dbuckner 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The alternative is to persuade some of the community here that a more 'robust' approach is required. Agree with you on the point about this place is the one that gets the attention, and that it's embarrassing our subject comes out top on a hit. Dbuckner 08:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing analytic tradition

Regarding the note you placed at 16:15 on 12 Feb, (starting "pride of authorship"), if you proceed to edit, I will preserve any comments you add. I am acting as a sort of "quality management monitor", and I consider you to be a high quality editor, so proceed at will. Richiar 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental p.

Yes, that was done by the person who has an 8-digit name. I left a congratulatory message on his talk page. You see the Wiki concept does work if there is a nucleus of editors prepared to defend each other's work. Otherwise, it doesn't work so well. edward (buckner) 13:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re write sections

I agree with your remarks on the existential section. It has deteriorated greatly; although the person who re wrote it seemed to try to "improve" it, the result was to diminish its quality. Your version was much clearer, and sounded authoritative. I will consider going in and trying to take it back closer to where you had it before, if no one else does. I would need to know where you stand on issues like how much of certain philosophers belong in there, and which ones are essential and which ones, while important, are not essential. Richiar 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, see my recent remarks on the Philosophy talk page (Plato was an Idealist). It really is a lost cause. Best. edward (buckner) 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, I'm a little disheartened too, not because the Existentialist section was so precious, but because I can see it's only a matter of time before someone comes along and alters other sections I drafted just enough to make them wrong - good intentions, and all. It's a structural problem, and I expect it will affect an increasingly large number of pages now that Wikipedia has such a large audience.KD Tries Again 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)KD

[edit] David Vanian

Nice. I would never have thought of it as it seems so obvious but you're right, it's not obvious to everybody. Good shout. --Guinnog 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Handbra

Handbra has been proposed for deletion again and needs your two-fisted support. Handbra thanks you. H Bruthzoo

[edit] Existence

Hello, and thanks for taking a look at this. As you guessed, I provided much of the material for this article. Bits were indeed lifted from 'What is Existence', but I wrote this in the days when no one in WP bothered about sources or anything like that.

The main bit of work is in the sections you suggested. I know very little about the Big Germans, so I left those sections blank-ish. I do know a bit about the Meinong-Russell thing, but only from the analytic side (I did have a correspondence with Peter Simons where he sent me a paper arguing that Meinong had been misrepresented as coming out badly on the debate with Russell, and that this was a classic case of the victors re-writing history, but did not include any of this).

Could you help with the Big German issue? Also, I recognise the introduction needs some work. Difficult subject to introduce when the only real way of defining the concept is by synonyms, and where the subject area is so vast.

I have recently done some work on the medieval view, which could be included. Turns out their was a huge controversy in the 13C over a group called the intentionistae, who argued a view very similar to Meinong's, namely that a name is 'univocal' over existing things versus non-existing things. i.e. 'Caesar' means the same whether Caesar exists or not. I am working on a translation of Scotus, who is at least as obscure as Meining on the subject. Best edward (buckner) 11:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hannah Storm

I sincerely apologize. I wasn't singling you out in particular when I reinserted the lost items; it definitely grew directly out of correcting the massive vandalism campaign by some vindictive soul (and I use the term loosely) in making pornographic fun of her port-wine stain. Your deletion(s) unfortunately got caught up in my humble attempts to repair that small part of the article. I will in the future be more discretionary in reinserting old deletions, with discussions where appropriate, esp. involving those that are not vandalistic in nature (such as yours). Again, sorry; I'm still a bit new at this, and although it's not an excuse, it's an attempted explanation. Thanks for the heads up. TashTish 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More groupings

In reference to your comment of Aug 3, I didn't know there were other groupings that could be added besides "the big 4". You and edward should have priority (in my opinion) with directing the course of the article. But maybe add comments to the talk page so it can be brought up for discussion. Richiar 01:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD - Wardrobe malfunction

As an FYI, I've taken the liberty of testing community consensus on deleting Wardrobe malfunction here. Input welcomed! Achromatic (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)