![]() | Analytic philosophy was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the Russian version of this article it is written that
Kant's transcendental argumentation became one of the favourite methods of reasoning for analytical philosophers...
This sounds strange for me because I would expect that analytical philosophy has critical views on Kant's style of reasoning. I think this must be a mistake. Can anybody clarify this? Eozhik ( talk) 19:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
И. Кант, трансцендентальная аргументация которого стала для философов-аналитиков одним из излюбленных приемов рассуждения и доказательства
Analytic Philosophy begins in 1900. Kant was a modern era philosophy. - Atfyfe ( talk) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Social Constructivism and Cognitive Relativism? How can these views, by any stretch, be called Analytic?
If the intent is to say that Philosophy of Science is no longer notably Analytic, I would heartily agree in an informal emotive sense. But without a lot of corroboration being added, such a pronouncement is quite far from encyclopedic. (To disclose a personal interest, I would love to see it proven wrong!)
198.228.228.152 ( talk) 08:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Collin237
You might think, from the way that the article is written, that Analytic Philosophy was severely antithetical to Hegel’s talk of Absolute, Three-step Dialectics, Spirit, and self-moving Notions. If so, then Analytical Philosophy would be totally avoided and shunned by a great number of academics. 173.72.111.113 ( talk) 18:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)The Honourable Ronald Adair
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Analytic philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is there a picture of Jules Vuillemin? He is not mentioned in the body of the article. 109.153.242.98 ( talk) 19:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This article says that analytic philosophy has something to do with "argumentative clarity and precision." It also says that the field is characterized by "precision and thoroughness about a specific topic, and resistance to ′imprecise or cavalier discussions of broad topics′."
But at the same time, the article warns us that "the term ′analytic philosophy′ can refer to [any] one of several things," and that many of the tenets of the school as laid out by its own founders are often rejected by its contemporary practitioners. Indeed, the article goes on to recount that "many philosophers and historians have attempted to define or describe analytic philosophy."
In other words, the term itself is neither clear nor precise. As a result, this article—and perhaps the philosophical school it describes—strikes me as imprecise to the point of cavalier. To innocent seekers of understanding who turn for recourse to Wikipedia, this article can't even provide any clear sense of what it is trying to be about. What a strange antiloop!
Sorry to break this to all you philosophers out there, but this is the kind of stuff that drives us mere mortals bonkers.— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 20:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
and I'm not bent on scolding philosophers for being less rigorous in labeling their approaches than in labeling the objects of their study. Rather than with the analytic philosophers themselves, perhaps my beef should be with those—from whatever disciplines—who have brought this article to its current state."analytic philosophy" : truck :: justification : electron ,
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Analytic philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This article is a complete mess structurally (a bulleted list and a massive blockquote in the lede—really?—and that's just for starters), to say nothing of the argument presented, which verges on incoherent. It needs to be reworked from the ground up. Nonstopdrivel ( talk) 00:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Said I would, so I did. Banno ( talk) 04:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Trossi01 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Rrobertrowan.
— Assignment last updated by RudyCarnap ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Analytic philosophy was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the Russian version of this article it is written that
Kant's transcendental argumentation became one of the favourite methods of reasoning for analytical philosophers...
This sounds strange for me because I would expect that analytical philosophy has critical views on Kant's style of reasoning. I think this must be a mistake. Can anybody clarify this? Eozhik ( talk) 19:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
И. Кант, трансцендентальная аргументация которого стала для философов-аналитиков одним из излюбленных приемов рассуждения и доказательства
Analytic Philosophy begins in 1900. Kant was a modern era philosophy. - Atfyfe ( talk) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Social Constructivism and Cognitive Relativism? How can these views, by any stretch, be called Analytic?
If the intent is to say that Philosophy of Science is no longer notably Analytic, I would heartily agree in an informal emotive sense. But without a lot of corroboration being added, such a pronouncement is quite far from encyclopedic. (To disclose a personal interest, I would love to see it proven wrong!)
198.228.228.152 ( talk) 08:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Collin237
You might think, from the way that the article is written, that Analytic Philosophy was severely antithetical to Hegel’s talk of Absolute, Three-step Dialectics, Spirit, and self-moving Notions. If so, then Analytical Philosophy would be totally avoided and shunned by a great number of academics. 173.72.111.113 ( talk) 18:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)The Honourable Ronald Adair
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Analytic philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is there a picture of Jules Vuillemin? He is not mentioned in the body of the article. 109.153.242.98 ( talk) 19:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This article says that analytic philosophy has something to do with "argumentative clarity and precision." It also says that the field is characterized by "precision and thoroughness about a specific topic, and resistance to ′imprecise or cavalier discussions of broad topics′."
But at the same time, the article warns us that "the term ′analytic philosophy′ can refer to [any] one of several things," and that many of the tenets of the school as laid out by its own founders are often rejected by its contemporary practitioners. Indeed, the article goes on to recount that "many philosophers and historians have attempted to define or describe analytic philosophy."
In other words, the term itself is neither clear nor precise. As a result, this article—and perhaps the philosophical school it describes—strikes me as imprecise to the point of cavalier. To innocent seekers of understanding who turn for recourse to Wikipedia, this article can't even provide any clear sense of what it is trying to be about. What a strange antiloop!
Sorry to break this to all you philosophers out there, but this is the kind of stuff that drives us mere mortals bonkers.— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 20:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
and I'm not bent on scolding philosophers for being less rigorous in labeling their approaches than in labeling the objects of their study. Rather than with the analytic philosophers themselves, perhaps my beef should be with those—from whatever disciplines—who have brought this article to its current state."analytic philosophy" : truck :: justification : electron ,
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Analytic philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This article is a complete mess structurally (a bulleted list and a massive blockquote in the lede—really?—and that's just for starters), to say nothing of the argument presented, which verges on incoherent. It needs to be reworked from the ground up. Nonstopdrivel ( talk) 00:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Said I would, so I did. Banno ( talk) 04:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Trossi01 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Rrobertrowan.
— Assignment last updated by RudyCarnap ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)