This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Analytic philosophy. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Analytic philosophy Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Analytic philosophy Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
-- Ludvikus 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In essence, this is rubbish. Banno 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish in the article:
1. The first sentence is just wrong, and for two reasons. "Anglo-American" always means both British and American (as in U.S.) philosophy, and never just the philosophy of North and Central America. Furthermore, the latter region is not English speaking. In this phrase, "Anglo-" does not mean anglophone. It shares the same prefix as anglophone, "anglo-" which means English (or more loosely British).
2. The second paragraph is therefore muddled, because Anglo-American philosophy simply includes all philosophy done in England - it doesn't just have things "in common" with it. If it means that Anglo-American philosophy has things in common with, say, anglophone Australian or New Zealand philosophy, then that's true - but it might as well say so.
3. The third paragraph relies on the false and inexplicable assumptions that continental philosophy is generally Marxist, that it was not studied in the United States for that reason, and furthermore that Marxism was not studied in the United States. None of this is true.
Since every part of the stub is wrong, and the subject matter it purports to treat can readily be covered by articles on British and American philosophy, I think this article is a candidate for deletion. KD Tries Again KD
"As regards modern philosophy, I'm OK on the Anglo-American-influenced side, but I'm completely incomprehending when it comes to the Francophone stuff. I'll get going on the Classical philosophers though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)"
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In the context of a possible Editors War, and Conflict of Interest, extra care should be taken in ones editing of another's work. -- Ludvikus 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if Central America is included. For obvious reasons, Spanish-language texts may be relevant there. I'm thinking of Unamuno and Ortega y Gasset, for example. But I, personally, am otherwise ignorant of its practice there, as I'm a "Gringo." -- Ludvikus 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is unverified, and will remain so because it is a POV of the author. Ludvicus, removing a banner is a breach of etiquette. Banno 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Banno, as you are aware, there is an editors war on the Philosophy page, in which you took administrive action. Whatever that's about remains to be resolved there, or elsewhere. Here we have a related issue - namely, is there a term usage such as "Anglo-American philosopy." I say there is - it is at least a geographical distinction - Great Britain and the United States. In my opinion, it describes a place where Analytic philosophy had dominated - in the college curricula. Are you questioning that? I do not understand what you are objecting to? Could you please explain? I've read your stuff - and I belive you are very familiar with Analytic philosophy, beginning, as it does, essentially with Moore and Russell. Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 05:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Do we really, really need an article on this? We have articles on analytic and continental philosophy already, and classifying philosophy by its geographical (or racial) point of origin is at best irrelevant and at worst dubious. Rosenkreuz 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The distinction exist:
[18] Phenomenology and Allied Movements The philosophical movement which, in continental Europe, has been parallel to the analytic tradition in Britain and America goes back to Franz Brentano (1838-1917). D. W. Hamlyn, The Pelican History of Western Philosophy, 1987, p. 319
A Camel is Horse designed by a Committee,
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you insist on putting three comments here with three signatures each at a different indentation level, it looks messy. Also what is with all the stars(*) at the beginning of each line.
As to saving this article I think you are going to lose regardless of what someone else might say, there is about 7:2 against keeping it, and do not expect them to go with anything other than the majority vote, check the admins pages they just use a calculator! Its pretty sloppy but thats how it is done, it's called pop philosophy (now there's a new article for you to get started on cos its not pseudo its just popular). -- Lucas Talk 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I compliment you on your editing, it has come on alot, I only noticed three typos above. It is good to see you getting your act together, now don't be stubborn, you know that the martyr always wins in the end, just after he gets his act together. So keep the ball rolling, it is not with FT2, though he can take it if he feels like it, nor is it with Banno, who is a little frazzled at the moment (you should really stop hastling him), just keep dribbling (as they say in soccer). But it is not just Mel Etitis nor Banno who are the main guys here you must also remember the double named, Lucidish and the trying, "KD Tries again", they also pull alot of the actual stunts, they're the line backers on many of the pages and don't underestimate them, don't forget either the guy with the funny name, well a number really, 2981etc. he has them all in his back pocket and can get them vote whichever way he wants. They just wait for the other to make a move then throw him the ball. -- Lucas Talk 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Heading only-- Ludvikus 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What war? We are probably the only two reading these remarks. By war do you mean the attempted ban? But perhaps the reason you feature in that discussion of a ban is becuase you think the form of your edits is "trivial". You must remember that others have to read what you write and typos, long disjointed diatribes, etc,. seem to annoy certain people, this is what they have against you, they can point to lots of edits you do that do not conform to the usual way of talk, ie, multiple signatures (as above, one at 15:06 another at 15:16, you did not have to sign twice, you could have just put one signature and added in the extra comment above it. Also you put one comment at four levels of indent and the next at one, and added a superfluous line between them, no need for all that, it distracts and annoys people. Other than your edits of talk being too long and mutlitple etc, they have little to hold against you since insults etc. have been on both sides. Any lack of quality in your edits of article pages cannot be used to ban you since you are learning to use references and, besides, others can correct any mistakes.-- Lucas Talk 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A more detailed, but still uncontroversially comprehensive, definition is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the *conduct* of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved. (Anthony Quinton).
Take careful note of the Word conduct above. You said only your mother used that, and that your ancestors had spoken English for generations, remember? Socrates/ Ludvikus 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did, but you sometimes get carried away with specific words like conduct and schism. All I suggested was that ethics and morality were far more likely to appear in discussion of these matters. Behaviour and conduct have a more specific meaning and are more alighned perhaps with Dbuckner's kind of philosophy. He repeats himself doesn't he, a little too earnest to proclaim himself rational, is he making a feeble effort to be proud of the fact that certain emotions are missing from the world? His philosophy claims to be systematic and "rationally critical thinking". But some philosophers are systematisers others are not. Some focus on the rational, others prefer to talk about the incommensurate, the irrational. Where is the system in the philosophy of Taoism? where is the rationality in it? Why does he not just say great thinking or wonderful thinking, fantastic thinking? since he comes nowhere near telling us what rational is and it is then possible that he is just using sophist power to hope the word will sound good. Was Hamlet rational? what about Othello? Macbeth? Machiavelli? Do you think Socrates had a system and set of beliefs etc. like Dbuckner says he must have to be counted as a philosopher? But was he not the first real philosopher and had no system? -- Lucas (Talk) 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I've restored the Stub to the Clean version (I call it "Minimum"). I ask you, Lucaas, not to alter it until Mel has had a chance to make his input known. As everyone knows, I have cited Mel's use of the Expression in 2005. I hope we all listen carefully to his input. I urge everyone to read the exact quote that has been made available for your easy reference. Now Banno, I stongly object to the language which is customary at Wikipedia, but this is current coinage: " Don't be dicks". Let's end the Editor Philosophy Wars. And I hope everyone cooperates. I am certainly capable and willing to do so. And all that goes for you too, Lucaas.
Ludvikus, there are protocols for the removal of each template. Please observe them. You removed them on this edit [4]. Your allegation, here, that it was I who removed them is, shall we say, perverse. Removing the templates again will result in a block. Banno 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Here again is the dif at which you deleted the templates[ [5]] Banno 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at it again. Didn't you read what I said above? I admit having Reverted. It seems you do not follow my explanation. And it says Reverted to Clean version, or something like that. What's your problem, Banno, are you being Vindictive, a Dick, or just plain Stupid? -- Ludvikus 11:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you, User:Lucaas explain what you mean by this Quote of you given below?:
"I note the improvements made in this section recently but still it gives the impression that Analytic offers no critique of Hegel. It is given simply as some kind of instinctual "backlash against British Idealism". Now the move of Moore and Russell was also against pragmatism, and was not just a fresh start from nothing but also a return to Leibniz, mathematics, and rationalism. ---- Lucas (Talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"
What kind of explanation do you want? -- Lucas (Talk) 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"The history of philosophy is punctuated by revolts against the practices of previous philosophers and by attempts to transform philosophy into a science—a discipline in which universally recognized decision- procedures are available for testing phil- osophical theses. In Descartes, in Kant, in Hegel, in Husserl, in Wittgenstein’s Trac- tatus, and again in Wittgenstein’s Phil- osophical Investigations, one finds the same disgust at the spectacle of philosophers quarreling endlessly over the same issues. The proposed remedy for this situation typically consists in adopting a new method: for example, the method of “clear and distinct ideas” outlined in Descartes’ Regulae, Kant’s “transcendental method,” Husserl’s “bracketing,” the early Wittgen- stein’s attempt to exhibit the meaningless- ness of traditional philosophical theses by due attention to logical form, and the later Wittgenstein’s attempt to exhibit the point- lessness of these theses by diagnosing the causes of their having being propounded. In all of these revolts, the aim of the revo- lutionary is to replace opinion with knowl- edge, and to propose as the proper mean- ing of “philosophy” the accomplishment of some finite task by applying a certain set of mythological directions. -- Linguistic Turn, Recent Essays in Philosophical Method ed. & intro. by Richard Rorty
Yours truly -- Ludvikus 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
He writes nicely, no? You think he suggests philosophy has lost its way? Maybe it tries to hard to exploit the world through knowledge. At least this time you are pasting something a philosopher said and not another section from a dictionary or wikipedia. Though I recommended you not to paste lots of stuff. Anyhow, I answer to all your questions above, just look at what I said in the discussion of your ban, I was virtually the only one there suggesting that you not be banned and now you question me! Of course you are a valuable addition to discussions here and often give novel insights. -- Lucas (Talk) 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In case the decision is to use this page as a re-direct rather than delete, I have corrected the definition of the term. I honestly didn't understand the previous geographical statement (Europe without America, or something) and there's no such place as "Anglo-America". I cross my fingers and hope Lucas likes the contrast between analytic and continental which I inserted. KD Tries Again 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) KD
Well yes it is better, but the first sentence:
Is not the whole truth, the term is also associated with cultural and lingual matters and may include parts of America other than the U.S. of A. Nor is "Great Britain" a good was of covering Anglo (see above). Most Canadians do speak English after all. Otherwise we would have to rename it "Anglo-U.S. philosophy" -- Lucas (Talk)
I disagree. As I said elsewhere, I think, Anglo-American simply designates England and America, and America in this context means the United States. The term makes no reference at all to language spoken or culture. Canadians and Australians and Jamaicans are not Anglo-American. Arguably, someone of American birth doing philosophy in Spanish in the United States is. KD Tries Again 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) KD
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Analytic philosophy. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Analytic philosophy Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Analytic philosophy Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
-- Ludvikus 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In essence, this is rubbish. Banno 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish in the article:
1. The first sentence is just wrong, and for two reasons. "Anglo-American" always means both British and American (as in U.S.) philosophy, and never just the philosophy of North and Central America. Furthermore, the latter region is not English speaking. In this phrase, "Anglo-" does not mean anglophone. It shares the same prefix as anglophone, "anglo-" which means English (or more loosely British).
2. The second paragraph is therefore muddled, because Anglo-American philosophy simply includes all philosophy done in England - it doesn't just have things "in common" with it. If it means that Anglo-American philosophy has things in common with, say, anglophone Australian or New Zealand philosophy, then that's true - but it might as well say so.
3. The third paragraph relies on the false and inexplicable assumptions that continental philosophy is generally Marxist, that it was not studied in the United States for that reason, and furthermore that Marxism was not studied in the United States. None of this is true.
Since every part of the stub is wrong, and the subject matter it purports to treat can readily be covered by articles on British and American philosophy, I think this article is a candidate for deletion. KD Tries Again KD
"As regards modern philosophy, I'm OK on the Anglo-American-influenced side, but I'm completely incomprehending when it comes to the Francophone stuff. I'll get going on the Classical philosophers though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)"
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In the context of a possible Editors War, and Conflict of Interest, extra care should be taken in ones editing of another's work. -- Ludvikus 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if Central America is included. For obvious reasons, Spanish-language texts may be relevant there. I'm thinking of Unamuno and Ortega y Gasset, for example. But I, personally, am otherwise ignorant of its practice there, as I'm a "Gringo." -- Ludvikus 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is unverified, and will remain so because it is a POV of the author. Ludvicus, removing a banner is a breach of etiquette. Banno 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Banno, as you are aware, there is an editors war on the Philosophy page, in which you took administrive action. Whatever that's about remains to be resolved there, or elsewhere. Here we have a related issue - namely, is there a term usage such as "Anglo-American philosopy." I say there is - it is at least a geographical distinction - Great Britain and the United States. In my opinion, it describes a place where Analytic philosophy had dominated - in the college curricula. Are you questioning that? I do not understand what you are objecting to? Could you please explain? I've read your stuff - and I belive you are very familiar with Analytic philosophy, beginning, as it does, essentially with Moore and Russell. Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 05:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Do we really, really need an article on this? We have articles on analytic and continental philosophy already, and classifying philosophy by its geographical (or racial) point of origin is at best irrelevant and at worst dubious. Rosenkreuz 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The distinction exist:
[18] Phenomenology and Allied Movements The philosophical movement which, in continental Europe, has been parallel to the analytic tradition in Britain and America goes back to Franz Brentano (1838-1917). D. W. Hamlyn, The Pelican History of Western Philosophy, 1987, p. 319
A Camel is Horse designed by a Committee,
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you insist on putting three comments here with three signatures each at a different indentation level, it looks messy. Also what is with all the stars(*) at the beginning of each line.
As to saving this article I think you are going to lose regardless of what someone else might say, there is about 7:2 against keeping it, and do not expect them to go with anything other than the majority vote, check the admins pages they just use a calculator! Its pretty sloppy but thats how it is done, it's called pop philosophy (now there's a new article for you to get started on cos its not pseudo its just popular). -- Lucas Talk 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I compliment you on your editing, it has come on alot, I only noticed three typos above. It is good to see you getting your act together, now don't be stubborn, you know that the martyr always wins in the end, just after he gets his act together. So keep the ball rolling, it is not with FT2, though he can take it if he feels like it, nor is it with Banno, who is a little frazzled at the moment (you should really stop hastling him), just keep dribbling (as they say in soccer). But it is not just Mel Etitis nor Banno who are the main guys here you must also remember the double named, Lucidish and the trying, "KD Tries again", they also pull alot of the actual stunts, they're the line backers on many of the pages and don't underestimate them, don't forget either the guy with the funny name, well a number really, 2981etc. he has them all in his back pocket and can get them vote whichever way he wants. They just wait for the other to make a move then throw him the ball. -- Lucas Talk 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Heading only-- Ludvikus 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What war? We are probably the only two reading these remarks. By war do you mean the attempted ban? But perhaps the reason you feature in that discussion of a ban is becuase you think the form of your edits is "trivial". You must remember that others have to read what you write and typos, long disjointed diatribes, etc,. seem to annoy certain people, this is what they have against you, they can point to lots of edits you do that do not conform to the usual way of talk, ie, multiple signatures (as above, one at 15:06 another at 15:16, you did not have to sign twice, you could have just put one signature and added in the extra comment above it. Also you put one comment at four levels of indent and the next at one, and added a superfluous line between them, no need for all that, it distracts and annoys people. Other than your edits of talk being too long and mutlitple etc, they have little to hold against you since insults etc. have been on both sides. Any lack of quality in your edits of article pages cannot be used to ban you since you are learning to use references and, besides, others can correct any mistakes.-- Lucas Talk 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A more detailed, but still uncontroversially comprehensive, definition is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the *conduct* of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved. (Anthony Quinton).
Take careful note of the Word conduct above. You said only your mother used that, and that your ancestors had spoken English for generations, remember? Socrates/ Ludvikus 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did, but you sometimes get carried away with specific words like conduct and schism. All I suggested was that ethics and morality were far more likely to appear in discussion of these matters. Behaviour and conduct have a more specific meaning and are more alighned perhaps with Dbuckner's kind of philosophy. He repeats himself doesn't he, a little too earnest to proclaim himself rational, is he making a feeble effort to be proud of the fact that certain emotions are missing from the world? His philosophy claims to be systematic and "rationally critical thinking". But some philosophers are systematisers others are not. Some focus on the rational, others prefer to talk about the incommensurate, the irrational. Where is the system in the philosophy of Taoism? where is the rationality in it? Why does he not just say great thinking or wonderful thinking, fantastic thinking? since he comes nowhere near telling us what rational is and it is then possible that he is just using sophist power to hope the word will sound good. Was Hamlet rational? what about Othello? Macbeth? Machiavelli? Do you think Socrates had a system and set of beliefs etc. like Dbuckner says he must have to be counted as a philosopher? But was he not the first real philosopher and had no system? -- Lucas (Talk) 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I've restored the Stub to the Clean version (I call it "Minimum"). I ask you, Lucaas, not to alter it until Mel has had a chance to make his input known. As everyone knows, I have cited Mel's use of the Expression in 2005. I hope we all listen carefully to his input. I urge everyone to read the exact quote that has been made available for your easy reference. Now Banno, I stongly object to the language which is customary at Wikipedia, but this is current coinage: " Don't be dicks". Let's end the Editor Philosophy Wars. And I hope everyone cooperates. I am certainly capable and willing to do so. And all that goes for you too, Lucaas.
Ludvikus, there are protocols for the removal of each template. Please observe them. You removed them on this edit [4]. Your allegation, here, that it was I who removed them is, shall we say, perverse. Removing the templates again will result in a block. Banno 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Here again is the dif at which you deleted the templates[ [5]] Banno 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at it again. Didn't you read what I said above? I admit having Reverted. It seems you do not follow my explanation. And it says Reverted to Clean version, or something like that. What's your problem, Banno, are you being Vindictive, a Dick, or just plain Stupid? -- Ludvikus 11:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you, User:Lucaas explain what you mean by this Quote of you given below?:
"I note the improvements made in this section recently but still it gives the impression that Analytic offers no critique of Hegel. It is given simply as some kind of instinctual "backlash against British Idealism". Now the move of Moore and Russell was also against pragmatism, and was not just a fresh start from nothing but also a return to Leibniz, mathematics, and rationalism. ---- Lucas (Talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"
What kind of explanation do you want? -- Lucas (Talk) 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"The history of philosophy is punctuated by revolts against the practices of previous philosophers and by attempts to transform philosophy into a science—a discipline in which universally recognized decision- procedures are available for testing phil- osophical theses. In Descartes, in Kant, in Hegel, in Husserl, in Wittgenstein’s Trac- tatus, and again in Wittgenstein’s Phil- osophical Investigations, one finds the same disgust at the spectacle of philosophers quarreling endlessly over the same issues. The proposed remedy for this situation typically consists in adopting a new method: for example, the method of “clear and distinct ideas” outlined in Descartes’ Regulae, Kant’s “transcendental method,” Husserl’s “bracketing,” the early Wittgen- stein’s attempt to exhibit the meaningless- ness of traditional philosophical theses by due attention to logical form, and the later Wittgenstein’s attempt to exhibit the point- lessness of these theses by diagnosing the causes of their having being propounded. In all of these revolts, the aim of the revo- lutionary is to replace opinion with knowl- edge, and to propose as the proper mean- ing of “philosophy” the accomplishment of some finite task by applying a certain set of mythological directions. -- Linguistic Turn, Recent Essays in Philosophical Method ed. & intro. by Richard Rorty
Yours truly -- Ludvikus 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
He writes nicely, no? You think he suggests philosophy has lost its way? Maybe it tries to hard to exploit the world through knowledge. At least this time you are pasting something a philosopher said and not another section from a dictionary or wikipedia. Though I recommended you not to paste lots of stuff. Anyhow, I answer to all your questions above, just look at what I said in the discussion of your ban, I was virtually the only one there suggesting that you not be banned and now you question me! Of course you are a valuable addition to discussions here and often give novel insights. -- Lucas (Talk) 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In case the decision is to use this page as a re-direct rather than delete, I have corrected the definition of the term. I honestly didn't understand the previous geographical statement (Europe without America, or something) and there's no such place as "Anglo-America". I cross my fingers and hope Lucas likes the contrast between analytic and continental which I inserted. KD Tries Again 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) KD
Well yes it is better, but the first sentence:
Is not the whole truth, the term is also associated with cultural and lingual matters and may include parts of America other than the U.S. of A. Nor is "Great Britain" a good was of covering Anglo (see above). Most Canadians do speak English after all. Otherwise we would have to rename it "Anglo-U.S. philosophy" -- Lucas (Talk)
I disagree. As I said elsewhere, I think, Anglo-American simply designates England and America, and America in this context means the United States. The term makes no reference at all to language spoken or culture. Canadians and Australians and Jamaicans are not Anglo-American. Arguably, someone of American birth doing philosophy in Spanish in the United States is. KD Tries Again 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) KD