![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There is a problem with the editing tools. A heavily attributed and carefully written rewrite of this entry (which would have also undone the 'vandalism') was destroyed apparently since it was submitted just as the 'revert' was applied. This is a damn shame as it is not going to get written again. As it was, all I felt like doing was adding the 'see also' links. Consider this a bug report about the tools, and a complaint about the process of reverting. In general, silly edits get noticed and new people are encouraged to rewrite by their presence. Therefore, there ought to be a wait before any reversion, to see if someone else has something intelligent to say on the topic. What I had to say on it, was destroyed, and I don't care enough about this topic to write it again.
So, fix the tools.
"was destroyed apparently since it was submitted just as the 'revert' was applied..." -- do you mean someone did a "rollback"? That doesn't remove the version; rather it inserts a copy of the old version at the head of the page history. Just tested this on the sandbox. -- Tarquin 00:03 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC) Computers fail because, we people, fail and we made them. But if you do want to know about some philosophy theme you will continue to search, no matter what happend. No obstacle, can be so great that can not be reach by our minds, there is an inmense power in our capacity of reaching what is apparently out of reach. Metaphilosophy is going beyond our limitations, is expand our inteligence over any cincunstances, is not to have limits and is to be free.
The article is badly skewed. Before asking how meta-philosophy is possible, and criticizing it, it should be explained a bit better what it is.
I cannot see a single use of a philosopher outside the traditionally analytic school. Continental philosophical tradition, critical theory, and other writers, thinkers, and critics have meaningful input on this subject which merits documentation as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDSavage8 ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
"Metaphilosophy" should not have a hyphen.
The tradition within philosophy, eg. Blackwell's Metaphilosophy, the most prominent metaphilosophical journal, is to not hypenate the term and I do not know any philosphers who do hypenate "metaphilosophy".
In the secion on the so-called "linguistic" metaphilosophical stance it says, "Criticised as being vacuous and without relevance, the logical study of meaningful language is in decline in many universities." This is absolutely false. I am not someone to delve into debates about the virtues of Contintenal vs. Analytic styles of philosophy, but I don't think this is really what is at heart. The claim as stated expresses that the study of logical form and theories of meaning is in decline, which is simply not true. These form the backbone of the linguistic study of semantics, which is a rapidly growing field of study that has made major scientific advancements since the time of Chomsky. Furthermore, as a statement about philosophy it is also false. Analytic philosophy, which is associated with the "linguistic turn" is still the dominant trend throughout the English-speaking world. That means it is the trend at the very large majority of universities throughout North America, the UK, and Australia. Colin 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me like this article could use a clean-up. I'll have the necessary time to do the research but only in a month or so - if no-one else is willing at the moment. In the meantime, any suggestions?
Possible (new) categorization:
Other ideas?
Stdbrouw 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
this sentence is exceptionally murky: One of the precursors of the cybernetic meta-philosophical relativisation of philosophical systems was the Polish science-fiction writer Stanislaw Lem.
Since it was published in 1936, I have taken the liberty of chaning "post war debut" to "book". KD Tries Again 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC) KD
I've done some reordering of the article, added a few things and removed the stupid reference to linguistic philosophy as being vacuous. The article is still crummy and my additions aren't top notch themselves, but overall I think it's a improvement. Too bad few others seem to be interested in improving the article; considering that it might be a good idea to create a somewhat smaller but better article - something on my to-do list. Stdbrouw 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be a method to demark philosophy from pseudophilosophy. Otherwise what is the point of metaphilosophy? Gkochanowsky ( talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Metaphilosophy can have other points. Such as illuminating on the various uses of philosophy. Someone might find it more interesting to talk about the use of philosophy than to talk about what distinguishes philosophy (from pseudophilosophy). So I think it is a matter of choice or opinion what would be the most important business of metaphilosophy. So I wouldn't state that it is so that the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be to find a method to demarcate philosophy from pseudophilosophy.
You must mean that it doesn't make much sense to philosophize about philosophy if you do not even know what counts as philosophy and what doesn't. But I'm inclined to say you can work with the term 'philosophy' without having a precise definition in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 ( talk) 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Please come visit Talk:Definition_of_philosophy#Yet_more_merger_discussion for discussion of merging Definition of philosophy to here. Since only one article links to that page, and discussion of the merger there has thus been extremely slow, I'm trawling for more input so maybe some consensus can finally be reached there. I'm also going to place a merge proposal template on both articles, and request input from Talk:Philosophy as well. - Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The material in the article "Definition of philosophy" (which now redirects to this article) was as below
The definition of philosophy is a difficult matter, and many definitions of philosophy begin by stating its difficulty. A review of standard reference works suggests that there is a broad agreement among the philosophers who write these reference works, as to what the definition actually is.
This article lists the main points of agreement, and points of disagreement where notable. Some describe philosophy as the art of saying, not doing, talking about action, not taking action, theorizing, and not utilizing; the art of being unproductive, not productive.
==References==<!-- This section is linked from Definition of philosophy -->
The names of authors are given only where the book is not a reference work.
I've integrated the content of definition of philosophy into the body of metaphilosophy and cleaned it up a tad. It still needs tighter integration with the rest of the material here, e.g.:
Thus in the end I hope to have an outline about like so:
I'll likely be whittling away at this project for a while but anyone else feel free to jump in and help if you want... -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"There are many kinds of philosophy, dependent on the numerous human cultures. What is not controversial are the general types of problems included in philosophy."
Too dang funny. Gkochanowsky ( talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This section strikes me as being particularly weak, POV and OR, lacking citations and is largely or wholly duplicates material in the article Progress (philosophy). -- Philogo ( talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Imagine a world without philosophy, now imagine what progress it has made based on this 'world'.-- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 02:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the article really needs some direction. Most of it is about philosophy, not metaphilosophy. One does not learn much about metaphilosophy. Can anyone help? 82.247.114.156 ( talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)R Casati
No great suggestions, unfortunately, but maybe more references to existing metaphilosophical positions are in order? (I mildly disagree about metaphiloosphy being the philosophy of philosophy. Being about philosophy does not make metaphilosophy philosophical. Maybe there is nothing philosophical in metaphilosophy. Nothing of importance, but I would not be so categorical here. )
82.247.114.156 (
talk)
12:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) R. Casati
What about the philosophy of meta-philosophy? After all how can we trust meta-philosophy on philosophy if we don't study the philosophy of philosophy itself?-- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the article has multiple issues, hence the tag. First of all one should learn about the views whether philosophy is a maximal system i.e. everything about philosophy is just philosophy or not. Obviously metaphilosophy claims things to be otherwise and this particular claim should be made clear with references and examples. 195.96.229.83 ( talk) 11:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't we just end up with an endless cycle? For example the study of the philosophy of philosophy (Meta-Meta Philosophy) and the study of the philosophy on the philosophy of philosophy (Meta-Meta-Meta Philosophy), etc, thus making it pointless?-- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The article starts with suggesting that 'metaphilosophy' means a discipline about philosophy outside philosophy. "Metaphilosophy relies on the idea that it might be productive to distinguish some general pronouncements about philosophy from philosophy itself." Later in the article it says that there is no consensus whether a philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy is possible. Still, this article does use the term 'metaphilosophy' as meaning 'philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy' as is the case in this quote: " In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein wrote that there is not a metaphilosophy.[31]". But can't we just use metaphilosophy to mean 'philosophy of philosophy' leaving it a question on itself whether it is in or outside philosohy or whether there is philosophy on philosophy outside philosophy AND philosophy on philosophy inside philosophy? Or is metaphilosophy already an established term which by definition means 'philosophy of philosophy OUTSIDE philosophy'? The article refers to Rescher and suggests that he supports the idea of philosophy of philosophy OUTSIDE philosophy, is this really the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Even though the quote of Wittgenstein that opens the section on 'the methods of philosophy' literally uses the words "the methods of philosophy" I don't think the quote illuminates on the methods of philosophy. The quote just shows that Wittgenstein thinks philosophy is only 'meaningful' when it is used to attack (traditional) philosophy. So the quote shows a hostile stance to philosophy rather than explaining the methods of philosophy. I suggest removing the quote. (There is a bit too much Wittgenstein in the article anyway right?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 ( talk) 20:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see this article replicates much of the material in Philosophy , is generally written like an essay and lacks substantial citations. Maybe it should be merged?---- Snowded TALK 20:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
In a recent edit Snowded removed this citation:
with the comment
and also the Talk-page comment:
The removed source begins:
It proceeds to discuss the whole subject at very great length, as anyone who wishes to look at the article can see for themselves. The fact that an article about metaphilosophy uses the word metaphilosophy in its title doesn't astonish me.
In my opinion, this source is a very suitable one to answer to the "citation needed" request, and Snowded is allowing his prejudice against this entire subject (as indicated in his merge request of the above thread) to cloud his judgment in this matter. The IEP is a well-established peer-reviewed on-line journal. The source should be restored.
Any comments? Brews ohare ( talk) 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"By a metaphilosophy I mean a view of what philosophy is, what philosophy can do, and, especially, what philosophy is for"
— Richard Double, Metaphilosophy and Free Will, p. 4
"Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophizing itself. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects."
— Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialectics, an Essay on Metaphilosophy, p. 1
I don't have a lot time to properly comment on everything being discussed here, but two things I'd like to flag:
1) Given that philosophy is the object of study in metaphilosophy, I don't see how discussion about philosophy is in any way inappropriate to an article on this subject. In fact besides that, I don't see what else you would expect an article on this subject to discuss, except even more second-order issues about what metaphilosophy itself is and whether or not it exists.
On a related note 2) Snowded, you seem to assume (or assume that this article assumes) that metaphilosophy is not itself a part of philosophy, when that is itself an open question that is mentioned in the article and not settled.
In my view the purpose of this article is primarily as a place for extensive coverage of philosophical views on philosophy itself (like its definition, purpose, promise, etc) -- the subject matter of metaphilosophy -- and only secondarily for coverage of views of metaphilosophy (like whether it exists or whether it's a part of philosophy or apart from philosophy, etc). I've just made an effort to better separate those two things in the article.
Aside from this, I agree with basically everything Brews has said here. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 20:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In a recent set of about sixteen large-scale revisions on March 11,
this to
this, Snowded has completely rewritten the article
Metaphysics to suit Snowded's personal views about what this article should contain. These changes were not discussed on the Talk page, and are contrary to various views expressed there by other authors, and by sources that are no longer represented adequately. Snowded has repeatedly pursued the merging of this article with
Philosophy and repeatedly suggested that metaphysicsmetaphilosophy is a subject with no standing (at least, among the philosophers that Snowded wishes to read).
In view of the controversial nature of these changes, and the resulting complete emasculation of the subject Metaphilosophy, even to the point of refusing to let stand the simple definition of ts subject area, these changes should be reverted and, if there is reason to re-implement them, then those changes should be supported by Talk page discussion, and not simply by fiat. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I deem it imprudent to dispute the pronouncements of an Administrator in such matters, especially when advanced with certainty, without supporting argument. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware of the discussion happening at Talk:Philosophy (funny, I thought I had that on my watchlist), and that Snowded came here because Brews found and mentioned this article in the process of arguing there. I would like to flag, in defense against COAT allegations against this article, that this article has been here in substantially identical form to how Snowded found it for much, much longer than Brews has been editing it, and is in fact based in large part on one of the first Wikipedia articles, Definition of philosophy, which coexisted with the original draft of Philosophy just fine. So it's not like this article was created as an "alternative" version of content already covered at Philosophy to try to avoid having to be neutral there or anything; it's about a completely different subject altogether, and always has been.
The article Philosophy mostly discusses the subject matter of philosophy, not philosophy as a subject matter: it's an overview of the kinds of problems discussed in philosophy and the kinds of answers proposed to those problems and the people and schools and movements who have put forth those answers and so on. It does not say a lot about what the bulk of this article was before Snowded gutted it: what is philosophy, how is it defined, what differentiates it from other practices, what are its aims, its methods, can it make progress and if so how and what does that look like, etc. If my memory serves me, there used to be some more content on that there, but when it began to expand the consensus was that that wasn't the subject of that article, and discussion of philosophy as an object of study itself didn't belong there, and was more appropriate for this article or definition of philosophy (which was subsequently merged here).
If that consensus has changed and the editors at Philosophy want to fill that article out with all the material that is or was here -- definitional and demarcation problems, aims, methods, and progress, etc -- I would be amenable to that. My only objection is to attempts to remove all such content from Wikipedia entirely. Whether under the name "metaphilosophy" or not, there is substantial writing on such topics, and we have a number of articles on some of them already ( Philosophical progress, Philosophical method, etc).
Basically, I would not have any objection to moving content from here to Philosophy -- though I suspect that other editors there would object, because I recall that they did before and pushed it over here instead. What I object to is the wholesale deletion of material that is not covered elsewhere, contrary to Snowded's repeated assertions. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
For extra clarity, here are the several editorial questions I'm trying to keep separate, and my thoughts on them:
My concern is that objections to the quality of the coverage we have and the article name "Metaphilosophy" are leading to actions that effectively remove coverage of this topic from Wikipedia entirely, and that is what I am concerned with preventing. Provided that we are covering it somewhere, I am very amenable to attempts to improve coverage. But merely deleting everything is not acceptable. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 21:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Snowded: Sigh right back at you. We could begin by defining the subject as the discussion of What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? instead of the present beginning:
Metaphilosophy is not one approach; it is very simply the subject of "philosophising about philosophy". How about making that change? Brews ohare ( talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope these definitions might prove helpful in providing a more suitable introductory sentence for metaphilosophy inasmuch as Snowded has removed an earlier proposal. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that Snowded's objections to treating 'metaphilosophy' as another term for the 'philosophy of philosophy' stems from his awareness of the objection by Williamson that the term 'metaphilosophy' seems to carry the connotation of some higher form of discipline that can comment from some more abstract platform upon the conduct of philosophy. Some authors may see things that way, but it does not appear to be the common view of the term 'metaphilosophy'. There are two ways to handle this matter: (i) Rename the article 'philosophy of philosophy' with a redirect from 'metaphilosophy' or (ii) provide a brief discussion of various meanings of 'metaphilosophy' in a subsequent paragraph, pointing out that it is part of philosophy, not some new breed of cat. To hold the entire article hostage to this piddling difference of views is silly. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've created a draft page of some introductory material for such an article here. Please feel free to do with it what you wish. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Philosophy of philosophy is the subject of philosophizing about philosophy. That is, it discusses questions such as: "What is philosophy?", "How should philosophy be done?", and "What is philosophy for?" This subject runs into some initial difficulties concerning its depth and degree of abstraction:
"When we ask, "What is philosophy?" then we are speaking about philosophy. By asking in this way we are obviously taking a stand above and, therefore, outside of philosophy. But the aim of our question is to enter into philosophy, to tarry in it, to conduct ourselves in its manner, that is, to "philosophize". The path of our discussion must, therefore, not only have a clear direction, but this direction must at the same time give us the guarantee that we are moving within philosophy and not outside of it and around it." [1]
— Martin Heidegger, Was Ist Das--die Philosophie? p. 21
An alternative term is metaphilosophy, although this designation is not universally adopted, and does have other interpretations. [2]
The philosophy of philosophy attempts to segregate some general pronouncements about philosophy, putting them into a separate part of philosophy. Historically, philosophy has a long tradition of discussing its own traditions, its opponents and its history, without this distinction. Some cautions in undertaking the study of philosophy as a branch of philosophy were pointed out above in the comments of Heidegger. The same points were raised by Wittgenstein:
"One might think: if philosophy speaks of the use of the word "philosophy" there must be a second-order philosophy. But it is not so: it is, rather, like the case of orthography, which deals with the word "orthography" among others without then being second-order." [3]
— Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, paragraph 121
Some philosophers employ the term metaphilosophy to refer to the philosophy of philosophy, adopting the traditional use of the prefix "meta" to mean about.... Others find this term too easily can be taken to imply the 'second-order' philosophy denied by Wittgenstein.
For example, Williamson prefers the term 'philosophy of philosophy' so as to emphasize that what is discussed in 'metaphilosophy' is still philosophy:
"I also rejected the word “metaphilosophy.” The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy, just as the philosophy of anything else is, whereas metaphilosophy sounds as though it might try to look down on philosophy from above, or beyond." [4]
— Timothy Williamson, The philosophy of philosophy, Preface, p.ix
Nonetheless, other philosophers such as Nicholas Rescher [5] or Richard Double [6] have adopted the term. [7] Presenting research on general philosophical principles, Rescher's book begins with his view on metaphilosophy:
"Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophizing itself. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects." [5]
— Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialectics, an Essay on Metaphilosophy, p. 1
As pointed out by Griswold, the term 'metaphilosophy' is of recent origin:
"The term metaphilosophy is a recent invention. It seems to have been coined by, not surprisingly, a follower of the later Wittgenstein, in order to refer to the "investigation of the nature of philosophy, ..." [8]
— Charles L. Griswold Jr., Platonic Writings/Platonic Readings, p. 144
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
Above is simply a proposal for a beginning to a page 'philosophy of philosophy' to initiate consideration of moving metaphilosophy to a less contentious title. Brews ohare ( talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
We're not supposed to have one-sentence leads, so I'd like to restore my edit unless there are strong objections. [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the distinction I was trying to call attention to earlier has been largely ignored.
Is the objection simply to naming this article "Metaphilosophy"? If so, propose the article be renamed to a more neutral title.
As it was before Snowded came along, this article was predominantly about the subject which is (contentiously) referred to as "metaphilosophy", not about the use of the term metaphilosophy to refer to that subject. It is now being turned into an article about the term, and the material on the actual subject named thus is being largely destroyed. I contend that that is WP:COAT, not what Snowded accused before.
The article titled "Philosophy" does not discuss the subject which this article was about. That article discusses things like epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics -- the subject matter which is termed "philosophy". It barely discusses philosophy as an object itself. This article did. That's what this article was about. Not the term. Arguments about the term are now overtaking the article about the thing thus termed, and that is destroying the article.
Please, keep these things separate. I'll list them again:
Please stop trying to turn this article into one on the term "Metaphilosophy", when it was never any such thing to begin with, and ignoring the subject which the term "Metaphilosophy" names. Argue about the quality of our material on that subject. Argue about the appropriate name of the subject. Argue that this should be a section at Philosophy instead (but I expect resistance from editors there). But don't just delete all coverage of the subject under false claims that it's already covered elsewhere or is off-topic for the article. If you want this article deleted (and replaced with one about the term "Metaphilosophy"), at least be open about it and admit "no" to question #1 above. Otherwise, you should be talking about moving the article, or creating a new section at Philosophy, rather than what is happening here.
-- Pfhorrest ( talk) 02:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how helpful or not this will be, but I thought I'd draw attention to the fact that User:Philogo once populated this page with a huge number of quotes from primary sources which he thought were relevant to the subject, which were subsequently archived at Talk:Metaphilosophy/quotations. Again, not sure what relevance that may be, but in case it is... -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Also for reference in the above discussions, Talk:Philosophy/Archive_24 through Talk:Philosophy/Archive_28 contain discussions by editors at Talk:Philosophy about bringing metaphilosophical issues (e.g. regarding the definition of philosophy) to that article, and the push to move discussion of such issues here instead. I believe this should discourage attempts to merge this article into Philosophy, but should not necessarily discourage a renaming of this article to another title if "Metaphilosophy" is an objectionable title for this subject. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The above is presented as the definition of metaphilosophy. It is not. It is one possible definition, but there are others with different meanings, and this one is not the most common one. The cited article in the journal Metaphilosophy is not available without subscription, so it is difficult to say whether this remark is taken out of context. However the citation Contemporary Metaphilosophy] says in its two introductory sentences (emphasis added):
A summary of other possibilities is provided in Contemporary Metaphilosophy:
The chosen definition is not the most commonly used, and it contradicts the definitions presented in published books with open access found here on this Talk page. Moreover, it contradicts the position of Heidegger:
and Williamson:
and of Wittgenstein. Brews ohare ( talk) 04:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently I do have the privileges to move this article even though a redirect back here already existed at the new name. I have been bold and done so.
This is intended to broaden, not narrow, the scope of this article; to deflect the unnecessary conflict about the term "metaphilosophy" and focus on the philosophy of philosophy, whether it be called "metaphilosophy" or not. This is not intended to take any position on whether or not "metaphilosophy" is an appropriate name for the subject, or on whether the subject is a first-order form of philosophy simpliciter, or some kind of second-order activity beyond or above ordinary philosophy. The article should not take a position on any of those issues, though it should discuss them and give a neutral treatment of the different positions on them. But the bulk of this article should discuss the matters covered by philosophy of philosophy, whether under the name of "metaphilosophy" or not, and whether considering such matters as approaching philosophy from within or without. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 09:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Snowded, please pay closer attention to what you are doing, both with this in particular and your editing pattern at this article in general. I get the overall impression that this is a fight you were having with Brews (I've recently had one of them myself so I sympathize) at Talk:Philosophy spilling over to here with an eye to "win" rather than a calm approach to understanding the material and improving our coverage of it. Please, slow down, read, listen, and think. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This section is very scattered and partial in nature. I suggest we combine into a paragraph and have the main articles in the "linked" list at the bottom? ---- Snowded TALK 07:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
In the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, Nichols Joll has a section called "Defining Metaphilosophy. In this discussion he explains why the 'philosophy of philosophy' approach interpreted as one that "applies the method(s) of philosophy to philosophy itself" is inadequate to cover the field. He then goes on to discuss the view "whereby metaphilosophy is investigation of the nature (and point) of philosophy". He says that this definition, while broader than the first, may be too broad: "there is a sense in which it is too broad. For ‘investigation of the nature of philosophy’ suggests that any inquiry into philosophy will count as metaphilosophical, whereas an inquiry tends to be deemed metaphilosophical only when it pertains to the essence, or very nature, of philosophy."
All in all, Joll provides a very complete and extensive view of the range of ideas that comprise metaphilosophy.
The summary statement " Joll suggests that "‘meta’ can mean not only about but also after" in which case metaphilosophy is post-philosophy" is defective in several ways: it does not express the breadth of Joll' considerations, and it introduces the technical term "post-philosophy" for which no basis has been laid.
The one-line editorial comment "that is the unique in Joll,otherwise he describes all positions he does not assert one" is cryptic to me. A reading of Joll certainly indicates that he endorses a broad view of the term "metaphilosophy", one that includes but extends beyond Heidegger's and includes also Moser's. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This paragraph has been deleted and restored several times, and is presently deleted:
I admit that I was having trouble organizing this paragraph logically into the Limits section, so I'm not just going to restore it, but it seems notable information that there are sources commenting on the usefulness or uselessness of etymology in defining the subject. Just giving the etymology is pointless without that, and us claiming that it is useless ourselves, obvious though that may seem to some, would be equally pointless. But if some sources actually do give the etymology as a definition, and others decry its uselessness, that seems at least worth a mention, and this paragraph claims to have sourced assertions of both those things, so pending verification of that sourcing I think it deserves a place in the Limits section. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
References
As pointed out earlier on this talk page, the term post-philosophy as used by Joll has not been explained in Metaphilosophy so a sentence using this word is not clear. Joll uses the term Post-Analytic Philosophy to refer to some current opinions due to Richard Rorty; Hilary Putnam; Robert Brandom; John McDowell and Stanley Cavell. If this is the topic to be designated by post-philosophy, it clearly needs a separate section as done by Joll in his article.
On the other hand, Joll also refers to post-philosophy as follows. In the section Defining metaphilosophy he says:
This remark is followed later by the remark:
in which I take "the equation of" to mean simply "equating". What is meant by the 'heirs' of philosophy? Unfortunately Lazerowitz is not available without subscription. However, we have this:
Basically the Wittgenstein reference by Joll appears to refer to the ideas of Wittgenstein that the philosophy extant before his contributions was now "dead", and the new era of "post"-philosophy had begun. Some call this Wittgenstein's "antiphilosophy".
Joll's reference to Elden ( Understanding Henri Lefebvre) refers to "Heidegger's fundamental ontology - the project of Being and Time - but closer to his later thought of the Uberwinden, the overcoming of metaphysics. A quote from Lefebvre reads:
Elton goes on to say: "Lefebvre's notion of metaphilosophy seeks to remedy this: "it answers the question of the philosophers and yet it is no longer philosophy."
Apparently then, metaphilosophy in the sense of post-philosophy by Joll is meant to refer to the notion of meta in the sense of a theory replacing philosophy, a metatheory, a discipline over and above philosophy itself. Brews ohare ( talk) 12:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In this edit Snowded removed the following remark:
His reason is given as: rv unreferenced personal opinion.
It's fair to say the removed statement is unreferenced, but to suggest that it is simply a "personal opinion" needing further support is ludicrous. There is no philosopher that would disagree with this remark, as is fully evident from the few sentences (fully sourced) that precede it in the lead. Its purpose here is very simply to underline the fact that meta-philosophy is not to be confused with philosophy proper and its classical sub-fields, a confusion that can result from skimming over the introduction, as shown by some confusion expressed in the RfC underway on Talk:Philosophy here. Brews ohare ( talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The following paragraph seems to capture the idea of 'metaphilosophy' rather simply for the average (non-philosophical) reader:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I suggest it be added somewhere in the introduction as an easier and less dry approach to the subject that makes clear what 'mataphilosophy' is about. It is similar to the introduction to the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, which begins:
This choice indicates that Nicholas Joll also thinks this is a good approach for an introduction. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"Or, worst of all: 'What is philosophy?' Most students and practitioners of philosophy, we suspect, have felt something of the unease Ayer expresses in this quote... Indeed, this conception of philosophers and philosophy has long been lampooned... That people have misconceptions about what philosophy is and what philosophers do is not peculiar to Philosophy. Some people don’t know ... about the astronomer’s profession. What may be peculiar to philosophy, however, is its practitioners’ feeling that the request for clarification is, as Ayer puts it, the ‘worst of all’ — worse than the common misunderstandings... The astronomer might well become irritated by requests for horoscopes, but, again, he will hardly experience the embarrassment so well known to the philosopher... It is no easy matter to explain what we do... it isn't obviously the case that there is a particular region of objects... that philosophers make it their special business to study... what philosophers actually do seems hard to communicate expect by getting people to do some philosophising themselves... Partly, however, our embarrassment at the question of what we do may also reflect the fact that, to put this a bit provocatively, we do not know." [R 1]
— Overgaard, Gilbert and Burwood, An Introduction to Metaphilosophy
62.168.13.98 ( talk) 14:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metaphilosophy. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.southernct.edu/departments/philosophy/metaphilosophy.htmlWhen 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) 17:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
-Just found this Metaphilosophy article in Wikipedia; (editors) could change the first two "philosophy" descriptions in this Metaphilosophy article and the
Philosophy article, and make them the same-please, thanks...
Arnlodg (
talk)
22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=R>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=R}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There is a problem with the editing tools. A heavily attributed and carefully written rewrite of this entry (which would have also undone the 'vandalism') was destroyed apparently since it was submitted just as the 'revert' was applied. This is a damn shame as it is not going to get written again. As it was, all I felt like doing was adding the 'see also' links. Consider this a bug report about the tools, and a complaint about the process of reverting. In general, silly edits get noticed and new people are encouraged to rewrite by their presence. Therefore, there ought to be a wait before any reversion, to see if someone else has something intelligent to say on the topic. What I had to say on it, was destroyed, and I don't care enough about this topic to write it again.
So, fix the tools.
"was destroyed apparently since it was submitted just as the 'revert' was applied..." -- do you mean someone did a "rollback"? That doesn't remove the version; rather it inserts a copy of the old version at the head of the page history. Just tested this on the sandbox. -- Tarquin 00:03 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC) Computers fail because, we people, fail and we made them. But if you do want to know about some philosophy theme you will continue to search, no matter what happend. No obstacle, can be so great that can not be reach by our minds, there is an inmense power in our capacity of reaching what is apparently out of reach. Metaphilosophy is going beyond our limitations, is expand our inteligence over any cincunstances, is not to have limits and is to be free.
The article is badly skewed. Before asking how meta-philosophy is possible, and criticizing it, it should be explained a bit better what it is.
I cannot see a single use of a philosopher outside the traditionally analytic school. Continental philosophical tradition, critical theory, and other writers, thinkers, and critics have meaningful input on this subject which merits documentation as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDSavage8 ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
"Metaphilosophy" should not have a hyphen.
The tradition within philosophy, eg. Blackwell's Metaphilosophy, the most prominent metaphilosophical journal, is to not hypenate the term and I do not know any philosphers who do hypenate "metaphilosophy".
In the secion on the so-called "linguistic" metaphilosophical stance it says, "Criticised as being vacuous and without relevance, the logical study of meaningful language is in decline in many universities." This is absolutely false. I am not someone to delve into debates about the virtues of Contintenal vs. Analytic styles of philosophy, but I don't think this is really what is at heart. The claim as stated expresses that the study of logical form and theories of meaning is in decline, which is simply not true. These form the backbone of the linguistic study of semantics, which is a rapidly growing field of study that has made major scientific advancements since the time of Chomsky. Furthermore, as a statement about philosophy it is also false. Analytic philosophy, which is associated with the "linguistic turn" is still the dominant trend throughout the English-speaking world. That means it is the trend at the very large majority of universities throughout North America, the UK, and Australia. Colin 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me like this article could use a clean-up. I'll have the necessary time to do the research but only in a month or so - if no-one else is willing at the moment. In the meantime, any suggestions?
Possible (new) categorization:
Other ideas?
Stdbrouw 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
this sentence is exceptionally murky: One of the precursors of the cybernetic meta-philosophical relativisation of philosophical systems was the Polish science-fiction writer Stanislaw Lem.
Since it was published in 1936, I have taken the liberty of chaning "post war debut" to "book". KD Tries Again 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC) KD
I've done some reordering of the article, added a few things and removed the stupid reference to linguistic philosophy as being vacuous. The article is still crummy and my additions aren't top notch themselves, but overall I think it's a improvement. Too bad few others seem to be interested in improving the article; considering that it might be a good idea to create a somewhat smaller but better article - something on my to-do list. Stdbrouw 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be a method to demark philosophy from pseudophilosophy. Otherwise what is the point of metaphilosophy? Gkochanowsky ( talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Metaphilosophy can have other points. Such as illuminating on the various uses of philosophy. Someone might find it more interesting to talk about the use of philosophy than to talk about what distinguishes philosophy (from pseudophilosophy). So I think it is a matter of choice or opinion what would be the most important business of metaphilosophy. So I wouldn't state that it is so that the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be to find a method to demarcate philosophy from pseudophilosophy.
You must mean that it doesn't make much sense to philosophize about philosophy if you do not even know what counts as philosophy and what doesn't. But I'm inclined to say you can work with the term 'philosophy' without having a precise definition in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 ( talk) 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Please come visit Talk:Definition_of_philosophy#Yet_more_merger_discussion for discussion of merging Definition of philosophy to here. Since only one article links to that page, and discussion of the merger there has thus been extremely slow, I'm trawling for more input so maybe some consensus can finally be reached there. I'm also going to place a merge proposal template on both articles, and request input from Talk:Philosophy as well. - Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The material in the article "Definition of philosophy" (which now redirects to this article) was as below
The definition of philosophy is a difficult matter, and many definitions of philosophy begin by stating its difficulty. A review of standard reference works suggests that there is a broad agreement among the philosophers who write these reference works, as to what the definition actually is.
This article lists the main points of agreement, and points of disagreement where notable. Some describe philosophy as the art of saying, not doing, talking about action, not taking action, theorizing, and not utilizing; the art of being unproductive, not productive.
==References==<!-- This section is linked from Definition of philosophy -->
The names of authors are given only where the book is not a reference work.
I've integrated the content of definition of philosophy into the body of metaphilosophy and cleaned it up a tad. It still needs tighter integration with the rest of the material here, e.g.:
Thus in the end I hope to have an outline about like so:
I'll likely be whittling away at this project for a while but anyone else feel free to jump in and help if you want... -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"There are many kinds of philosophy, dependent on the numerous human cultures. What is not controversial are the general types of problems included in philosophy."
Too dang funny. Gkochanowsky ( talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This section strikes me as being particularly weak, POV and OR, lacking citations and is largely or wholly duplicates material in the article Progress (philosophy). -- Philogo ( talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Imagine a world without philosophy, now imagine what progress it has made based on this 'world'.-- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 02:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the article really needs some direction. Most of it is about philosophy, not metaphilosophy. One does not learn much about metaphilosophy. Can anyone help? 82.247.114.156 ( talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)R Casati
No great suggestions, unfortunately, but maybe more references to existing metaphilosophical positions are in order? (I mildly disagree about metaphiloosphy being the philosophy of philosophy. Being about philosophy does not make metaphilosophy philosophical. Maybe there is nothing philosophical in metaphilosophy. Nothing of importance, but I would not be so categorical here. )
82.247.114.156 (
talk)
12:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) R. Casati
What about the philosophy of meta-philosophy? After all how can we trust meta-philosophy on philosophy if we don't study the philosophy of philosophy itself?-- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the article has multiple issues, hence the tag. First of all one should learn about the views whether philosophy is a maximal system i.e. everything about philosophy is just philosophy or not. Obviously metaphilosophy claims things to be otherwise and this particular claim should be made clear with references and examples. 195.96.229.83 ( talk) 11:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't we just end up with an endless cycle? For example the study of the philosophy of philosophy (Meta-Meta Philosophy) and the study of the philosophy on the philosophy of philosophy (Meta-Meta-Meta Philosophy), etc, thus making it pointless?-- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The article starts with suggesting that 'metaphilosophy' means a discipline about philosophy outside philosophy. "Metaphilosophy relies on the idea that it might be productive to distinguish some general pronouncements about philosophy from philosophy itself." Later in the article it says that there is no consensus whether a philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy is possible. Still, this article does use the term 'metaphilosophy' as meaning 'philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy' as is the case in this quote: " In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein wrote that there is not a metaphilosophy.[31]". But can't we just use metaphilosophy to mean 'philosophy of philosophy' leaving it a question on itself whether it is in or outside philosohy or whether there is philosophy on philosophy outside philosophy AND philosophy on philosophy inside philosophy? Or is metaphilosophy already an established term which by definition means 'philosophy of philosophy OUTSIDE philosophy'? The article refers to Rescher and suggests that he supports the idea of philosophy of philosophy OUTSIDE philosophy, is this really the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Even though the quote of Wittgenstein that opens the section on 'the methods of philosophy' literally uses the words "the methods of philosophy" I don't think the quote illuminates on the methods of philosophy. The quote just shows that Wittgenstein thinks philosophy is only 'meaningful' when it is used to attack (traditional) philosophy. So the quote shows a hostile stance to philosophy rather than explaining the methods of philosophy. I suggest removing the quote. (There is a bit too much Wittgenstein in the article anyway right?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 ( talk) 20:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see this article replicates much of the material in Philosophy , is generally written like an essay and lacks substantial citations. Maybe it should be merged?---- Snowded TALK 20:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
In a recent edit Snowded removed this citation:
with the comment
and also the Talk-page comment:
The removed source begins:
It proceeds to discuss the whole subject at very great length, as anyone who wishes to look at the article can see for themselves. The fact that an article about metaphilosophy uses the word metaphilosophy in its title doesn't astonish me.
In my opinion, this source is a very suitable one to answer to the "citation needed" request, and Snowded is allowing his prejudice against this entire subject (as indicated in his merge request of the above thread) to cloud his judgment in this matter. The IEP is a well-established peer-reviewed on-line journal. The source should be restored.
Any comments? Brews ohare ( talk) 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"By a metaphilosophy I mean a view of what philosophy is, what philosophy can do, and, especially, what philosophy is for"
— Richard Double, Metaphilosophy and Free Will, p. 4
"Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophizing itself. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects."
— Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialectics, an Essay on Metaphilosophy, p. 1
I don't have a lot time to properly comment on everything being discussed here, but two things I'd like to flag:
1) Given that philosophy is the object of study in metaphilosophy, I don't see how discussion about philosophy is in any way inappropriate to an article on this subject. In fact besides that, I don't see what else you would expect an article on this subject to discuss, except even more second-order issues about what metaphilosophy itself is and whether or not it exists.
On a related note 2) Snowded, you seem to assume (or assume that this article assumes) that metaphilosophy is not itself a part of philosophy, when that is itself an open question that is mentioned in the article and not settled.
In my view the purpose of this article is primarily as a place for extensive coverage of philosophical views on philosophy itself (like its definition, purpose, promise, etc) -- the subject matter of metaphilosophy -- and only secondarily for coverage of views of metaphilosophy (like whether it exists or whether it's a part of philosophy or apart from philosophy, etc). I've just made an effort to better separate those two things in the article.
Aside from this, I agree with basically everything Brews has said here. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 20:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In a recent set of about sixteen large-scale revisions on March 11,
this to
this, Snowded has completely rewritten the article
Metaphysics to suit Snowded's personal views about what this article should contain. These changes were not discussed on the Talk page, and are contrary to various views expressed there by other authors, and by sources that are no longer represented adequately. Snowded has repeatedly pursued the merging of this article with
Philosophy and repeatedly suggested that metaphysicsmetaphilosophy is a subject with no standing (at least, among the philosophers that Snowded wishes to read).
In view of the controversial nature of these changes, and the resulting complete emasculation of the subject Metaphilosophy, even to the point of refusing to let stand the simple definition of ts subject area, these changes should be reverted and, if there is reason to re-implement them, then those changes should be supported by Talk page discussion, and not simply by fiat. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I deem it imprudent to dispute the pronouncements of an Administrator in such matters, especially when advanced with certainty, without supporting argument. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware of the discussion happening at Talk:Philosophy (funny, I thought I had that on my watchlist), and that Snowded came here because Brews found and mentioned this article in the process of arguing there. I would like to flag, in defense against COAT allegations against this article, that this article has been here in substantially identical form to how Snowded found it for much, much longer than Brews has been editing it, and is in fact based in large part on one of the first Wikipedia articles, Definition of philosophy, which coexisted with the original draft of Philosophy just fine. So it's not like this article was created as an "alternative" version of content already covered at Philosophy to try to avoid having to be neutral there or anything; it's about a completely different subject altogether, and always has been.
The article Philosophy mostly discusses the subject matter of philosophy, not philosophy as a subject matter: it's an overview of the kinds of problems discussed in philosophy and the kinds of answers proposed to those problems and the people and schools and movements who have put forth those answers and so on. It does not say a lot about what the bulk of this article was before Snowded gutted it: what is philosophy, how is it defined, what differentiates it from other practices, what are its aims, its methods, can it make progress and if so how and what does that look like, etc. If my memory serves me, there used to be some more content on that there, but when it began to expand the consensus was that that wasn't the subject of that article, and discussion of philosophy as an object of study itself didn't belong there, and was more appropriate for this article or definition of philosophy (which was subsequently merged here).
If that consensus has changed and the editors at Philosophy want to fill that article out with all the material that is or was here -- definitional and demarcation problems, aims, methods, and progress, etc -- I would be amenable to that. My only objection is to attempts to remove all such content from Wikipedia entirely. Whether under the name "metaphilosophy" or not, there is substantial writing on such topics, and we have a number of articles on some of them already ( Philosophical progress, Philosophical method, etc).
Basically, I would not have any objection to moving content from here to Philosophy -- though I suspect that other editors there would object, because I recall that they did before and pushed it over here instead. What I object to is the wholesale deletion of material that is not covered elsewhere, contrary to Snowded's repeated assertions. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
For extra clarity, here are the several editorial questions I'm trying to keep separate, and my thoughts on them:
My concern is that objections to the quality of the coverage we have and the article name "Metaphilosophy" are leading to actions that effectively remove coverage of this topic from Wikipedia entirely, and that is what I am concerned with preventing. Provided that we are covering it somewhere, I am very amenable to attempts to improve coverage. But merely deleting everything is not acceptable. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 21:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Snowded: Sigh right back at you. We could begin by defining the subject as the discussion of What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? instead of the present beginning:
Metaphilosophy is not one approach; it is very simply the subject of "philosophising about philosophy". How about making that change? Brews ohare ( talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope these definitions might prove helpful in providing a more suitable introductory sentence for metaphilosophy inasmuch as Snowded has removed an earlier proposal. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that Snowded's objections to treating 'metaphilosophy' as another term for the 'philosophy of philosophy' stems from his awareness of the objection by Williamson that the term 'metaphilosophy' seems to carry the connotation of some higher form of discipline that can comment from some more abstract platform upon the conduct of philosophy. Some authors may see things that way, but it does not appear to be the common view of the term 'metaphilosophy'. There are two ways to handle this matter: (i) Rename the article 'philosophy of philosophy' with a redirect from 'metaphilosophy' or (ii) provide a brief discussion of various meanings of 'metaphilosophy' in a subsequent paragraph, pointing out that it is part of philosophy, not some new breed of cat. To hold the entire article hostage to this piddling difference of views is silly. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've created a draft page of some introductory material for such an article here. Please feel free to do with it what you wish. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Philosophy of philosophy is the subject of philosophizing about philosophy. That is, it discusses questions such as: "What is philosophy?", "How should philosophy be done?", and "What is philosophy for?" This subject runs into some initial difficulties concerning its depth and degree of abstraction:
"When we ask, "What is philosophy?" then we are speaking about philosophy. By asking in this way we are obviously taking a stand above and, therefore, outside of philosophy. But the aim of our question is to enter into philosophy, to tarry in it, to conduct ourselves in its manner, that is, to "philosophize". The path of our discussion must, therefore, not only have a clear direction, but this direction must at the same time give us the guarantee that we are moving within philosophy and not outside of it and around it." [1]
— Martin Heidegger, Was Ist Das--die Philosophie? p. 21
An alternative term is metaphilosophy, although this designation is not universally adopted, and does have other interpretations. [2]
The philosophy of philosophy attempts to segregate some general pronouncements about philosophy, putting them into a separate part of philosophy. Historically, philosophy has a long tradition of discussing its own traditions, its opponents and its history, without this distinction. Some cautions in undertaking the study of philosophy as a branch of philosophy were pointed out above in the comments of Heidegger. The same points were raised by Wittgenstein:
"One might think: if philosophy speaks of the use of the word "philosophy" there must be a second-order philosophy. But it is not so: it is, rather, like the case of orthography, which deals with the word "orthography" among others without then being second-order." [3]
— Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, paragraph 121
Some philosophers employ the term metaphilosophy to refer to the philosophy of philosophy, adopting the traditional use of the prefix "meta" to mean about.... Others find this term too easily can be taken to imply the 'second-order' philosophy denied by Wittgenstein.
For example, Williamson prefers the term 'philosophy of philosophy' so as to emphasize that what is discussed in 'metaphilosophy' is still philosophy:
"I also rejected the word “metaphilosophy.” The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy, just as the philosophy of anything else is, whereas metaphilosophy sounds as though it might try to look down on philosophy from above, or beyond." [4]
— Timothy Williamson, The philosophy of philosophy, Preface, p.ix
Nonetheless, other philosophers such as Nicholas Rescher [5] or Richard Double [6] have adopted the term. [7] Presenting research on general philosophical principles, Rescher's book begins with his view on metaphilosophy:
"Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophizing itself. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects." [5]
— Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialectics, an Essay on Metaphilosophy, p. 1
As pointed out by Griswold, the term 'metaphilosophy' is of recent origin:
"The term metaphilosophy is a recent invention. It seems to have been coined by, not surprisingly, a follower of the later Wittgenstein, in order to refer to the "investigation of the nature of philosophy, ..." [8]
— Charles L. Griswold Jr., Platonic Writings/Platonic Readings, p. 144
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
Above is simply a proposal for a beginning to a page 'philosophy of philosophy' to initiate consideration of moving metaphilosophy to a less contentious title. Brews ohare ( talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
We're not supposed to have one-sentence leads, so I'd like to restore my edit unless there are strong objections. [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the distinction I was trying to call attention to earlier has been largely ignored.
Is the objection simply to naming this article "Metaphilosophy"? If so, propose the article be renamed to a more neutral title.
As it was before Snowded came along, this article was predominantly about the subject which is (contentiously) referred to as "metaphilosophy", not about the use of the term metaphilosophy to refer to that subject. It is now being turned into an article about the term, and the material on the actual subject named thus is being largely destroyed. I contend that that is WP:COAT, not what Snowded accused before.
The article titled "Philosophy" does not discuss the subject which this article was about. That article discusses things like epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics -- the subject matter which is termed "philosophy". It barely discusses philosophy as an object itself. This article did. That's what this article was about. Not the term. Arguments about the term are now overtaking the article about the thing thus termed, and that is destroying the article.
Please, keep these things separate. I'll list them again:
Please stop trying to turn this article into one on the term "Metaphilosophy", when it was never any such thing to begin with, and ignoring the subject which the term "Metaphilosophy" names. Argue about the quality of our material on that subject. Argue about the appropriate name of the subject. Argue that this should be a section at Philosophy instead (but I expect resistance from editors there). But don't just delete all coverage of the subject under false claims that it's already covered elsewhere or is off-topic for the article. If you want this article deleted (and replaced with one about the term "Metaphilosophy"), at least be open about it and admit "no" to question #1 above. Otherwise, you should be talking about moving the article, or creating a new section at Philosophy, rather than what is happening here.
-- Pfhorrest ( talk) 02:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how helpful or not this will be, but I thought I'd draw attention to the fact that User:Philogo once populated this page with a huge number of quotes from primary sources which he thought were relevant to the subject, which were subsequently archived at Talk:Metaphilosophy/quotations. Again, not sure what relevance that may be, but in case it is... -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Also for reference in the above discussions, Talk:Philosophy/Archive_24 through Talk:Philosophy/Archive_28 contain discussions by editors at Talk:Philosophy about bringing metaphilosophical issues (e.g. regarding the definition of philosophy) to that article, and the push to move discussion of such issues here instead. I believe this should discourage attempts to merge this article into Philosophy, but should not necessarily discourage a renaming of this article to another title if "Metaphilosophy" is an objectionable title for this subject. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The above is presented as the definition of metaphilosophy. It is not. It is one possible definition, but there are others with different meanings, and this one is not the most common one. The cited article in the journal Metaphilosophy is not available without subscription, so it is difficult to say whether this remark is taken out of context. However the citation Contemporary Metaphilosophy] says in its two introductory sentences (emphasis added):
A summary of other possibilities is provided in Contemporary Metaphilosophy:
The chosen definition is not the most commonly used, and it contradicts the definitions presented in published books with open access found here on this Talk page. Moreover, it contradicts the position of Heidegger:
and Williamson:
and of Wittgenstein. Brews ohare ( talk) 04:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently I do have the privileges to move this article even though a redirect back here already existed at the new name. I have been bold and done so.
This is intended to broaden, not narrow, the scope of this article; to deflect the unnecessary conflict about the term "metaphilosophy" and focus on the philosophy of philosophy, whether it be called "metaphilosophy" or not. This is not intended to take any position on whether or not "metaphilosophy" is an appropriate name for the subject, or on whether the subject is a first-order form of philosophy simpliciter, or some kind of second-order activity beyond or above ordinary philosophy. The article should not take a position on any of those issues, though it should discuss them and give a neutral treatment of the different positions on them. But the bulk of this article should discuss the matters covered by philosophy of philosophy, whether under the name of "metaphilosophy" or not, and whether considering such matters as approaching philosophy from within or without. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 09:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Snowded, please pay closer attention to what you are doing, both with this in particular and your editing pattern at this article in general. I get the overall impression that this is a fight you were having with Brews (I've recently had one of them myself so I sympathize) at Talk:Philosophy spilling over to here with an eye to "win" rather than a calm approach to understanding the material and improving our coverage of it. Please, slow down, read, listen, and think. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This section is very scattered and partial in nature. I suggest we combine into a paragraph and have the main articles in the "linked" list at the bottom? ---- Snowded TALK 07:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
In the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, Nichols Joll has a section called "Defining Metaphilosophy. In this discussion he explains why the 'philosophy of philosophy' approach interpreted as one that "applies the method(s) of philosophy to philosophy itself" is inadequate to cover the field. He then goes on to discuss the view "whereby metaphilosophy is investigation of the nature (and point) of philosophy". He says that this definition, while broader than the first, may be too broad: "there is a sense in which it is too broad. For ‘investigation of the nature of philosophy’ suggests that any inquiry into philosophy will count as metaphilosophical, whereas an inquiry tends to be deemed metaphilosophical only when it pertains to the essence, or very nature, of philosophy."
All in all, Joll provides a very complete and extensive view of the range of ideas that comprise metaphilosophy.
The summary statement " Joll suggests that "‘meta’ can mean not only about but also after" in which case metaphilosophy is post-philosophy" is defective in several ways: it does not express the breadth of Joll' considerations, and it introduces the technical term "post-philosophy" for which no basis has been laid.
The one-line editorial comment "that is the unique in Joll,otherwise he describes all positions he does not assert one" is cryptic to me. A reading of Joll certainly indicates that he endorses a broad view of the term "metaphilosophy", one that includes but extends beyond Heidegger's and includes also Moser's. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This paragraph has been deleted and restored several times, and is presently deleted:
I admit that I was having trouble organizing this paragraph logically into the Limits section, so I'm not just going to restore it, but it seems notable information that there are sources commenting on the usefulness or uselessness of etymology in defining the subject. Just giving the etymology is pointless without that, and us claiming that it is useless ourselves, obvious though that may seem to some, would be equally pointless. But if some sources actually do give the etymology as a definition, and others decry its uselessness, that seems at least worth a mention, and this paragraph claims to have sourced assertions of both those things, so pending verification of that sourcing I think it deserves a place in the Limits section. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 06:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
References
As pointed out earlier on this talk page, the term post-philosophy as used by Joll has not been explained in Metaphilosophy so a sentence using this word is not clear. Joll uses the term Post-Analytic Philosophy to refer to some current opinions due to Richard Rorty; Hilary Putnam; Robert Brandom; John McDowell and Stanley Cavell. If this is the topic to be designated by post-philosophy, it clearly needs a separate section as done by Joll in his article.
On the other hand, Joll also refers to post-philosophy as follows. In the section Defining metaphilosophy he says:
This remark is followed later by the remark:
in which I take "the equation of" to mean simply "equating". What is meant by the 'heirs' of philosophy? Unfortunately Lazerowitz is not available without subscription. However, we have this:
Basically the Wittgenstein reference by Joll appears to refer to the ideas of Wittgenstein that the philosophy extant before his contributions was now "dead", and the new era of "post"-philosophy had begun. Some call this Wittgenstein's "antiphilosophy".
Joll's reference to Elden ( Understanding Henri Lefebvre) refers to "Heidegger's fundamental ontology - the project of Being and Time - but closer to his later thought of the Uberwinden, the overcoming of metaphysics. A quote from Lefebvre reads:
Elton goes on to say: "Lefebvre's notion of metaphilosophy seeks to remedy this: "it answers the question of the philosophers and yet it is no longer philosophy."
Apparently then, metaphilosophy in the sense of post-philosophy by Joll is meant to refer to the notion of meta in the sense of a theory replacing philosophy, a metatheory, a discipline over and above philosophy itself. Brews ohare ( talk) 12:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In this edit Snowded removed the following remark:
His reason is given as: rv unreferenced personal opinion.
It's fair to say the removed statement is unreferenced, but to suggest that it is simply a "personal opinion" needing further support is ludicrous. There is no philosopher that would disagree with this remark, as is fully evident from the few sentences (fully sourced) that precede it in the lead. Its purpose here is very simply to underline the fact that meta-philosophy is not to be confused with philosophy proper and its classical sub-fields, a confusion that can result from skimming over the introduction, as shown by some confusion expressed in the RfC underway on Talk:Philosophy here. Brews ohare ( talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The following paragraph seems to capture the idea of 'metaphilosophy' rather simply for the average (non-philosophical) reader:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I suggest it be added somewhere in the introduction as an easier and less dry approach to the subject that makes clear what 'mataphilosophy' is about. It is similar to the introduction to the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, which begins:
This choice indicates that Nicholas Joll also thinks this is a good approach for an introduction. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"Or, worst of all: 'What is philosophy?' Most students and practitioners of philosophy, we suspect, have felt something of the unease Ayer expresses in this quote... Indeed, this conception of philosophers and philosophy has long been lampooned... That people have misconceptions about what philosophy is and what philosophers do is not peculiar to Philosophy. Some people don’t know ... about the astronomer’s profession. What may be peculiar to philosophy, however, is its practitioners’ feeling that the request for clarification is, as Ayer puts it, the ‘worst of all’ — worse than the common misunderstandings... The astronomer might well become irritated by requests for horoscopes, but, again, he will hardly experience the embarrassment so well known to the philosopher... It is no easy matter to explain what we do... it isn't obviously the case that there is a particular region of objects... that philosophers make it their special business to study... what philosophers actually do seems hard to communicate expect by getting people to do some philosophising themselves... Partly, however, our embarrassment at the question of what we do may also reflect the fact that, to put this a bit provocatively, we do not know." [R 1]
— Overgaard, Gilbert and Burwood, An Introduction to Metaphilosophy
62.168.13.98 ( talk) 14:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metaphilosophy. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.southernct.edu/departments/philosophy/metaphilosophy.htmlWhen 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) 17:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
-Just found this Metaphilosophy article in Wikipedia; (editors) could change the first two "philosophy" descriptions in this Metaphilosophy article and the
Philosophy article, and make them the same-please, thanks...
Arnlodg (
talk)
22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=R>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=R}}
template (see the
help page).