This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philosophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||
|
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
23:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Sources
Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 ( talk) and PatrickJWelsh ( talk). Nominated by Phlsph7 ( talk) and PatrickJWelsh ( talk) at 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philosophy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
@ PatrickJWelsh:, the fragment "are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy" seems contradictory or inconsistent to me because the prefix "meta" is used to denote a thing is beyond, above, or at a higher level while the prefix "sub" is used to denote a thing is under, below, or at a lower level. This seems to be a conflict that can be easily resolved by removing that fragment from the sentence "Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy." It makes things simpler and more clear. Correct or wrong it's unnecessary information. ProofCreature ( talk) 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@ PatrickJWelsh:, @ Phlsph7:, I disagree with you both. My argument is entirely semantics. I disagree that a word with a prefix denoting a superiority like "meta-" should be given a secondary connotation found in the word "subdisipline".
It's easy enough to remove the conflict by removing half the sentence or even just the word "subdiscipline". Additional content in the article is not required. In this situation the correction is removal, not embelishment. The following seem correct to me:
"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial."
"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy."
I have no disagreement with reflexivity, but if that's "metaphilosophy" I think the article (and, if used that way, the entire academic field) is using the wrong word for it.
Tangenially:
ProofCreature ( talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Merge this page along with Outline of philosophy 2603:7000:9200:9E00:CC00:64C1:B314:5506 ( talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I was going through the page and released the Philosophy#Western, Philosophy#Arabic–Persian, and Philosophy#Chinese subsections under the Philosophy#History section have images of a philosopher from their respective traditions, but the Philosophy#Indian and the Philosophy#Other traditions subsections do not have one.
This is a request to add an images of a philosopher from the respective traditions and to decide which philosopher or image should be added.
For the Philosophy#Indian, I believe Nagarjuna, Adi Shankara, or Swami Vivekananda would be the best as they were very influential and well known.
In Philosophy#Other traditions Japanese philosophy, African philosophy, and Indigenous American philosophy are discussed. I believe it would be the most appropriate to add a philosopher from either African philosophy or Indigenous American philosophy as the previous two traditions are not well known and Japanese philosophy is heavily influenced by both Chinese and Indian philosophy. GayaniGojo ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philosophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||
|
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
23:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Sources
Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 ( talk) and PatrickJWelsh ( talk). Nominated by Phlsph7 ( talk) and PatrickJWelsh ( talk) at 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philosophy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
@ PatrickJWelsh:, the fragment "are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy" seems contradictory or inconsistent to me because the prefix "meta" is used to denote a thing is beyond, above, or at a higher level while the prefix "sub" is used to denote a thing is under, below, or at a lower level. This seems to be a conflict that can be easily resolved by removing that fragment from the sentence "Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy." It makes things simpler and more clear. Correct or wrong it's unnecessary information. ProofCreature ( talk) 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@ PatrickJWelsh:, @ Phlsph7:, I disagree with you both. My argument is entirely semantics. I disagree that a word with a prefix denoting a superiority like "meta-" should be given a secondary connotation found in the word "subdisipline".
It's easy enough to remove the conflict by removing half the sentence or even just the word "subdiscipline". Additional content in the article is not required. In this situation the correction is removal, not embelishment. The following seem correct to me:
"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial."
"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy."
I have no disagreement with reflexivity, but if that's "metaphilosophy" I think the article (and, if used that way, the entire academic field) is using the wrong word for it.
Tangenially:
ProofCreature ( talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Merge this page along with Outline of philosophy 2603:7000:9200:9E00:CC00:64C1:B314:5506 ( talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I was going through the page and released the Philosophy#Western, Philosophy#Arabic–Persian, and Philosophy#Chinese subsections under the Philosophy#History section have images of a philosopher from their respective traditions, but the Philosophy#Indian and the Philosophy#Other traditions subsections do not have one.
This is a request to add an images of a philosopher from the respective traditions and to decide which philosopher or image should be added.
For the Philosophy#Indian, I believe Nagarjuna, Adi Shankara, or Swami Vivekananda would be the best as they were very influential and well known.
In Philosophy#Other traditions Japanese philosophy, African philosophy, and Indigenous American philosophy are discussed. I believe it would be the most appropriate to add a philosopher from either African philosophy or Indigenous American philosophy as the previous two traditions are not well known and Japanese philosophy is heavily influenced by both Chinese and Indian philosophy. GayaniGojo ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)