![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
In this section editors are asked to contribute in compliance with Wiki policies Be polite, No personal attacks, Assume good faith. Source all claims
Proposed contents of lede (in no particular order):
1 The etymology
2 The main 4 branches (logic, metaphysic, epistemology, ethics)
3 clear/critical/logical thinking about big/fundamental questions
4 No universal agreement about the precise definition
5 it does not rely on empirical evidence, nor on revelation or authority.
Please add polite comments on the above to the bottom of the list below.
Comments on the above:-
re 3 To avoid loose talk, endless disussion, and a result that sounds like a "puff" either drop all together the "about big/fundamental questions", part or proceed with extreme caution.
re 5 Proceed with similar caution regarding "it does not rely on empirical evidence". (Are we using the term rely carefully and precisely? If anything that made use of empirical evidence was said not to be philosophy, then we would eliminate large tranches of philosophical writing. e.g. the whole of ordinary language philosophy and most of Plato's dialogs.)
--Philogo 13:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Peter you have made claims here about philosophy which are supported by sub-pages that you created with selective quotes. Please stop trying to pretend that you are the perfect guardian of Wikipedia standards and everyone else lacks your competence. For the record I suggested Freeman as an authority if it was needed so please don't pretend that you were some how acting in a noble manner by finding one article by him. People attempt to engage with you in a process and the next thing we get is a set of patronising and inaccurate remarks. PLEASE ADDRESS THE DISCUSSION/QUESTIONS RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO ASSERT YOUR POSITION. I summarise some for you:
If you can't engage then I think we need to abandon this attempt and move into mediation -- Snowded ( talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Taking the above discussions into account, using Peter's wording as a base, how about this. I moved the branches into the explanation to avoid making a statement on a priori. Given the use of reason I combined the reference to logic. I removed religion, as some approaches in the history or philosophy would argue that religion is reason (interestingly so do some modern approaches to evolutionary psychology). Overall I tried to reduce to a simple, non-controversial but meaningful statement. I think there is then a place for additional sections on issues such as reason, experimental v a priori etc. If we can get rid of this introduction we can focus on creating those. I have removed quotes and citations from the words, but they could go back in as references.
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy deals with the fundamental issues of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished by its use of reason and its systematic, critical approach to problems. -- Snowded ( talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy deals with the fundamental issues of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. -- Snowded ( talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate and very general, concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value. In university courses it is studied in a manner which lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. In the earlier stages of the Cambridge course, the central elements are logic, metaphysics, ethics, and philosophy of mind; later on attention is also paid to political philosophy, philosophy of science, and aesthetics. As the course proceeds the number of optional elements increases, so that in Part II there are no compulsory subjects.
University of Cambridge. Note the above makes no mention of a priori reasoning in particular, does not loosely say "BIG" issues, but says rather, in effect, that the nature of philosphy is defined by its scope, i.e the problems that its studies, and immediteley and concisely outlines the nature of those problems both in broad terms 'ultimate and very general' and in specifics 'concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value' --Philogo 11:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
A:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.--Philogo 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Wiki style guide recommends definition before etymology. Also, omit unnecessary words. How about:
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Lets try one technique at a time, and the current one is (my suggestion) copy the last suggestion, and edit it with strike out and italics. Rick's does not count because it it does not do that. PETER : you say could live with A above (label added) with a tweak or two, so go on, copy it below and then tweak it (remember del in strike-out, insert in itals. [This btw the is the way solicotors negotiate with a so-called "travelling document"])--Philogo 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It is awfully high-handed of you, Philogo, to say that a Wikipedia editor must edit according to a style you have decided upon, or it "does not count". My changes were according to the Wikipedia manuel of style. Do you object to moving the etymology to the second sentence?
The objection to a requirement that the great thinkers of the past be considered is well taken. I offer the following. Essentially, it says the same thing as other proposals, but the style has been chanced to conform to the Wikipedia:Manuel of Style.
I've added the Greek from the current lede. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with "authority or custom" but think it better than "superstition or religion". Can you suggest a better phrasing?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with either Peter Damian's suggestion or SamBC's suggestion, even though both leave poor St. Tom out in the cold. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Pruning per Sam, but avoiding less=different we now have:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Peter Damian ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.
Rick wanted the etymlogy at th end which would give us:
B:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”
Then was the idea of using the original full etymology which would give us:
C:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”
The word philosophy is of
Ancient Greek
origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "
love of knowledge", "love of
wisdom".
[1]
[2]
[3]
--Philogo 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
D: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
E: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Peter Damian ( talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with these two revisions of Rick's; what about you guys, and are there more revisions suggested?--Philogo 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
[arbitary break]
recap versions disussed
A:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.
B:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”
C:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”
The word philosophy is of
Ancient Greek
origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "
love of knowledge", "love of
wisdom".
[4]
[5]
[6]
D: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
E: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Well if we don't like the strike out idea:-
F: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning " love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [7] [8] [9]
[no need to mention branches, comes up in body; put back mind and language; put back full etmology; make more terse ]
--Philogo 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
So:-
G: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning " love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [10] [11] [12]
--Philogo 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
..but does Philosophy make claims? --Philogo 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Period after "...reasoned argument". Which gives us:
H:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using rational argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
References can be added or not. The style manual suggests leaving the references for the body of the article, but I have no objection to them. I do think the links to subfields are important. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Then, citing the manual's advice to avoid unnecessary words, we could remove "and by" to yield I:
I:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, using rational argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Are we there yet? Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Which brings us to J:
J:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using rational argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
I can certainly accept J if the others can. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
K:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only rational argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Rick you keep slipping back the redundant refs to branches and getting rid of mind and langauge without quite saying why. If you object say why. Nobody else has said they want branch rfs in and mind and language out (although they might). Peter objects to your removing words as unnecessary because to do so changes the meaning. Hence we are really as we were at G, i.e.:-
L: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning " love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [13] [14] [15]
I rasied the point that it implies that Philosophy makes claims (sounding more like the vernacular use of the word) when if anything it examines and challenges claims. Thats the current objection to the current version. Nobody other than Rick seems worried at this stage by 'unnecessary word' or citaions in lede. We could leave THAT until after we have dealt with the more serious issues.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that the reason we are anxious to stress "reason" in there is to contrast philosophy with superstition (or maybe religion) and not to contrast it with other proper subjects like science, history etc. which all use reason just as much as philosophy does. Do we have good reason to contrast philosphy with superstition etc? IS ti not not someaht to damn it with faint praise? (I doubt that a 'definition' of physics or biology would think that it was worth mentioning that it was unlike superstition.) If we wanted to contrast philosophy with something, it would be more to the point to say how it different from science (which was historically a part of philosophy) and logic and mathematics. If the former occupies the empirical-a posterori-sythethic side of the spectrum, and Mathematics and Logic occupy the a priori-analytic wing where does philosophy fit in? What saves it from being cast into the flames as Hume suggested as containing nothing but sophistry and illusion, or being just unverfiable unfalsifiable nonsense of the Logical Positivists. Its no good saying it uses reason - so do ads for snake oil, and works of theology: what does not? Peter do you have a suggestion re 'claims' or have any other reservations about L. above? --Philogo 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: What exactly ARE these "other ways of addressing these questions" to which we are at great pains to contrast philosophy? --Philogo 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We do have good reason to contrast philosophy with superstition, mythology, mysticism, because traditionally that is how Philosophy emerged in the pre-Socratic days. More importantly, all the relevant sources either explicitly say this, or imply it. Note also that the claim of science being 'traditionally a part of philosophy' is not really correct. I take your point about Hume's fork, but this is a simple introduction on Philosophy based on verifiable sources, and not OR. If the sources say that Black=White, then that is what we say. Call me condescending if you like, but I still feel you haven't quite grasped this. Many of the points you make are good ones, but that is besides the point. We are not here to do philosophy, we are here to write down what other people have said. Peter Damian ( talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 12:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 12:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(indent) OK I am loosing it, there are so many versions now and the. It seems to me we had an agreement on: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument to support its claims, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". I have seen the branches removed which seems a mistake. Systematic was an issue So I have put in Rick's suggestion. Am I missing something?-- Snowded ( talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the only objection to this version has to do with the word "claims", which Peter Damian likes and Philogo dislikes. As I've said,I am happy with either version, and think it is time to reach closure. Maybe Peter Damian and Philogo should flip a coin -- unless one or the other is willing to yield the point, I can't think of any other way to decide. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The latest version under consderation is:
L: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning " love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [16] [17] [18]
and the only reservation raisied, so far as I can tell, is mine, i.e. that it implies that Philosophy makes claims (sounding more like the vernacular use of the word), which could saurely be fixed by varying the words to support its claims. (The raison de'etre for a sentence like ours beginning Philosophy is distinguished is because we need to distinguish philosphy from mumbo-jumbo and not from other science and other disciplines, beacause that is what our sources do. Does anybody have any other substantive reservations about it, L above?
--Philogo 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Early modern philosophy is a commonly used term in philosophical history, but I have never heard of "later modern philosophy" used as a description (admittedly, that's an odd pattern, to have early but not late). I suggest changing that title. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any standard way to refer to that period, (the problem being that there are so many movements), but I think 'post-kantian philosophy' serves as well as any other. JustinBlank ( talk) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Where does "postmodernism" fit in, or is it now "out"? Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I made some rather bold changes to this section, though hopefully the additions are anodyne. As for the deletions: since I don't think there's such a term as "later modern philosophy" it doesn't make much sense to say it came to an end. And the rest of the section about "occupying discourses" seemed to be a bit of word salad that just listed philosophers. JustinBlank ( talk) 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the others, omitting the names of the areas is a bad idea. Try reading the first sentence aloud without the names of the areas, and I think you'll see what I mean -- it reads like a run-on sentence. The names give guidence to the reader, and also provide links for the reader interested in particular philosophical questions. And they are referenced.
Snowded's version quoted from above seems to have a lot of support. Does anyone strongly object to it?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence does not mention logic, mind or language, and therefore suggests that questions in connection with them are not "main": I would want to see sources in support for their being subsidary. It restricts Ethics to normativity and implies philosophy does not critically examine the nature of value judgments and concepts. The second sentence (a) suggests philosophy is distinguished from all other disciplines (not just mumbo-jumbo) by critical approach etc. Other disciplines considers some such problems in an equally critical and reasoned way (eg physics considers what sort of things exist - wave, particles, quantums, space-time etc.). I would want to see some citations that support that philosophy is distinguished from e.g. science in the manner suggested. The phrase "accepting no higher authority than reason" is highly florid and unclear; usually a sign of lack of thought. If it means that philosophy takes no account of empirical observation then it is highly contentious as discussed on many occasions previously, and I would want to see citations in support. (GE Moore was not doing philosophy when he held out his hand? Ordinary language philosophers and later Wittenstein not doing philosophy when discussing how words are used?)
--Philogo 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Science (from the Latin 'scientia', meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works.
Well into the eighteenth century, science and natural philosophy were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the scientific method. Prior to the 18th century, however, the preferred term for the study of nature was natural philosophy, while English speakers most typically referred to the study of the human mind as moral philosophy. By contrast, the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century to refer to the Aristotelian concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a sure prescription for exactly how to do something. In this differing sense of the two words, the philosopher John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding wrote that "natural philosophy [the study of nature] is not capable of being made a science".[3]
271828182's suggestion would give us:
M:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
--Philogo 09:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If and only if "other ways of addressing these questions" means "theology" then we could say the same more clearly and with fewer words with:
N:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
--Philogo 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That leaves open for discussion whether it is worthwhile and supported by our sources to (a) (as in sentence 2) seek to differentiate philosophy from theology but (b) not worthwhile differenriating philosophy from (i) other proper disciplines especially science. (ii) mumbo-jumbo (iii) the vernacular use of the word (meaning general outlook as in "his philosophy of life")
--Philogo 09:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That would give us:
O:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
which still leaves open for discussion whether it is worthwhile and supported by our sources to (a) (as in sentence 2) seek to differentiate philosophy from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] but (b) not worthwhile differenriating philosophy from (i) other proper disciplines especially science. (ii) mumbo-jumbo (iii) the vernacular use of the word (meaning general outlook as in "his philosophy of life"). AND if so, whether it is right to say that philosophy "makes claims" (by implication as does theology). --Philogo 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that nearly everyone now agrees on some version of the introduction as given above, who supports closure on this? I.e. just put one of the introductions in, agree not to change it beyond the slight rewording that has been going on, and do something else, like attend to the horrendous state of other parts of the article? There is such a thing as 'diminishing returns'. Peter Damian ( talk) 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Good, why don't you put up a version here, and we'll see if anyone salutes. We all have other things to do with our time. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with
P:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: its the second sentence that is troublesome. There is a proverb in writing that if you cannot get a cherished sentence to come out right, abandon it and write a new one. My suggestion would be to not mention theology etc. nor use the word "distinguished" at all. To concentrate on what philosophy is and not what it is not. My suggestion would along the line of: Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. This would give us:
Q:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims.
without the scratch-outs this is:
Q: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
I think the three of us should let the other editors who have particapted have a say before we rush to closure, even in the (unlikey) circumstance that we three are all now in agreeement.
--Philogo 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Either I or Philogo have a tin ear. Version Q seems to me to read very badly, and also to introduce new stuff we never considered before. I'm good at diagramming sentences, but I wouldn't attempt to diagram that monster on a bet. And where did "not by the promotion of new ones" come from. I don't remember ever seeing that before, and I have no idea what it means. Peter Damian, would you please offer a version that at least two or three of us can live with? Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried to render P readable by human beings, but the cross outs don't cut and paste, so I can't read P. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
A1. Philosophy involves thinking about thinking; it is the systematic study of such general and fundamental questions as; what is the universe and its nature (cosmology), how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology) and what forms of reasoning are valid (logic). A2. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and systematic approach (logic).
No doubt this will not do;
My apologies; this is very preliminary. -- NewbyG ( talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Something along these lines would probably be fine, but let's not start over this late in the game. If all but one of us can agree on one of the options above -- several are fine in my opinion and I've asked Peter Damian to choose -- then let's all agree to go with that and take a break until at least August. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with (elimating the strike-outs):
P:
Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: it's just the second sentence that is troublesome.
I think the three of us (Rick, Peter, Philogo) should now let the other editors who have participated have a say before we rush to closure.
--Philogo 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't the stamina to get deeply involved in this again, but most articles on similar subjects in WP start "X is...'. Check mathematics, physics, anthropology, sociology, etc. I know it's contentious to say it's an academic subject, but "deals with" is a weaseling sort of definition that an actual philosopher would surely call you on. Why distinguish from theology something that hasn't even been defined yet?
I'm not entirely happy with that, as I'd prefer to say it's an academic subject that is mother to most other academic subjects, but there you go. JJL ( talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
In answer to JJL's question above, the reason for the word 'distinguished' is that the genus of philosophy is general and fundamental problems, the differentia is its critical, systematic and reasoned approach. Most of the sources, if you read them carefully, are agreed on this. Combining the suggestions above with the excellent quote from Grayling which our e-numbered friend provided, yields
S: Philosophy is a method of intellectual investigation that considers such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things that exist, and the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as theology, mysticism, or mythology) by its critical and generally systematic approach, holding that human reason is competent on its own account to deal with such questions. The word "philosophy" is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge" or "love of wisdom".
Peter Damian ( talk) 07:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
To avoid going round in circles, I suggest for now we leave first sentence as it was i.e. as in P:
"Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language." and concentrate on the troublesome second sentence:
I find the personifications in S excessive in "holding that human reason is competent on its own account to deal with such questions". I cannot find the Graying quote you have in mind, Peter, but:
Grayling in talk:Philosophy/Quotations writes:
"Other human endeavours, not least art and literature, explores aspects of these same questions, but it is philosophy that mounts a direct assault on them, in the hope of clarifying them and, where possible, answering them."
and
"in effect philosophy consists in inquiry into anything not yet well enough understood to constitute a self-standing branch of knowledge. When the right questions and the right methods for answering them have been identified, the field of inquiry in questions becomes an independent pursuit."
--Philogo 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Fed up is putting it mildly. And did Grayling really make the error in elementary grammar "endevours ... explores"? Sounds more like George Bush. I was ready to go with anything you suggested Peter Damian, but I think you've made too many concessions. The trouble with P and S is one of grammar. It is not clear if "nature, scope, and limits" modify only "knowledge" or modify "knowledge, moral judgments, mind, and language." This would be a stumbling block to anyone who reads carefully. They would have to go back and read the sentence several times, and would then probably say, "I say it's spinich, and I say the Hell with it."
I think we had some agreement (that is, all but one of us had some agreement) on Snowded's version above:
The sole sticking point at that time, was the "accepting no higher authority..." If we drop that, and add links, we get:
Nice, short, and to the point. The modifier "such as" allows for other areas such as logic, esthetics, and politics.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for the rest of the lunatic fringe, but I'm happy to let the current version stand, misplaced modifiers and all. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you had a pleasant day.
I tried to keep my hands off it, I really did, but the semicolon is a punctuation mark that comes with rules of its own, and it cannot replace a comma, unless both parts are complete sentences. And while I was there, I inserted a paragraph break. Tomorrow, I leave on my vacation. Have fun until I return. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking back the last version we agreed on was version O, but Ricki wanted to make an amendement (strike out 'to support its claims' which resulted in version P: here it is again just as it appears at the top of this section):-
Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with (elimating the strike-outs):
P:
Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: it's just the second sentence that is troublesome.
I think the three of us (Rick, Peter, Philogo) should now let the other editors who have participated have a say before we rush to closure.
end quote
We had apparently then agreed on the first and last sentence but not the second. The amendements immediately leading up to version P were from Peter and Ricki. The rest of this page sems to consist of further amendments from Peter and Rik, but I had suggested then and suggest again that it would be fair now to let other editors have their say. We all agreed that we would proceed by consensus and that includes editors other than Peter and Rick. Any problem with that?
--Philogo 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that Peter does have a problem with that because he has changed the lede (22/6/08 10:38 without waiting for the consensus and he himself had suggested we should.
--Philogo 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) On semicolon use, this must be a English vs US thing see here - perfectly acceptable in my country to do this. But because Wikipedia is an American thing, and because Americans rule the world so far, that is fine. On version P, I am fine with that, so long as we don't have the 'saloon bar' thing, which was a sort of joke. Best. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The use of the semi-colon Peter Damian cites above is correct in US as well as UK English. What isn't correct is mixing commas and semi-colons. Thus: "We say complex clause A; complex clause B; and complex clause C." is correct, but "We say clause A, clause B; and clause C." is not. I have no objection to changing the first comma to a semicolon. That would solve the problem as well as, maybe better than, changing the semicolon to a comma. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of the mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical and generally systematic approach and the use of reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [19] [20] [21]
I am content with the lede as it now is, (as above) although I would ditch the "the" before mind. (mind as opposed to matter not the mind as opposed to matter).
--Philogo 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
271828182's recent edit considerably improve the intro, can we have these please? Peter Damian ( talk) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Option T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.
I went with "inquiry and reflection" in response to JJL's request, avoiding the scholastic "study of" or any committment to academia, which is false given non-academics such as Kierkegaard or many ancient philosophers. The diction was directly taken from Grayling. I also excised several unnecessary words (such as "limits" of knowledge—that is already covered by the word "scope"; and the additional "of" before language is bad parallel construction, especially when the preceding clause on knowledge and ethics omits a duplicate "of"). "Reliance" in place of "use" is a mild but needed acknowledgement of the centrality of reason to philosophy as it exists. The only misgiving I have about T is the appearance of limiting the questions to only those listed, but that could be fixed by ending the sentence with "and other topics." (Though I confess that would be ugly.) 271828182 ( talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I oppose option T: the lede is better beginning as it does:
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
It is also as agreed by consensus over the last several days.
I propose that we agree not to edit the lede without first posting the proposed amendment here for due discussion.
--Philogo 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I much prefer T. The drafting problem with this alternative is the way it begins "Philosophy considers such...questions as..." and then goes on to list things which aren't questions. "The sorts of things which exist" is not a question. The big improvement in T is that it gets the word "about" in there; then you can intelligibly have philosophy studying (or considering or reflecting on) questions about. This is a big improvement; let's not lose it. Beginning "Philosophy is..." is just consistent with general Wiki practice. KD Tries Again ( talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again.
T is very far from a big improvement.
The current wording reached complete consensus after many days work, and we should have realy good reason to change it.
I agree with Snowed there is not need to follow Philosphy with "is" Any sentence begining with Philosophy is will be FAR more contentious than one begigining "Philosophy considers"
The words "Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about" is extremely clumsy "questions: questions"; whether philsophy is "inquiry and reflection" rather than say "critical anaylsis" is contentious; it is contentious to say the that the matters mentioned are the most general and fundamental..
That said, it is true that in the current version that we all supported, what follows "such ..questions as" is not a list of questions, but a list of things about which questions are raisied. To correct this, if worthwhile, while maintaining the consensus would mean making the least change possible and one which did not change the meaning. I am not sure it is worthwile but a minimal change that would correct this point would be:
U (first sentence only):
Philosophy considers
suchgeneral and fundamental questionsasabout the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
Most important is, that no changes are made to the lede until an agreement has been reached by the editors who have put so much hard work in to getting the lede to where it is now.
Bear in mind that the whole question of what philosophy is and what is a philosophical problem etc. are metaphilosophical questions which are dealt with in the article metaphilosophy. Those who are particulary interested in these matters would better spend their time improving that article. --Philogo 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Philogo, I understand you object to the "philosophy is inquiry and reflection" bit. (Maybe you could share your qualms with Grayling too.) But I have yet to hear any defense from you of the superfluous "of", "and", or the "use of reason" vs. "reliance on reason" edits. Could you address those edits, since you reverted them specifically, despite my avoiding the "philosophy considers" opening (which I consider extremely clumsy myself). 271828182 ( talk) 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose
U1:-
Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
or more simply
U2:-
Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
--Philogo 12:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No. Option T, please. Rick Norwood is the only one we haven't deferred to but he said he was going on holiday. Any vehement objections to T (on the understanding that JJL, KD, myself and 2728444 support it)?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peter Damian (
talk •
contribs)
17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Snowed and I have voiced objections to option T giving reasons. Any reasons against options U1 or U2. --Philogo 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this still option T? "Option T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language." As far as I can see the only difference between T and U1 is the choice between "Philosophy considers..." and "Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about..." I think the second (T) is consistent with Wiki style. But I can't imagine why anyone should really care much. I certainly don't care about the difference between U1 and U2. KD Tries Again ( talk) 19:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
--Philogo 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If we concentrate on the matters that give rise to philosophical problems/objects of philsophical inquiry we are on ground both firmer and more fertile. We have missed out inference and truth in that list. We might better say:-
U3:-
Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, truth, inference, mind and language.
--Philogo 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
(indent) I like the current version, if we can get a less clumsy version of the first sentence of T I am am open -- Snowded ( talk) 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Comparing Face to face (first sentence only):-
Current version:-
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language.
U3: Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, truth, inference, mind and language.
--Philogo 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If you click on each link in turn you can see the ways the other articles begin with X is ...
Does anybody think we are being unfair to philosophy of history, Political philosophy, Aesthetics, philosophy of logic by not mentioning THEIR "objects", or enough is enough.
--Philogo 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Would we all be happy enough with:
--Philogo 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy inquires and reflects on the most general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
(present version plus modification of opening of Option T -- Snowded ( talk) 07:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
No mention of logic or philosophy of science? "inquires and reflects" rather than "is the study of"? "fundamental questions" followed by what do not appear to be questions?
--Philogo 11:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Option T much preferred. The phrasing and balance of W leaves much to be desired. Given the changes now being proposed are stylistic, and given 272 is easily the best stylist with us, by far, can we go for T, please. Peter Damian ( talk) 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If Snowed prefers the current version it is curious he proposes to replace it with option W. Philosophy does not inquire and reflect: philosophers do that. Philosophy is the study of avoids that problem. If study sounds too academic (do only academics study?; philopsohy IS pretty academic, isn't it? What is philosophy when it is not academic?) "is the examination of" would do as well. The omission of problems associated with logic and science as objects of study is very regretable. Surely logic has alays been a concern of philosophy, and science too particularly in the last 100 years? As before, "fundamental questions" is followed by what do not appear to be questions. --Philogo 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There seemed few objections to U5 accept that it "started a longer list"
I think science and logic should be in the list since logic has always been a concern of philosophy, and science too particularly in the last 100 years. For similar reason I would defend [[philosophy of mind|mind]] and [[philosophy of language|language]].
Surely if we omit philosophical problems associated with science, logic, mind and language we are ignoring a major part of 20th century philosophy? These omissions, together with "Philosophy inquires and reflects", really make the subject sound like meditation.
--Philogo 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". -- Snowded ( talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter if you are reading this signify assent on your talk page! -- Snowded ( talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comparison:
Current version:
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [22] [23] [24]
U5:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, logic, truth, validity, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [25] [26] [27]
--Philogo 23:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
So far as I can see all three versions are the same accept for the first sentence. Option X has the awkward "questions: questions about" and the repetition of "nature". The current version has "considers such" while we have agree we would prefer "is the study of" as in X and U5. U5 is shorter than X, but the addition words in X do not say much: compare
U5: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning ...
X: Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that..
U6: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, logic, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [28] [29] [30]
Granted that it is now even shorter, we could make it longer by padding it out with words that do not say much but I do not see the point in that.
Let's see what other editors have to say about the current, X and U6 versions now, shall we, Snowed?
--Philogo 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Snowded ( talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Current:
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
U6:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, logic, mind and language.
X+1:
Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
--Philogo 12:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The origion of philosophy is the Inod-Iranians, so this must be addressed first, before you even talk of the Greeks. Dvakili ( talk) 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The philosophy page must start with the Indo-Iranians. Ref;Oxford dictionary of philosophy, page409. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 June 2008
Zarathushtra was the first philosopher according to the chronology of philosophy according to Oxford university. This fact has nothin gto do with religion. So do not change my comments, because I will do the same to you. I am stating a fact. Dvakili ( talk) 21:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 June 2008
Once again western philosophy started with the Greeks, that is not the same thing as philosophy as a subject. You do not more than the department of philosophy at Oxford university. The philosophy page must start with the Indo-Iranians. Ref;Oxford dictionary of philosophy, page409. Zarathushtra was the first philosopher according to the chronology of philosophy according to Oxford university. So do not change my comments, because I will do the same to you. I am stating a fact.
Dvakili (
talk)
05:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with a tight introduction saying something along the lines of:
Philosophy is a disciplined study comprising ethics, logic, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology, by investigating the nature, causes, principles of reality, knowledge, thought (thinking), and values, based on reasoning rather than empirical methods.
The word philosophy is of ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[1][2][3]
Catagraph ( talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The philosophy section needs to start with the origin of the subject and the history of the subject. The etymology has nothing to do with the origin of the subject. Dvakili ( talk) 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
U6 is fine by me too. I much prefer "existence" to "sorts of things that exist". The current version doesn't appear to be U6 - can we change it? KD Tries Again ( talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Many thanks to all those who took past in the discussion which I hope has provided a well thought out lede resulting from the resolution of thesis and counter-thesis.
--Philogo 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And I have boldly removed logic as there was no consensus for that and most of the earlier versions had a consensus which excluded it. Issues of truth and validity are covered by epistemology. Look Philogo we have been a lot closer to agreement before with you as the single dissenter so please respect a position. -- Snowded ( talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like those of us involved in this discussion have settled for U6, with no objections except Snowded's above. I have thus boldly followed consensus, and implemented U6. If Snowded wants to object to logic, let's talk some more.
--Philogo 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 12:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Either of U6 and X+1 is OK by me. JJL ( talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will settle for U6 as the least bad option on the table. 271828182 ( talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Current revision as of 23:30, 30 June 2008 UTC, t, u6, x+1, chop suey. (tick one) -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- U6. --Philogo 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
U6 is fine by me too. I much prefer "existence" to "sorts of things that exist". The current version doesn't appear to be U6 - can we change it? KD Tries Again ( talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
U6 or X+1: JJL
Current: NewbyG
U6: 271828182, Philogo, KD Tries Again
U6 bar Logic: Snowded
--Philogo 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Well several points, firstly you cannot close on a vote that quickly without laying out options and narrowing choices. Secondy, even on your count above you have three for U6 and two for other versions with one neutral. In wikipedia conventions that is not a consensus. My earlier preference was for the current version but I was prepared to compromise for U6 with the removal of logic. KD Tries Again agreement was timed before I raised that question. So at the time the edit was made my count is correct. Sorry Philogo, but that is simply not the way concensus is achieved in Wikipedia. There are a whole bunch of conventions about declaring the options, creating a discussion section etc. and there is no way any arbitration process would accept that you has a concensus at that point.
In any event I don't object per se to 271828182 making the edit, my objection (and it is a strong one) was to you implying that I was engaged in edit war when I was fully within my rights given the state of the discussion to revert the whole edit. as it was I made one change as an effort at a compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 July 2008
Logic is an important one to me. Most phil. depts. will offer a lower-level course in logic and advanced ones in areas like logic, modal logic, hist. of logic, etc. It's been an important area: Reasoning about reason. It's crucial to the phil. of math. (and language). To me it has a long and full history within the subject. Aristotle...Frege...Pierce...etc. JJL ( talk) 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the first sentence does not seek to set out the branches or main areas of philosphy, look:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
It sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. (The branches that study them are wiki-links). The incusion of a branch of study such as logic, aesthetics in such a list would be a category mistake. What could be logically added would be the things (concepts) that give rise to problems which philosophy seek to resolve, e.g truth, validity, other value judgments, beauty, justice each wiki-linked to relevant branch of philosophy.
--Philogo 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with the current version (quoted above) with the general description and the hot lins as they do not include logic (or aesthetics etc. etc.) -- Snowded ( talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Other views? --Philogo 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Catagraph I have reversed yourJJL reversed you recent edit, changing problems to concepts. I suggest you open a discussion here. Todate no one has contested problems; concepts is an interesting suggestion but could be problematic as it might imply that philosophy is the study of other people's ideas (aesthetics is not about what is beauty, but about what people say when they say something is beautiful). It may be that we need to say more than problems, but removing problems itself seems to fly in the face of what the enterprise of philosophy is about --
Snowded (
talk)
23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I cannto see the sense of replacing problems with concepts in sentence one giving:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental concepts concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.
What follows "concerning" is a list of concepts; it makes sense to say philosophy studies general and fundamental problems arising from these concepts, but surely not "general and fundamental concepts" arising from these concepts?
--Philogo 00:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I quoted above from Syracuse University's web site [5]: the "four core areas of philosophy" that students must study are The History of Philosophy, Ethics and Moral Theory, Metaphysics and The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology), and Logic. Now from Harvard University [6]: basic required courses are an introductory course and one each from 1. Logic, 2. Contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, 3. Ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and 4. History of ancient, medieval, or modern pre-20th-century philosophy. Stanford University [7]: basic required courses are an introductory course and one each from Logic, Philosophy of science, Moral and political philosophy, Metaphysics and epistemology, and History of philosophy. Major research universities seem to agree that all undergrad. phil. majors must take a logic course (and, incidentally, that metaphysics and epistemology can be lumped together at this level). While what undergrads. must take is hardly the be-all and end-all of phil., it certainly indicates to me that logic is a major area in the minds of academic philosophers. I also consider "The Development of Logic" by Kneale and Kneale [8] to support this position; from pg. 1 it puts "not simply valid argument but the reflection on principles of validity" in the context of Plato and Aristotle. (Of course they also discuss it in the context of math.) I contend that logic is a central area of phil. and merits conclusion alongside ethics and metaphysics/epistemology as the three major areas of phil. JJL ( talk) 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
It sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. (The branches that study them are wiki-links). The inclusion of a branch of study such as logic, aesthetics in such a list would be a category mistake. What could be logically added would be the things (concepts) that give rise to problems which philosophy seek to resolve, e.g truth, validity, other value judgments, beauty, justice each wiki-linked to relevant branch of philosophy.
JJL : what concepts are there that Logic uses or studies, that give rise to philosophical problems, which problems in turn are the proper subject matter of philosophy of logic and/or philosophical logic? --Philogo 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Metaphysics: existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.
epistemology: truth, belief, and justification.
philosophy of mind: minds, or mental processes, bodily states or processes, emotion, will, belief,
philosophy of language: language, meaning, language use, extension, intension, synonymy, Language acquisition, language creation, speech acts, mind interpreter, translation, truth and Reference.
Philosophy of logic: declaration, proposition, statement, truth, analytic, synthetic, contingency, validity, entailment, inference, necessity, proof, reference, designation, predication, relation, denotation, conotation, synonimity, meaning, logical consequence, quantification, scope of logic , second-order logic, empirical knowledge, modal logic
Ethics: moral judgement, justice, fairness, rights, duty, culpability, right, wrong , the good life.
Given Philogo's clarification, I suggest emending the opening sentence to:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
(Call it "U*")
I have inserted "reasoning" as a general concept that gives rise to problems that are studied by logic. I hope the word choice placates both Snowded and Philogo. Also, I changed "moral judgments" to "value judgments", which includes aesthetics. (However, I did not wikilink aesthetics since it would seem arbitrary and possibly confusing to link ethics to one word, and aesthetics to another.) 271828182 ( talk) 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philogo ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 4 July 2008
Back from my vacation. I see you all have been having fun while I was gone. The trouble with replacing "logic" with "reason" as a branch of philosophy is that it flies in the face of the references, most of which mention "logic" as a major branch of philosophy and "reason" as a major method of philosophy. One could argue that just as "physics" has moved from philosophy to science, "logic" has moved from philosophy to mathematics. But I don't think this view is supported by the literature. To quote JJL from the section above, "Ethics and Moral Theory, Metaphysics and The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology), and Logic...1. Logic, 2. Contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, 3. Ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics...Logic, Philosophy of science, Moral and political philosophy, Metaphysics and epistemology." (I've omitted the history of philosophy courses as courses about philosophy rather than courses in philosophy.) All three lists mention logic. None mentions the more vague "reason". Also, all mention either "ethics" or "moral philosophy", none use the vague term "value judgments". I suggest we stick to the standard terminology. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rick. Welcome back. It does not matter wahat the branches are regarding sentence one, because, as said above, the first sentence does not seek to set out the branches or main areas of philosophy: it sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Look:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
--Philogo 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
My comment was in response to Snowded's list, just above my comment. The list currently in the article is fine by me. I would prefer "such as" rather than "concerning", because the list is clearly not exhaustive. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Riki on "such as" - it was "such as" some way back but go transmogrified to "concerning" for some reason lost in the mists of time. I think it's a fair old "such as" list and would give the reader a good idea what philosophy is concerned with in the very first sentence. Have we left out "truth" on purpose?
--Philogo 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
as in, with "concerning concepts such as" also:-
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
--Philogo 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
None of the sources I know of uses "value judgments". To me, a "value judgment" is something like, "I don't believe in capital punishment," or "I don't believe in abortion." The way the phrase is used has little to do with philosophy. Rick Norwood ( talk) 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- :"value judgment" is the usual term in philosophy to contrast with factual judgements. Values are not necesarily moral values, could be aesthetic. The fact-va;ue distinction is pretty fundamental; have a look at the article of that title in Cam. Dic Phil, or better still read David Hume who threw down the gauntlet of the is-ought gap. - --Philogo 23:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see the majority of the recent addition is already in the text below. There is merit in adding in the reference to the exsiting text but I don't understand this need to assert "first philosopher" status. I suggest you take the Oxford Dictionary and insert an actual QUOTE from that as a reference. -- Snowded ( talk) 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra. This is in the dictionary assertions, and not MINE! read the language again. It states the fist philosopher in the chronology, this is straight from the book. And the rest of the statement is on page 405 I will provide the page reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The history section needs to change. we need to start with the origin of the subject and not with the history of the word philosopher or philosophy. That is what the Greeks called the subject, but the subject pre dates the Greeks. This is missleading and is not addressing the history of the subject. Dvakili ( talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 22:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What is my opinion? I am using references and facts from the department of philosophy at Oxford. Do you disagree with oxford university. Besides Cambridge claims the same. All schools of philosophy claim the same. This is as far as the Persian philosophy is concerned. As for the history section is concerned, the history of philosophy does not start with the Greeks. So why is that section starting with Pythagoras? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you answer the questions that I have raised?
Can you answer the question that I have raised. ( Dvakili ( talk) 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).
1. Is it a wikipedia rule that we must only use Blackburn's dictionary? 2. The Oxford and Cambride dictiionary is more superior. ( Dvakili ( talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
- - : Snowded I am happy with giving Dvakili some slack, but as you say he must provide some citations. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy does not appear to mention him. Dvakili you have to back up your opinions with reason and citations, and just one citation is not sufficient, especially if you do not quote the actual text. I have the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edition, 1999) in front of me; on what page will I find the reference you refer to? Its OK to have strong views but your reasons and citations must be strong as well. --Philogo 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am referencing the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy by Simon Blackburn, Pages 405 and 409.( Dvakili ( talk) 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
--Philogo 23:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A quick web search on "the first philosopher" turns up answers like Thales, Anaximander, Lao Tzu, and Pythagoras, among others. Thales seems to be the winner by quantity of hits. It appears that a case can also be made for Zoroaster. I doubt that one could truly describe any individual as the first philosopher. But, at least the Greeks have a long and continuous philosophical tradition, and to the extent that "Philosophy is the study of its own history" that tradition matters. JJL ( talk) 23:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipewdai's article, Zarathushtra, says: "Zoroaster (Latinized from Greek variants) or Zarathushtra (from Avestan Zaraθuštra), also referred to as Zartosht (Persian: زرتشت), was an ancient Iranian prophet and religious poet. The hymns attributed to him, the Gathas, are at the liturgical core of Zoroastrianism." Sounds more like a religious leader than a philosopher.
--Philogo 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) see also http://www.zoroaster.net/indexe.htm :
Is Zoroastrian Monotheism Philosophy or Religion in History? . It is easy to answer this question. Inkling about zoroastrian philosophy shows that Zarathustra, never assumed prophethood. He never claimed he had associated with the Lord of cosmos whose width galaxy extends more than 36 milliard (36 thousand million), light year, which lies beyond our imagination. Zarathustra, never ordered his followers to perform certain activities, but he recommended them to try to know the creator of the earth and heaven and adopt good manner, on the basis of their wisdom. Therefore, Zarathustra was neither a prophet, nor we can call his spiritual path a “religion,” rather he was a thoughtful benevolent who recognized his God on the basis of his wisdom and never said he had been missioned to bring any message from God to human beings.
and http://www.livius.org/za-zn/zarathustra/zarathustra.htm:
Zarathustra (Greek Zoroaster): legendary religious teacher from Bactria, founder of Zoroastrianism...........Zarathustra's teachings are strongly dualistic. The believer has to make a choice between good and evil. Zoroastrianism was one of first world religions to make ethical demands on the believers
--Philogo 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Page 409 is the Chronology page, that is the heading of the page. "In this chronology broadly 'philosophical' events mentioned in the body of the dictionary are in the second column." Then the chart starts at; "1500 BC Beginning of the Vedic period in India" then the second event is "Zoroaster." This is common knowledge in philosophy. Chronology means the origion and events in the order in which they occurred, as in HISTORY. So, the history section needs to start with this fact, chronology.
Page 405 "Zoroastrianism enterd the western tradition as an influence on Hudaism and hence on Middle platonism." This is common knowledge in philosophy by know in modern philosophy.
I am not aggressive or asserting opinion, but, the Greek bias here is very evident. When people do not like facts, they tend to attack the messenger and start personal attacks to discredit the person. Please do not do this, I am stateing western sources.( Dvakili ( talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
I quote this from the Wikipedia article Zoroaster. The writing style seems familiar.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote, "The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra." on page 409.
( Dvakili ( talk) 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).
I wrote, "The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra." on page 409. ( Dvakili ( talk) 23:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).
Do you differentiate between philosophy and religion, between philosophers and religious leaders?-- According to Oxford he was a philosopher, and if bunch of people want to worship his message then that does not mean he was not a philosopher.( Dvakili ( talk) 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
(indent) A PLEA Would editors please indent their comments and not add carriage returns before their signature. -- Snowded ( talk) 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Then it can say "the chronology of philosophers begins with Zarathushtra." on page 409 ( Dvakili ( talk) 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC))
(indent) No one is disuting the phrase from Oxford although it is only ONE authority. The point is that it does not belong here, or in any of the ways you are expressing it. Please read what other authors have said and have the decency to respond to it rather than asserting and reasserting your position without argument. -- Snowded ( talk) 07:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
History of philosophy, or any other subject or science , means, events in chronological order. Oxford dates back the history of the subject or science of philosophy, in chronological order, to 1500BC. Oxford dictionary has done a great job illustrating this on page 409. The title of the page is, Chronology, with columns, text for events and numerical dates. The language and dates are explicit, for easy understanding. This means the history of the subject, or science, of philosophy pre dates the Greeks by approximately 900 years amongst the Indo-Europeans. We need to arrange the section on history of philosophy, to reflect the true and correct chronological order in which things occurred in philosophy, from 1500BC to present. This way the arrangement of events in the history of philosophy will be in the order in which they occurred. Therefore, the history section of wikipedia’s philosophy page, needs to be in chronological order, beginning at 1500BC.
( Dvakili ( talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
Dvakili You just repeat the same assertions over and over again without any arguments in their favour. Repetition is not an argument and as you can see it is not the least bit persuasive. I suggest you follow Snowed's good advice if you want people to take you at all seriously, --Philogo 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Answer the argument and stop your assertion, find another word to use instead of assertion. You are not qualified to discuss this issue.( Dvakili ( talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)).
I'm starting a new section just because the old section was getting too long.
A few points that should be considered.
First, no doubt some caveman wondered what stars were, so we shouldn't talk about the "first philosopher" but rather the "first philosopher in recorded history".
A philosopher needs to do more than come up with a "big idea". If only a big idea is needed, then Akhenaten, who may have invented monotheism, could be the first. But a philosopher must, at least according to our definition, have developed this idea systematically, which suggests Laozi (Lao Tse) or Heraclitus as first. There were a lot of philosophers out and about in the 6th century BCE.
The dates of Zoroaster are not well established. Most sources say he lived somewhere between the 6th century BCE and the 12th century BCE.
Philosophy is not a horse race. Trying to claim a "winner" in the "first philosopher" contest is not appropriate.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Philogo agreed with me about "such as" but then reverted my attempt to have the list read "such as" in the intro on the grounds that this was still under discussion. Is there any further discussion? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Its all over the second sentence and reasoning was inserted in the last draft - see below. If we could reach agreement in this we could end this!
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language. -- Snowded ( talk) 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that most of the changes that have been made in the lede were not arrived at consensus, but were snuck in when nobody was looking. I don't remember when the names of the various areas were removed, or why.
The trouble with "reason" as an area of philosophy is the same problem as "value judgments" as an area of philosophy. Neither is sourced. On the other hand "logic" and "ethics" are sourced.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone like to step forward and say, "I removed epistemology etc. from the lede," and explain why? Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A little while back I suggested the following for the first sentence incorporating (a) "concepts such as" (b) truth (c) removal of wiki-links, lets call it Y
Y: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
"such as" instead of "concerning" was Rikis's suggestion, "concerning concepts such as" my version; without the word concerpts (or similar) subsituting "such as" for "concerning" would change the meaning. (eg We were saying there are problems concening knowledege, not that klnowldeg itself is a problem "truth" was Snowed's and mine removal of wiki-links: Snowed's suggestion, I was persuaded: for aguments in favour of removal see above. Riki: This is a bit of a recap 'cos you've been on hols. No changes have been "snuck in". We all carefully considered and debated version a through t, then u1 through U6, then versions X and X*. The last version actually posted was U6 after a poll. We agreed to carry on the discusion concerning the inclusion/exclsusion of Logic. This was debated. It was agreed that incuding logic as such in the list , being a branch or subject, woul be a categoiry mistake; the rest of the list consists not of subject but things that give rise to problems that philosphy considers. Truth was a better fit, as would be say "validity" of "inference". We are aiming at a representatinve sample of things (basically concepts) which give rise to philosophical problems (or questions) that branches of philosophy (not necessarily on a one-to-one basis) study, indeed seek to resolve. I think we have considered carully the implications of every word in the first sentence, and have not posteed any versions until there seem a consensus, and then with the caveat that we could carry on the discussion.
Ladies and Gentlema, how say you now to:
Y: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
--Philogo 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
FOR
AGAINST
DISCUSSION
I could accept this if "value judgments" were replaced by any phrase that is sourced. Just for fun, I googled "value judgments". The first hit is from Wikipeida: "A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a personal view." The rest of the first several hits all suggest that the phrase "value judgment" indicates a subjective judgment, not based on reason but on personal likes and dislikes. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
And this earlier simpler version is? Forgive but there are so many and I am close to giving up and reverting to an "It must be citable not a consensus position". --
Snowded (
talk)
05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Rik wanted "problems such as existence, knowledge.." instead of "problems concerning existence, knowledge..". A straight subsitution is not possible without changing meaning (see notes above). Therefore I implemented Riks's suggestion as "concerning concepts such as concerning existence, knowledge..". Alternatives would be "problems concerning things such as existence, knowledge.." or just "problems concerning such as existence, knowledge..". With "problems concerning existence, knowledge.." we imply no view whether it is the concepts of existence, knowledge.. that causes problems or existence, knowledge.. themselves. "Things" would be as debatable as "concepts", but "problems concerning such as existence, knowledge..". sounds a little stilted.
There certainly exist the concepts of existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language. The clarification of such concepts and the necessary and sufficient conditions for exemplfying them is the concern of philosophy, at least from the time of Plato. I cannot fathom Rik's objection to value judgments as being the source of philosophical problems. When Thrasymacus says "Justest is the interest of the stronger party" is this not a value judgment that has problems concerning which a certain eminent philospher spent a considerable time discussing in a not completely unknown work? And if value judgements do not give rise to philosophical problems then what are all those discussions in Ethics about, what is Hume's is-ought gap, and why is the fact-value distinction such a basic issue in philosophy? --Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the poll on option Y so far:
For: Snowded ( talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008, (UTC)Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Against: Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC), ( talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Not opposing: JJL ( talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Any more views? --Philogo 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As is:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
Option Y:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
They are not that very different; the change to Y represents the view of one or other of us: Truth and Reasoning IN, wiki-links OUT, "such as" in. I think the sentence, in either form, says a great deal with few words. Being not very different from each other really we HAVE reached a consensus. --Philogo 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Rick Norwood ( talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you object to "concepts", substitute "issues" and we can keep the "such as", which I agree is desirable. On the other hand, it does read a lot better without any "______s such as" at all, though I accept the criticism that it misleadingly hints at a complete list. Rick, I am afraid your relative unfamiliarity with philosophy shop-talk is showing here. I have heard "value judgments" used as a general term for ethics & aesthetics fairly frequently; it is one way of avoiding the terminally ugly "axiology". And if we want to cite everything, let's go to the long list of definitions linked to at the top of this page. Sigh. So, to sum my position: I am not happy with Option Y.
271828182 (
talk)
05:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Your link value judgment says it all: note that it does NOT say this term is privy to professional philosophers. I am sure the term "value judgment" is in common use. I really cannot udnerstand what the problem you have with it is. I have given you tons of refernces showing how the concept of value judgements gives rises to philsophical problems: if you looked at even a few of them I could understand how you remain unconvinced. I would hazard even that you wold be hard pressed to find a single book in Ethics which did not talk about various value judgments. --Philogo 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There is NO consensus for posting Y. You are the only person who likes it, though one other was willing to go along with it, just to get this over with.
Philosophers should use words well. The fact that "the concept of value judgements gives rise to philosophical problems" has nothing to do with the fact that nobody (except you) claims that value judgments are one of the major branches of philosophy. All of the other items on the list of major branches are referenced. "Value judgments", as a major branch of philosophy, is an assertion that is yours alone. Rick Norwood ( talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
For: Snowded (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008, (UTC)Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Against: Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC), (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Not opposing: JJL (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live ( ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning ( logic).<ref>{{cite book|author=Quinton, Anthony; ed. Ted Honderich|title="Philosophy". ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy''|date=1996}}</ref><ref> Will Durant, ''Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers'', Pocket, 1991, ISBN 0671739166, ISBN-13 978-0671739164.</ref>
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.
My preferred option:
Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence in order to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. Major branches of Philosophy include Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[1][2][3]
It is concise, -importantly- it is correct, it does not cut-out anything (by virtue of being correct), and it lists the major branches by their topical name. Linking to Epistemology and displaying Knowledge is a *red flag* directing our attention to the fact that somewhere along the way _clarity_ was tossed out as a goal. Objectivity requires the use of Epistemology (not Knowledge) as any given Wikipedia user will have a belief as to the meaning of knowledge depending on their explicit and/or implicit philosophy - Epistemology (the *study* of the nature of knowledge) is a science. As for using laymen terms, the user looking up Philosophy for the first time doesn't need to be shielded from the word - its linked, and even defined in the very next section. The article gets it right 2/3 times (the links, and the branches), lets achieve 3/3 (the displayed text of the links). Karbinski ( talk) 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I take it 'the study' is ok, yet you claim 'the science' is controversial. If one's inquiry into the questions of Philosophy isn't based on reason and logic, then one is not engaged in "study". Anyhow, I can live with 'the study'. My not using politically correct language does not skew my meaning, I was referring to our species, not a particular gender. It is the job of Philosophical _study_ (lol) to provide _individual adult human beings_ (rofl) with a comprehensive view of life - how explicit any given person's philosophical beliefs is not relevant. The goal of any study is for comprehensive answers. If the goal is half-answers or wild guesses, then its babble and speculation - not study - one is engaged in.
On the side: to the extent that any dogma provides answers to Philosophical questions, it is philisophical. Neat don't you think. So if a religion, say Islam, offers up answers (on methaphysics, ...) then that religion is a Philosophy. If some wikipeida editor crys Mysticism isn't philosophy, they are not qualified to contribute to the opening paragraph of this article. Philosphy isn't a view of the nature of humans (rofl) and existence, its the *study* (lol) of these things. You bet there are false Philosophies out there, logic tells us they can't all be right (contradictions cannot exist). Karbinski ( talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if the new first sentence is based on the History of Philosophy then the contributing editors should be able to verify with realiable sources. Short of that its vulnerable to being cut as OR and POV (of 4 editors it would seem). Labeling my stance as Objectivist is flattery. The meaning of life as a topic of study falls under the science of Philosophy - historically anyways. Karbinski ( talk) 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not bring up 'the meaning of life', my suggested lead was: "Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence in order to provide man with a comprehensive view of life." Karbinski ( talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead section is subject to the same standards as the rest of the article. Karbinski ( talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If you check other pages (History, Theology etc) you will find that there is no citation in the lead sentence. Some do (Geography) but it is not a requirement. This question was discussed some time ago and my preference was for a cited source. However the discussion and clear consensus was for a summary statement. Agreement on this was reached. Please read the history. You can of course open the question here and see if other editors agree with you. However until you get that agreement please do not edit the article on this issue. -- Snowded ( talk) 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the following. It is a very slight modification of what we have now. I suggest we go with it. We've been at this far too long, and we need to move on.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find something that we can agree on. I, too, would like to see "logic" added to the list, but since we don't claim that the list is exhaustive, and since the addition of "logic" is controversial, I left it out. The same with the wikilinks. I like them, but they are high up in the body of the article, so in the interest of getting something done, let's leave them out for now.
Can we move from what we have now to the formulation I suggested above without having that formulation reverted? Nothing in Wikipedia is final. Does the formulation above move us in the right direction? Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see any advantage of the proposed language over the current language. It varies minor wordsmithing of the "concepts such as" part and de-links the major areas. It's better as is, though again the lack of an area that most major research universities consider a crucial area of study for would-be philosophers--logic--is unfortunate. It might be best to let this rest and devote some of this energy to the body of the article, which still flows poorly. JJL ( talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
In this section editors are asked to contribute in compliance with Wiki policies Be polite, No personal attacks, Assume good faith. Source all claims
Proposed contents of lede (in no particular order):
1 The etymology
2 The main 4 branches (logic, metaphysic, epistemology, ethics)
3 clear/critical/logical thinking about big/fundamental questions
4 No universal agreement about the precise definition
5 it does not rely on empirical evidence, nor on revelation or authority.
Please add polite comments on the above to the bottom of the list below.
Comments on the above:-
re 3 To avoid loose talk, endless disussion, and a result that sounds like a "puff" either drop all together the "about big/fundamental questions", part or proceed with extreme caution.
re 5 Proceed with similar caution regarding "it does not rely on empirical evidence". (Are we using the term rely carefully and precisely? If anything that made use of empirical evidence was said not to be philosophy, then we would eliminate large tranches of philosophical writing. e.g. the whole of ordinary language philosophy and most of Plato's dialogs.)
--Philogo 13:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Peter you have made claims here about philosophy which are supported by sub-pages that you created with selective quotes. Please stop trying to pretend that you are the perfect guardian of Wikipedia standards and everyone else lacks your competence. For the record I suggested Freeman as an authority if it was needed so please don't pretend that you were some how acting in a noble manner by finding one article by him. People attempt to engage with you in a process and the next thing we get is a set of patronising and inaccurate remarks. PLEASE ADDRESS THE DISCUSSION/QUESTIONS RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO ASSERT YOUR POSITION. I summarise some for you:
If you can't engage then I think we need to abandon this attempt and move into mediation -- Snowded ( talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Taking the above discussions into account, using Peter's wording as a base, how about this. I moved the branches into the explanation to avoid making a statement on a priori. Given the use of reason I combined the reference to logic. I removed religion, as some approaches in the history or philosophy would argue that religion is reason (interestingly so do some modern approaches to evolutionary psychology). Overall I tried to reduce to a simple, non-controversial but meaningful statement. I think there is then a place for additional sections on issues such as reason, experimental v a priori etc. If we can get rid of this introduction we can focus on creating those. I have removed quotes and citations from the words, but they could go back in as references.
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy deals with the fundamental issues of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished by its use of reason and its systematic, critical approach to problems. -- Snowded ( talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy deals with the fundamental issues of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. -- Snowded ( talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate and very general, concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value. In university courses it is studied in a manner which lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. In the earlier stages of the Cambridge course, the central elements are logic, metaphysics, ethics, and philosophy of mind; later on attention is also paid to political philosophy, philosophy of science, and aesthetics. As the course proceeds the number of optional elements increases, so that in Part II there are no compulsory subjects.
University of Cambridge. Note the above makes no mention of a priori reasoning in particular, does not loosely say "BIG" issues, but says rather, in effect, that the nature of philosphy is defined by its scope, i.e the problems that its studies, and immediteley and concisely outlines the nature of those problems both in broad terms 'ultimate and very general' and in specifics 'concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value' --Philogo 11:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
A:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.--Philogo 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Wiki style guide recommends definition before etymology. Also, omit unnecessary words. How about:
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Lets try one technique at a time, and the current one is (my suggestion) copy the last suggestion, and edit it with strike out and italics. Rick's does not count because it it does not do that. PETER : you say could live with A above (label added) with a tweak or two, so go on, copy it below and then tweak it (remember del in strike-out, insert in itals. [This btw the is the way solicotors negotiate with a so-called "travelling document"])--Philogo 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It is awfully high-handed of you, Philogo, to say that a Wikipedia editor must edit according to a style you have decided upon, or it "does not count". My changes were according to the Wikipedia manuel of style. Do you object to moving the etymology to the second sentence?
The objection to a requirement that the great thinkers of the past be considered is well taken. I offer the following. Essentially, it says the same thing as other proposals, but the style has been chanced to conform to the Wikipedia:Manuel of Style.
I've added the Greek from the current lede. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with "authority or custom" but think it better than "superstition or religion". Can you suggest a better phrasing?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with either Peter Damian's suggestion or SamBC's suggestion, even though both leave poor St. Tom out in the cold. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Pruning per Sam, but avoiding less=different we now have:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Peter Damian ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.
Rick wanted the etymlogy at th end which would give us:
B:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”
Then was the idea of using the original full etymology which would give us:
C:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”
The word philosophy is of
Ancient Greek
origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "
love of knowledge", "love of
wisdom".
[1]
[2]
[3]
--Philogo 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
D: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
E: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Peter Damian ( talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with these two revisions of Rick's; what about you guys, and are there more revisions suggested?--Philogo 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
[arbitary break]
recap versions disussed
A:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.
B:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”
C:
The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”
The word philosophy is of
Ancient Greek
origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "
love of knowledge", "love of
wisdom".
[4]
[5]
[6]
D: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
E: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Well if we don't like the strike out idea:-
F: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning " love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [7] [8] [9]
[no need to mention branches, comes up in body; put back mind and language; put back full etmology; make more terse ]
--Philogo 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
So:-
G: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning " love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [10] [11] [12]
--Philogo 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
..but does Philosophy make claims? --Philogo 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Period after "...reasoned argument". Which gives us:
H:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using rational argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
References can be added or not. The style manual suggests leaving the references for the body of the article, but I have no objection to them. I do think the links to subfields are important. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Then, citing the manual's advice to avoid unnecessary words, we could remove "and by" to yield I:
I:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, using rational argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Are we there yet? Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Which brings us to J:
J:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using rational argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
I can certainly accept J if the others can. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
K:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live ( ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only rational argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
Rick you keep slipping back the redundant refs to branches and getting rid of mind and langauge without quite saying why. If you object say why. Nobody else has said they want branch rfs in and mind and language out (although they might). Peter objects to your removing words as unnecessary because to do so changes the meaning. Hence we are really as we were at G, i.e.:-
L: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning " love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [13] [14] [15]
I rasied the point that it implies that Philosophy makes claims (sounding more like the vernacular use of the word) when if anything it examines and challenges claims. Thats the current objection to the current version. Nobody other than Rick seems worried at this stage by 'unnecessary word' or citaions in lede. We could leave THAT until after we have dealt with the more serious issues.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that the reason we are anxious to stress "reason" in there is to contrast philosophy with superstition (or maybe religion) and not to contrast it with other proper subjects like science, history etc. which all use reason just as much as philosophy does. Do we have good reason to contrast philosphy with superstition etc? IS ti not not someaht to damn it with faint praise? (I doubt that a 'definition' of physics or biology would think that it was worth mentioning that it was unlike superstition.) If we wanted to contrast philosophy with something, it would be more to the point to say how it different from science (which was historically a part of philosophy) and logic and mathematics. If the former occupies the empirical-a posterori-sythethic side of the spectrum, and Mathematics and Logic occupy the a priori-analytic wing where does philosophy fit in? What saves it from being cast into the flames as Hume suggested as containing nothing but sophistry and illusion, or being just unverfiable unfalsifiable nonsense of the Logical Positivists. Its no good saying it uses reason - so do ads for snake oil, and works of theology: what does not? Peter do you have a suggestion re 'claims' or have any other reservations about L. above? --Philogo 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: What exactly ARE these "other ways of addressing these questions" to which we are at great pains to contrast philosophy? --Philogo 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We do have good reason to contrast philosophy with superstition, mythology, mysticism, because traditionally that is how Philosophy emerged in the pre-Socratic days. More importantly, all the relevant sources either explicitly say this, or imply it. Note also that the claim of science being 'traditionally a part of philosophy' is not really correct. I take your point about Hume's fork, but this is a simple introduction on Philosophy based on verifiable sources, and not OR. If the sources say that Black=White, then that is what we say. Call me condescending if you like, but I still feel you haven't quite grasped this. Many of the points you make are good ones, but that is besides the point. We are not here to do philosophy, we are here to write down what other people have said. Peter Damian ( talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 12:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 12:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(indent) OK I am loosing it, there are so many versions now and the. It seems to me we had an agreement on: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument to support its claims, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". I have seen the branches removed which seems a mistake. Systematic was an issue So I have put in Rick's suggestion. Am I missing something?-- Snowded ( talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the only objection to this version has to do with the word "claims", which Peter Damian likes and Philogo dislikes. As I've said,I am happy with either version, and think it is time to reach closure. Maybe Peter Damian and Philogo should flip a coin -- unless one or the other is willing to yield the point, I can't think of any other way to decide. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The latest version under consderation is:
L: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning " love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [16] [17] [18]
and the only reservation raisied, so far as I can tell, is mine, i.e. that it implies that Philosophy makes claims (sounding more like the vernacular use of the word), which could saurely be fixed by varying the words to support its claims. (The raison de'etre for a sentence like ours beginning Philosophy is distinguished is because we need to distinguish philosphy from mumbo-jumbo and not from other science and other disciplines, beacause that is what our sources do. Does anybody have any other substantive reservations about it, L above?
--Philogo 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Early modern philosophy is a commonly used term in philosophical history, but I have never heard of "later modern philosophy" used as a description (admittedly, that's an odd pattern, to have early but not late). I suggest changing that title. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any standard way to refer to that period, (the problem being that there are so many movements), but I think 'post-kantian philosophy' serves as well as any other. JustinBlank ( talk) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Where does "postmodernism" fit in, or is it now "out"? Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I made some rather bold changes to this section, though hopefully the additions are anodyne. As for the deletions: since I don't think there's such a term as "later modern philosophy" it doesn't make much sense to say it came to an end. And the rest of the section about "occupying discourses" seemed to be a bit of word salad that just listed philosophers. JustinBlank ( talk) 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the others, omitting the names of the areas is a bad idea. Try reading the first sentence aloud without the names of the areas, and I think you'll see what I mean -- it reads like a run-on sentence. The names give guidence to the reader, and also provide links for the reader interested in particular philosophical questions. And they are referenced.
Snowded's version quoted from above seems to have a lot of support. Does anyone strongly object to it?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence does not mention logic, mind or language, and therefore suggests that questions in connection with them are not "main": I would want to see sources in support for their being subsidary. It restricts Ethics to normativity and implies philosophy does not critically examine the nature of value judgments and concepts. The second sentence (a) suggests philosophy is distinguished from all other disciplines (not just mumbo-jumbo) by critical approach etc. Other disciplines considers some such problems in an equally critical and reasoned way (eg physics considers what sort of things exist - wave, particles, quantums, space-time etc.). I would want to see some citations that support that philosophy is distinguished from e.g. science in the manner suggested. The phrase "accepting no higher authority than reason" is highly florid and unclear; usually a sign of lack of thought. If it means that philosophy takes no account of empirical observation then it is highly contentious as discussed on many occasions previously, and I would want to see citations in support. (GE Moore was not doing philosophy when he held out his hand? Ordinary language philosophers and later Wittenstein not doing philosophy when discussing how words are used?)
--Philogo 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Science (from the Latin 'scientia', meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works.
Well into the eighteenth century, science and natural philosophy were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the scientific method. Prior to the 18th century, however, the preferred term for the study of nature was natural philosophy, while English speakers most typically referred to the study of the human mind as moral philosophy. By contrast, the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century to refer to the Aristotelian concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a sure prescription for exactly how to do something. In this differing sense of the two words, the philosopher John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding wrote that "natural philosophy [the study of nature] is not capable of being made a science".[3]
271828182's suggestion would give us:
M:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
--Philogo 09:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If and only if "other ways of addressing these questions" means "theology" then we could say the same more clearly and with fewer words with:
N:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
--Philogo 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That leaves open for discussion whether it is worthwhile and supported by our sources to (a) (as in sentence 2) seek to differentiate philosophy from theology but (b) not worthwhile differenriating philosophy from (i) other proper disciplines especially science. (ii) mumbo-jumbo (iii) the vernacular use of the word (meaning general outlook as in "his philosophy of life")
--Philogo 09:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That would give us:
O:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
which still leaves open for discussion whether it is worthwhile and supported by our sources to (a) (as in sentence 2) seek to differentiate philosophy from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] but (b) not worthwhile differenriating philosophy from (i) other proper disciplines especially science. (ii) mumbo-jumbo (iii) the vernacular use of the word (meaning general outlook as in "his philosophy of life"). AND if so, whether it is right to say that philosophy "makes claims" (by implication as does theology). --Philogo 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that nearly everyone now agrees on some version of the introduction as given above, who supports closure on this? I.e. just put one of the introductions in, agree not to change it beyond the slight rewording that has been going on, and do something else, like attend to the horrendous state of other parts of the article? There is such a thing as 'diminishing returns'. Peter Damian ( talk) 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Good, why don't you put up a version here, and we'll see if anyone salutes. We all have other things to do with our time. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with
P:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: its the second sentence that is troublesome. There is a proverb in writing that if you cannot get a cherished sentence to come out right, abandon it and write a new one. My suggestion would be to not mention theology etc. nor use the word "distinguished" at all. To concentrate on what philosophy is and not what it is not. My suggestion would along the line of: Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. This would give us:
Q:
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which
exist, and the nature, scope and limits of
knowledge, understanding,
moral judgments,
mind and
language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims.
without the scratch-outs this is:
Q: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
I think the three of us should let the other editors who have particapted have a say before we rush to closure, even in the (unlikey) circumstance that we three are all now in agreeement.
--Philogo 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Either I or Philogo have a tin ear. Version Q seems to me to read very badly, and also to introduce new stuff we never considered before. I'm good at diagramming sentences, but I wouldn't attempt to diagram that monster on a bet. And where did "not by the promotion of new ones" come from. I don't remember ever seeing that before, and I have no idea what it means. Peter Damian, would you please offer a version that at least two or three of us can live with? Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried to render P readable by human beings, but the cross outs don't cut and paste, so I can't read P. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
A1. Philosophy involves thinking about thinking; it is the systematic study of such general and fundamental questions as; what is the universe and its nature (cosmology), how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology) and what forms of reasoning are valid (logic). A2. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and systematic approach (logic).
No doubt this will not do;
My apologies; this is very preliminary. -- NewbyG ( talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Something along these lines would probably be fine, but let's not start over this late in the game. If all but one of us can agree on one of the options above -- several are fine in my opinion and I've asked Peter Damian to choose -- then let's all agree to go with that and take a break until at least August. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with (elimating the strike-outs):
P:
Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: it's just the second sentence that is troublesome.
I think the three of us (Rick, Peter, Philogo) should now let the other editors who have participated have a say before we rush to closure.
--Philogo 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't the stamina to get deeply involved in this again, but most articles on similar subjects in WP start "X is...'. Check mathematics, physics, anthropology, sociology, etc. I know it's contentious to say it's an academic subject, but "deals with" is a weaseling sort of definition that an actual philosopher would surely call you on. Why distinguish from theology something that hasn't even been defined yet?
I'm not entirely happy with that, as I'd prefer to say it's an academic subject that is mother to most other academic subjects, but there you go. JJL ( talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
In answer to JJL's question above, the reason for the word 'distinguished' is that the genus of philosophy is general and fundamental problems, the differentia is its critical, systematic and reasoned approach. Most of the sources, if you read them carefully, are agreed on this. Combining the suggestions above with the excellent quote from Grayling which our e-numbered friend provided, yields
S: Philosophy is a method of intellectual investigation that considers such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things that exist, and the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as theology, mysticism, or mythology) by its critical and generally systematic approach, holding that human reason is competent on its own account to deal with such questions. The word "philosophy" is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge" or "love of wisdom".
Peter Damian ( talk) 07:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
To avoid going round in circles, I suggest for now we leave first sentence as it was i.e. as in P:
"Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language." and concentrate on the troublesome second sentence:
I find the personifications in S excessive in "holding that human reason is competent on its own account to deal with such questions". I cannot find the Graying quote you have in mind, Peter, but:
Grayling in talk:Philosophy/Quotations writes:
"Other human endeavours, not least art and literature, explores aspects of these same questions, but it is philosophy that mounts a direct assault on them, in the hope of clarifying them and, where possible, answering them."
and
"in effect philosophy consists in inquiry into anything not yet well enough understood to constitute a self-standing branch of knowledge. When the right questions and the right methods for answering them have been identified, the field of inquiry in questions becomes an independent pursuit."
--Philogo 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Fed up is putting it mildly. And did Grayling really make the error in elementary grammar "endevours ... explores"? Sounds more like George Bush. I was ready to go with anything you suggested Peter Damian, but I think you've made too many concessions. The trouble with P and S is one of grammar. It is not clear if "nature, scope, and limits" modify only "knowledge" or modify "knowledge, moral judgments, mind, and language." This would be a stumbling block to anyone who reads carefully. They would have to go back and read the sentence several times, and would then probably say, "I say it's spinich, and I say the Hell with it."
I think we had some agreement (that is, all but one of us had some agreement) on Snowded's version above:
The sole sticking point at that time, was the "accepting no higher authority..." If we drop that, and add links, we get:
Nice, short, and to the point. The modifier "such as" allows for other areas such as logic, esthetics, and politics.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for the rest of the lunatic fringe, but I'm happy to let the current version stand, misplaced modifiers and all. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you had a pleasant day.
I tried to keep my hands off it, I really did, but the semicolon is a punctuation mark that comes with rules of its own, and it cannot replace a comma, unless both parts are complete sentences. And while I was there, I inserted a paragraph break. Tomorrow, I leave on my vacation. Have fun until I return. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking back the last version we agreed on was version O, but Ricki wanted to make an amendement (strike out 'to support its claims' which resulted in version P: here it is again just as it appears at the top of this section):-
Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with (elimating the strike-outs):
P:
Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: it's just the second sentence that is troublesome.
I think the three of us (Rick, Peter, Philogo) should now let the other editors who have participated have a say before we rush to closure.
end quote
We had apparently then agreed on the first and last sentence but not the second. The amendements immediately leading up to version P were from Peter and Ricki. The rest of this page sems to consist of further amendments from Peter and Rik, but I had suggested then and suggest again that it would be fair now to let other editors have their say. We all agreed that we would proceed by consensus and that includes editors other than Peter and Rick. Any problem with that?
--Philogo 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that Peter does have a problem with that because he has changed the lede (22/6/08 10:38 without waiting for the consensus and he himself had suggested we should.
--Philogo 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) On semicolon use, this must be a English vs US thing see here - perfectly acceptable in my country to do this. But because Wikipedia is an American thing, and because Americans rule the world so far, that is fine. On version P, I am fine with that, so long as we don't have the 'saloon bar' thing, which was a sort of joke. Best. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The use of the semi-colon Peter Damian cites above is correct in US as well as UK English. What isn't correct is mixing commas and semi-colons. Thus: "We say complex clause A; complex clause B; and complex clause C." is correct, but "We say clause A, clause B; and clause C." is not. I have no objection to changing the first comma to a semicolon. That would solve the problem as well as, maybe better than, changing the semicolon to a comma. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of the mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical and generally systematic approach and the use of reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [19] [20] [21]
I am content with the lede as it now is, (as above) although I would ditch the "the" before mind. (mind as opposed to matter not the mind as opposed to matter).
--Philogo 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
271828182's recent edit considerably improve the intro, can we have these please? Peter Damian ( talk) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Option T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.
I went with "inquiry and reflection" in response to JJL's request, avoiding the scholastic "study of" or any committment to academia, which is false given non-academics such as Kierkegaard or many ancient philosophers. The diction was directly taken from Grayling. I also excised several unnecessary words (such as "limits" of knowledge—that is already covered by the word "scope"; and the additional "of" before language is bad parallel construction, especially when the preceding clause on knowledge and ethics omits a duplicate "of"). "Reliance" in place of "use" is a mild but needed acknowledgement of the centrality of reason to philosophy as it exists. The only misgiving I have about T is the appearance of limiting the questions to only those listed, but that could be fixed by ending the sentence with "and other topics." (Though I confess that would be ugly.) 271828182 ( talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I oppose option T: the lede is better beginning as it does:
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
It is also as agreed by consensus over the last several days.
I propose that we agree not to edit the lede without first posting the proposed amendment here for due discussion.
--Philogo 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I much prefer T. The drafting problem with this alternative is the way it begins "Philosophy considers such...questions as..." and then goes on to list things which aren't questions. "The sorts of things which exist" is not a question. The big improvement in T is that it gets the word "about" in there; then you can intelligibly have philosophy studying (or considering or reflecting on) questions about. This is a big improvement; let's not lose it. Beginning "Philosophy is..." is just consistent with general Wiki practice. KD Tries Again ( talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again.
T is very far from a big improvement.
The current wording reached complete consensus after many days work, and we should have realy good reason to change it.
I agree with Snowed there is not need to follow Philosphy with "is" Any sentence begining with Philosophy is will be FAR more contentious than one begigining "Philosophy considers"
The words "Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about" is extremely clumsy "questions: questions"; whether philsophy is "inquiry and reflection" rather than say "critical anaylsis" is contentious; it is contentious to say the that the matters mentioned are the most general and fundamental..
That said, it is true that in the current version that we all supported, what follows "such ..questions as" is not a list of questions, but a list of things about which questions are raisied. To correct this, if worthwhile, while maintaining the consensus would mean making the least change possible and one which did not change the meaning. I am not sure it is worthwile but a minimal change that would correct this point would be:
U (first sentence only):
Philosophy considers
suchgeneral and fundamental questionsasabout the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
Most important is, that no changes are made to the lede until an agreement has been reached by the editors who have put so much hard work in to getting the lede to where it is now.
Bear in mind that the whole question of what philosophy is and what is a philosophical problem etc. are metaphilosophical questions which are dealt with in the article metaphilosophy. Those who are particulary interested in these matters would better spend their time improving that article. --Philogo 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Philogo, I understand you object to the "philosophy is inquiry and reflection" bit. (Maybe you could share your qualms with Grayling too.) But I have yet to hear any defense from you of the superfluous "of", "and", or the "use of reason" vs. "reliance on reason" edits. Could you address those edits, since you reverted them specifically, despite my avoiding the "philosophy considers" opening (which I consider extremely clumsy myself). 271828182 ( talk) 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose
U1:-
Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
or more simply
U2:-
Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
--Philogo 12:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No. Option T, please. Rick Norwood is the only one we haven't deferred to but he said he was going on holiday. Any vehement objections to T (on the understanding that JJL, KD, myself and 2728444 support it)?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peter Damian (
talk •
contribs)
17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Snowed and I have voiced objections to option T giving reasons. Any reasons against options U1 or U2. --Philogo 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this still option T? "Option T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language." As far as I can see the only difference between T and U1 is the choice between "Philosophy considers..." and "Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about..." I think the second (T) is consistent with Wiki style. But I can't imagine why anyone should really care much. I certainly don't care about the difference between U1 and U2. KD Tries Again ( talk) 19:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
--Philogo 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If we concentrate on the matters that give rise to philosophical problems/objects of philsophical inquiry we are on ground both firmer and more fertile. We have missed out inference and truth in that list. We might better say:-
U3:-
Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, truth, inference, mind and language.
--Philogo 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
(indent) I like the current version, if we can get a less clumsy version of the first sentence of T I am am open -- Snowded ( talk) 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Comparing Face to face (first sentence only):-
Current version:-
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language.
U3: Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, truth, inference, mind and language.
--Philogo 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If you click on each link in turn you can see the ways the other articles begin with X is ...
Does anybody think we are being unfair to philosophy of history, Political philosophy, Aesthetics, philosophy of logic by not mentioning THEIR "objects", or enough is enough.
--Philogo 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Would we all be happy enough with:
--Philogo 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy inquires and reflects on the most general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".
(present version plus modification of opening of Option T -- Snowded ( talk) 07:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
No mention of logic or philosophy of science? "inquires and reflects" rather than "is the study of"? "fundamental questions" followed by what do not appear to be questions?
--Philogo 11:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Option T much preferred. The phrasing and balance of W leaves much to be desired. Given the changes now being proposed are stylistic, and given 272 is easily the best stylist with us, by far, can we go for T, please. Peter Damian ( talk) 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If Snowed prefers the current version it is curious he proposes to replace it with option W. Philosophy does not inquire and reflect: philosophers do that. Philosophy is the study of avoids that problem. If study sounds too academic (do only academics study?; philopsohy IS pretty academic, isn't it? What is philosophy when it is not academic?) "is the examination of" would do as well. The omission of problems associated with logic and science as objects of study is very regretable. Surely logic has alays been a concern of philosophy, and science too particularly in the last 100 years? As before, "fundamental questions" is followed by what do not appear to be questions. --Philogo 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There seemed few objections to U5 accept that it "started a longer list"
I think science and logic should be in the list since logic has always been a concern of philosophy, and science too particularly in the last 100 years. For similar reason I would defend [[philosophy of mind|mind]] and [[philosophy of language|language]].
Surely if we omit philosophical problems associated with science, logic, mind and language we are ignoring a major part of 20th century philosophy? These omissions, together with "Philosophy inquires and reflects", really make the subject sound like meditation.
--Philogo 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". -- Snowded ( talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter if you are reading this signify assent on your talk page! -- Snowded ( talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comparison:
Current version:
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [22] [23] [24]
U5:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, logic, truth, validity, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [25] [26] [27]
--Philogo 23:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
So far as I can see all three versions are the same accept for the first sentence. Option X has the awkward "questions: questions about" and the repetition of "nature". The current version has "considers such" while we have agree we would prefer "is the study of" as in X and U5. U5 is shorter than X, but the addition words in X do not say much: compare
U5: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning ...
X: Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that..
U6: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, logic, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". [28] [29] [30]
Granted that it is now even shorter, we could make it longer by padding it out with words that do not say much but I do not see the point in that.
Let's see what other editors have to say about the current, X and U6 versions now, shall we, Snowed?
--Philogo 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Snowded ( talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Current:
Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
U6:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, logic, mind and language.
X+1:
Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.
--Philogo 12:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The origion of philosophy is the Inod-Iranians, so this must be addressed first, before you even talk of the Greeks. Dvakili ( talk) 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The philosophy page must start with the Indo-Iranians. Ref;Oxford dictionary of philosophy, page409. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 June 2008
Zarathushtra was the first philosopher according to the chronology of philosophy according to Oxford university. This fact has nothin gto do with religion. So do not change my comments, because I will do the same to you. I am stating a fact. Dvakili ( talk) 21:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 June 2008
Once again western philosophy started with the Greeks, that is not the same thing as philosophy as a subject. You do not more than the department of philosophy at Oxford university. The philosophy page must start with the Indo-Iranians. Ref;Oxford dictionary of philosophy, page409. Zarathushtra was the first philosopher according to the chronology of philosophy according to Oxford university. So do not change my comments, because I will do the same to you. I am stating a fact.
Dvakili (
talk)
05:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with a tight introduction saying something along the lines of:
Philosophy is a disciplined study comprising ethics, logic, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology, by investigating the nature, causes, principles of reality, knowledge, thought (thinking), and values, based on reasoning rather than empirical methods.
The word philosophy is of ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[1][2][3]
Catagraph ( talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The philosophy section needs to start with the origin of the subject and the history of the subject. The etymology has nothing to do with the origin of the subject. Dvakili ( talk) 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
U6 is fine by me too. I much prefer "existence" to "sorts of things that exist". The current version doesn't appear to be U6 - can we change it? KD Tries Again ( talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Many thanks to all those who took past in the discussion which I hope has provided a well thought out lede resulting from the resolution of thesis and counter-thesis.
--Philogo 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And I have boldly removed logic as there was no consensus for that and most of the earlier versions had a consensus which excluded it. Issues of truth and validity are covered by epistemology. Look Philogo we have been a lot closer to agreement before with you as the single dissenter so please respect a position. -- Snowded ( talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like those of us involved in this discussion have settled for U6, with no objections except Snowded's above. I have thus boldly followed consensus, and implemented U6. If Snowded wants to object to logic, let's talk some more.
--Philogo 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 12:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Either of U6 and X+1 is OK by me. JJL ( talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will settle for U6 as the least bad option on the table. 271828182 ( talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Current revision as of 23:30, 30 June 2008 UTC, t, u6, x+1, chop suey. (tick one) -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- U6. --Philogo 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
U6 is fine by me too. I much prefer "existence" to "sorts of things that exist". The current version doesn't appear to be U6 - can we change it? KD Tries Again ( talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
U6 or X+1: JJL
Current: NewbyG
U6: 271828182, Philogo, KD Tries Again
U6 bar Logic: Snowded
--Philogo 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Well several points, firstly you cannot close on a vote that quickly without laying out options and narrowing choices. Secondy, even on your count above you have three for U6 and two for other versions with one neutral. In wikipedia conventions that is not a consensus. My earlier preference was for the current version but I was prepared to compromise for U6 with the removal of logic. KD Tries Again agreement was timed before I raised that question. So at the time the edit was made my count is correct. Sorry Philogo, but that is simply not the way concensus is achieved in Wikipedia. There are a whole bunch of conventions about declaring the options, creating a discussion section etc. and there is no way any arbitration process would accept that you has a concensus at that point.
In any event I don't object per se to 271828182 making the edit, my objection (and it is a strong one) was to you implying that I was engaged in edit war when I was fully within my rights given the state of the discussion to revert the whole edit. as it was I made one change as an effort at a compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 July 2008
Logic is an important one to me. Most phil. depts. will offer a lower-level course in logic and advanced ones in areas like logic, modal logic, hist. of logic, etc. It's been an important area: Reasoning about reason. It's crucial to the phil. of math. (and language). To me it has a long and full history within the subject. Aristotle...Frege...Pierce...etc. JJL ( talk) 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the first sentence does not seek to set out the branches or main areas of philosphy, look:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
It sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. (The branches that study them are wiki-links). The incusion of a branch of study such as logic, aesthetics in such a list would be a category mistake. What could be logically added would be the things (concepts) that give rise to problems which philosophy seek to resolve, e.g truth, validity, other value judgments, beauty, justice each wiki-linked to relevant branch of philosophy.
--Philogo 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with the current version (quoted above) with the general description and the hot lins as they do not include logic (or aesthetics etc. etc.) -- Snowded ( talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Other views? --Philogo 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Catagraph I have reversed yourJJL reversed you recent edit, changing problems to concepts. I suggest you open a discussion here. Todate no one has contested problems; concepts is an interesting suggestion but could be problematic as it might imply that philosophy is the study of other people's ideas (aesthetics is not about what is beauty, but about what people say when they say something is beautiful). It may be that we need to say more than problems, but removing problems itself seems to fly in the face of what the enterprise of philosophy is about --
Snowded (
talk)
23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I cannto see the sense of replacing problems with concepts in sentence one giving:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental concepts concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.
What follows "concerning" is a list of concepts; it makes sense to say philosophy studies general and fundamental problems arising from these concepts, but surely not "general and fundamental concepts" arising from these concepts?
--Philogo 00:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I quoted above from Syracuse University's web site [5]: the "four core areas of philosophy" that students must study are The History of Philosophy, Ethics and Moral Theory, Metaphysics and The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology), and Logic. Now from Harvard University [6]: basic required courses are an introductory course and one each from 1. Logic, 2. Contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, 3. Ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and 4. History of ancient, medieval, or modern pre-20th-century philosophy. Stanford University [7]: basic required courses are an introductory course and one each from Logic, Philosophy of science, Moral and political philosophy, Metaphysics and epistemology, and History of philosophy. Major research universities seem to agree that all undergrad. phil. majors must take a logic course (and, incidentally, that metaphysics and epistemology can be lumped together at this level). While what undergrads. must take is hardly the be-all and end-all of phil., it certainly indicates to me that logic is a major area in the minds of academic philosophers. I also consider "The Development of Logic" by Kneale and Kneale [8] to support this position; from pg. 1 it puts "not simply valid argument but the reflection on principles of validity" in the context of Plato and Aristotle. (Of course they also discuss it in the context of math.) I contend that logic is a central area of phil. and merits conclusion alongside ethics and metaphysics/epistemology as the three major areas of phil. JJL ( talk) 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
It sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. (The branches that study them are wiki-links). The inclusion of a branch of study such as logic, aesthetics in such a list would be a category mistake. What could be logically added would be the things (concepts) that give rise to problems which philosophy seek to resolve, e.g truth, validity, other value judgments, beauty, justice each wiki-linked to relevant branch of philosophy.
JJL : what concepts are there that Logic uses or studies, that give rise to philosophical problems, which problems in turn are the proper subject matter of philosophy of logic and/or philosophical logic? --Philogo 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Metaphysics: existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.
epistemology: truth, belief, and justification.
philosophy of mind: minds, or mental processes, bodily states or processes, emotion, will, belief,
philosophy of language: language, meaning, language use, extension, intension, synonymy, Language acquisition, language creation, speech acts, mind interpreter, translation, truth and Reference.
Philosophy of logic: declaration, proposition, statement, truth, analytic, synthetic, contingency, validity, entailment, inference, necessity, proof, reference, designation, predication, relation, denotation, conotation, synonimity, meaning, logical consequence, quantification, scope of logic , second-order logic, empirical knowledge, modal logic
Ethics: moral judgement, justice, fairness, rights, duty, culpability, right, wrong , the good life.
Given Philogo's clarification, I suggest emending the opening sentence to:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
(Call it "U*")
I have inserted "reasoning" as a general concept that gives rise to problems that are studied by logic. I hope the word choice placates both Snowded and Philogo. Also, I changed "moral judgments" to "value judgments", which includes aesthetics. (However, I did not wikilink aesthetics since it would seem arbitrary and possibly confusing to link ethics to one word, and aesthetics to another.) 271828182 ( talk) 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philogo ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 4 July 2008
Back from my vacation. I see you all have been having fun while I was gone. The trouble with replacing "logic" with "reason" as a branch of philosophy is that it flies in the face of the references, most of which mention "logic" as a major branch of philosophy and "reason" as a major method of philosophy. One could argue that just as "physics" has moved from philosophy to science, "logic" has moved from philosophy to mathematics. But I don't think this view is supported by the literature. To quote JJL from the section above, "Ethics and Moral Theory, Metaphysics and The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology), and Logic...1. Logic, 2. Contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, 3. Ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics...Logic, Philosophy of science, Moral and political philosophy, Metaphysics and epistemology." (I've omitted the history of philosophy courses as courses about philosophy rather than courses in philosophy.) All three lists mention logic. None mentions the more vague "reason". Also, all mention either "ethics" or "moral philosophy", none use the vague term "value judgments". I suggest we stick to the standard terminology. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rick. Welcome back. It does not matter wahat the branches are regarding sentence one, because, as said above, the first sentence does not seek to set out the branches or main areas of philosophy: it sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Look:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
--Philogo 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
My comment was in response to Snowded's list, just above my comment. The list currently in the article is fine by me. I would prefer "such as" rather than "concerning", because the list is clearly not exhaustive. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Riki on "such as" - it was "such as" some way back but go transmogrified to "concerning" for some reason lost in the mists of time. I think it's a fair old "such as" list and would give the reader a good idea what philosophy is concerned with in the very first sentence. Have we left out "truth" on purpose?
--Philogo 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
as in, with "concerning concepts such as" also:-
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
--Philogo 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
None of the sources I know of uses "value judgments". To me, a "value judgment" is something like, "I don't believe in capital punishment," or "I don't believe in abortion." The way the phrase is used has little to do with philosophy. Rick Norwood ( talk) 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- :"value judgment" is the usual term in philosophy to contrast with factual judgements. Values are not necesarily moral values, could be aesthetic. The fact-va;ue distinction is pretty fundamental; have a look at the article of that title in Cam. Dic Phil, or better still read David Hume who threw down the gauntlet of the is-ought gap. - --Philogo 23:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see the majority of the recent addition is already in the text below. There is merit in adding in the reference to the exsiting text but I don't understand this need to assert "first philosopher" status. I suggest you take the Oxford Dictionary and insert an actual QUOTE from that as a reference. -- Snowded ( talk) 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra. This is in the dictionary assertions, and not MINE! read the language again. It states the fist philosopher in the chronology, this is straight from the book. And the rest of the statement is on page 405 I will provide the page reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The history section needs to change. we need to start with the origin of the subject and not with the history of the word philosopher or philosophy. That is what the Greeks called the subject, but the subject pre dates the Greeks. This is missleading and is not addressing the history of the subject. Dvakili ( talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 22:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What is my opinion? I am using references and facts from the department of philosophy at Oxford. Do you disagree with oxford university. Besides Cambridge claims the same. All schools of philosophy claim the same. This is as far as the Persian philosophy is concerned. As for the history section is concerned, the history of philosophy does not start with the Greeks. So why is that section starting with Pythagoras? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you answer the questions that I have raised?
Can you answer the question that I have raised. ( Dvakili ( talk) 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).
1. Is it a wikipedia rule that we must only use Blackburn's dictionary? 2. The Oxford and Cambride dictiionary is more superior. ( Dvakili ( talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
- - : Snowded I am happy with giving Dvakili some slack, but as you say he must provide some citations. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy does not appear to mention him. Dvakili you have to back up your opinions with reason and citations, and just one citation is not sufficient, especially if you do not quote the actual text. I have the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edition, 1999) in front of me; on what page will I find the reference you refer to? Its OK to have strong views but your reasons and citations must be strong as well. --Philogo 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am referencing the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy by Simon Blackburn, Pages 405 and 409.( Dvakili ( talk) 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
--Philogo 23:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A quick web search on "the first philosopher" turns up answers like Thales, Anaximander, Lao Tzu, and Pythagoras, among others. Thales seems to be the winner by quantity of hits. It appears that a case can also be made for Zoroaster. I doubt that one could truly describe any individual as the first philosopher. But, at least the Greeks have a long and continuous philosophical tradition, and to the extent that "Philosophy is the study of its own history" that tradition matters. JJL ( talk) 23:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipewdai's article, Zarathushtra, says: "Zoroaster (Latinized from Greek variants) or Zarathushtra (from Avestan Zaraθuštra), also referred to as Zartosht (Persian: زرتشت), was an ancient Iranian prophet and religious poet. The hymns attributed to him, the Gathas, are at the liturgical core of Zoroastrianism." Sounds more like a religious leader than a philosopher.
--Philogo 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) see also http://www.zoroaster.net/indexe.htm :
Is Zoroastrian Monotheism Philosophy or Religion in History? . It is easy to answer this question. Inkling about zoroastrian philosophy shows that Zarathustra, never assumed prophethood. He never claimed he had associated with the Lord of cosmos whose width galaxy extends more than 36 milliard (36 thousand million), light year, which lies beyond our imagination. Zarathustra, never ordered his followers to perform certain activities, but he recommended them to try to know the creator of the earth and heaven and adopt good manner, on the basis of their wisdom. Therefore, Zarathustra was neither a prophet, nor we can call his spiritual path a “religion,” rather he was a thoughtful benevolent who recognized his God on the basis of his wisdom and never said he had been missioned to bring any message from God to human beings.
and http://www.livius.org/za-zn/zarathustra/zarathustra.htm:
Zarathustra (Greek Zoroaster): legendary religious teacher from Bactria, founder of Zoroastrianism...........Zarathustra's teachings are strongly dualistic. The believer has to make a choice between good and evil. Zoroastrianism was one of first world religions to make ethical demands on the believers
--Philogo 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Page 409 is the Chronology page, that is the heading of the page. "In this chronology broadly 'philosophical' events mentioned in the body of the dictionary are in the second column." Then the chart starts at; "1500 BC Beginning of the Vedic period in India" then the second event is "Zoroaster." This is common knowledge in philosophy. Chronology means the origion and events in the order in which they occurred, as in HISTORY. So, the history section needs to start with this fact, chronology.
Page 405 "Zoroastrianism enterd the western tradition as an influence on Hudaism and hence on Middle platonism." This is common knowledge in philosophy by know in modern philosophy.
I am not aggressive or asserting opinion, but, the Greek bias here is very evident. When people do not like facts, they tend to attack the messenger and start personal attacks to discredit the person. Please do not do this, I am stateing western sources.( Dvakili ( talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
I quote this from the Wikipedia article Zoroaster. The writing style seems familiar.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote, "The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra." on page 409.
( Dvakili ( talk) 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).
I wrote, "The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra." on page 409. ( Dvakili ( talk) 23:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).
Do you differentiate between philosophy and religion, between philosophers and religious leaders?-- According to Oxford he was a philosopher, and if bunch of people want to worship his message then that does not mean he was not a philosopher.( Dvakili ( talk) 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
(indent) A PLEA Would editors please indent their comments and not add carriage returns before their signature. -- Snowded ( talk) 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Then it can say "the chronology of philosophers begins with Zarathushtra." on page 409 ( Dvakili ( talk) 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC))
(indent) No one is disuting the phrase from Oxford although it is only ONE authority. The point is that it does not belong here, or in any of the ways you are expressing it. Please read what other authors have said and have the decency to respond to it rather than asserting and reasserting your position without argument. -- Snowded ( talk) 07:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
History of philosophy, or any other subject or science , means, events in chronological order. Oxford dates back the history of the subject or science of philosophy, in chronological order, to 1500BC. Oxford dictionary has done a great job illustrating this on page 409. The title of the page is, Chronology, with columns, text for events and numerical dates. The language and dates are explicit, for easy understanding. This means the history of the subject, or science, of philosophy pre dates the Greeks by approximately 900 years amongst the Indo-Europeans. We need to arrange the section on history of philosophy, to reflect the true and correct chronological order in which things occurred in philosophy, from 1500BC to present. This way the arrangement of events in the history of philosophy will be in the order in which they occurred. Therefore, the history section of wikipedia’s philosophy page, needs to be in chronological order, beginning at 1500BC.
( Dvakili ( talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
Dvakili You just repeat the same assertions over and over again without any arguments in their favour. Repetition is not an argument and as you can see it is not the least bit persuasive. I suggest you follow Snowed's good advice if you want people to take you at all seriously, --Philogo 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Answer the argument and stop your assertion, find another word to use instead of assertion. You are not qualified to discuss this issue.( Dvakili ( talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)).
I'm starting a new section just because the old section was getting too long.
A few points that should be considered.
First, no doubt some caveman wondered what stars were, so we shouldn't talk about the "first philosopher" but rather the "first philosopher in recorded history".
A philosopher needs to do more than come up with a "big idea". If only a big idea is needed, then Akhenaten, who may have invented monotheism, could be the first. But a philosopher must, at least according to our definition, have developed this idea systematically, which suggests Laozi (Lao Tse) or Heraclitus as first. There were a lot of philosophers out and about in the 6th century BCE.
The dates of Zoroaster are not well established. Most sources say he lived somewhere between the 6th century BCE and the 12th century BCE.
Philosophy is not a horse race. Trying to claim a "winner" in the "first philosopher" contest is not appropriate.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Philogo agreed with me about "such as" but then reverted my attempt to have the list read "such as" in the intro on the grounds that this was still under discussion. Is there any further discussion? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Its all over the second sentence and reasoning was inserted in the last draft - see below. If we could reach agreement in this we could end this!
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language. -- Snowded ( talk) 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that most of the changes that have been made in the lede were not arrived at consensus, but were snuck in when nobody was looking. I don't remember when the names of the various areas were removed, or why.
The trouble with "reason" as an area of philosophy is the same problem as "value judgments" as an area of philosophy. Neither is sourced. On the other hand "logic" and "ethics" are sourced.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone like to step forward and say, "I removed epistemology etc. from the lede," and explain why? Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A little while back I suggested the following for the first sentence incorporating (a) "concepts such as" (b) truth (c) removal of wiki-links, lets call it Y
Y: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
"such as" instead of "concerning" was Rikis's suggestion, "concerning concepts such as" my version; without the word concerpts (or similar) subsituting "such as" for "concerning" would change the meaning. (eg We were saying there are problems concening knowledege, not that klnowldeg itself is a problem "truth" was Snowed's and mine removal of wiki-links: Snowed's suggestion, I was persuaded: for aguments in favour of removal see above. Riki: This is a bit of a recap 'cos you've been on hols. No changes have been "snuck in". We all carefully considered and debated version a through t, then u1 through U6, then versions X and X*. The last version actually posted was U6 after a poll. We agreed to carry on the discusion concerning the inclusion/exclsusion of Logic. This was debated. It was agreed that incuding logic as such in the list , being a branch or subject, woul be a categoiry mistake; the rest of the list consists not of subject but things that give rise to problems that philosphy considers. Truth was a better fit, as would be say "validity" of "inference". We are aiming at a representatinve sample of things (basically concepts) which give rise to philosophical problems (or questions) that branches of philosophy (not necessarily on a one-to-one basis) study, indeed seek to resolve. I think we have considered carully the implications of every word in the first sentence, and have not posteed any versions until there seem a consensus, and then with the caveat that we could carry on the discussion.
Ladies and Gentlema, how say you now to:
Y: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
--Philogo 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
FOR
AGAINST
DISCUSSION
I could accept this if "value judgments" were replaced by any phrase that is sourced. Just for fun, I googled "value judgments". The first hit is from Wikipeida: "A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a personal view." The rest of the first several hits all suggest that the phrase "value judgment" indicates a subjective judgment, not based on reason but on personal likes and dislikes. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
And this earlier simpler version is? Forgive but there are so many and I am close to giving up and reverting to an "It must be citable not a consensus position". --
Snowded (
talk)
05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Rik wanted "problems such as existence, knowledge.." instead of "problems concerning existence, knowledge..". A straight subsitution is not possible without changing meaning (see notes above). Therefore I implemented Riks's suggestion as "concerning concepts such as concerning existence, knowledge..". Alternatives would be "problems concerning things such as existence, knowledge.." or just "problems concerning such as existence, knowledge..". With "problems concerning existence, knowledge.." we imply no view whether it is the concepts of existence, knowledge.. that causes problems or existence, knowledge.. themselves. "Things" would be as debatable as "concepts", but "problems concerning such as existence, knowledge..". sounds a little stilted.
There certainly exist the concepts of existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language. The clarification of such concepts and the necessary and sufficient conditions for exemplfying them is the concern of philosophy, at least from the time of Plato. I cannot fathom Rik's objection to value judgments as being the source of philosophical problems. When Thrasymacus says "Justest is the interest of the stronger party" is this not a value judgment that has problems concerning which a certain eminent philospher spent a considerable time discussing in a not completely unknown work? And if value judgements do not give rise to philosophical problems then what are all those discussions in Ethics about, what is Hume's is-ought gap, and why is the fact-value distinction such a basic issue in philosophy? --Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the poll on option Y so far:
For: Snowded ( talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008, (UTC)Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Against: Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC), ( talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Not opposing: JJL ( talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Any more views? --Philogo 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As is:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.
Option Y:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.
They are not that very different; the change to Y represents the view of one or other of us: Truth and Reasoning IN, wiki-links OUT, "such as" in. I think the sentence, in either form, says a great deal with few words. Being not very different from each other really we HAVE reached a consensus. --Philogo 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Rick Norwood ( talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
--Philogo 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you object to "concepts", substitute "issues" and we can keep the "such as", which I agree is desirable. On the other hand, it does read a lot better without any "______s such as" at all, though I accept the criticism that it misleadingly hints at a complete list. Rick, I am afraid your relative unfamiliarity with philosophy shop-talk is showing here. I have heard "value judgments" used as a general term for ethics & aesthetics fairly frequently; it is one way of avoiding the terminally ugly "axiology". And if we want to cite everything, let's go to the long list of definitions linked to at the top of this page. Sigh. So, to sum my position: I am not happy with Option Y.
271828182 (
talk)
05:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Your link value judgment says it all: note that it does NOT say this term is privy to professional philosophers. I am sure the term "value judgment" is in common use. I really cannot udnerstand what the problem you have with it is. I have given you tons of refernces showing how the concept of value judgements gives rises to philsophical problems: if you looked at even a few of them I could understand how you remain unconvinced. I would hazard even that you wold be hard pressed to find a single book in Ethics which did not talk about various value judgments. --Philogo 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There is NO consensus for posting Y. You are the only person who likes it, though one other was willing to go along with it, just to get this over with.
Philosophers should use words well. The fact that "the concept of value judgements gives rise to philosophical problems" has nothing to do with the fact that nobody (except you) claims that value judgments are one of the major branches of philosophy. All of the other items on the list of major branches are referenced. "Value judgments", as a major branch of philosophy, is an assertion that is yours alone. Rick Norwood ( talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
For: Snowded (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008, (UTC)Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Against: Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC), (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Not opposing: JJL (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live ( ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures ( metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge ( epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning ( logic).<ref>{{cite book|author=Quinton, Anthony; ed. Ted Honderich|title="Philosophy". ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy''|date=1996}}</ref><ref> Will Durant, ''Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers'', Pocket, 1991, ISBN 0671739166, ISBN-13 978-0671739164.</ref>
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.
My preferred option:
Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence in order to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. Major branches of Philosophy include Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[1][2][3]
It is concise, -importantly- it is correct, it does not cut-out anything (by virtue of being correct), and it lists the major branches by their topical name. Linking to Epistemology and displaying Knowledge is a *red flag* directing our attention to the fact that somewhere along the way _clarity_ was tossed out as a goal. Objectivity requires the use of Epistemology (not Knowledge) as any given Wikipedia user will have a belief as to the meaning of knowledge depending on their explicit and/or implicit philosophy - Epistemology (the *study* of the nature of knowledge) is a science. As for using laymen terms, the user looking up Philosophy for the first time doesn't need to be shielded from the word - its linked, and even defined in the very next section. The article gets it right 2/3 times (the links, and the branches), lets achieve 3/3 (the displayed text of the links). Karbinski ( talk) 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I take it 'the study' is ok, yet you claim 'the science' is controversial. If one's inquiry into the questions of Philosophy isn't based on reason and logic, then one is not engaged in "study". Anyhow, I can live with 'the study'. My not using politically correct language does not skew my meaning, I was referring to our species, not a particular gender. It is the job of Philosophical _study_ (lol) to provide _individual adult human beings_ (rofl) with a comprehensive view of life - how explicit any given person's philosophical beliefs is not relevant. The goal of any study is for comprehensive answers. If the goal is half-answers or wild guesses, then its babble and speculation - not study - one is engaged in.
On the side: to the extent that any dogma provides answers to Philosophical questions, it is philisophical. Neat don't you think. So if a religion, say Islam, offers up answers (on methaphysics, ...) then that religion is a Philosophy. If some wikipeida editor crys Mysticism isn't philosophy, they are not qualified to contribute to the opening paragraph of this article. Philosphy isn't a view of the nature of humans (rofl) and existence, its the *study* (lol) of these things. You bet there are false Philosophies out there, logic tells us they can't all be right (contradictions cannot exist). Karbinski ( talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if the new first sentence is based on the History of Philosophy then the contributing editors should be able to verify with realiable sources. Short of that its vulnerable to being cut as OR and POV (of 4 editors it would seem). Labeling my stance as Objectivist is flattery. The meaning of life as a topic of study falls under the science of Philosophy - historically anyways. Karbinski ( talk) 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not bring up 'the meaning of life', my suggested lead was: "Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence in order to provide man with a comprehensive view of life." Karbinski ( talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead section is subject to the same standards as the rest of the article. Karbinski ( talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If you check other pages (History, Theology etc) you will find that there is no citation in the lead sentence. Some do (Geography) but it is not a requirement. This question was discussed some time ago and my preference was for a cited source. However the discussion and clear consensus was for a summary statement. Agreement on this was reached. Please read the history. You can of course open the question here and see if other editors agree with you. However until you get that agreement please do not edit the article on this issue. -- Snowded ( talk) 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the following. It is a very slight modification of what we have now. I suggest we go with it. We've been at this far too long, and we need to move on.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find something that we can agree on. I, too, would like to see "logic" added to the list, but since we don't claim that the list is exhaustive, and since the addition of "logic" is controversial, I left it out. The same with the wikilinks. I like them, but they are high up in the body of the article, so in the interest of getting something done, let's leave them out for now.
Can we move from what we have now to the formulation I suggested above without having that formulation reverted? Nothing in Wikipedia is final. Does the formulation above move us in the right direction? Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see any advantage of the proposed language over the current language. It varies minor wordsmithing of the "concepts such as" part and de-links the major areas. It's better as is, though again the lack of an area that most major research universities consider a crucial area of study for would-be philosophers--logic--is unfortunate. It might be best to let this rest and devote some of this energy to the body of the article, which still flows poorly. JJL ( talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)