![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 32 |
Andrew asked me to repeat my proposal. As far as I can see, we are dealing with a fairly short piece of the article. I suggest one of you - or both of you - post your preferred version for discussion to give other editors a fair chance of seeing if a resolution can be reached without having to track back through what is now a very long discussion and an extraordinary number of diffs. This seems to be the way we might reach consensus (as honestly the two of you don't seem likely to reach consensus any time soon. (If the proposal is to have no mention of Bacon, I'm against it, so there's no consensus on that; at the same time I think a number of names really need to be removed as UNDUE.)
I also suggest you might each take a deep breath and look at the following from Wikipedia is not. I do have the sense that you are each marshaling extensive knowledge and effort to defend a difference which really doesn't matter a great deal to an ordinary reader of an introductory article.
A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. KD Tries Again ( talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I didn't tag the list, but I don't disagree with the tag. My suggestion is to keep it minimalist, otherwise you're trapped in the "if x, then why not y?" debate. But I am out of suggestions, so I'll leave you guys to it. Not my period, as I said. KD Tries Again ( talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Concerning this revert I note the following reasons for reverting it:-
I hope my reasons for reverting the revert are clear but at this point I would very much like other editors to enter the discussion.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe both take a break. The difference you are arguing about is not important to the audience at which the article is aimed. As long as the important names are there, the number of people who care whether they are called "important," "influential," "canonical" or "frequently mentioned in text books as" is probably, well, two. I mean, seriously. KD Tries Again ( talk) 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I am a little uncomfortable about some reasonably significant changes that have been recently. I know that we have discussed before how the handling of periods or eras in philosophy could be improved but some of these changes seem over-simplistic and actually going in a direction for the worse. Attempts to tweak and adapt have been reverted. I have started some discussion on the above editor's talk page, but discussion has not gone very far so I would like to move discussion here and ask what others think.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Some notes on periods in philosophy. I consider the following to be a least controversial summary that will agree with almost any source which focuses on the particular periods being discussed:
Comments?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Straussians know that the considered judgment of the scholarly non-Straussian world is that, while Strauss’s interpretation of the history of political thought contains some valuable insights, much of it is a tale full of sound and fury and extraordinary inaccuracies. [Footnote: For scathing judgments on parts of Strauss's work that I have not had occasion to mention, in each case by a scholar much respected in the field, it is worth looking up Terence Irwin's review of Xenophon's Socrates (Cornell University Press, 1972) in The Philosophical Review 83 (1974), pp. 409–413; Trevor Saunders's review of The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws (University of Chicago Press, 1975) in Political Theory 4 (1976), pp. 239–242; and the assessment of Straussian readings of Locke in John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke (Cambridge University Press, 1969), chapter 12. The frustrations that outsiders experience when they try to engage in scholarly discussion with initiates are well illustrated by J. G. A. Pocock's attempt to debate Strauss's Machiavelli with Harvey Mansfield in Political Theory 3 (1975), pp. 372–405.]
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). I do not see my attempted uncontroversial summary as "Straussian" and you've not yet given any explanation about why you think it is controversial in any way. You are just changing the subject.271828182, just for example,
In short, the categories now implied have become terribly garbled, mixing vague hints about Renaissance philosophy itself (but mainly only its last phase) with all kinds of other things linked because they happened in the 1500s. No reader of this section would be able to get a basic summary of who the typical examples of Renaissance philosophy are because most of the people mentioned are 1500s individuals who are difficult to categorize (Machiavelli and Montaigne are famously so). Averroism is not even mentioned at all for example, and it is implied that Aristotelianism was not part of Renaissance philosophy, only "anti-Aristotelianism". That is wrong. Just because you put up footnotes that does not mean your sources actually justify your edits. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I am also going to supply some easy-to-find but just typical comments of the sort I am sure you already know can be found all over the place, which show how especially Bacon, and only slightly less clearly Machiavelli, are seen as starting points for certain aspects of modern philosophy. The purpose is simply to show that your claims that no one has said such things are simply disingenuous...-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bodin/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/
These new movements in philosophy developed contemporaneously with larger political and religious transformations in Europe: the decline of feudalism and the Reformation. The rise of the monarchic nation-state found voice in increasingly secular political philosophies, as in the work of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas More, Justus Lipsius, Jean Bodin, and Hugo Grotius.[18][19] And while the Reformers showed little direct interest in philosophy, their destruction of the traditional foundations of theological and intellectual authority harmonized with the revival of fideism and skepticism in thinkers such as Erasmus, Montaigne and Francisco Sanches.[20][21]
This highly condensed summary paragraph deals with two topics, as indicated by the opening sentence: politics and religion. The second sentence concerns political thought. The third sentence concerns religious thought. Thus, the "Reformers" being referred to are Luther, Calvin, et al. (as attentive readers might have guessed from the capitalization). It is not a reference to Machiavelli & co. at all. Really, try not to edit until you have understood what you are editing. As for your challenge to provide a source for grouping Machiavelli et al together as Renaissance political thinkers developing new ideas about the state: I already did. Open the two books cited (sorry if they are not online, you may have to go to a library) and read the pages cited, and you will find all of the thinkers in that list discussed in those pages. Last, again, until you starting raising this fuss, I wasn't editing the Renaissance section. So interrogating me about who is and who isn't mentioned there is bizarre. I've added some references, copy-edited, and re-organized it in the past year, but for the most part I didn't write it. 271828182 ( talk) 23:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The History of philosophy article solves problems such as these by largely dispensing with citations. This is not my period, so I don't have a dog in the race, but it seems clear that the philosophers under discussion are transitional figures. So long as they are correctly described, does it really matter whether they come at the end of one section or the beginning of the next? KD Tries Again ( talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
My suggestion: since we are editing by consensus, and it doesn't look very likely that the two editors engaged in this lengthy discussion are close to agreement, maybe each of you might post on this page - for discussion - how you think the sentences in dispute should read. This would make it easier for uninvolved editors to participate and help to find a resolution (or, you can both carry on arguing about it of course). KD Tries Again ( talk) 05:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Is there a brief summary of the issues here? It's alot to read from scratch. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Next subject. The early modern sections ends with a sentences which says that, The early modern era is generally considered to end with Kant's systematic attempt to simultaneously limit metaphysics, justify scientific knowledge, and reconcile both of these with morality and freedom. The sources cited are...
Problems:-
Instead of me doing anything yet I post my points here and wonder if other editors might be able to tweak the sentence and its sourcing appropriately. As it stands there is no clear source for the sentence, but I do believe something about the key figures (Hume, Rousseau, Kant) in the last phases of the early modern period deserves to be said, just as I believe that there should be mention of the key figures at the beginning. The early modern philosophical period is unusual in the way in which it saw itself as a project being driven by the proposals of particular key individuals. It is still studied that way today, and so there is verifiable justification for this treatment, which is also common amongst sources.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
"The transition from the early modern era to modern philosophy proper came with with Kant's systematic attempt simultaneously to limit metaphysics, justify scientific knowledge, and reconcile both of these with morality and freedom." (I think that's enough and consistent with the two sources, but one could add:) "Kant's work, indeed, might be regarded as a new beginning in philosophy, rather than simply culmination of what came before (Nadler)." KD Tries Again ( talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Do all organisms inherently have what we would call philosophies? Do you have to call it a "philosophy" (or have a language or anything to even 'isolate' concept at all?) I don't mean a "love of wisdom" (the most useless etymology I have ever come across), but rather a standardized set of beliefs about the nature of the world? Even if they are primitive or not expressed in a human language or anything useful to us at all? I am not some moron saying "I think my cat is a logical positivist" (but if any of you wanna use that as a bumper sticker can I get some money kicked my way from the sales?). But I mean, like, when they teach gorillas to "use" sign language, is it actually developing a set of values about the fundamental nature of life, or are we really just making it act "like us" for, to be quite blunt about it, our amusement? (I'm not asserting that the gorilla would or could or even "should" understand the finer points, but since when did that disqualify any of us "highly-evolved" blobs from allowing the same for ourselves?) So, back to the point: Supposing that language or nuance are not defining characteristics of "thought" or "thought development" or "expression" (i.e., we all know that a dog growling is a sign of displeasure or anger -- even though the way the dog expresses himself is non-linguistic and very simple), do all organisms have philosophies, and does this merit inclusion in the article. 98.247.228.141 ( talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
PS: Yes I understand that the use of the word "standardized" betrays some obvious & inherently human thinking that probably leads, somewhere down the line to logical fallacy if probed or deconstructed enough. Yes yes, very douchey academic talk all around. 98.247.228.141 ( talk) 11:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the branches being considered are modern, however these are not the classical philosophical branches; namely political, mind, language and religion. I believe these should be deleted and the subjects should be only the classical branches, those are mostly what are part of a Philosophical education. Sovereignlance ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts i like to share but not sure if this is the right avenue. This is also my first post. If i am doing something wrong please tell me.
This is the current definition of philosophy on wikipedia. "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
To me, philosophy is the thinking and theorizing process that exist before and between actions for the purpose of discovering truth and what to do with it. All established academic disciplines, economics, physics and everything else were all initially the subject of philosopher’s contemplation. Philosophers thought about them until they convince themselves to move beyond thinking up theories to understand those subjects and onto actually proving their theories, with scientific methods developed by other philosophers. Where scientific method can be effectively applied to prove theories about the subject, advanced theories are able to be built on proven theories which can then proven by further application of scientific methods. Thus a loop is form and study of those subject become highly specialized giving birth to disciplines. Philosophers who become specialized in a particular discipline are then given name associated with their discipline, such as economist and physicist. Disciplines where scientific method are more applicable are grouped together under the broader label of science. The people who study a science discipline are brought under the broader label of scientist. These scientist are still philosophers who engage in philosophical theorizing between acts of proving their theories with scientific methods.
Subjects where the scientific method cannot be effectively applied, never got developed too far from the initial spark of thought about them. It only seems like philosophers only study general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language because understanding of them remains primitive (with all due respect); and philosophers who study specialized and advanced subjects are given broadly recognizable new labels.
Having already go on too long on the first sentence of wikipedia’s definition, let me just quickly end my view with the second sentence by saying this: Philosophical thinking usually involve critical, generally systematic approach and rational argument because they are usually the best when one try to think about truth and what to do about truth. Philosophy is not distinguished by its method, but by its intended goal and its limitation to thought. Utoneo ( talk) 07:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add REP Online to the list of relevant external links within this article and other related articles but I am mindful of Wikipedia's rules and objectives and don't want to contradict the purpose of the site. Any thoughts? Claremethven ( talk) 11:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Reverted to Revision as of 10:36, December 13, 2010. No case made in discssion ofr insertion of
It should be noted that philosophy is not seen by all as contained by rationality, and that philosophy may take the essence of rationality itself as a matter of study. Philogo ( talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
However, philosophy is not seen by all practitioners as limited by the methods of rational argument, and some philosophers see the suitability of such methods of engagement with problems as a matter for investigation. [1] [2] [3]
I think the first practical concern is that if this type of thing is going to be mentioned it should at least be a clear and meaningful sentence. Then we'd have something to discuss. BTW the sourcing is also questionable. Let me put this another way: Would everyone agree that the two cited books of Nietzsche and Heidegger clearly are examples of "practitioners" who are not "limited by the methods of rational argument", and who see the "suitability" of "the methods of rational argument" for engaging "with problems" as a matter for investigation? Is it clear what the "methods of rational argument" even are in this context?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As Philogo well knows, this argument has been going on for years! Hi, Philogo.
I fought for the position that if philosophy is by definition rational, then questions about rationality are by definition not philosophical questions, just as questions about whether or not we should accept the parallel postulate are by definition not questions within Euclidean geometry. I took the position that we should argue for rationality within philosophy instead of assuming rationality a priori.
This fight I lost. Have fun. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Snowded. Every time I see your name, I think, "Where are the Snowdeds of yesteryear?"
To answer Philogo's question, I'll try to be more clear. If philosophy is by definition rational, then a person, usually considered a philosopher, who argues irrationally, as in "The word that can be spoken is not the true word," is not "really" a philosopher. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts on this matter: the current lede is defining philosophy in terms of its use of rational methodology. But philosophy, being by its nature reflexive, takes its methodologies also as its subject matter; and in that vein the proposed change to the lede is stating that philosophers sometimes question rational methodologies. But that does not contradict the definition of philosophy in terms of rational methodology, for as Andrew says above, the philosophers who question rational methodologies are doing so using rational methodologies... as opposed to, say, painting abstract art "challenging the hegemony of rationality in the modern world" or something, which would not be a rational method of questioning rationality.
The upshot: the proposed lede is true enough, in spirit anyway, but doesn't serve the "balancing" purpose that its contributor seems motivated by, because it doesn't actually add any kind of qualification to the definition of philosophy. It's sort of a tangential aside about some conclusions in one subject area of philosophy, in a sentence about the methods of philosophy (with the confusion coming about because philosophy takes its methods as one of its subject areas), and as such I don't think it belongs in the lede. But maybe something about this could be elaborated upon in Metaphilosophy? (Which, by the way, I still think needs a summary here {{main}}'d to that article). -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 19:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a topic discussed ad infinitum over the past ten years, but most sources still describe Confucius as a Chinese philosopher. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Recently, an editor removed this article from the category "Greek inventions". I reverted, not because I necessarily disagree with the removal, but because I think it should be discussed first. The article makes a claim for the "wisdom literature" of Mesopotamia being philosophy. This claim is based primarily on a single source, the article "Wisdom and Not". One source does not a consensus make. The article "Wisdom and Not" is defensive, beginning with a long analogy, and recognizing that the claim it defends is not generally accepted.
If "wisdom literature" is philosophy, there is a great deal of it, in essentially every culture, from the Hebrews to the American Indians. It usually boils down to a few philosophical nuggets. The wisdom of God passeth human understanding. The days of a man are short, and filled with suffering. When a God or Goddess falls in love with a mortal, it usually ends badly for the mortal.
Is wisdom literature philosophy, or does philosophy require more of a systematic development, with reasoning that goes beyond a simple assertion of what seem obvious principles?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You make a good case, with cited sources, though the origin of Indian philosophy is notoriously hard to date, and 8th century BCE seems too early to substantiate. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Aruni is an interesting character, but it is not clear to me whether he is a historical person or a mythic sage, and his great teaching, "Thou art God" sounds more like wisdom literature than like philosophy. Heinlein used it in Stranger in a Strange Land, but much as I love Heinlein, I'm not convinced that "Thou are God" is philosophy, unless there is some sort of context to back it up. Scharfstein is just one source -- do other sources agree? By the way, Ben-Ami Scharfstein is an interesting writer. Somebody should create a Wikipedia article about him. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why does every article lead back to philosophy if you click the first link that is not in brackets!!! as: http://www.reddit.com/tb/hgkdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.98.81 ( talk) 15:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Following the above mentioned phenomenon I have noticed the first few words of the article contain 'problems'. Now what is interesting is that this article is a loop around "Problem -> Answer -> Problem". I suggest someone with the appropriate rights to make this word a link to the relevant article. This would make a beautiful feature that most articles end up in philosophy, which ends up in a loops of problems and answers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanjouty ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Random article transphobia got here in 33 moves. Future attempters can assume they've reached it if they hit science, mathematics, physics, causality, information, fact, nation, sovereign state... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.157.59 ( talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
http://xefer.com/wikipedia - This links to an application where you type in the name of a wikipedia page and it shows you how you can reach philosophy from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.145.185 ( talk) 22:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone messed with the article!!! Why does "existence" the first link on the philosophy page, go to "metaphysics" now? Now it goes philosophy->metaphysics->philosophy, whereas there used to be a much bigger loop that included physiology, math, fact, science, etc.... all way better topics than philosophy i might add. anyways, someone should switch it back! the article hasn't been rewritten someone just F'ed up the link to point to the wrong page ... Mike Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.166.195 ( talk) 19:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Guy, there is a search box on this talk page which should be helpful to find old discussions in the archives of this talk page. I would suggest writing a draft lead here on the talk page instead of changing it directly. For better or worse, when trying to change the opening lines of a much-read article like this one you should expect that it will take some time and discussion.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't phylosophy of mind a division of metaphysics?-- Anuclanus ( talk) 04:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It is reasonable to classify it as such. The mind-matter question is a metaphysical question. However I would not consider philosophy of mind to be a "branch" but rather a "field." Greg Bard ( talk) 03:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The east-west division in the history of philosophy section is completely arbitrary. It implies a relationship between Middle Eastern and Far Eastern philosophies that does not exist. I've reorganized the history section in such a way that it combines the two sections, making it chronologically clearer without significantly altering the content.-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 01:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I tend to categorise the history of thought via four main directions and have a fifth category to contain the rest (which is necessarily then subdivided). These four main ones are Ancient Greek thought, Ancient Chinese thought, Ancient Indian thought and Ancient Hebraic thought. I have a certain amount of practical and theoretical interest in all four. John Allsup ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. Since this article looks like a list of philosophies can we maybe arrange them similar, but not exactly, to the way the Philosophy template organizes the list of philosophies? Specifically, can the "main theories" section be part of more specific sections rather than just being 'main'? Tell me what you think. Neurophysics ( talk) 05:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, can we make each branch a separate section? That might be proper due weight, as, for example, two sentences on logic does not seem fit. Neurophysics ( talk) 00:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Amongst the recent diffs I see one proposal of Neurophysics is to move the short etymology section up to the first position after the intro. I find this reasonable. I think the position where it is now is not working well. It is not the sort of information you expect to find after already having worked through a long article, but rather something that should be right near the top.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
First sentence, add mathematics to list of things that are evaluated.
Hpaige422 ( talk) 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice some editor(s) have hamhandedly integrated the history sections with the previous "Geographical" sections of the article. Since the geographical sections were very poorly written (i.e., terribly sourced, tendentiously written, riddled with dubious claims, huge WP:UNDUE problems), this has the net effect of seriously degrading the quality of a half-decent section of the article. Can we revert to the prior organization, or substantially rewrite the entire section to repair these huge problems? To put it simply: if you open almost any reference book on philosophy, or encyclopedia article on philosophy, you will see in the corresponding "history" section a far, far better treatment than the eyesore this article is currently burdened with. And such treatments will be substantially closer to the previous "history of western philosophy" section than the current revision. 271828182 ( talk) 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" should contain links to the subjects "existence", "knowledge", etc.
Goldace ( talk) 01:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
"Structuralists believed they could analyze systems from an external, objective standing, for example, but the poststructuralists argued that this is incorrect, that one cannot transcend structures and thus analysis is itself determined by what it examines, while the distinction between the signifier and signified was treated as crystalline by structuralists, poststructuralists asserted that every attempt to grasp the signified results in more signifiers, so meaning is always in a state of being deferred, making an ultimate interpretation impossible."
This paragraph is full of incoherent, nonsensical mumbo jumbo. It needs to be simplified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 ( talk • contribs) 2011-11-18T20:55:06
It is a weight issue that one sentence is given to logic while other less significant topics are given whole paragraphs. Also, right now the moral and political philosophy has a whole section for itself. To address both, can we have one section called branches and have as subsections things like logic, aesthetics and move moral and political philosophy here since there is no particular reason to section off this one branch. Neurophysics ( talk) 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The subsections in the “Main theories” section, realism and nominalism, rationalism and empiricism, and skepticism, would be better if incorporated into other sections. There is little to define what makes a theory “main” and there are a lot of theories out there. For the remaining subsections like pragmatism and the analytic tradition, etc, which cover philosophy more broadly, we could change the title to something like “Major schools” or “Major traditions” instead. Neurophysics ( talk) 16:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I came across this reading Will and Ariel Durant's The Age of Voltaire, p. 605.
"By philosopher we shall mean anyone who tries to arrive at reasoned opinions on any subject whatever as seen in a large perspective."
Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly a philosophy of religion. And I would also suggest a philosophy of craftsmanship would not be entirely out of the question. Of course, thinking about one particular religion or craft would probably miss the big picture. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not use the simple, clear, and concise Prof ACGrayling definition of philosophy: that it is enquiry - critical, reflective enquiry.
Or more fully...
Philosophy has been the driving force of progress and change throughout the history of our western culture - because philosophy is enquiry – critical, reflective enquiry. And it has turned into the natural sciences, and the empirical social sciences. It continues as part of this great conversation that we have to have, about how we should live and how we should organise our society. Philosophy is vital.
Andrew Lancaster, I see the point you make and I just have to agree. The best we can do as of now is mention examples of subjects it handles because I cannot imagine all of us agreeing to a single definition on such a topic. That said, can’t this be ameliorated by suggesting the few, broad perspectives? I was thinking something like this which you could happily improve on;
Philosophy is the rational study of subjects that broadly includes existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language. These topics are sometimes defined by their general and fundamental nature (Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans). They are sometimes defined as any subjects where factual certainties cannot easily be established by scientific or other means (Columbia). Philosophy is also more broadly defined as including any critical, reflective enquiry (Prof ACGrayling).
I tried to make the last sentence allude to what I think Rick Norwood and others were suggesting. Is that right? Neurophysics ( talk) 03:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this discussion seems a bit beside the point. This is not a forum for discussing how to define philosophy --
WP:FORUM. What editors think philosophy is doesn't matter. The article must reflect the best scholarly consensus, as reflected in reliable secondary sources --
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That is what the current lede does. The Durants' 50-year-old popular books are not even close to being the sort of reliable secondary sources WP policy enjoins us to use. Grayling's poetic short definition likewise -- Grayling is already cited as a source for the current lede, from a scholarly reference source.
271828182 (
talk)
00:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I just happened to be reading this. I do not say we should use it here as such but I think it shows a very major philosopher agreeing with this point that philosophy deals with the non-obvious.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It is the task of philosophy to discover what is common even in what is different. According to Plato, the task of the philosophical dialectician is "to learn to see things together in respect of the one."
— Hans Georg Gadamer, The Relevance of the Beautiful and other essays (Walker trans.), 1986, p.12, citing Plato's Phaedrus 265d
The business from the Columbia Encyclopedia "distinguishing characteristics" sub-section is unhelpful, as it is based on a sharp distinction between "fact" and "theory" that is just the sort of thing considered in philosophy. In any case, a general encyclopedia article is an inferior source compared to scholarship from philosophy itself. All that is needed to distinguish philosophy from science narrowly considered is already in the definition, with the words "general and fundamental" and the list of specific problems. 271828182 ( talk) 17:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Fully understanding Newton means avoiding anachronistically substituting our conception of philosophy in the twenty-first century for what the early moderns called 'natural philosophy'. To be sure, the latter includes much that we now call 'science', and yet it clearly includes much else besides. [7]
My vote is for Neurophysics's suggestion, which seems the least controversial: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." In short, let's leave the article as it is, unless something clearly better comes along. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I was only commenting on the first sentence of the lead. I agree that the second sentence of the lead is wrong, and will open another thread below for that discussion. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
in the article Philosophy right here, it states that the re are four main branches of study called metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. however, in the Epistemology article, near the bottom of the introduction it says "Epistemology (how we know things) is combined with ontology (what things exist) to constitute the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. The other three branches of philosophy are ethics (which attempts to understand and prescribe conduct), politics (which attempts to describe how we should interact with one another), and aesthetics (which discusses questions of beauty and taste)."
this one implies that the four main branches of study are called metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.
are these two articles contradicting each other? Ghostwork ( talk) 04:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"These topics are sometimes defined as those where factual certainties are not easily established by scientific or other means.[3]"
This sentence is not in any way supported by the reference given, and should be removed. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The link for existence in the lead should really go to existence. Only makes sense, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butler12333 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this requested move. Noetica Tea? 22:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
To much a intelligent people hast problem has being wise . (my opinion, I am not bookworm) This is a big problem in today world .
sry my bad english :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckres ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The section on Metaphysics opens with "Metaphysics is the study of of reality, such as those including existence, the relationship between mind and body, objects and their properties, events and causation."
This sentence is ungrammatical (...of of...), and unclear: I do not understand what "those" in "such as those including existence" is referring to.
Jalanb ( talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The page states: Philosophy is the rational[1] study of general subjects concerning which certainty cannot easily be established scientifically or by simple observation.
I would suggest that the study of what can be established easily scientifically falls within the philosophy of science and the study of what can be established by simple observation is necessarily a branch of philosophy of its own (though I don't know if it has a name, nor if it has been formally studied). Maybe the page needs refinement and clarification such that it clearly answers the question: what is philosophy in a way that includes all its branches yet excludes areas of thought that are not generally considered philosophy. John Allsup ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Some claim that philosophy is at an end because its questions will never be answered and, perhaps, should never have been asked. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.30.15.163 (
talk)
19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, I believe my opposition should have to bring this up on the talk page as explained. But, let’s stay civil. The lead issue argument is understandable, but this is pushing it little too far. A previous statement in that section similarly read, "In addition, a range of disciplines have emerged to address areas that historically were the subjects of philosophy. These include anthropology, psychology, and physics." I did not think it was a matter of controversy that other fields were considered part of philosophy, as the sources said. Why are you so determined to whitewash this from the article? Neurophysics ( talk) 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. Again, Columbia does not become unreliable because you disagree with it about the notion of “fact” or whatever. The other source that says what is now “science” was a part of philosophy is from Stanford, [9]. Another editor can add in what the sources say if the issue is me adding my slants. Also, can we get some more opinions here, I am sure someone else notices this is a little weird. Neurophysics ( talk) 08:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Political philosophy (politics) ought to be reported as a main branch. Currently section 2.4 is titled: Moral and political philosophy (with main article links for both), the lede sentence for the branches section doesn't mention politics, and politics is absent from the template listing of branches.
I looked through the talk page revisions of the article for when the change was made in the article and found no discussion of this demotion within the article. Is it really the intention to suggest to encyclopedia readers that in summary, political philosophy is not a *main* branch? -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg) This is (a) Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Did you know if you click the first link in any Wikipedia article, and click the first links after that, eventually you will always end up on this page? 204.184.214.55 ( talk) 17:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
False. Mathematics doesn't lead here. Nor do many things that one would expect. Not even logic does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.195.162 ( talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
any sort of disproof of the "all roads lead to philosophy" theory are outdated. I just checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.6.85 ( talk) 21:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, the original claim is that the first link that is neither italicized nor with within parenthesis is the one to followed. This drastically opens up the pathways to glorious inevitable philosophy. 216.221.94.198 ( talk) 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
There are many loops that won't get you anywhere near philosophy. Joja lozzo 18:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The Count of Monte Cristo leads directly to the author's page which leads directly to The Count of Monte Cristo. My friends and I were stunned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.155.11 ( talk) 05:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Has to be the first non-italicized link outside parentheses. Tested it recently, starting variously with "Papal States" (which took me through Mathematics), "Hanuman", and "SKS". All of them worked. Also, XKCD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.80.230 ( talk) 20:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathematics leads nearly directly here, if you follow the 'non-italicized, outside of paranthesis' rule. I haven't found an article that doesn't lead here, following the rule. Ericloewe ( talk) 22:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Any paths that don't lead to Philosophy were deliberately manipulated to spite the xkcd strip on the subject. 216.150.131.207 ( talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
No matter which article you go to, for each one, if you click on the first link that is not in italics, parentheses, quotation marks, or a template, it always will eventually lead to a loop between this page and Ontology. Charles has spoken! 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a citation needed in subsection History > 5th-16th Centuries > Europe > Medieval for
I can't find a source for this 'golden age'. Does anybody know of a source for this? Matt ( talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me the rationale behind the WikiProject Philosophy rating of this article as C-class? I don't mean to imply that it's not C-class, but I saw that it was previously B-class and would like some clarification of what are currently the biggest problems with this article without going through a whole review or request for comment process. Is there somewhere I can find a discussion or rationale for this article's current rating? Thanks in advance, Matt ( talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the History section, there is a fragment with bad grammar and a missed comma.
This: "In the Arab-speaking world Arab nationalist philosophy became the dominant school of thought. Philosophers such as Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar of ba'athism and Sati' al-Husri in general."
...should be changed to: "In the Arab-speaking works, Arab nationalist philosophy became the dominant school of thought, which included philosophers such as Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar of ba'athism and Sati' al-Husri in general.".
Unfortunately, the page is semi-protected (for vandals), so I can't edit anything. Lekro ( talk) 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening sentence states that Philosophy is based on "logical reasoning". This is not true, as the source states that philosophy is based on analytical reasoning of a "somewhat systematic manner". Using the term "logical" is thus highly misleading, especially in this case.
99.162.85.105 ( talk) 07:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done - does not request a particular edit.
Egg
Centri
c
16:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"Branches of Philosophy" redirects here. Where are they? (Rhetorical question.)
It is easy to do. This article outline understandably began confusing intensional meaning with extensional meaning when it renamed Branches of philosophy to Areas of inquiry and added Specialized branches. To me branches are extensional areas of philosophy, science, and other directions of abstractions, such as categorization. This article seems to be falling further away from the terminology (branch, area, field, tradition or doctrinal literature or movements, theory, discipline) and categorical organization of Outline of philosophy.
Extensional "branches": Since science evolved from (natural) philosophy, and science and Philosophy both rely on abstractions for insight; since science is a philosophical methodology, but Category:Philosophy-related lists is a subcategory of Category:Science-related lists, and because Stephen Hawking said "Philosophy is dead" because reality checks are now done in the (modern) Physics (and he's probably right), lets see what Branches of science says:
Compare branches of science:
Natural science Physical science Physics Chemistry Earth science Life science Biology Social sciences Formal sciences Decision theory Logic Mathematics Statistics Systems theory Theoretical computer science Applied science
Here we see branches Natural, Social, Formal, and Applied. So candidates for branches might be: Natural, Moral and Political, Analytical, and Applied? The top two levels of Chalmers Taxonomy of Philosophy, including a few relevant-to-us entries from the third level, look like this:
Metaphysics and Epistemology Epistemology Metaphysics Metaphilosophy Philosophy of * Action * Language * Mind * Religion Value Theory Aesthetics Ethics as: * Applied * Biomedical * Meta * Normative Philosophy of: * Education * Gender, Race, and Sexuality * Law * Social and Political Misc. Science, Logic, and Mathematics Logic and Philosophy of Logic Philosphy of: *Biology *Cognitive Science *Computing and Information *Mathematics *Phycical Science *Probablity *Science, General *Social Science History of Western Philosophy Ancient Greek Midieval and Renaissance 17th/18th Century British 19th Century 20th century Analytic Continental Misc. Misc. Misc.
Intentional components: The intensional "core" components of any and all philosophy are mentioned in the banner at Category:Philosophy and in the wiki's Outline_of_philosophy#Core_areas_of_philosophy. (I am not arguing for content here, I'm arguing for the WP:MoS mandate for consistency in articulation).
And I quote,
The core areas of philosophy are:
Aesthetics – The study of the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. Epistemology – The study of the nature and scope of knowledge and belief. Ethics – The study of the right, the good, and the valuable. Includes study of applied ethics. Logic – The study of good reasoning, by examining the validity of arguments and documenting their fallacies. Metaphysics – The study of the state of being and the nature of reality. Ontology – The study of being and existence. Social philosophy – The study of questions about social behavior. Political philosophy – The study of the ideas that become political values.
Weakly proposed outline: <with comments>
Etymology History Components Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Ethics Aesthetics <lacking content> Branches <See Chalmers' Taxonomy of Philosophy, above> Natural Philosophy <Title should appear in heading?> Analytical Philosophy Moral and political philosophy Applied philosophy Major doctrinal traditions German idealism Pragmatism Phenomenology Existentialism Structuralism See also <isms> References Further reading External links
The Intension of extension: To head-off an objection. Outline of Philosophy organizes traditions by components of philosophy because the components are what evolve. Components are what are, then, open to critique and comparison. Happy editing! — Cpiral Cpiral 18:59, 23 September 2012 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 32 |
Andrew asked me to repeat my proposal. As far as I can see, we are dealing with a fairly short piece of the article. I suggest one of you - or both of you - post your preferred version for discussion to give other editors a fair chance of seeing if a resolution can be reached without having to track back through what is now a very long discussion and an extraordinary number of diffs. This seems to be the way we might reach consensus (as honestly the two of you don't seem likely to reach consensus any time soon. (If the proposal is to have no mention of Bacon, I'm against it, so there's no consensus on that; at the same time I think a number of names really need to be removed as UNDUE.)
I also suggest you might each take a deep breath and look at the following from Wikipedia is not. I do have the sense that you are each marshaling extensive knowledge and effort to defend a difference which really doesn't matter a great deal to an ordinary reader of an introductory article.
A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. KD Tries Again ( talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I didn't tag the list, but I don't disagree with the tag. My suggestion is to keep it minimalist, otherwise you're trapped in the "if x, then why not y?" debate. But I am out of suggestions, so I'll leave you guys to it. Not my period, as I said. KD Tries Again ( talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Concerning this revert I note the following reasons for reverting it:-
I hope my reasons for reverting the revert are clear but at this point I would very much like other editors to enter the discussion.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe both take a break. The difference you are arguing about is not important to the audience at which the article is aimed. As long as the important names are there, the number of people who care whether they are called "important," "influential," "canonical" or "frequently mentioned in text books as" is probably, well, two. I mean, seriously. KD Tries Again ( talk) 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I am a little uncomfortable about some reasonably significant changes that have been recently. I know that we have discussed before how the handling of periods or eras in philosophy could be improved but some of these changes seem over-simplistic and actually going in a direction for the worse. Attempts to tweak and adapt have been reverted. I have started some discussion on the above editor's talk page, but discussion has not gone very far so I would like to move discussion here and ask what others think.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Some notes on periods in philosophy. I consider the following to be a least controversial summary that will agree with almost any source which focuses on the particular periods being discussed:
Comments?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Straussians know that the considered judgment of the scholarly non-Straussian world is that, while Strauss’s interpretation of the history of political thought contains some valuable insights, much of it is a tale full of sound and fury and extraordinary inaccuracies. [Footnote: For scathing judgments on parts of Strauss's work that I have not had occasion to mention, in each case by a scholar much respected in the field, it is worth looking up Terence Irwin's review of Xenophon's Socrates (Cornell University Press, 1972) in The Philosophical Review 83 (1974), pp. 409–413; Trevor Saunders's review of The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws (University of Chicago Press, 1975) in Political Theory 4 (1976), pp. 239–242; and the assessment of Straussian readings of Locke in John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke (Cambridge University Press, 1969), chapter 12. The frustrations that outsiders experience when they try to engage in scholarly discussion with initiates are well illustrated by J. G. A. Pocock's attempt to debate Strauss's Machiavelli with Harvey Mansfield in Political Theory 3 (1975), pp. 372–405.]
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). I do not see my attempted uncontroversial summary as "Straussian" and you've not yet given any explanation about why you think it is controversial in any way. You are just changing the subject.271828182, just for example,
In short, the categories now implied have become terribly garbled, mixing vague hints about Renaissance philosophy itself (but mainly only its last phase) with all kinds of other things linked because they happened in the 1500s. No reader of this section would be able to get a basic summary of who the typical examples of Renaissance philosophy are because most of the people mentioned are 1500s individuals who are difficult to categorize (Machiavelli and Montaigne are famously so). Averroism is not even mentioned at all for example, and it is implied that Aristotelianism was not part of Renaissance philosophy, only "anti-Aristotelianism". That is wrong. Just because you put up footnotes that does not mean your sources actually justify your edits. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I am also going to supply some easy-to-find but just typical comments of the sort I am sure you already know can be found all over the place, which show how especially Bacon, and only slightly less clearly Machiavelli, are seen as starting points for certain aspects of modern philosophy. The purpose is simply to show that your claims that no one has said such things are simply disingenuous...-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bodin/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/
These new movements in philosophy developed contemporaneously with larger political and religious transformations in Europe: the decline of feudalism and the Reformation. The rise of the monarchic nation-state found voice in increasingly secular political philosophies, as in the work of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas More, Justus Lipsius, Jean Bodin, and Hugo Grotius.[18][19] And while the Reformers showed little direct interest in philosophy, their destruction of the traditional foundations of theological and intellectual authority harmonized with the revival of fideism and skepticism in thinkers such as Erasmus, Montaigne and Francisco Sanches.[20][21]
This highly condensed summary paragraph deals with two topics, as indicated by the opening sentence: politics and religion. The second sentence concerns political thought. The third sentence concerns religious thought. Thus, the "Reformers" being referred to are Luther, Calvin, et al. (as attentive readers might have guessed from the capitalization). It is not a reference to Machiavelli & co. at all. Really, try not to edit until you have understood what you are editing. As for your challenge to provide a source for grouping Machiavelli et al together as Renaissance political thinkers developing new ideas about the state: I already did. Open the two books cited (sorry if they are not online, you may have to go to a library) and read the pages cited, and you will find all of the thinkers in that list discussed in those pages. Last, again, until you starting raising this fuss, I wasn't editing the Renaissance section. So interrogating me about who is and who isn't mentioned there is bizarre. I've added some references, copy-edited, and re-organized it in the past year, but for the most part I didn't write it. 271828182 ( talk) 23:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The History of philosophy article solves problems such as these by largely dispensing with citations. This is not my period, so I don't have a dog in the race, but it seems clear that the philosophers under discussion are transitional figures. So long as they are correctly described, does it really matter whether they come at the end of one section or the beginning of the next? KD Tries Again ( talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
My suggestion: since we are editing by consensus, and it doesn't look very likely that the two editors engaged in this lengthy discussion are close to agreement, maybe each of you might post on this page - for discussion - how you think the sentences in dispute should read. This would make it easier for uninvolved editors to participate and help to find a resolution (or, you can both carry on arguing about it of course). KD Tries Again ( talk) 05:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Is there a brief summary of the issues here? It's alot to read from scratch. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Next subject. The early modern sections ends with a sentences which says that, The early modern era is generally considered to end with Kant's systematic attempt to simultaneously limit metaphysics, justify scientific knowledge, and reconcile both of these with morality and freedom. The sources cited are...
Problems:-
Instead of me doing anything yet I post my points here and wonder if other editors might be able to tweak the sentence and its sourcing appropriately. As it stands there is no clear source for the sentence, but I do believe something about the key figures (Hume, Rousseau, Kant) in the last phases of the early modern period deserves to be said, just as I believe that there should be mention of the key figures at the beginning. The early modern philosophical period is unusual in the way in which it saw itself as a project being driven by the proposals of particular key individuals. It is still studied that way today, and so there is verifiable justification for this treatment, which is also common amongst sources.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
"The transition from the early modern era to modern philosophy proper came with with Kant's systematic attempt simultaneously to limit metaphysics, justify scientific knowledge, and reconcile both of these with morality and freedom." (I think that's enough and consistent with the two sources, but one could add:) "Kant's work, indeed, might be regarded as a new beginning in philosophy, rather than simply culmination of what came before (Nadler)." KD Tries Again ( talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Do all organisms inherently have what we would call philosophies? Do you have to call it a "philosophy" (or have a language or anything to even 'isolate' concept at all?) I don't mean a "love of wisdom" (the most useless etymology I have ever come across), but rather a standardized set of beliefs about the nature of the world? Even if they are primitive or not expressed in a human language or anything useful to us at all? I am not some moron saying "I think my cat is a logical positivist" (but if any of you wanna use that as a bumper sticker can I get some money kicked my way from the sales?). But I mean, like, when they teach gorillas to "use" sign language, is it actually developing a set of values about the fundamental nature of life, or are we really just making it act "like us" for, to be quite blunt about it, our amusement? (I'm not asserting that the gorilla would or could or even "should" understand the finer points, but since when did that disqualify any of us "highly-evolved" blobs from allowing the same for ourselves?) So, back to the point: Supposing that language or nuance are not defining characteristics of "thought" or "thought development" or "expression" (i.e., we all know that a dog growling is a sign of displeasure or anger -- even though the way the dog expresses himself is non-linguistic and very simple), do all organisms have philosophies, and does this merit inclusion in the article. 98.247.228.141 ( talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
PS: Yes I understand that the use of the word "standardized" betrays some obvious & inherently human thinking that probably leads, somewhere down the line to logical fallacy if probed or deconstructed enough. Yes yes, very douchey academic talk all around. 98.247.228.141 ( talk) 11:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the branches being considered are modern, however these are not the classical philosophical branches; namely political, mind, language and religion. I believe these should be deleted and the subjects should be only the classical branches, those are mostly what are part of a Philosophical education. Sovereignlance ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts i like to share but not sure if this is the right avenue. This is also my first post. If i am doing something wrong please tell me.
This is the current definition of philosophy on wikipedia. "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
To me, philosophy is the thinking and theorizing process that exist before and between actions for the purpose of discovering truth and what to do with it. All established academic disciplines, economics, physics and everything else were all initially the subject of philosopher’s contemplation. Philosophers thought about them until they convince themselves to move beyond thinking up theories to understand those subjects and onto actually proving their theories, with scientific methods developed by other philosophers. Where scientific method can be effectively applied to prove theories about the subject, advanced theories are able to be built on proven theories which can then proven by further application of scientific methods. Thus a loop is form and study of those subject become highly specialized giving birth to disciplines. Philosophers who become specialized in a particular discipline are then given name associated with their discipline, such as economist and physicist. Disciplines where scientific method are more applicable are grouped together under the broader label of science. The people who study a science discipline are brought under the broader label of scientist. These scientist are still philosophers who engage in philosophical theorizing between acts of proving their theories with scientific methods.
Subjects where the scientific method cannot be effectively applied, never got developed too far from the initial spark of thought about them. It only seems like philosophers only study general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language because understanding of them remains primitive (with all due respect); and philosophers who study specialized and advanced subjects are given broadly recognizable new labels.
Having already go on too long on the first sentence of wikipedia’s definition, let me just quickly end my view with the second sentence by saying this: Philosophical thinking usually involve critical, generally systematic approach and rational argument because they are usually the best when one try to think about truth and what to do about truth. Philosophy is not distinguished by its method, but by its intended goal and its limitation to thought. Utoneo ( talk) 07:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add REP Online to the list of relevant external links within this article and other related articles but I am mindful of Wikipedia's rules and objectives and don't want to contradict the purpose of the site. Any thoughts? Claremethven ( talk) 11:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Reverted to Revision as of 10:36, December 13, 2010. No case made in discssion ofr insertion of
It should be noted that philosophy is not seen by all as contained by rationality, and that philosophy may take the essence of rationality itself as a matter of study. Philogo ( talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
However, philosophy is not seen by all practitioners as limited by the methods of rational argument, and some philosophers see the suitability of such methods of engagement with problems as a matter for investigation. [1] [2] [3]
I think the first practical concern is that if this type of thing is going to be mentioned it should at least be a clear and meaningful sentence. Then we'd have something to discuss. BTW the sourcing is also questionable. Let me put this another way: Would everyone agree that the two cited books of Nietzsche and Heidegger clearly are examples of "practitioners" who are not "limited by the methods of rational argument", and who see the "suitability" of "the methods of rational argument" for engaging "with problems" as a matter for investigation? Is it clear what the "methods of rational argument" even are in this context?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As Philogo well knows, this argument has been going on for years! Hi, Philogo.
I fought for the position that if philosophy is by definition rational, then questions about rationality are by definition not philosophical questions, just as questions about whether or not we should accept the parallel postulate are by definition not questions within Euclidean geometry. I took the position that we should argue for rationality within philosophy instead of assuming rationality a priori.
This fight I lost. Have fun. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Snowded. Every time I see your name, I think, "Where are the Snowdeds of yesteryear?"
To answer Philogo's question, I'll try to be more clear. If philosophy is by definition rational, then a person, usually considered a philosopher, who argues irrationally, as in "The word that can be spoken is not the true word," is not "really" a philosopher. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts on this matter: the current lede is defining philosophy in terms of its use of rational methodology. But philosophy, being by its nature reflexive, takes its methodologies also as its subject matter; and in that vein the proposed change to the lede is stating that philosophers sometimes question rational methodologies. But that does not contradict the definition of philosophy in terms of rational methodology, for as Andrew says above, the philosophers who question rational methodologies are doing so using rational methodologies... as opposed to, say, painting abstract art "challenging the hegemony of rationality in the modern world" or something, which would not be a rational method of questioning rationality.
The upshot: the proposed lede is true enough, in spirit anyway, but doesn't serve the "balancing" purpose that its contributor seems motivated by, because it doesn't actually add any kind of qualification to the definition of philosophy. It's sort of a tangential aside about some conclusions in one subject area of philosophy, in a sentence about the methods of philosophy (with the confusion coming about because philosophy takes its methods as one of its subject areas), and as such I don't think it belongs in the lede. But maybe something about this could be elaborated upon in Metaphilosophy? (Which, by the way, I still think needs a summary here {{main}}'d to that article). -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 19:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a topic discussed ad infinitum over the past ten years, but most sources still describe Confucius as a Chinese philosopher. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Recently, an editor removed this article from the category "Greek inventions". I reverted, not because I necessarily disagree with the removal, but because I think it should be discussed first. The article makes a claim for the "wisdom literature" of Mesopotamia being philosophy. This claim is based primarily on a single source, the article "Wisdom and Not". One source does not a consensus make. The article "Wisdom and Not" is defensive, beginning with a long analogy, and recognizing that the claim it defends is not generally accepted.
If "wisdom literature" is philosophy, there is a great deal of it, in essentially every culture, from the Hebrews to the American Indians. It usually boils down to a few philosophical nuggets. The wisdom of God passeth human understanding. The days of a man are short, and filled with suffering. When a God or Goddess falls in love with a mortal, it usually ends badly for the mortal.
Is wisdom literature philosophy, or does philosophy require more of a systematic development, with reasoning that goes beyond a simple assertion of what seem obvious principles?
Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You make a good case, with cited sources, though the origin of Indian philosophy is notoriously hard to date, and 8th century BCE seems too early to substantiate. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Aruni is an interesting character, but it is not clear to me whether he is a historical person or a mythic sage, and his great teaching, "Thou art God" sounds more like wisdom literature than like philosophy. Heinlein used it in Stranger in a Strange Land, but much as I love Heinlein, I'm not convinced that "Thou are God" is philosophy, unless there is some sort of context to back it up. Scharfstein is just one source -- do other sources agree? By the way, Ben-Ami Scharfstein is an interesting writer. Somebody should create a Wikipedia article about him. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why does every article lead back to philosophy if you click the first link that is not in brackets!!! as: http://www.reddit.com/tb/hgkdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.98.81 ( talk) 15:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Following the above mentioned phenomenon I have noticed the first few words of the article contain 'problems'. Now what is interesting is that this article is a loop around "Problem -> Answer -> Problem". I suggest someone with the appropriate rights to make this word a link to the relevant article. This would make a beautiful feature that most articles end up in philosophy, which ends up in a loops of problems and answers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanjouty ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Random article transphobia got here in 33 moves. Future attempters can assume they've reached it if they hit science, mathematics, physics, causality, information, fact, nation, sovereign state... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.157.59 ( talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
http://xefer.com/wikipedia - This links to an application where you type in the name of a wikipedia page and it shows you how you can reach philosophy from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.145.185 ( talk) 22:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone messed with the article!!! Why does "existence" the first link on the philosophy page, go to "metaphysics" now? Now it goes philosophy->metaphysics->philosophy, whereas there used to be a much bigger loop that included physiology, math, fact, science, etc.... all way better topics than philosophy i might add. anyways, someone should switch it back! the article hasn't been rewritten someone just F'ed up the link to point to the wrong page ... Mike Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.166.195 ( talk) 19:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Guy, there is a search box on this talk page which should be helpful to find old discussions in the archives of this talk page. I would suggest writing a draft lead here on the talk page instead of changing it directly. For better or worse, when trying to change the opening lines of a much-read article like this one you should expect that it will take some time and discussion.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't phylosophy of mind a division of metaphysics?-- Anuclanus ( talk) 04:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It is reasonable to classify it as such. The mind-matter question is a metaphysical question. However I would not consider philosophy of mind to be a "branch" but rather a "field." Greg Bard ( talk) 03:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The east-west division in the history of philosophy section is completely arbitrary. It implies a relationship between Middle Eastern and Far Eastern philosophies that does not exist. I've reorganized the history section in such a way that it combines the two sections, making it chronologically clearer without significantly altering the content.-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 01:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I tend to categorise the history of thought via four main directions and have a fifth category to contain the rest (which is necessarily then subdivided). These four main ones are Ancient Greek thought, Ancient Chinese thought, Ancient Indian thought and Ancient Hebraic thought. I have a certain amount of practical and theoretical interest in all four. John Allsup ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. Since this article looks like a list of philosophies can we maybe arrange them similar, but not exactly, to the way the Philosophy template organizes the list of philosophies? Specifically, can the "main theories" section be part of more specific sections rather than just being 'main'? Tell me what you think. Neurophysics ( talk) 05:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, can we make each branch a separate section? That might be proper due weight, as, for example, two sentences on logic does not seem fit. Neurophysics ( talk) 00:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Amongst the recent diffs I see one proposal of Neurophysics is to move the short etymology section up to the first position after the intro. I find this reasonable. I think the position where it is now is not working well. It is not the sort of information you expect to find after already having worked through a long article, but rather something that should be right near the top.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
First sentence, add mathematics to list of things that are evaluated.
Hpaige422 ( talk) 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice some editor(s) have hamhandedly integrated the history sections with the previous "Geographical" sections of the article. Since the geographical sections were very poorly written (i.e., terribly sourced, tendentiously written, riddled with dubious claims, huge WP:UNDUE problems), this has the net effect of seriously degrading the quality of a half-decent section of the article. Can we revert to the prior organization, or substantially rewrite the entire section to repair these huge problems? To put it simply: if you open almost any reference book on philosophy, or encyclopedia article on philosophy, you will see in the corresponding "history" section a far, far better treatment than the eyesore this article is currently burdened with. And such treatments will be substantially closer to the previous "history of western philosophy" section than the current revision. 271828182 ( talk) 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" should contain links to the subjects "existence", "knowledge", etc.
Goldace ( talk) 01:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
"Structuralists believed they could analyze systems from an external, objective standing, for example, but the poststructuralists argued that this is incorrect, that one cannot transcend structures and thus analysis is itself determined by what it examines, while the distinction between the signifier and signified was treated as crystalline by structuralists, poststructuralists asserted that every attempt to grasp the signified results in more signifiers, so meaning is always in a state of being deferred, making an ultimate interpretation impossible."
This paragraph is full of incoherent, nonsensical mumbo jumbo. It needs to be simplified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 ( talk • contribs) 2011-11-18T20:55:06
It is a weight issue that one sentence is given to logic while other less significant topics are given whole paragraphs. Also, right now the moral and political philosophy has a whole section for itself. To address both, can we have one section called branches and have as subsections things like logic, aesthetics and move moral and political philosophy here since there is no particular reason to section off this one branch. Neurophysics ( talk) 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The subsections in the “Main theories” section, realism and nominalism, rationalism and empiricism, and skepticism, would be better if incorporated into other sections. There is little to define what makes a theory “main” and there are a lot of theories out there. For the remaining subsections like pragmatism and the analytic tradition, etc, which cover philosophy more broadly, we could change the title to something like “Major schools” or “Major traditions” instead. Neurophysics ( talk) 16:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I came across this reading Will and Ariel Durant's The Age of Voltaire, p. 605.
"By philosopher we shall mean anyone who tries to arrive at reasoned opinions on any subject whatever as seen in a large perspective."
Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly a philosophy of religion. And I would also suggest a philosophy of craftsmanship would not be entirely out of the question. Of course, thinking about one particular religion or craft would probably miss the big picture. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not use the simple, clear, and concise Prof ACGrayling definition of philosophy: that it is enquiry - critical, reflective enquiry.
Or more fully...
Philosophy has been the driving force of progress and change throughout the history of our western culture - because philosophy is enquiry – critical, reflective enquiry. And it has turned into the natural sciences, and the empirical social sciences. It continues as part of this great conversation that we have to have, about how we should live and how we should organise our society. Philosophy is vital.
Andrew Lancaster, I see the point you make and I just have to agree. The best we can do as of now is mention examples of subjects it handles because I cannot imagine all of us agreeing to a single definition on such a topic. That said, can’t this be ameliorated by suggesting the few, broad perspectives? I was thinking something like this which you could happily improve on;
Philosophy is the rational study of subjects that broadly includes existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language. These topics are sometimes defined by their general and fundamental nature (Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans). They are sometimes defined as any subjects where factual certainties cannot easily be established by scientific or other means (Columbia). Philosophy is also more broadly defined as including any critical, reflective enquiry (Prof ACGrayling).
I tried to make the last sentence allude to what I think Rick Norwood and others were suggesting. Is that right? Neurophysics ( talk) 03:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this discussion seems a bit beside the point. This is not a forum for discussing how to define philosophy --
WP:FORUM. What editors think philosophy is doesn't matter. The article must reflect the best scholarly consensus, as reflected in reliable secondary sources --
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That is what the current lede does. The Durants' 50-year-old popular books are not even close to being the sort of reliable secondary sources WP policy enjoins us to use. Grayling's poetic short definition likewise -- Grayling is already cited as a source for the current lede, from a scholarly reference source.
271828182 (
talk)
00:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I just happened to be reading this. I do not say we should use it here as such but I think it shows a very major philosopher agreeing with this point that philosophy deals with the non-obvious.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It is the task of philosophy to discover what is common even in what is different. According to Plato, the task of the philosophical dialectician is "to learn to see things together in respect of the one."
— Hans Georg Gadamer, The Relevance of the Beautiful and other essays (Walker trans.), 1986, p.12, citing Plato's Phaedrus 265d
The business from the Columbia Encyclopedia "distinguishing characteristics" sub-section is unhelpful, as it is based on a sharp distinction between "fact" and "theory" that is just the sort of thing considered in philosophy. In any case, a general encyclopedia article is an inferior source compared to scholarship from philosophy itself. All that is needed to distinguish philosophy from science narrowly considered is already in the definition, with the words "general and fundamental" and the list of specific problems. 271828182 ( talk) 17:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Fully understanding Newton means avoiding anachronistically substituting our conception of philosophy in the twenty-first century for what the early moderns called 'natural philosophy'. To be sure, the latter includes much that we now call 'science', and yet it clearly includes much else besides. [7]
My vote is for Neurophysics's suggestion, which seems the least controversial: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." In short, let's leave the article as it is, unless something clearly better comes along. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I was only commenting on the first sentence of the lead. I agree that the second sentence of the lead is wrong, and will open another thread below for that discussion. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
in the article Philosophy right here, it states that the re are four main branches of study called metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. however, in the Epistemology article, near the bottom of the introduction it says "Epistemology (how we know things) is combined with ontology (what things exist) to constitute the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. The other three branches of philosophy are ethics (which attempts to understand and prescribe conduct), politics (which attempts to describe how we should interact with one another), and aesthetics (which discusses questions of beauty and taste)."
this one implies that the four main branches of study are called metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.
are these two articles contradicting each other? Ghostwork ( talk) 04:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"These topics are sometimes defined as those where factual certainties are not easily established by scientific or other means.[3]"
This sentence is not in any way supported by the reference given, and should be removed. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The link for existence in the lead should really go to existence. Only makes sense, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butler12333 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this requested move. Noetica Tea? 22:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
To much a intelligent people hast problem has being wise . (my opinion, I am not bookworm) This is a big problem in today world .
sry my bad english :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckres ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The section on Metaphysics opens with "Metaphysics is the study of of reality, such as those including existence, the relationship between mind and body, objects and their properties, events and causation."
This sentence is ungrammatical (...of of...), and unclear: I do not understand what "those" in "such as those including existence" is referring to.
Jalanb ( talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The page states: Philosophy is the rational[1] study of general subjects concerning which certainty cannot easily be established scientifically or by simple observation.
I would suggest that the study of what can be established easily scientifically falls within the philosophy of science and the study of what can be established by simple observation is necessarily a branch of philosophy of its own (though I don't know if it has a name, nor if it has been formally studied). Maybe the page needs refinement and clarification such that it clearly answers the question: what is philosophy in a way that includes all its branches yet excludes areas of thought that are not generally considered philosophy. John Allsup ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Some claim that philosophy is at an end because its questions will never be answered and, perhaps, should never have been asked. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.30.15.163 (
talk)
19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, I believe my opposition should have to bring this up on the talk page as explained. But, let’s stay civil. The lead issue argument is understandable, but this is pushing it little too far. A previous statement in that section similarly read, "In addition, a range of disciplines have emerged to address areas that historically were the subjects of philosophy. These include anthropology, psychology, and physics." I did not think it was a matter of controversy that other fields were considered part of philosophy, as the sources said. Why are you so determined to whitewash this from the article? Neurophysics ( talk) 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. Again, Columbia does not become unreliable because you disagree with it about the notion of “fact” or whatever. The other source that says what is now “science” was a part of philosophy is from Stanford, [9]. Another editor can add in what the sources say if the issue is me adding my slants. Also, can we get some more opinions here, I am sure someone else notices this is a little weird. Neurophysics ( talk) 08:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Political philosophy (politics) ought to be reported as a main branch. Currently section 2.4 is titled: Moral and political philosophy (with main article links for both), the lede sentence for the branches section doesn't mention politics, and politics is absent from the template listing of branches.
I looked through the talk page revisions of the article for when the change was made in the article and found no discussion of this demotion within the article. Is it really the intention to suggest to encyclopedia readers that in summary, political philosophy is not a *main* branch? -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg) This is (a) Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Did you know if you click the first link in any Wikipedia article, and click the first links after that, eventually you will always end up on this page? 204.184.214.55 ( talk) 17:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
False. Mathematics doesn't lead here. Nor do many things that one would expect. Not even logic does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.195.162 ( talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
any sort of disproof of the "all roads lead to philosophy" theory are outdated. I just checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.6.85 ( talk) 21:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, the original claim is that the first link that is neither italicized nor with within parenthesis is the one to followed. This drastically opens up the pathways to glorious inevitable philosophy. 216.221.94.198 ( talk) 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
There are many loops that won't get you anywhere near philosophy. Joja lozzo 18:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The Count of Monte Cristo leads directly to the author's page which leads directly to The Count of Monte Cristo. My friends and I were stunned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.155.11 ( talk) 05:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Has to be the first non-italicized link outside parentheses. Tested it recently, starting variously with "Papal States" (which took me through Mathematics), "Hanuman", and "SKS". All of them worked. Also, XKCD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.80.230 ( talk) 20:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathematics leads nearly directly here, if you follow the 'non-italicized, outside of paranthesis' rule. I haven't found an article that doesn't lead here, following the rule. Ericloewe ( talk) 22:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Any paths that don't lead to Philosophy were deliberately manipulated to spite the xkcd strip on the subject. 216.150.131.207 ( talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
No matter which article you go to, for each one, if you click on the first link that is not in italics, parentheses, quotation marks, or a template, it always will eventually lead to a loop between this page and Ontology. Charles has spoken! 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a citation needed in subsection History > 5th-16th Centuries > Europe > Medieval for
I can't find a source for this 'golden age'. Does anybody know of a source for this? Matt ( talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me the rationale behind the WikiProject Philosophy rating of this article as C-class? I don't mean to imply that it's not C-class, but I saw that it was previously B-class and would like some clarification of what are currently the biggest problems with this article without going through a whole review or request for comment process. Is there somewhere I can find a discussion or rationale for this article's current rating? Thanks in advance, Matt ( talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the History section, there is a fragment with bad grammar and a missed comma.
This: "In the Arab-speaking world Arab nationalist philosophy became the dominant school of thought. Philosophers such as Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar of ba'athism and Sati' al-Husri in general."
...should be changed to: "In the Arab-speaking works, Arab nationalist philosophy became the dominant school of thought, which included philosophers such as Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar of ba'athism and Sati' al-Husri in general.".
Unfortunately, the page is semi-protected (for vandals), so I can't edit anything. Lekro ( talk) 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening sentence states that Philosophy is based on "logical reasoning". This is not true, as the source states that philosophy is based on analytical reasoning of a "somewhat systematic manner". Using the term "logical" is thus highly misleading, especially in this case.
99.162.85.105 ( talk) 07:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done - does not request a particular edit.
Egg
Centri
c
16:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"Branches of Philosophy" redirects here. Where are they? (Rhetorical question.)
It is easy to do. This article outline understandably began confusing intensional meaning with extensional meaning when it renamed Branches of philosophy to Areas of inquiry and added Specialized branches. To me branches are extensional areas of philosophy, science, and other directions of abstractions, such as categorization. This article seems to be falling further away from the terminology (branch, area, field, tradition or doctrinal literature or movements, theory, discipline) and categorical organization of Outline of philosophy.
Extensional "branches": Since science evolved from (natural) philosophy, and science and Philosophy both rely on abstractions for insight; since science is a philosophical methodology, but Category:Philosophy-related lists is a subcategory of Category:Science-related lists, and because Stephen Hawking said "Philosophy is dead" because reality checks are now done in the (modern) Physics (and he's probably right), lets see what Branches of science says:
Compare branches of science:
Natural science Physical science Physics Chemistry Earth science Life science Biology Social sciences Formal sciences Decision theory Logic Mathematics Statistics Systems theory Theoretical computer science Applied science
Here we see branches Natural, Social, Formal, and Applied. So candidates for branches might be: Natural, Moral and Political, Analytical, and Applied? The top two levels of Chalmers Taxonomy of Philosophy, including a few relevant-to-us entries from the third level, look like this:
Metaphysics and Epistemology Epistemology Metaphysics Metaphilosophy Philosophy of * Action * Language * Mind * Religion Value Theory Aesthetics Ethics as: * Applied * Biomedical * Meta * Normative Philosophy of: * Education * Gender, Race, and Sexuality * Law * Social and Political Misc. Science, Logic, and Mathematics Logic and Philosophy of Logic Philosphy of: *Biology *Cognitive Science *Computing and Information *Mathematics *Phycical Science *Probablity *Science, General *Social Science History of Western Philosophy Ancient Greek Midieval and Renaissance 17th/18th Century British 19th Century 20th century Analytic Continental Misc. Misc. Misc.
Intentional components: The intensional "core" components of any and all philosophy are mentioned in the banner at Category:Philosophy and in the wiki's Outline_of_philosophy#Core_areas_of_philosophy. (I am not arguing for content here, I'm arguing for the WP:MoS mandate for consistency in articulation).
And I quote,
The core areas of philosophy are:
Aesthetics – The study of the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. Epistemology – The study of the nature and scope of knowledge and belief. Ethics – The study of the right, the good, and the valuable. Includes study of applied ethics. Logic – The study of good reasoning, by examining the validity of arguments and documenting their fallacies. Metaphysics – The study of the state of being and the nature of reality. Ontology – The study of being and existence. Social philosophy – The study of questions about social behavior. Political philosophy – The study of the ideas that become political values.
Weakly proposed outline: <with comments>
Etymology History Components Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Ethics Aesthetics <lacking content> Branches <See Chalmers' Taxonomy of Philosophy, above> Natural Philosophy <Title should appear in heading?> Analytical Philosophy Moral and political philosophy Applied philosophy Major doctrinal traditions German idealism Pragmatism Phenomenology Existentialism Structuralism See also <isms> References Further reading External links
The Intension of extension: To head-off an objection. Outline of Philosophy organizes traditions by components of philosophy because the components are what evolve. Components are what are, then, open to critique and comparison. Happy editing! — Cpiral Cpiral 18:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)