![]() | This page 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. |
I moved the Richard Dawkins remark. He is neither a philosopher nor a relevant thinker in this matter. - Chomsky2093 20:04, 10 August 2007
I made some changes to the first line which might or might not seem controvesial. If they don't, then ignore the following.
Granted that the applications of the term "pseudophilosophy" are usually controversial, the qualifiers in the first line aren't helpful in making the definition NPOV. I changed three points (and just reorganized the rest a bit). (1) First, the article began by saying how the word is used; it is simpler to just describe what, if any, things it would apply to (See Use-mention distinction and Sense-reference distinction). (2) Second, and partly as a result, the line said that the term was used by the speaker to describe some philosophy-like subject that he/she has a particular kind of poor opinion of. While the NPOV sentiment behind this line is laudable, it's just confusing: it's like defining "horse" by saying that the word horse is used by people to describe what look to them like four-legged hooved mammals etc. Obviously a horse is any mammal with four legs and so forth; and obviously pseudo-philosophy is ill-conceived pretend philosophizing. There's no need to mention how people use the term in either case, and there's nothing contentious here because no mention is (yet) made of which systems are pseudo-philosophies; only of what people mean by the term. (3) Finally, psedo-philosophy is charactized as philosophy that one doesn't like. This seems manifestly false. Why? I greatly enjoy reading people like Frank Herbert and Robert A. Heinlein, or for that matter Tolstoy or Camus, but I would happily (or at least ruefully) agree if someone suggested to me that all of the former's and much or all of the latter's philosophizing is pseudo-philosophy. On the other hand I often dislike the work of Nozick, say, or of Bertrand Russell but I would never doubt that it's genuine philosophy. So it seems that anyone who sincerely uses the term uses it to say that a system is lacking in the standards suited to being philosophy, and not merely disliked. That kind of pejorative use deserves only a passing mention.
From the article:
This kind of search engine research should not be discussed in the article, only the conclusions. -- Eloquence 08:36 19 May 2003 (UTC)
I am not sure why this would be inappropriate - this provides an example of an (alleged) philosophical system that many people consider to be a pseudophilosophy. There is no departure from facts and, IFAICS, no departure from NPOV - since there is no suggestion that this view has any justification beyond the emotional state of the writers. -- Michael Voytinsky
I'm restoring this, with some rewording, on the grounds that what is being shown in this paragraph is not "research" being "discussed" but instead an example of how the term "pseudophilosophy" is used in the real world using a real world example. Looking into other encyclopaedia resources I have available, it seems to be standard operating procedure to cite examples of social phenomena. -- Michael 12:28 20 May 2003 (UTC)
I've heard this term used to describe the new Matrix movie quite a bit lately. -- goatasaur
By the way, is astrology pseudoscience? Check out umbrellaology: http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/astro/umbrellaology.htm and the "solution": http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/astro/soln1030_umbrellaology.htm
- Sigg3.net 19:08, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
A recent poster removed a reference to falsifiability, stating that this is philosophy, not science. I would tend to disagree, but before starting a WikiWar :-) with the poster, I would like to get others' opinions on this.
I would say that falsifiability is part of philosophy as well as science. Whenever someone makes a claim in the form "X is true", it is reasonable to ask "How do you know that X is true?". If there is no answer to that, "X is true" is netierh philosophy nor science.
If we can meaningfully ask "How do you know that this is true?" it implies "What would it take to show that it is not true?", and thus implies falsifiability.
To suggest that philosophical claims are not subject to falsfiability is to place them on par with claims of
astrology or personal religious faith.
---
Michael Voytinsky 01:32, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The reasons I removed the reference to falsifiability are as follows:
- Seth Mahoney 02:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I deleted a reference comparing Ayn Rand to Socrates as a "self taught" philosopher, mostly because it's hard to tell what we have of Socrates; in a large measure, the philosophy of Socrates comes from the semi-fictionalized dialogues of Plato, in which Socrates is Plato's mouthpiece; and Plato was an academic philosopher.
I also restored the bit about not recognising degrees of dissent from Rand's teachings; this is central to the accusations of cultism. Nathaniel Branden (not an objective or an Objectivist source, to be true) reports that slight disagreements with Rand over æsthetic tastes were enough to eject you from the charmed circle of Rand's devotees. Smerdis of Tlön 13:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that the irrationality of her followers (devotees) is not a direct criticism of Ayn Rand. More importantly flaws in either Ayn Rand's followers or even Ayn Rand herself do not automatically invalidate the various ideas she has put forth. Having the support of fools does not support a theory, but neither should it be invalidated by such support.
Regarding Rand, it is a non sequitur to suggest that just because academics embrace her it is evidence of her statements being valid. It is hard to imagine that any Objectivist or Randian would say the same thing about Marxists, Feminists, Libertarians or Anarchists in academia. Besides, even if all of academia embraced her does not necessarily mean that her statements are valid - that would be an argumentum ad numerum. Tejano 14:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here is a debate over Rand's status as a pop- or pseudo-philosopher from the old entry on "pop-philosophy" that now redirects here.
Pro-Rand:
Ayn Rand was not a "pop" philosopher. Her work has been discussed by academic scholars, and although she was not well-received by professional philosophers, she is a philosopher in her own right.
Against Rand:
On the contrary, Ayn Rand is the foremost example of someone who has been accused of being a pop philosopher. The coverage over the question of Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher is admirably covered in the entry on her and in the entry on pseduo-philosophy. It is not that academic scholars did not receive her philosophy well, most professional philosophers dismissed her as a "pop philosopher." Personally, I was introduced to philosophy by the works of Ayn Rand. As many people are. She is a great gateway into serious philosophy. However, I also knew when to drop her. She did not live up to the standard of philosophy for the time in which she lived, and she is not given a place in contemporary philosophic discussion. When she is discussed, it normally doesn't happen without the those discussing her status as a "pop philosopher." - Atfyfe 06:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Pro-Rand:
Dismissing Objectivism as a "pseudophilosophy" is blatantly biased and intolerable. Rand's work has been studied and commented on by professional philosophers; books on the subject of Objectivism have been published by academics; sources such as Britannica and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy refer to Rand as a philosopher; academics who write critically of Objectivism frequently refer to it as a philosophy, e.g. Michael Huemer. By the way, my previous edit was not "in bad faith." -24.220.246.20
Against Rand:
Could whomever said that "Professional Scholars" consider Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance a Pseudophilosophy please cite sources. I could find any Philosopher or "Professional Scholar" who is against anything, so unless we want to make this article infinitely long, someone should justify why this is included. -- Butter 10:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I'm new to this page, so that means (1) I'm energetic and ready to edit, (2) I'm unfamiliar with the history of edits and reverts the page has already undergone, and (3) I'm both willing and able to bring up for discussion again any topics that don't seem to have been fully addressed.
Let me begin by saying I was horrified upon first seeing this page on Wikipedia. Pseudophilosophy, while certainly a term bandied about by nonphilosophers, is not something that I've ever heard a serious philosopher use in a sentence. To be sure, I am certain that there is such a thing as pseudophilosophy, but how it is currently defined on this page is outrageous.
Consider pseudoscience. Science is not knowledge, but a way of arriving at knowledge, and pseudoscience is stuff that isn't really science yet pretends to be. I understand why phrenology and the like is termed as pseudoscience; that makes sense to me, and I'm perfectly okay with the term.
But pseudophilosophy? Have I missed something here?
For example, Pirsig's Zen Motorcycle Maintenance stuff is listed in this article as an example of pseudophilosophy. The previous edit to this talk page even asks for information on why it is here. But what gives? I agree that Pirsig's stuff is incorrect; the arguments just aren't sound. But that doesn't mean that it's deliberately misleading. And isn't that what pseudophilosophy really is? I mean, lots of philosophers have been wrong on one thing or another. Plato, for example, often made the Humean fallacy of deriving an ought from an is. (Though Leo Strauss would say that that was his point in the first place.) But who among us is ready to call Plato a pseudophilosopher?
Clearly, pseudophilosophy is not determined by whether or not a philosophy is right. So what is the quality that determines whether or not a philosophy should be deemed a pseudophilosophy? From the way examples are bandied about on this page, it looks to me as though pseudophilosophy is determined by opinion, and nothing more.
Look, I've read Rand, and Pirsig, and even Hegel. Rand and Pirsig are wrong -- their logic is flawed -- but that doesn't mean that it is a pseudophilosophy. As for Hegel, I really can't say anything at all, as his stuff is totally incomprehensible to me. But then again, so was Aristotle the first time I read him.
In order for a philosophy to be pseduophilosophy, it would need to pass the same intrinsic test that pseudoscience is made to do. And I'm not talking about falsifiability; that's particular to pseudoscience, and not to pseudophilosophy. What I'm talking about is the basic, easy definition that (I hope) everyone here will agree on: that pseudophilosophy is something presented which is not philosophy as if it were philosophy. Then, once we've agreed on this definition, we can ask what philosophy is.
Surely (I would hope), philosophy is nothing but love of wisdom. So as long as the speaker is really trying to get at wisdom, even if he fails, what he speaks of is philosophy. The only true examples of pseudophilosophy would be those who know one thing to be true, and yet preach another. But even then, certain philosophies praise that sort of thing -- look at Machiavelli, or even Leo Strauss! Now there's a character who emphasizes the idea of lauding what you don't believe in -- yet no one accuses him of being a pseudophilosopher.
Nothing against the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, but that added info by Rescher saying that the term is particularly appropriate when "those who use the resources of reason to substantiate the claim that rationality is unachievable in matters of inquiry" is pure hogwash. Callicles in Plato's Gorgias attempts just that -- and even though he ultimately gave bad arguments, it doesn't make it pseudophilosophy.
This issue really needs to be discussed. I am not going to edit the main article yet, as I want to see what kind of responses I get here first.
If I don't get any good responses within a week, then I'm going to rewrite this article appropriately. I'd do it now, but I don't want someone to revert my work; so let me know ahead of time what everyone else thinks on this.
Eric Herboso 21:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm also new here, so I hope I'll be excused for throwing in a complaint that might seem too obvious to even discuss, which is this; to define pseudophilosophy, we surely need a definition of philosophy? And those are hard to come by. We could tentatively, as suggested, go with "love of wisdom", but this is just postponing the question. What's 'wisdom'? Or 'love', for that matter. A precise definition of philosophy is generally agreed upon as being "notoriously difficult", and this diffculty leaks onto the pseudophilosophy discussion. But untill such a definition is in place it seems a bit useless to discuss definitions of pseudophilosophy.
A more reasonable approach, it seems to me, is along the lines of the "Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive" argument. And when describing common usages of the term 'pseudophilosophy' special emphasis should be put on who most frequently apply the term, and perhaps for what reasons. I suspect this would mostly be academic - especially analytic - philosophers, eager to protect their territory. Any philosopher particularly eager to label some text as pseudophilosophy should be viewed with a healthy dose of sceptisism - as in Quine et al. protesting Derrida's honorary degree at Cambridge.
The entire section on Ayn Rand was recently deleted wholesale by an anonymous editor. While I might agree that too much attention is focused on Rand in the article, and that too much effort seems to have gone into trying to rehabilitate Rand, I'm not sure that entirely deleting the section is the answer. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is not "without discussion" that Ayn Rand got her own subsection in this article: see above. I've been somewhat unhappy with her prominence in this article, and if you will look through the versions of the history, there used to be a whole lot more about Rand; that section had in fact been pared down rather sharply, and parts of it forked to the cited article about academic reactions to Rand.
Still, I do not see how the answer is to delete the discussion of Rand wholesale, especially since her name pops up frequently whenever discussion of "pseudophilosophy" is made. Smerdis of Tlön 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Where is the critism in this article? What intellectual standard? Who's standards? Yours... mine? Come on. Pseudophilosophy is just another "straw man" argument mechanism to attack the individual not the ideas. Look at practically every significant western philosopher and you will see their ideas were attacked as Pseudophilosophy... When did this term come into being... byy whom? I could go on but I think I have made my point. H0riz0n 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A portion of the article right now reads "while significantly failing to meet some suitable intellectual standards". To make the article more objective (and thus less readily attacked by ignorant relativists), it should be made clear precisely which intellectual standards are violated (and, if necessary, mention criticism of these intellectual standards). Some hints of standards that most people would agree on: vague, non-defined or ill-defined concepts, mixing together two different concepts that share the same term (in fact, a frequent error), heavy use of concepts with strong connotations, lack of locical consistency, texts being more emotional than factual (too much pathos compared to logos, see modes of persuasion - an example may be philosophy presented as a novel or a poem), etc. [In fact, I think that these are different formulations of more or less the same problem]. These very intellectual standards should perhaps be collected on a page of its own as well. See also the article on pseudoscience, which I find very factual and informative, of course in part because the scientific method is so easy to define. -More on this may be found here: Logical positivism and Plato, for example in the dialogue Gorgias (Plato).
Followup: The use of rhetorical tricks or terms that sound very sophisticated, elegant or complex but still are vague or ill-defined are sometimes a hallmark of pseudophilosophy. Also, I would like to emphasis that the importance of logical consistency, precise definition and correct use of concepts often is seen disputed by relativists and semi-relativists, but still it's an essential part of philosophy and the philosophical tradition. It seems some people want to define philosophy as a discipline where "anything goes", but this isn't and has never been true. If necessary, this very dispute should be mentioned in the article.
Jimmyq2305 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Schopenhauer's assessment of Hegel says a great deal about Hegel. There is one way to find out, read Hegel for yourself. "The in-itself into which something is reflected into itself out of its being-for-other is no longer an abstract in-itself … etc., etc., etc." Walter Kaufmann's comment about Schopenhauer's comment about Hegel reveals more about Walter Kaufmann than it does about Schopenhauer. Kaufmann has been dead for many years, so I guess that we will never know exactly what he meant. At present, it is just a criticism of Schopenhauer and an approval of Hegel, but we don't really know why. Should we just accept his authority? Lestrade 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
In this paragraph it's written "...occupy margins ; where where we would...". It's obviously not correct. First of all there should be no space after "margins". Second the word "where" should not be stated twice. The problem is that it's in a quotation. Therefore, I don't know how it was originally written. In short either it should be corrected or should "(sic!)" be added. Smallchanges 12:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no question that Voltaire has had a great influence on European history and culture. However, did he really come up with any new ideas and concepts, which have been seriously considered by academic philosophers? Wouldn't it be possible to classify him as an early, perhaps the first, example of "Pseudophilosophy in popular culture"? Smallchanges 13:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I wrote a few lines about Mr. G. Soros. Today it's indicated that a quotation is needed and basically I agree to that. However, Right now I don't have access to my books about Soros so I cannot fill in the quotation. Please help me with this, someone. Thanks! Smallchanges 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
they are two different things and rand has both. one is not the other though. that paragraph is talking about her ideology. if you want to create a paragraph about her philosophy, feel free. however, the going through and changing everything that someone doesn't like about rand is not an option. that is why i reverted, it was because 24, goes around and has a history of making changing to rand articles without any justification and many of those changes are quite dubitable.-- Buridan 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with the recent changes you reverted. Drop "ideological views" in favor of "views" and "ideological system" in favor of "system of thought". This is far more neutral and makes a hell of a lot more sense in context. Once more: it makes no sense to say that here ideological views haven't been peer-reviewed. Ideological views are not normally reviewed. Philosophical views are reviewed, but of course I understand why you don't want to call Rand's views philosophical. Hence, just call them "views".
I am making the change, since I've seen no consensus in favor of "ideological". Just the opinion of one editor. Phiwum 21:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this "Finally, she and some of her followers are often perceived as being dogmatic, frequently ignoring published criticism of the system instead of responding to it. This is in part because many of them were young people excited by her novels and unlearned in philosophy; such people are not often aware of the complexities of their subject and prone to construe disagreement as ignorance."
This part "immediately ignoring published criticism..." is directly contradicted by the next paragraph, which reads "There have been few published reactions to Objectivism in academic journals." So how are criticisms being ignored by Rand's supporters if those criticisms haven't been published? Popular criticism, such as those written by Gore Vidal and in the New York Times during the 1960s, WERE responded to publicly by Rand devotes Leonard Peikoff and Alan Greenspan, for example.
"Many of them were young people... unlearned in philosophy" Many of them when? In the 1950 and 1960s? Not so, as most of the people in her circle were philosophy grad students (three of them students of Sidney Hook). This passage is (A) incredibly POV and (B) outright insulting. The fact that (C) it is entirely uncited makes it all the worse.
It's unbecoming of an encyclopedia.
(I also deleted a transition word (I think it was "Furthermore") from the paragraph following the Rand section. The word made it sound like the following paragraph would contain more on Rand, when in fact it begins a new topic.) Endlessmike 888 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
it is unbecoming until there is a citation, i agree. but yes, that can go, though it did speak to the nature of pseudophilosophy and who it appeals to.-- Buridan 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I read what is available on google books. None of it supports what you cited it for, Buridan. What passage did you have in mind? Endlessmike 888 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Buridan, I'm confused. Earlier you said that you found the book on Google Books. Do you have your own copy? Because page 111 is not excerpted on google books. Take a look, it says "Page 97-152 are not part of this book preview." Endlessmike 888 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
if you log in to google with an acct, you get to see more pages. i can see 109-122 amongst many others. in any case, I'm ok with the current 'some' wording.-- Buridan 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The citation given for this statement ( Nicholas Rescher (1997). Objectivity: The Obligations of Impersonal Reason. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 0268037019.) does not seem to justify or explain the statement. The book itself seems to only to be a critique and defense of objectivity, not Ayn Rand's Objectivism. One would have to read the majority book to understand why the editor believes it is evidence of Objectivism being a pseudophilosophy. Does anyone know a particular page and/or can give us a quote that explains why this book is a valid citation for Objectivism's pseudophilosophy?
I suggest the citation is removed until it can be validated or replaced.
Kukyona 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this. If you go to the book's page on Amazon.com, you can look in its index. Ayn Rand is not listed. Is she discussed at all? Perhaps only in passing and thus not worthy of mention in the index? Perhaps whomever added the citation could explain. Endlessmike 888 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentence "One must recall that philosophy has taken various institutional forms over the centuries, starting from the Epicurian' gardens and other Schools. " Seems to be false as the Epicureans came after the Academy which was a school of philosophy if I'm not mistaken.
KurtFF8 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a strong POV in this article. Particularly the parts which imply that academic philosophy is like some sort of secret society which used the term "pseudophilosophy" to exclude people they disagree with. Perhaps it would be reasonable to mention that people have made this accusation (if indeed they have and a source can be provided), but the article shouldn't assert it as fact. I am going to delete some of these insinuations. Misodoctakleidist 18:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I moved the Richard Dawkins remark. He is neither a philosopher nor a relevant thinker in this matter. - Chomsky2093 20:04, 10 August 2007
I made some changes to the first line which might or might not seem controvesial. If they don't, then ignore the following.
Granted that the applications of the term "pseudophilosophy" are usually controversial, the qualifiers in the first line aren't helpful in making the definition NPOV. I changed three points (and just reorganized the rest a bit). (1) First, the article began by saying how the word is used; it is simpler to just describe what, if any, things it would apply to (See Use-mention distinction and Sense-reference distinction). (2) Second, and partly as a result, the line said that the term was used by the speaker to describe some philosophy-like subject that he/she has a particular kind of poor opinion of. While the NPOV sentiment behind this line is laudable, it's just confusing: it's like defining "horse" by saying that the word horse is used by people to describe what look to them like four-legged hooved mammals etc. Obviously a horse is any mammal with four legs and so forth; and obviously pseudo-philosophy is ill-conceived pretend philosophizing. There's no need to mention how people use the term in either case, and there's nothing contentious here because no mention is (yet) made of which systems are pseudo-philosophies; only of what people mean by the term. (3) Finally, psedo-philosophy is charactized as philosophy that one doesn't like. This seems manifestly false. Why? I greatly enjoy reading people like Frank Herbert and Robert A. Heinlein, or for that matter Tolstoy or Camus, but I would happily (or at least ruefully) agree if someone suggested to me that all of the former's and much or all of the latter's philosophizing is pseudo-philosophy. On the other hand I often dislike the work of Nozick, say, or of Bertrand Russell but I would never doubt that it's genuine philosophy. So it seems that anyone who sincerely uses the term uses it to say that a system is lacking in the standards suited to being philosophy, and not merely disliked. That kind of pejorative use deserves only a passing mention.
From the article:
This kind of search engine research should not be discussed in the article, only the conclusions. -- Eloquence 08:36 19 May 2003 (UTC)
I am not sure why this would be inappropriate - this provides an example of an (alleged) philosophical system that many people consider to be a pseudophilosophy. There is no departure from facts and, IFAICS, no departure from NPOV - since there is no suggestion that this view has any justification beyond the emotional state of the writers. -- Michael Voytinsky
I'm restoring this, with some rewording, on the grounds that what is being shown in this paragraph is not "research" being "discussed" but instead an example of how the term "pseudophilosophy" is used in the real world using a real world example. Looking into other encyclopaedia resources I have available, it seems to be standard operating procedure to cite examples of social phenomena. -- Michael 12:28 20 May 2003 (UTC)
I've heard this term used to describe the new Matrix movie quite a bit lately. -- goatasaur
By the way, is astrology pseudoscience? Check out umbrellaology: http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/astro/umbrellaology.htm and the "solution": http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/astro/soln1030_umbrellaology.htm
- Sigg3.net 19:08, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
A recent poster removed a reference to falsifiability, stating that this is philosophy, not science. I would tend to disagree, but before starting a WikiWar :-) with the poster, I would like to get others' opinions on this.
I would say that falsifiability is part of philosophy as well as science. Whenever someone makes a claim in the form "X is true", it is reasonable to ask "How do you know that X is true?". If there is no answer to that, "X is true" is netierh philosophy nor science.
If we can meaningfully ask "How do you know that this is true?" it implies "What would it take to show that it is not true?", and thus implies falsifiability.
To suggest that philosophical claims are not subject to falsfiability is to place them on par with claims of
astrology or personal religious faith.
---
Michael Voytinsky 01:32, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The reasons I removed the reference to falsifiability are as follows:
- Seth Mahoney 02:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I deleted a reference comparing Ayn Rand to Socrates as a "self taught" philosopher, mostly because it's hard to tell what we have of Socrates; in a large measure, the philosophy of Socrates comes from the semi-fictionalized dialogues of Plato, in which Socrates is Plato's mouthpiece; and Plato was an academic philosopher.
I also restored the bit about not recognising degrees of dissent from Rand's teachings; this is central to the accusations of cultism. Nathaniel Branden (not an objective or an Objectivist source, to be true) reports that slight disagreements with Rand over æsthetic tastes were enough to eject you from the charmed circle of Rand's devotees. Smerdis of Tlön 13:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that the irrationality of her followers (devotees) is not a direct criticism of Ayn Rand. More importantly flaws in either Ayn Rand's followers or even Ayn Rand herself do not automatically invalidate the various ideas she has put forth. Having the support of fools does not support a theory, but neither should it be invalidated by such support.
Regarding Rand, it is a non sequitur to suggest that just because academics embrace her it is evidence of her statements being valid. It is hard to imagine that any Objectivist or Randian would say the same thing about Marxists, Feminists, Libertarians or Anarchists in academia. Besides, even if all of academia embraced her does not necessarily mean that her statements are valid - that would be an argumentum ad numerum. Tejano 14:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here is a debate over Rand's status as a pop- or pseudo-philosopher from the old entry on "pop-philosophy" that now redirects here.
Pro-Rand:
Ayn Rand was not a "pop" philosopher. Her work has been discussed by academic scholars, and although she was not well-received by professional philosophers, she is a philosopher in her own right.
Against Rand:
On the contrary, Ayn Rand is the foremost example of someone who has been accused of being a pop philosopher. The coverage over the question of Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher is admirably covered in the entry on her and in the entry on pseduo-philosophy. It is not that academic scholars did not receive her philosophy well, most professional philosophers dismissed her as a "pop philosopher." Personally, I was introduced to philosophy by the works of Ayn Rand. As many people are. She is a great gateway into serious philosophy. However, I also knew when to drop her. She did not live up to the standard of philosophy for the time in which she lived, and she is not given a place in contemporary philosophic discussion. When she is discussed, it normally doesn't happen without the those discussing her status as a "pop philosopher." - Atfyfe 06:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Pro-Rand:
Dismissing Objectivism as a "pseudophilosophy" is blatantly biased and intolerable. Rand's work has been studied and commented on by professional philosophers; books on the subject of Objectivism have been published by academics; sources such as Britannica and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy refer to Rand as a philosopher; academics who write critically of Objectivism frequently refer to it as a philosophy, e.g. Michael Huemer. By the way, my previous edit was not "in bad faith." -24.220.246.20
Against Rand:
Could whomever said that "Professional Scholars" consider Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance a Pseudophilosophy please cite sources. I could find any Philosopher or "Professional Scholar" who is against anything, so unless we want to make this article infinitely long, someone should justify why this is included. -- Butter 10:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I'm new to this page, so that means (1) I'm energetic and ready to edit, (2) I'm unfamiliar with the history of edits and reverts the page has already undergone, and (3) I'm both willing and able to bring up for discussion again any topics that don't seem to have been fully addressed.
Let me begin by saying I was horrified upon first seeing this page on Wikipedia. Pseudophilosophy, while certainly a term bandied about by nonphilosophers, is not something that I've ever heard a serious philosopher use in a sentence. To be sure, I am certain that there is such a thing as pseudophilosophy, but how it is currently defined on this page is outrageous.
Consider pseudoscience. Science is not knowledge, but a way of arriving at knowledge, and pseudoscience is stuff that isn't really science yet pretends to be. I understand why phrenology and the like is termed as pseudoscience; that makes sense to me, and I'm perfectly okay with the term.
But pseudophilosophy? Have I missed something here?
For example, Pirsig's Zen Motorcycle Maintenance stuff is listed in this article as an example of pseudophilosophy. The previous edit to this talk page even asks for information on why it is here. But what gives? I agree that Pirsig's stuff is incorrect; the arguments just aren't sound. But that doesn't mean that it's deliberately misleading. And isn't that what pseudophilosophy really is? I mean, lots of philosophers have been wrong on one thing or another. Plato, for example, often made the Humean fallacy of deriving an ought from an is. (Though Leo Strauss would say that that was his point in the first place.) But who among us is ready to call Plato a pseudophilosopher?
Clearly, pseudophilosophy is not determined by whether or not a philosophy is right. So what is the quality that determines whether or not a philosophy should be deemed a pseudophilosophy? From the way examples are bandied about on this page, it looks to me as though pseudophilosophy is determined by opinion, and nothing more.
Look, I've read Rand, and Pirsig, and even Hegel. Rand and Pirsig are wrong -- their logic is flawed -- but that doesn't mean that it is a pseudophilosophy. As for Hegel, I really can't say anything at all, as his stuff is totally incomprehensible to me. But then again, so was Aristotle the first time I read him.
In order for a philosophy to be pseduophilosophy, it would need to pass the same intrinsic test that pseudoscience is made to do. And I'm not talking about falsifiability; that's particular to pseudoscience, and not to pseudophilosophy. What I'm talking about is the basic, easy definition that (I hope) everyone here will agree on: that pseudophilosophy is something presented which is not philosophy as if it were philosophy. Then, once we've agreed on this definition, we can ask what philosophy is.
Surely (I would hope), philosophy is nothing but love of wisdom. So as long as the speaker is really trying to get at wisdom, even if he fails, what he speaks of is philosophy. The only true examples of pseudophilosophy would be those who know one thing to be true, and yet preach another. But even then, certain philosophies praise that sort of thing -- look at Machiavelli, or even Leo Strauss! Now there's a character who emphasizes the idea of lauding what you don't believe in -- yet no one accuses him of being a pseudophilosopher.
Nothing against the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, but that added info by Rescher saying that the term is particularly appropriate when "those who use the resources of reason to substantiate the claim that rationality is unachievable in matters of inquiry" is pure hogwash. Callicles in Plato's Gorgias attempts just that -- and even though he ultimately gave bad arguments, it doesn't make it pseudophilosophy.
This issue really needs to be discussed. I am not going to edit the main article yet, as I want to see what kind of responses I get here first.
If I don't get any good responses within a week, then I'm going to rewrite this article appropriately. I'd do it now, but I don't want someone to revert my work; so let me know ahead of time what everyone else thinks on this.
Eric Herboso 21:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm also new here, so I hope I'll be excused for throwing in a complaint that might seem too obvious to even discuss, which is this; to define pseudophilosophy, we surely need a definition of philosophy? And those are hard to come by. We could tentatively, as suggested, go with "love of wisdom", but this is just postponing the question. What's 'wisdom'? Or 'love', for that matter. A precise definition of philosophy is generally agreed upon as being "notoriously difficult", and this diffculty leaks onto the pseudophilosophy discussion. But untill such a definition is in place it seems a bit useless to discuss definitions of pseudophilosophy.
A more reasonable approach, it seems to me, is along the lines of the "Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive" argument. And when describing common usages of the term 'pseudophilosophy' special emphasis should be put on who most frequently apply the term, and perhaps for what reasons. I suspect this would mostly be academic - especially analytic - philosophers, eager to protect their territory. Any philosopher particularly eager to label some text as pseudophilosophy should be viewed with a healthy dose of sceptisism - as in Quine et al. protesting Derrida's honorary degree at Cambridge.
The entire section on Ayn Rand was recently deleted wholesale by an anonymous editor. While I might agree that too much attention is focused on Rand in the article, and that too much effort seems to have gone into trying to rehabilitate Rand, I'm not sure that entirely deleting the section is the answer. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is not "without discussion" that Ayn Rand got her own subsection in this article: see above. I've been somewhat unhappy with her prominence in this article, and if you will look through the versions of the history, there used to be a whole lot more about Rand; that section had in fact been pared down rather sharply, and parts of it forked to the cited article about academic reactions to Rand.
Still, I do not see how the answer is to delete the discussion of Rand wholesale, especially since her name pops up frequently whenever discussion of "pseudophilosophy" is made. Smerdis of Tlön 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Where is the critism in this article? What intellectual standard? Who's standards? Yours... mine? Come on. Pseudophilosophy is just another "straw man" argument mechanism to attack the individual not the ideas. Look at practically every significant western philosopher and you will see their ideas were attacked as Pseudophilosophy... When did this term come into being... byy whom? I could go on but I think I have made my point. H0riz0n 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A portion of the article right now reads "while significantly failing to meet some suitable intellectual standards". To make the article more objective (and thus less readily attacked by ignorant relativists), it should be made clear precisely which intellectual standards are violated (and, if necessary, mention criticism of these intellectual standards). Some hints of standards that most people would agree on: vague, non-defined or ill-defined concepts, mixing together two different concepts that share the same term (in fact, a frequent error), heavy use of concepts with strong connotations, lack of locical consistency, texts being more emotional than factual (too much pathos compared to logos, see modes of persuasion - an example may be philosophy presented as a novel or a poem), etc. [In fact, I think that these are different formulations of more or less the same problem]. These very intellectual standards should perhaps be collected on a page of its own as well. See also the article on pseudoscience, which I find very factual and informative, of course in part because the scientific method is so easy to define. -More on this may be found here: Logical positivism and Plato, for example in the dialogue Gorgias (Plato).
Followup: The use of rhetorical tricks or terms that sound very sophisticated, elegant or complex but still are vague or ill-defined are sometimes a hallmark of pseudophilosophy. Also, I would like to emphasis that the importance of logical consistency, precise definition and correct use of concepts often is seen disputed by relativists and semi-relativists, but still it's an essential part of philosophy and the philosophical tradition. It seems some people want to define philosophy as a discipline where "anything goes", but this isn't and has never been true. If necessary, this very dispute should be mentioned in the article.
Jimmyq2305 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Schopenhauer's assessment of Hegel says a great deal about Hegel. There is one way to find out, read Hegel for yourself. "The in-itself into which something is reflected into itself out of its being-for-other is no longer an abstract in-itself … etc., etc., etc." Walter Kaufmann's comment about Schopenhauer's comment about Hegel reveals more about Walter Kaufmann than it does about Schopenhauer. Kaufmann has been dead for many years, so I guess that we will never know exactly what he meant. At present, it is just a criticism of Schopenhauer and an approval of Hegel, but we don't really know why. Should we just accept his authority? Lestrade 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
In this paragraph it's written "...occupy margins ; where where we would...". It's obviously not correct. First of all there should be no space after "margins". Second the word "where" should not be stated twice. The problem is that it's in a quotation. Therefore, I don't know how it was originally written. In short either it should be corrected or should "(sic!)" be added. Smallchanges 12:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no question that Voltaire has had a great influence on European history and culture. However, did he really come up with any new ideas and concepts, which have been seriously considered by academic philosophers? Wouldn't it be possible to classify him as an early, perhaps the first, example of "Pseudophilosophy in popular culture"? Smallchanges 13:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I wrote a few lines about Mr. G. Soros. Today it's indicated that a quotation is needed and basically I agree to that. However, Right now I don't have access to my books about Soros so I cannot fill in the quotation. Please help me with this, someone. Thanks! Smallchanges 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
they are two different things and rand has both. one is not the other though. that paragraph is talking about her ideology. if you want to create a paragraph about her philosophy, feel free. however, the going through and changing everything that someone doesn't like about rand is not an option. that is why i reverted, it was because 24, goes around and has a history of making changing to rand articles without any justification and many of those changes are quite dubitable.-- Buridan 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with the recent changes you reverted. Drop "ideological views" in favor of "views" and "ideological system" in favor of "system of thought". This is far more neutral and makes a hell of a lot more sense in context. Once more: it makes no sense to say that here ideological views haven't been peer-reviewed. Ideological views are not normally reviewed. Philosophical views are reviewed, but of course I understand why you don't want to call Rand's views philosophical. Hence, just call them "views".
I am making the change, since I've seen no consensus in favor of "ideological". Just the opinion of one editor. Phiwum 21:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this "Finally, she and some of her followers are often perceived as being dogmatic, frequently ignoring published criticism of the system instead of responding to it. This is in part because many of them were young people excited by her novels and unlearned in philosophy; such people are not often aware of the complexities of their subject and prone to construe disagreement as ignorance."
This part "immediately ignoring published criticism..." is directly contradicted by the next paragraph, which reads "There have been few published reactions to Objectivism in academic journals." So how are criticisms being ignored by Rand's supporters if those criticisms haven't been published? Popular criticism, such as those written by Gore Vidal and in the New York Times during the 1960s, WERE responded to publicly by Rand devotes Leonard Peikoff and Alan Greenspan, for example.
"Many of them were young people... unlearned in philosophy" Many of them when? In the 1950 and 1960s? Not so, as most of the people in her circle were philosophy grad students (three of them students of Sidney Hook). This passage is (A) incredibly POV and (B) outright insulting. The fact that (C) it is entirely uncited makes it all the worse.
It's unbecoming of an encyclopedia.
(I also deleted a transition word (I think it was "Furthermore") from the paragraph following the Rand section. The word made it sound like the following paragraph would contain more on Rand, when in fact it begins a new topic.) Endlessmike 888 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
it is unbecoming until there is a citation, i agree. but yes, that can go, though it did speak to the nature of pseudophilosophy and who it appeals to.-- Buridan 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I read what is available on google books. None of it supports what you cited it for, Buridan. What passage did you have in mind? Endlessmike 888 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Buridan, I'm confused. Earlier you said that you found the book on Google Books. Do you have your own copy? Because page 111 is not excerpted on google books. Take a look, it says "Page 97-152 are not part of this book preview." Endlessmike 888 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
if you log in to google with an acct, you get to see more pages. i can see 109-122 amongst many others. in any case, I'm ok with the current 'some' wording.-- Buridan 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The citation given for this statement ( Nicholas Rescher (1997). Objectivity: The Obligations of Impersonal Reason. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 0268037019.) does not seem to justify or explain the statement. The book itself seems to only to be a critique and defense of objectivity, not Ayn Rand's Objectivism. One would have to read the majority book to understand why the editor believes it is evidence of Objectivism being a pseudophilosophy. Does anyone know a particular page and/or can give us a quote that explains why this book is a valid citation for Objectivism's pseudophilosophy?
I suggest the citation is removed until it can be validated or replaced.
Kukyona 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this. If you go to the book's page on Amazon.com, you can look in its index. Ayn Rand is not listed. Is she discussed at all? Perhaps only in passing and thus not worthy of mention in the index? Perhaps whomever added the citation could explain. Endlessmike 888 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentence "One must recall that philosophy has taken various institutional forms over the centuries, starting from the Epicurian' gardens and other Schools. " Seems to be false as the Epicureans came after the Academy which was a school of philosophy if I'm not mistaken.
KurtFF8 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a strong POV in this article. Particularly the parts which imply that academic philosophy is like some sort of secret society which used the term "pseudophilosophy" to exclude people they disagree with. Perhaps it would be reasonable to mention that people have made this accusation (if indeed they have and a source can be provided), but the article shouldn't assert it as fact. I am going to delete some of these insinuations. Misodoctakleidist 18:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)