Philosophy Template‑class | |||||||
|
This navbox is intended for very sparing use. Only the major branches of philosophy should include it. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 00:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Plato, Kant, Nietzsche. Is this representative, is there some rationale behind this? 80.248.250.130 ( talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I came here to suggest replacing Neitzsche with someone who's equally influential to Analytic and Continental philosophy since those are the two modern currents, but I don't know nearly enough to suggest anyone better. Tolstoyan at Heart ( talk) 16:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added Indian, Chinese and Buddhist philosophy to the sidebar. It was clearly eurocentric, having various western philosophical movements (including scholasticism, a point anyone attempting to remove Buddhist philosophy because it is associated with a religion should note) but only the one token "eastern philosophy" link. These three definitely represent major currents of philosophical thought in Asia and indeed, is part of the philosophical tradition of mankind as a whole. (Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javierfv1212 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
See the bottom of the demographic statistics of the PhilPapers surveys with the heading "Non-living philosophers most identified with". Since Hume came before Kant, the top three would be: Plato, Hume, Kant.
Even better yet, replace Plato with Aristotle. But Plato does have historical significance; arguably the Western philosophy proper starts with Plato, so I don't make the proposal here. Ailenus ( talk) 14:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
See documentation on the main page of this template. This sidebar was too tall in certain locations, so being able to collapse it seemed like a good idea. Let me know if there are any issues with this. I'll look to expand the sidebar to the correct location where appropriate. Efbrazil ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of Averroes—presumably to represent the Perso-Arab tradition—is a strange inclusion. Surely Avicenna is immensely more important and influential? Aza24 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It's impossible to represent philosophy accurately using a gallery of noteworthy philosophers. Who is more influential than another is subjective and it's certainly impossible to represent the concept of philosophical thought through showing a few key figures. I'm not sure if MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY would apply here, but I think it should. Isn't there a better way to represent philosophy in an image? Perhaps we could use an artwork demonstrating the act of pondering such as The Thinker or A woman thinking; or an image representing a thought experiment, such as The Trolley Problem, or some other demonstration of philosophy. Howardcorn33 ( talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The preview produces misleading results since there is no indication that the image is from the sidebar instead of a regular lead image. In some cases, the results are quite hillarious, like the article Indigenous American philosophy where none of the depicted philosophers in the preview is relevant to the topic. I went ahead and removed the image. Whoever wants to restore the image should at the very least implement a general solution that avoids this problem. A local alternative is to add the image to the article in question, for example, with the following code:
[[File:Philbar 4.png|thumb|From top left to bottom right: [[Plato]], [[Kant]], [[Nietzsche]], [[Buddha]], [[Confucius]], and [[Avicenna]]]]
Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there support for removing the "Schools" section entirely? The current contents are rather weird, and I'm not sure what a good list would even look like.
Also, is there any way we could put some kind of protection on this? Preferably extended-protect? It has not been subject to vandalism, but well-meaning editors keep making weird changes and additions. The justification for protection would be that edits affect many articles all at once, and so have the potential to be disruptive on a large scale.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
If occurs to me, why not practice what I preach! So this post is an open inquiry for any thoughts on the current composition of the sidebar. Even if we don't want to change much (if anything), a discussion here could prove useful as a future point of reference.
For myself, the one further change I would like to make is to add Pragmatism to the Branches. It is the quintessentially American contribution to philosophy, and it remains a living tradition and active research program. It also has what looks to be a pretty good article. I think the rest of what is included under Branches is an appropriately judicious selection—as would be expected, given that I just curated it myself.
I have not done any work on the Philosophers or Philosophies sections, but I am impressed by whoever organized so much material so economically. I see no need for any changes there.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 19:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Philosophy Template‑class | |||||||
|
This navbox is intended for very sparing use. Only the major branches of philosophy should include it. Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 00:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Plato, Kant, Nietzsche. Is this representative, is there some rationale behind this? 80.248.250.130 ( talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I came here to suggest replacing Neitzsche with someone who's equally influential to Analytic and Continental philosophy since those are the two modern currents, but I don't know nearly enough to suggest anyone better. Tolstoyan at Heart ( talk) 16:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added Indian, Chinese and Buddhist philosophy to the sidebar. It was clearly eurocentric, having various western philosophical movements (including scholasticism, a point anyone attempting to remove Buddhist philosophy because it is associated with a religion should note) but only the one token "eastern philosophy" link. These three definitely represent major currents of philosophical thought in Asia and indeed, is part of the philosophical tradition of mankind as a whole. (Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javierfv1212 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
See the bottom of the demographic statistics of the PhilPapers surveys with the heading "Non-living philosophers most identified with". Since Hume came before Kant, the top three would be: Plato, Hume, Kant.
Even better yet, replace Plato with Aristotle. But Plato does have historical significance; arguably the Western philosophy proper starts with Plato, so I don't make the proposal here. Ailenus ( talk) 14:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
See documentation on the main page of this template. This sidebar was too tall in certain locations, so being able to collapse it seemed like a good idea. Let me know if there are any issues with this. I'll look to expand the sidebar to the correct location where appropriate. Efbrazil ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of Averroes—presumably to represent the Perso-Arab tradition—is a strange inclusion. Surely Avicenna is immensely more important and influential? Aza24 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It's impossible to represent philosophy accurately using a gallery of noteworthy philosophers. Who is more influential than another is subjective and it's certainly impossible to represent the concept of philosophical thought through showing a few key figures. I'm not sure if MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY would apply here, but I think it should. Isn't there a better way to represent philosophy in an image? Perhaps we could use an artwork demonstrating the act of pondering such as The Thinker or A woman thinking; or an image representing a thought experiment, such as The Trolley Problem, or some other demonstration of philosophy. Howardcorn33 ( talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The preview produces misleading results since there is no indication that the image is from the sidebar instead of a regular lead image. In some cases, the results are quite hillarious, like the article Indigenous American philosophy where none of the depicted philosophers in the preview is relevant to the topic. I went ahead and removed the image. Whoever wants to restore the image should at the very least implement a general solution that avoids this problem. A local alternative is to add the image to the article in question, for example, with the following code:
[[File:Philbar 4.png|thumb|From top left to bottom right: [[Plato]], [[Kant]], [[Nietzsche]], [[Buddha]], [[Confucius]], and [[Avicenna]]]]
Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there support for removing the "Schools" section entirely? The current contents are rather weird, and I'm not sure what a good list would even look like.
Also, is there any way we could put some kind of protection on this? Preferably extended-protect? It has not been subject to vandalism, but well-meaning editors keep making weird changes and additions. The justification for protection would be that edits affect many articles all at once, and so have the potential to be disruptive on a large scale.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
If occurs to me, why not practice what I preach! So this post is an open inquiry for any thoughts on the current composition of the sidebar. Even if we don't want to change much (if anything), a discussion here could prove useful as a future point of reference.
For myself, the one further change I would like to make is to add Pragmatism to the Branches. It is the quintessentially American contribution to philosophy, and it remains a living tradition and active research program. It also has what looks to be a pretty good article. I think the rest of what is included under Branches is an appropriately judicious selection—as would be expected, given that I just curated it myself.
I have not done any work on the Philosophers or Philosophies sections, but I am impressed by whoever organized so much material so economically. I see no need for any changes there.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 19:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)