Philosophy Template‑class | |||||||
|
Frequently asked questions
|
here is the proposed guideline for inclusion: Overwhelming evidence of centrality to philosophy as demonstrable by thousands to ten's of thousands of publications in the history of philosophy.
this means, most things in philosophy aren't on this list. most things are referred to on this list by a higher category. -- Buridan ( talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
As Nihilism begets Existentialism and Absurdism in a major continuum in Continental Philosophy, I propose Absurdism to be linked for navigation under 'Schools' (a very good article already exists; see chart below contents). It is a major reaction to the previously predominant Nihilism, distinct from Existentialism, put forward by two giants, Camus and Kierkegaard. (Camus, for example, considered Existentialism to be a form of "philosophical suicide" - see 'The Myth of Sisyphus'.) Also, I suggest Existentialism be divided into separate Theistic and Atheistic articles considering the amount of material; readers could then navigate further according to their tendencies.
Nemo Senki 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just added Jurisprudence to the template, and it was taken away, reasoning being that we should keep the classic 5 as they are. I don't agree with this. I learnt that Jurisprudence was part of the classic '6'. Other people believe that there are only THREE major philosophy topics: ontology, epistemology and logic. The fact that "of law" redirects to "jurisprudence" should confirm the fact that Jurisprudence should be put under branches. BurningZeppelin ( talk) 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Which is in the Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Unabridged Table of Contents. Carol Moore 19:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}
none belong, the standard is thousands of respectable mentions. in other words, a school of philosophy. for most of history libertarianism was just liberalism, so.... if you put it in, i'll take it out and then i'll refer to project philosophy for consensus and it will stay out as that is where the template originates. -- Buridan ( talk) 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
this looks like the two are a fundamental, all-philosophy spanning (!?) bipolar pair (?), which isnt realy the case?! is is appropriate to give those terms such prominence? then putting history (starting with ancient history) below it really distorts reality completely. It also appears to represent a supposed self-contained, finalized system which isnt really the case? can this be represented more progressive? Thanks. 70.155.25.43 ( talk) 16:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy schools are predominantly Western. There's no Confucianism, Taoism, Brethren of Purity, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Vedanta, etc. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It's no arbitary, it is only Western. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Could someone please explain me why
ontology is not mentioned in this "Philosophy topics" template?
Please reply here and not in my discussion page.
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (
talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It's me again,
Okay, I got it myself.
Ontology and
cosmology are the two main
metaphysics branches.
And metaphysics is mentioned in the template with the other 5 main branches:
Have a nice day.
Thanks anyway.
Maurice Carbonaro (
talk) 10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if Kyoto School should be included in the template, on the section "Schools". Kyoto School is a japanese philosophy movement which adopted western philosophy and applies them to reformulate eastern morals. -- Andersmusician NO 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think it rises to the level as the rest of them, does it. -- Buridan ( talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed "Applied Philosophy" back to "Philosophy of" both (1) for stylistic reasons (it is shorter and makes the template have less width), and (2) because these are branches of philosophy known by the title "philosophy of x" which makes "philosophy of" more appropriate. Usually, when someone uses the phrase applied philosophy they mean something like applying philosophy to actual problems (as applied ethics does for abortion, capital punishment, etc.). - Atfyfe ( talk) 02:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I currently don't have any ideas yet, but beforehand lets eliminate all the -ism that is only about political philosophy. Because that field already has a lot of infoboxes and I am sure, those follows will be more than happy to speed up the speed of cleaning up templates. Category:Political science terms (for speedup referencing).
-- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 08:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a slow-motion version of an edit war between Buridan and Wikinaut1980. Wikinaut keeps adding Absurdism, Egalitarianism, Individualism and Jihad to the "Schools" list, and Burdian keeps removing them. This isn't happening fast enough to trigger the three-revert rule, but it's still troubling to see it happening over and over between the same two editors. I wanted to bring this out on the talk page, in the hope that an explicit consensus on these edits will put a stop to the back-and-forth.
Other than Absurdism, which was on the list before the back-and-forth started but got removed somewhere along the way, I don't think any of the disputed items could reasonably be called a "school" of philosophy. So I'm generally supportive of Burdian's edits in this. I also think his exclusion of these items is consistent with the previous consensus about what should or should not be included. I'd appreciate it if others who monitor this template would also speak up. Thanks. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Today some style changes were made, most of them consisted in dropping the "s" off a number of names. I've added them back in some places. Here are my reasons:
I did leave a number of the stylistic changes the same. I don't know if I like them, but maybe they are for the best. Obviously someone did think they were for the best. So I left every change that I didn't actually think involved a mistake. - Atfyfe ( talk) 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Many radical changes have been made over the weekend. Lots of good effort, but lots of inaccuracies:
As a result, I'm reverting all of the changes. I'd welcome the editor behind these recent changes to enter a discussion here on the talk page. - Atfyfe ( talk) 09:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You've been putting a lot of effort into your edits, but most of them I cannot understand. Could you help the other editors of this template understand where you are coming from? Is there a philosophy textbook or some sources from which your division/understanding of philosophy is coming from? - Atfyfe ( talk) 09:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out a way to add dates to the eras in the history section, but I can't find a way that doesn't look cluttered. I also can't decide how to abbreviate the dates: 16th c. / 1500's / 16c / C16... So if anyone else has sees a great way of doing it, I'd be behind you. Here are two ways I was thinking about formatting the dates:
Really I think listing them as centuries rather than years works better. It doesn't suggest exactness in the way years do. - Atfyfe ( talk) 17:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
15 sections?! This thing is huge and ungainly. It should probably be split into a few separate navboxes. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel it is inappropriate to include the religion-related philosophies in a particular time due to the fact that they are not restricted to a particular time. They should go in a separate section like "By religion" or something like that. Iranian and CHinese philosophy should be moved for the same reason. Munci ( talk) 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've restructured the template to increase usability and reduce size. The most significant change is the merging of the "Schools of Thought" and "Historical" rows, which was done because some of the Historical entries were redundant, and some of the Schools of Thought entries could be included in the Historical one. I've also differentiated between categories that apply only to Western philosophy, and categories that can be used with all philosophies. This includes the Medieval and Renaissance categories, which are specific to Western philosophy.
Also, philosophies that are not categorized by era, are ones that originate in and can be applied to multiple eras or multiple cultures. Like anarchism, which can be found in both early Hellenistic and East Asian philosophy.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 08:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent on the issue, but should she be back in the template? There was a tremendous amount of debate on Template talk:Philosophy topics/Archive 1, and the result was to not include her. Has the consensus changed?-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 00:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
not in the same way, you are not responding analytically. --03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
no there aren't, not even similar numbers. --03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
no it is analytical analysis. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
sorry, it isn't condescending, it is just the way it is. the question is not between you an jainism so much, as objectivism raising to the level of a major field of study, which jainism is, and objectivism is not. to put it more clearly... objectivism is like studying a footnote, it is not notable at the same level of Jainism which is studying the book. if you do not see that, then you should quit. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
the standard is written at the top of this page, it is clear. objectivism does not qualify, in 40 years, might it qualify... maybe. but today, it is still very minor. do you think that in any way it ranks as a major tradition? do you think there are hundreds or thousands of recognized philosophers dealing with it? by last count there are around 20. how is that major in philosophy? I mean be honest. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
'we' are the project philosophy. --03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
no, it is just the truth, i mean really... in what way do you think objectivism ranks. no person educated or informed in philosophy at all will make that argument. at most... it is interesting because of its population, but it is not interesting otherwise. if it was, it would be dominant... and if it was dominant you would not even have this argument. it would just be... yeah ... objectivism, it belongs. but it doesn't and if you were at all honest about philosophy, you would say... yes... it does not belong. but no, you have a bone to pick, because you think some minor viewpoint that gained popularity amongst your peers is suddenly major. i'm sure i'm not going to be the first, nor the last to tell you. objectivism isn't major in any sense. LIne up the 10000 articles and 200 current philosophers and we can have a discussion, but no... there aren't 10000 articles, nor 200 philosophers, there are upwards of 500 articles and the number that would be counted as good is fewer, and there are around 20 philosophers and the number that are counted as good are fewer. so all I'm asking you to do is think, is it major... is it, use your objectivism, maybe use some empiricism, come to a reasoned position. then bugger off, because if you use reason.. you've lost. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
fine let's include rand... and let's include the philosophy of chocolate, they have the same relative level of import in the field of philosophy in general and likely comparable numbers of citations. no... minor topics don't belong on this page, we allow them on the broader page for the sake of inclusion. sorry.-- Buridan ( talk) 04:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- 68.54.94.218 ( talk) 09:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Going with a non-indented comment since the above is a mess of poor formatting, missing sigs, etc., so I wouldn't know who to respond to. For all the talk about Ayn Rand above, the link that Byelf2007 has attempted to insert is to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), not to the article about Rand herself. The relevant question is whether Objectivism is significant enough in the history of philosophy to be included on this template. The template currently includes a subset of the 410 links found at List of philosophies -- less than a quarter of them by my count. So is Objectivism among the top 25% of the most significant philosophies in world history, according to its treatment in reliable secondary sources? From what I have seen in the literature, I would say no. So unless the template is going to be expanded to go further down the list (and the template is already plenty big), I would not expect to find it there. That does not require an argument that it isn't a philosophy or that it has no influence or that there is no discussion of it at all, just that it isn't among the most influential or widely discussed. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm neutral as to whether Ayn Rand should be included in this template, but please don't try to prove a point in this dispute by removing entries from the template without first discussing each entry individually and establishing a consensus. The removal of the Kyoto School was especially egregious, the Kyoto School is the preeminent philosophical school of 20th Japanese philosophy, and is a major topic of scholarly discourse on modern Japanese philosophy. There is an entire entry devoted to the subject on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has been used as a general guideline for the template (as per the FAQ and earlier discussions). Mitogaku isn't as notable as Kokugaku, the philosophical school seen as the impetus of Japanese nationalism before and during the second World War, which like the Kyoto School, also has an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia. I will admit that Australian realism and the New Philosophers are marginally influential, considering that more notable schools from the same philosophical traditions (the Frankfurt school in continental philosophy and the Vienna Circle in analytic philosophy, respectively) have yet to be included.-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 07:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with the template is distinguishing between popular significance and academic significance. Many philosophical schools are influential only among scholars, and are of little relevance to the generally population. The general population has likely never heard of Hegelianism or Kantianism, despite the unquestionable influence of both schools of thought on contemporary professional philosophy. Similarly, the reverse is also true, there are philosophies that are popular in the general population, Objectivism and Kurzweilian Transhumanism immediately come to mind, that have not been viewed seriously by most professional philosophers of established philosophical traditions. Ayn Rand developed her system of thought outside of academic philosophy and peer-reviewed journals, yet she has a sizable audience, ranging from Alan Greenspan to the rambling Glenn Beck. There is the option of making both popular and academic significance requirements for inclusion, but that would dramatically reduce the template to a few select entries (Platonism, Aristotelianism, Confucianism, Marxism, etc.) Whether that is desirable or not is up for discussion.-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose categorizing the philosophical schools listed in the "17th–21st centuries" section of the template according to tradition or philosophical movement, similar to the structure of the "9th–16th centuries" and "Ancient" sections. Doing so would make the template easier to navigate. Ordinary language and logical positivism, as an example, could be grouped into analytic philosophy. Any specific objections?-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 13:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose adding Philosophy education to the template.-- Taranet ( talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is hermeneutics listed parenthetically after philosophy of religion? Hermeneutics is the philosophy of textual interpretation, and has nothing to do with religion or the philosophy of religion per se, whatever its historical origins are. If it's going to be treated as a subordinate branch then putting it after literature would make far more sense. -- 131.111.184.8 ( talk) 00:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks great! - Atfyfe ( talk) 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is just a start. I think we'll be able to better sort out the modern/contemporary division and the school/position division over time. But I hope everyone agrees that this was needed! - Atfyfe ( talk) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
it clearly defies the inclusion criteria, same with several others, this needs a cleanup/cleanout to return to 'philosophy topics' and not 'ideological spew' Buridan ( talk) 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For consistency, "Neo-Aristotelian" should probably be changed to "Neo-Aristotelianism". 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 06:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 06:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Normally, I would agree with you, but the target of that link is
Virtue ethics#Contemporary 'aretaic turn', where the phrase "Neo-Aristotelian" does not appear. Should the link have a better label, and if so, what should it be? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why "Ontology", "Reality", and "Free will" (should maybe be renamed "Causality"?) are listed as top-level categories, and not subcategories under "Metaphysics"? Likewise, shouldn't "mind" be under "Ontology? — Remsense 诉 01:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Philosophy Template‑class | |||||||
|
Frequently asked questions
|
here is the proposed guideline for inclusion: Overwhelming evidence of centrality to philosophy as demonstrable by thousands to ten's of thousands of publications in the history of philosophy.
this means, most things in philosophy aren't on this list. most things are referred to on this list by a higher category. -- Buridan ( talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
As Nihilism begets Existentialism and Absurdism in a major continuum in Continental Philosophy, I propose Absurdism to be linked for navigation under 'Schools' (a very good article already exists; see chart below contents). It is a major reaction to the previously predominant Nihilism, distinct from Existentialism, put forward by two giants, Camus and Kierkegaard. (Camus, for example, considered Existentialism to be a form of "philosophical suicide" - see 'The Myth of Sisyphus'.) Also, I suggest Existentialism be divided into separate Theistic and Atheistic articles considering the amount of material; readers could then navigate further according to their tendencies.
Nemo Senki 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just added Jurisprudence to the template, and it was taken away, reasoning being that we should keep the classic 5 as they are. I don't agree with this. I learnt that Jurisprudence was part of the classic '6'. Other people believe that there are only THREE major philosophy topics: ontology, epistemology and logic. The fact that "of law" redirects to "jurisprudence" should confirm the fact that Jurisprudence should be put under branches. BurningZeppelin ( talk) 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Which is in the Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Unabridged Table of Contents. Carol Moore 19:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}
none belong, the standard is thousands of respectable mentions. in other words, a school of philosophy. for most of history libertarianism was just liberalism, so.... if you put it in, i'll take it out and then i'll refer to project philosophy for consensus and it will stay out as that is where the template originates. -- Buridan ( talk) 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
this looks like the two are a fundamental, all-philosophy spanning (!?) bipolar pair (?), which isnt realy the case?! is is appropriate to give those terms such prominence? then putting history (starting with ancient history) below it really distorts reality completely. It also appears to represent a supposed self-contained, finalized system which isnt really the case? can this be represented more progressive? Thanks. 70.155.25.43 ( talk) 16:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy schools are predominantly Western. There's no Confucianism, Taoism, Brethren of Purity, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Vedanta, etc. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It's no arbitary, it is only Western. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Could someone please explain me why
ontology is not mentioned in this "Philosophy topics" template?
Please reply here and not in my discussion page.
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (
talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It's me again,
Okay, I got it myself.
Ontology and
cosmology are the two main
metaphysics branches.
And metaphysics is mentioned in the template with the other 5 main branches:
Have a nice day.
Thanks anyway.
Maurice Carbonaro (
talk) 10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if Kyoto School should be included in the template, on the section "Schools". Kyoto School is a japanese philosophy movement which adopted western philosophy and applies them to reformulate eastern morals. -- Andersmusician NO 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think it rises to the level as the rest of them, does it. -- Buridan ( talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed "Applied Philosophy" back to "Philosophy of" both (1) for stylistic reasons (it is shorter and makes the template have less width), and (2) because these are branches of philosophy known by the title "philosophy of x" which makes "philosophy of" more appropriate. Usually, when someone uses the phrase applied philosophy they mean something like applying philosophy to actual problems (as applied ethics does for abortion, capital punishment, etc.). - Atfyfe ( talk) 02:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I currently don't have any ideas yet, but beforehand lets eliminate all the -ism that is only about political philosophy. Because that field already has a lot of infoboxes and I am sure, those follows will be more than happy to speed up the speed of cleaning up templates. Category:Political science terms (for speedup referencing).
-- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 08:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a slow-motion version of an edit war between Buridan and Wikinaut1980. Wikinaut keeps adding Absurdism, Egalitarianism, Individualism and Jihad to the "Schools" list, and Burdian keeps removing them. This isn't happening fast enough to trigger the three-revert rule, but it's still troubling to see it happening over and over between the same two editors. I wanted to bring this out on the talk page, in the hope that an explicit consensus on these edits will put a stop to the back-and-forth.
Other than Absurdism, which was on the list before the back-and-forth started but got removed somewhere along the way, I don't think any of the disputed items could reasonably be called a "school" of philosophy. So I'm generally supportive of Burdian's edits in this. I also think his exclusion of these items is consistent with the previous consensus about what should or should not be included. I'd appreciate it if others who monitor this template would also speak up. Thanks. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Today some style changes were made, most of them consisted in dropping the "s" off a number of names. I've added them back in some places. Here are my reasons:
I did leave a number of the stylistic changes the same. I don't know if I like them, but maybe they are for the best. Obviously someone did think they were for the best. So I left every change that I didn't actually think involved a mistake. - Atfyfe ( talk) 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Many radical changes have been made over the weekend. Lots of good effort, but lots of inaccuracies:
As a result, I'm reverting all of the changes. I'd welcome the editor behind these recent changes to enter a discussion here on the talk page. - Atfyfe ( talk) 09:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You've been putting a lot of effort into your edits, but most of them I cannot understand. Could you help the other editors of this template understand where you are coming from? Is there a philosophy textbook or some sources from which your division/understanding of philosophy is coming from? - Atfyfe ( talk) 09:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out a way to add dates to the eras in the history section, but I can't find a way that doesn't look cluttered. I also can't decide how to abbreviate the dates: 16th c. / 1500's / 16c / C16... So if anyone else has sees a great way of doing it, I'd be behind you. Here are two ways I was thinking about formatting the dates:
Really I think listing them as centuries rather than years works better. It doesn't suggest exactness in the way years do. - Atfyfe ( talk) 17:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
15 sections?! This thing is huge and ungainly. It should probably be split into a few separate navboxes. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel it is inappropriate to include the religion-related philosophies in a particular time due to the fact that they are not restricted to a particular time. They should go in a separate section like "By religion" or something like that. Iranian and CHinese philosophy should be moved for the same reason. Munci ( talk) 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've restructured the template to increase usability and reduce size. The most significant change is the merging of the "Schools of Thought" and "Historical" rows, which was done because some of the Historical entries were redundant, and some of the Schools of Thought entries could be included in the Historical one. I've also differentiated between categories that apply only to Western philosophy, and categories that can be used with all philosophies. This includes the Medieval and Renaissance categories, which are specific to Western philosophy.
Also, philosophies that are not categorized by era, are ones that originate in and can be applied to multiple eras or multiple cultures. Like anarchism, which can be found in both early Hellenistic and East Asian philosophy.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 08:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent on the issue, but should she be back in the template? There was a tremendous amount of debate on Template talk:Philosophy topics/Archive 1, and the result was to not include her. Has the consensus changed?-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 00:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
not in the same way, you are not responding analytically. --03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
no there aren't, not even similar numbers. --03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
no it is analytical analysis. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
sorry, it isn't condescending, it is just the way it is. the question is not between you an jainism so much, as objectivism raising to the level of a major field of study, which jainism is, and objectivism is not. to put it more clearly... objectivism is like studying a footnote, it is not notable at the same level of Jainism which is studying the book. if you do not see that, then you should quit. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
the standard is written at the top of this page, it is clear. objectivism does not qualify, in 40 years, might it qualify... maybe. but today, it is still very minor. do you think that in any way it ranks as a major tradition? do you think there are hundreds or thousands of recognized philosophers dealing with it? by last count there are around 20. how is that major in philosophy? I mean be honest. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
'we' are the project philosophy. --03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
no, it is just the truth, i mean really... in what way do you think objectivism ranks. no person educated or informed in philosophy at all will make that argument. at most... it is interesting because of its population, but it is not interesting otherwise. if it was, it would be dominant... and if it was dominant you would not even have this argument. it would just be... yeah ... objectivism, it belongs. but it doesn't and if you were at all honest about philosophy, you would say... yes... it does not belong. but no, you have a bone to pick, because you think some minor viewpoint that gained popularity amongst your peers is suddenly major. i'm sure i'm not going to be the first, nor the last to tell you. objectivism isn't major in any sense. LIne up the 10000 articles and 200 current philosophers and we can have a discussion, but no... there aren't 10000 articles, nor 200 philosophers, there are upwards of 500 articles and the number that would be counted as good is fewer, and there are around 20 philosophers and the number that are counted as good are fewer. so all I'm asking you to do is think, is it major... is it, use your objectivism, maybe use some empiricism, come to a reasoned position. then bugger off, because if you use reason.. you've lost. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
fine let's include rand... and let's include the philosophy of chocolate, they have the same relative level of import in the field of philosophy in general and likely comparable numbers of citations. no... minor topics don't belong on this page, we allow them on the broader page for the sake of inclusion. sorry.-- Buridan ( talk) 04:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- 68.54.94.218 ( talk) 09:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Going with a non-indented comment since the above is a mess of poor formatting, missing sigs, etc., so I wouldn't know who to respond to. For all the talk about Ayn Rand above, the link that Byelf2007 has attempted to insert is to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), not to the article about Rand herself. The relevant question is whether Objectivism is significant enough in the history of philosophy to be included on this template. The template currently includes a subset of the 410 links found at List of philosophies -- less than a quarter of them by my count. So is Objectivism among the top 25% of the most significant philosophies in world history, according to its treatment in reliable secondary sources? From what I have seen in the literature, I would say no. So unless the template is going to be expanded to go further down the list (and the template is already plenty big), I would not expect to find it there. That does not require an argument that it isn't a philosophy or that it has no influence or that there is no discussion of it at all, just that it isn't among the most influential or widely discussed. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm neutral as to whether Ayn Rand should be included in this template, but please don't try to prove a point in this dispute by removing entries from the template without first discussing each entry individually and establishing a consensus. The removal of the Kyoto School was especially egregious, the Kyoto School is the preeminent philosophical school of 20th Japanese philosophy, and is a major topic of scholarly discourse on modern Japanese philosophy. There is an entire entry devoted to the subject on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has been used as a general guideline for the template (as per the FAQ and earlier discussions). Mitogaku isn't as notable as Kokugaku, the philosophical school seen as the impetus of Japanese nationalism before and during the second World War, which like the Kyoto School, also has an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia. I will admit that Australian realism and the New Philosophers are marginally influential, considering that more notable schools from the same philosophical traditions (the Frankfurt school in continental philosophy and the Vienna Circle in analytic philosophy, respectively) have yet to be included.-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 07:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with the template is distinguishing between popular significance and academic significance. Many philosophical schools are influential only among scholars, and are of little relevance to the generally population. The general population has likely never heard of Hegelianism or Kantianism, despite the unquestionable influence of both schools of thought on contemporary professional philosophy. Similarly, the reverse is also true, there are philosophies that are popular in the general population, Objectivism and Kurzweilian Transhumanism immediately come to mind, that have not been viewed seriously by most professional philosophers of established philosophical traditions. Ayn Rand developed her system of thought outside of academic philosophy and peer-reviewed journals, yet she has a sizable audience, ranging from Alan Greenspan to the rambling Glenn Beck. There is the option of making both popular and academic significance requirements for inclusion, but that would dramatically reduce the template to a few select entries (Platonism, Aristotelianism, Confucianism, Marxism, etc.) Whether that is desirable or not is up for discussion.-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose categorizing the philosophical schools listed in the "17th–21st centuries" section of the template according to tradition or philosophical movement, similar to the structure of the "9th–16th centuries" and "Ancient" sections. Doing so would make the template easier to navigate. Ordinary language and logical positivism, as an example, could be grouped into analytic philosophy. Any specific objections?-- Mathematicmajic ( talk) 13:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose adding Philosophy education to the template.-- Taranet ( talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is hermeneutics listed parenthetically after philosophy of religion? Hermeneutics is the philosophy of textual interpretation, and has nothing to do with religion or the philosophy of religion per se, whatever its historical origins are. If it's going to be treated as a subordinate branch then putting it after literature would make far more sense. -- 131.111.184.8 ( talk) 00:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks great! - Atfyfe ( talk) 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is just a start. I think we'll be able to better sort out the modern/contemporary division and the school/position division over time. But I hope everyone agrees that this was needed! - Atfyfe ( talk) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
it clearly defies the inclusion criteria, same with several others, this needs a cleanup/cleanout to return to 'philosophy topics' and not 'ideological spew' Buridan ( talk) 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For consistency, "Neo-Aristotelian" should probably be changed to "Neo-Aristotelianism". 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 06:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 06:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Normally, I would agree with you, but the target of that link is
Virtue ethics#Contemporary 'aretaic turn', where the phrase "Neo-Aristotelian" does not appear. Should the link have a better label, and if so, what should it be? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why "Ontology", "Reality", and "Free will" (should maybe be renamed "Causality"?) are listed as top-level categories, and not subcategories under "Metaphysics"? Likewise, shouldn't "mind" be under "Ontology? — Remsense 诉 01:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)